All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

# The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13

Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 10/16/2011 Category: Philosophy Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period Viewed: 9,010 times Debate No: 18816
Debate Rounds (4)

98 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 2 years ago
Wow @ lannan13, way to bring up a debate that hasn't been voted on in more than 4 years.
Posted by narmak 5 years ago
It is not valid to say that an infinite amount of time is impossible as our understanding of time is not yet complete. Also understanding how infinite works is another thing that people do not understand they use scenarios like Line up infinite number of bills starting from 1 dollar then take out all the even number bills and you are still left with an infinite number of bills. they think this means that infinite - infinite=infinite but that is not true.
It may look like it is true but it is not this is where it goes wrong. First step in this scenario is they take infinite and divide it into two seperate groups. We have EVEN bills(Yinfinite) and odd bills(Zinfinite).Lets call all bills xinfinite.
when x infinite is diveded by two we are left with the two cases of infinite z and y. then we remove the even bills soo we is taken out and the reason we still have an infintie number of bills is because of our 2nd case of infinite. z infinite
Posted by warpedfx 6 years ago
Why does the existence of universe require time? You accuse my definition as being too expansive, except that's what universe IS. The local spacetime expansion is simply a subset of it (should another "universe" of that ilk should exist) and their origins do not violate the first law of thermodynamics. We don't know which pre-planck cosmology actually describe the origins of the spacetime, but we do know that none of them posit creation ex nihilo, or the creation of energy. In fact Vilenkin's previous paper posits the origin as conveye in the BVG as being the mechanism as to how the past-incomplete geodesic could have arisen, via the initial energy density leading to a false vacuum from which the quantum nucleation takes over and kickstarts the spacetime.

As for the rest of the premises, the first premise is restricted to this definition of "whatever has a beginning of existence ex nihilo has a cause of its existence". Except you don't have this because we do not have any examples or evidence of things beginning to exist in such a fashion.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
"is time required for existence? if not, why does the universe"

Why does the universe what? Also, "all that exists" is too expansive a definition, since that would include (1) abstract objects and (2) God, if they exist.

Rather, a better definition would be that the universe is all of spatio-temporal reality, which is a subset of reality (Which would include God, if he exists).
Posted by warpedfx 6 years ago
is time required for existence? if not, why does the universe (defined as all that exists, and not simply the spacetime expansion)?
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
he already has another account. He shouldnt have made another til he'd finished his debates
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
I'm not surprised. You bombarded him with a whole bunch of scientific jargon and words over 12 letters long. He probably couldn't even understand your rebuttal, much less refute it.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Deactivated? Oh come on.
Posted by drafterman 6 years ago
Another note: The GR Paradox only argues against dividing time infinitely. It doesn't argue against all infinite series. The ability to pick two points and say that you cannot infinitely divide among them does not prevent those points from, themselves, being part of a larger infinite series.
Posted by Meatros 6 years ago
Also, how does the A theory explain the relativistic notion of simultaneous "presents"? It's my understanding that they would say there are no such thing. The 'explanation' is that the instruments that we use to measure time are somehow wrong - is this understanding correct?

(yes, I know, it would probably be better to read X book on this and I actually do have several X books in my 'que').

Thanks
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.