The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound
Debate Rounds (4)
A.Whatever begins to exist has cause
B. The universe began to exit
C. .'. the universe has a cause.
NOTE: The creation of the universe does not simply denote the expansion of spacetime, but an actual creation of the material universe
As per the structure of the debate, my opponent should make his defense in place of acceptance, and in turn refrain from making an argument in the last round.
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
The universe has a cause of its existence.
I am of the opinion that the above argument holds water, including Dr. William Craig's theory that it is God who brought this gargantuan universe into existence. If it were not for him, none us would be alive today and if it were not for him, you and I wouldn't be debating this issue like a couple of wise old men. Anyway, let me get to the point.
I firmly believe that the first statement that is,"Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence" is a universal truth. It is an undisputed fact which no amount of argument can disprove.
Now let us take the second statement of the KCA.
" The universe has a beginning of its existence"
Scientists have significant evidence to prove that it was the big bang theory about 13.7 million years ago or so which caused the universe to be brought into existence. I think that is an undisputed fact as well. Let us also take into account the second law of thermodynamics which quite correctly claims that the amount of energy available for work is decreasing in the universe " a universe that is decaying cannot be infinitely old because it would have run out of usable energy by now.
Both the above scientifically proven statements seem to point to a single fact, that the universe did indeed have a beginning. One thing which is certain is that both these above reactions could not have been the work of a human and that they could not have been brought about on their own. Something caused it to happen. Something overwhelmingly powerful and perhaps omnipresent brought this about. We human beings have named that something God and I would hereby like to put forward the theory that it was this being who brought about the existence of the universe.
Now, I'd like to wind up my first round argument by saying that the onus of proving that God is the cause of the existence of this universe, as claimed by Dr. William Craig rests on me, agreed. However, I'd like to point out that the onus to disprove that very theory lies on you. You cannot simply get away by calling my theory tremulous and preposterous. If you wish to prove your point, I demand that you put forward a more convincing, alternate argument/ theory which rubbishes my theory as well as makes me accept yours. I look forward to your response and hope that it be appropriate, one fitting of a worthy debator.
I thank my opponent intensely for the superlative compliments he's given to me. I would do my best to have my contribution to the debate be worthy of such praises- something I sometimes doubt given the vast amounts of information that I do not know even within the scope of the arguments present here. All the while, I find the debates to be interesting if not a good way of honing one's reasoning and logic as well as learning new things and as such serves a great purpose in and of itself.
To the argument:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
In defense of the first premise my opponent has had little to offer thus far with the exception of the statement that it is "an undisputed fact which no amount of argument can disprove".
There is of course the case of quantum fluctuation which for all intents and purpose point out a beginning which is acausal- the closest thing to a cause we can point to is the casimir effect. Of course one could point out that the quantum fluctuation hasn't been established to be acausal, but that no cause could be pointed out as of yet. This is true; however, this still functions to point out a very salient point that "everything that has a beginning of existence has a cause of its existence" is at the very least not as strong a position as it may seem at first glance.
Then we have the question of the term "beginning" in the first premise. A common point made by the objection is that strictly speaking nothing ever "begins" to exist- the pre-existing matter are simply re-organized to form new arrangements of which the properties of the arrangement emerge. Furthermore, could we truly say many of such beginnings are in fact beginnings at all when many are in fact emergent? When does a person exactly begin existing? The points are often arbitrary, much like attempting to point out exactly when the sand turns to the ocean at the beach.
We also have the issue of causation itself. The KCA operates under a strict definition of "beginning of existence" that doesn't simply mean originating from some pre-existing elements, but an entirely new creation process, and that god was the cause of this creation from nothing. The question this begs, of course, is that such a causation is even coherent. Cause involves at least 2 entities interacting to bring about an effect- that of material cause, and in the case involving causal agents, an efficient cause. An artist, an efficient cause, creates art with his medium, the material cause. What the KCA states is solely an efficient cause as the cause of the universe. In short, the efficient cause interacts with nothing to bring about an effect. This is akin to saying an artist created a painting without paint, brush, or a canvas.
The problem doesn't stop there:
2: The universe has a beginning of its existence
This premise has enjoyed more detailed response from my opponent, citing the big bang theory as well as the 2nd law of themodynamics to point out that the universe began. The problem here however, is numerous. Firstly, what is established within big bang cosmology is simply that the universe expanded at a finite time ago of around 13.7 billion (not million) years. Beyond that, nothing is yet established. Furthermore, that many physicists call this a beginning is in a way an equivocation of the term. In physics such expansion does technically constitute a beginning in a more colloquial sense of "beginning from pre-existing materia"- again one that is commonly experienced in everyday life. However, I have pointed out in the previous premise that the KCA requires a very specific definition of "beginning"- one that physicists do not employ here. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics only comes into play to point out that expansion is finite if we were to posit the expansion had been occuring infinitely. Of course with the big bang no such postulation is required. On the other hand, the First Law of Thermodynamics also states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Though we don't know what came before the planck epoch, this doesn't necessitate god as the cause, nor does the incoherence of the definition of cause make him a plausible option to begin with.
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
In making the argument one in support of god's existence, the argument in effect commits a bait-and-switch here, changing from "cause" to "causal agent". The desired conclusion cannot be reached by the premises if we were to take the supported versions that exist, and the argument fails to be sound.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
I previously claimed this argument to be undisputed. That opinion of mine still stands, however, I am going to take the trouble of elaborating the point.
It is mentioned in the metaphysical principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. The denial of the first premise, although strictly logically possible, is metaphysically unactualizable. By definition, nothing has no potentialities. Thus, it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing, for how can its existence be actualized if the potential is not there?
Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover (This is the Aristotelian form of the argument also propounded by Averroes). The premise is that: every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover.
Practically speaking, both the above principles are perfectly plausible as well as logical. After all, we don't see things being created out of nothing everyday, do we? You mentioned precisely the same objecting, however I'd like to stress on the fact that neither Dr. Craig nor the theory makes any mention of anything of that sort, in fact, Dr. Craig says:
"Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There cannot be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness does not have any properties. Nothingness is the absence of anything whatsoever. As such, nothingness can have no properties, since there literally is not anything to have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there is not anything to be constrained."
Now let me move to your second point:
Agreed, my argument doesen't necessiate God as a cause for the creation of this universe but your argument does'ent disprove it either. As you said, we don't know what happened before the planck epoch and thus neither am I in a position to argue in favor, nor are you in a position to contradict my point of view, especially because you have no alternate theory to offer.
Now. let me give this argument a philosophical twist. A great man once said
"Spectacular claims require spectacular evidence"
Let me remind you that for all these years we have been taking it for granted that God was the cause for the existence of the universe and even though the evidence offered by you was strong, it does nothing to disprove the theory put forward by me. So I request you to show me a shred of evidence which rubbishes my claims.
P.S.: What exactly do you mean when you say that your opponent is supposed to refrain from making an argument in the fourth round??
warpedfx forfeited this round.
Hemanth_Nambiar forfeited this round.
warpedfx forfeited this round.
Hemanth_Nambiar forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.