The Instigator
Crede
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,963 times Debate No: 19499
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Crede

Pro

In studying Theistic arguments for God I have found that the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be the most discussed / controversial argument. In studying it extensively I now believe it to be sound and without any fallacy. I want to test my knowledge and expand upon it in this debate. I welcome any debater that is willing to put forward a logical and in depth critique of the argument. Therefore...

Resolution: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is logically sound, and provides solid evidence of of the Universe having a cause that is thus far best described as being God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The Universe has a cause.

Definitions:
Exist: To have objective reality or being.
Universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
Cause: A justification for something existing or happening.
God: The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.


Debate structure:
Round 1: Acceptance and clarification / definition of words if necessary.

Round 2: Opening argument and further understanding of definitions.

Round 3: Rebuttal of arguments and further establishing of their own argument.

Round 4: Same as round 3.

Round 5: No new arguments given here as the opponent will not have another round to refute the evidence. This round will consist of further rebuttals of their opponents arguments, summarization of their points, and their conclusion.

5 rounds total, 8000 character limit, 6 month voting period.

Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Crede for creating this debate.

I find the Kalam argument one of the more worthy arguments to consider for Gods existence, at the very least it can be said it sure as hell beats the argument of tide goes in, tides goes out, you can't explain that, therefore God exists. (And if you don't get that joke, just youtube tides goes in, tides goes out.)

I think something worth pointing out is that the kalam doesn't just conclude that the universe has a cause, but that cause MUST be God, as wikipedia explains..."The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.

Classical argument

The Kalām cosmological argument:[10]

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2) The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
4)If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God;
Therefore:
5) God exists." [1]

In regards to how "cause" has been defined. I won't challenge the definition as it is, but I want some room to object to how exactly the concept of causality is used throughout Pros argument. I suspect Pro is going to reference cause in the everyday sense and scientific sense but will then branch to outside of the universe and then argue some kind of causality (in the meta physics sense). Whether causality can even be applied to outside and beyond the universe and how its applied is a point I will probably want to bring up.

In regards to the definition and concept of God, I would also add the other maximal properties of greatness, like all wise/intelligent, omi benevolent, morally perfect, personal.

I will seek to show that that the argument given by Pro does not give sufficient warrant to believe that God exists.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Crede

Pro

Thank you Illegalcombatant for accepting this debate. I have first hand witnessed your intelligence and wit in the forums and I think this debate will be engaging to say the least.

A lot of this debate I will use my own philosophy mixed with sources. I find that the most entertaining debates consist of ones personal revelations on a matter. Since Dr. William Lane Craig secured this argument into the arsenal of Theologians, many quotes and references will be of his work.

In defending this argument we have to break down the premises and establish solid evidence for the truth behind them. Most will agree that if you take the premises at face value, if true the conclusion logically follows. Therefore much time on the conclusion is not needed, but rather building of a strong case in support of the premises is key.

Premise 1 (P1): Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- As stated many times before this premise is evidenced all around us, and is continued to be seen with everything that begins to exist. I am here as my parents are the cause. This computer is here as the manufacturer is its cause. Rocks are caused by many years of sediment, water, and compression, and many other reasons. All of which are causes. Everything in this entire Universe has or had a cause, and the Universe itself is no exception. To claim that this commits the fallacy of composition would indicate that there are things in this Universe that aren’t caused. If this were true then it would be easy to conclude that possibly the Universe had no cause. However everything does have a cause, and therefore so did the Universe itself. I had a cause, this planet had a cause, this galaxy had a cause, and this home of all existence, the Universe, had a cause. To dismiss something purely on the idea of size, or the idea that everything does have a cause but not the Universe itself, is what Dr. Craig calls the taxicab fallacy. This idea came from the nineteenth-century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. “Pemise 1 can’t be dismissed like a taxi once you’ve arrived at your desired destination! You can’t say that everything has an explanation of its existence and then suddenly exempt the universe.” [1]

- Philosophical evidence is also in support of P1. As the famous quote by the ancient Greek Philosopher Parmenides goes, “nothing comes from nothing.” [2] Nothing has ever caused something into existence, and how could it? Nothingness has no properties, and has no ability to cause something into existence. For a causal event to happen there must be the potential for the effect, and the agent to realize it. Nothingness has no potential, and no agent to actualize something into existence. Therefore the premise is sound in saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

- So P1 is true by the fact that we have philosophical and empirically verifiable evidence in support of it. The key to this premise is also that it states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So the question is did the Universe begin to exist? There we transition into premise 2.

Premise 2 (P2): The Universe began to exist.
Scientific evidence:
- The expansion of the universe aka The Big Bang!
  1. Expansion: We have been able to observe galaxies growing farther in distance from one another. Also to reverse time we can see that all galaxies grow closer together into a singularity. How could this singularity come into existence from nothing? The answer here is that it couldn’t…it was caused as evidenced by everything else that has come into being.
  2. Cosmic Radiation: Cosmic radiation was predicted in 1948 by Cosmologist George Gamov. He theorized that there must be left over radiation from the initial rapid expansion of the initial heated universe. Then a Nobel Prize worthy discovery of the radiation was found in 1965 by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson. [3]

- Second Law of Thermodynamics

  1. Here is a definition referenced from allaboutscience.org [4]: “The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase…”
  2. “…The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state).”
  3. 3. That second point drives home the point. The Universe had a finite beginning!

Philosophical evidence:

  1. An infinite number of things cannot exist in reality!
    1. No infinite number of things can exist. Absurdities would arise making the reality of an infinite number of things to exist impossible. Infinity only exists in mathematics, but has no place in the physical reality we live in. An excellent example of why an infinite number of things can’t exist is illustrated in the video above showing Hilbert’s Hotel.
  2. We could not exist in a single moment if we had an infinite past!
    1. If there were an infinite past, we could have never reached this moment in time, yet at the same time would have reached this moment in time an infinite amount of time ago. These absurdities start to become apparent when considering the infinite existing in reality. The universe simply had an absolute beginning.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe has a cause.
Since P1 and P2 are true, the conclusion logically follows and is true. Now to get from a cause to God we have to analyze what this argument indicates. For one, if all space and time came into existence at a single moment and had an absolute beginning, then the cause of space and time must be not confined by space and is timeless. Since an infinite series of something cannot exist, then it would point to the cause being the first cause, or in other words an uncaused causer. This being must be unimaginably powerful in that it can create this entire Universe, it can bridge the gap between nonexistence and existence, and it can establish a physical reality capable of supporting life. For this causer to create a temporal system, the Universe, even though the causer is timeless, shows a personal attribute. There would have been conscious thought to actualize the creation of the system that is separate from its own. So we have an unbelievably powerful, unembodied mind that is timeless, and is personal. These attributes fit perfectly into the entity that we refer to as God.

I turn this debate over to you Con.

Referenced Sources
[1] The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God by Dr. William Lane Craig (Copyright © 2010 by Christ on Campus Initiative (CCI)), (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)
[2] Nothing Comes From Nothing, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[3] Gene Smith's Astronomy Tutorial: The Big Bang, University of California, San Diego
Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences, ( http://casswww.ucsd.edu...)
[4] Second Law of Thermodynamics." Science - AllAboutScience.org. (http://www.allaboutscience.org...)

Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument, I am sure this will be an enjoyable debate.

I would like to start at the end of Pros argument where they go from our universe has a cause and this cause must be God.

God does not have to be the cause of our universe

Must our universe be created by a first cause ?

Even if there is a first cause, why is it not possible that the first cause created something, which then created something, which then created our universe ?. It doesn't follow that even if a first cause exists then that it must be the direct cause of our universe without any steps in between.

Must the cause be all powerful ?

If the universe has a cause, then its only necessary that the cause be powerful enough to cause the universe, it doesn't follow necessarily that the cause must be all powerful.

Must the cause be intelligent ?

If the universe has a cause, or there is a first cause, why is it necessary that the cause possess any intelligence, yet alone some kind of maximal all knowing intelligence ? Pro doesn't seem to give any reason for the intelligence of the cause of the universe.

Must the cause be timeless & spaceless ?

If Pro was to make the point that a cause of our universe must be outside of our time and space in this universe then I might be inclined to agree. But that doesn't mean that a cause of our universe is beyond time and space absolutely. Why can't the cause of our universe be within space and time that is separate from our own ?

Must the cause be personal ?

We accept plenty of non personal causes in our everyday lives, it seems Pro merely asserts that the cause of the universe must be personal. Until shown otherwise the cause of our universe could be non-personal.

Must the cause be morally perfect and/or omi benevolent ?

Christopher Hitchens makes the point here in a debate with William Craig at Biola University..."if there was an entity that was responsible for the beginning of the cosmos, and that also happened to be busily engineering the very laborious product—production of life on our little planet, it still wouldn't prove that this entity cared about us, answered prayers, cared what church we went to, or whether we went to one at all, cared who we had sex with or in what position or by what means, cared what we ate or on what day, cared whether we lived or died. There's no reason at all why this entity isn't completely indifferent to us. That you cannot get from deism to theism except by a series of extraordinarily generous, to yourself, assumptions." [1]

A mind without a brain ?

Pro claims that the cause of the universe is an "unembodied mind". But we have no reason to accept this and good reason to reject this. Every mind we encounter has a brain connected to it. Also the dependency of the mind to the brain is shown in brain injuries, where the brain is changed the mind is changed as well.

Now my above objections apply if the universe has a "cause", but not even that can be taken as a given, which leads me two the first two premises of pros argument.

Premise 1 (P1): Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Everything has a cause or everything that begins to exist has a cause ?

Pro says..."I had a cause, this planet had a cause, this galaxy had a cause, and this home of all existence, the Universe, had a cause. To dismiss something purely on the idea of size, or the idea that everything does have a cause but not the Universe itself, is what Dr. Craig calls the taxicab fallacy."

Well I guess we can't say God doesn't have a cause either, after all that would be to commit the taxi cab fallacy, if everything has a cause you can't then exempt God. But I jest, Pro made a mistake, what Pro really meant is that everything that begins to exist has a cause NOT that everything has a cause.

Only God exists without a cause ?

But as far as Pros argument goes notice that although everything that begins to exist has a cause, ONLY God is claimed to not begin to exist and thus God exists without a cause. As such P1 within the context of the argument can be interpreted as saying...

P1) Everything that exists has a cause.......EXCEPT God.

So lets look at the argument....

P1) Everything that exists has a cause.....EXCEPT God.
P2) The universe is something other than God
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

P3) The cause of the universe is something that does not its self have a cause
P4) Only God exists as something without a cause
C) Therefore the cause of the universe is God

Why is "God" the only thing that is claimed to not begin to exist thus not have a cause ? Why isn't is possible that something else even unknown to us exists that doesn't begin to exist thus doesn't have a cause ?

Fallacy of composition and the universe

Pro mentions the fallacy of composition as wikipedia explains..."The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." [2]

Pro says..."To claim that this commits the fallacy of composition would indicate that there are things in this Universe that aren't caused."

That's not true, to commit this fallacy or any fallacy just means the conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from the previous premises.

To emphasize this point consider this article from Iron Chariots which deals with this fallacy within the context of the Kalam argument..."Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to extrapolate the properties of things we are familiar with (which are objects within a set) to properties of the set as a whole (the universe). Examples: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly." or "Each human being has a mother, therefore the human race has a mother." The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately, we are stuck inside the universe, therefore any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole." [3]

Something from nothing

Pro makes another claim about how..."Nothing has ever caused something into existence,". Now sure within this universe this can be argued as confirmed, but how does Pro know that this rule applies outside and beyond the universe ? After all Pro is also arguing that there is a mind without a brain beyond our universe. If Pro can have a mind without a brain outside of this universe why can't I have something coming from nothing outside of this universe ?

Premise 2 (P2): The Universe began to exist.

What does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ?

Pro refers to examples such as rocks and babies. But notice in these examples there was a point of time in the past where they did not exist. So for something to "begin" to exist there has to be a time in the past where it did not exist.

But there is no point in the time where time and/or the universe did not exist. To say that time existed "before" time existed is a contradiction. The argument is as follows...

1) Something begins to exist if there was a point in the past where it did not exist
2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist.

If the universe did not "begin" to exist then it does not follow even according to this argument that is has a cause.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe has a cause

I might want to bring up some things here but I am running out of characters as such I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources


[1] http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Crede

Pro

Good job Con! I knew you wouldn’t disappoint with your responses.

Con starts his round with a series of questions. So in response I will answer them.

1. Must our universe be created by a first cause?
This question is common. Why is God the cause, and not another? First off, only things that have a temporal existence have a cause. Therefore God being external of time, and not being with a temporal existence, does not have a cause. So the question here that I am reading is how can we conclude that there is not some community of God like beings? There are many answers to this, like the idea that multiple omnipotent beings would be inconsistent with each other. However the most logical and simple answer can be summed up by Ockham’s Razor. This states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”[1] So with this philosophy we only need to postulate a sufficient reason for the cause. God is a sufficient reason and other causes are not needed.

2. Must the cause be all powerful?
I personally don’t like the term all powerful. I use the term maximally powerful. But this is entirely a different debate. In this debate all the cause of the universe must be is sufficiently powerful in order to create the universe from nothing. One could argue though that to bridge the gap between nonexistence and existence it would take a maximally powerful being.

3. Must the cause be intelligent?
The Kalam argument doesn’t go fully into this question, however we can reasonably attribute intelligence from it. In order to create existence, and to create a temporal system from a being that is not temporal, shows the ability to choose, and therefore have intelligent thought.

4. Must the cause be timeless and spaceless?
The creation of the universe was the creation of space and time. This shows then that God is external from space and time in that he created it. This does not say that God cannot interact within his creation, but he himself is not subject to the boundaries that we are confined to.

5. Must the cause be personal?
If the cause was not personal, then it was an impersonal mechanism. This mechanism would also be timeless for the same reasons the personal cause would be. But if this impersonal mechanism were to create it would be a state to state creation. In other words only timeless events could come forth from a timeless impersonal mechanism. For example a piece of wood floating in water would be equivalent to an impersonal mechanism causing an event. No beginning is needed, but the water causes the wood to float by its given buoyancy and therefore we have the event of a floating piece of wood. So for a temporal creation to come forward from a timeless cause there must have been conscious thought that went into the creation giving us a personal cause.

6. Must the cause be morally perfect and / or Omni benevolent?
There could be some speculation into how these things could be concluded from the KCA, but this argument is not built to satisfy these questions. The argument simply states that the universe had a cause. I added myself the thought that the cause is most plausibly God. Even though these attributes cannot be absolutely concluded from the KCA, enough of God’s other attributes can be.

7. A mind without a brain?
Simply showing by inductive logic to include all observable minds being associated with a physical mind does nothing to disprove an unembodied mind. For one, we can only see our physical world, and if a singular unembodied mind were right next to me I would be unable to witness it. I could equally state that millions of people communicate with this unembodied mind verifying it’s existence. The only way we could verify it’s existence would be through personal revelation or direct communication since it is not made up of physical parts, and therefore it is up to you to believe weather or not what people say in regards to first hand witnessing these interactions to be true or not. But like I said, you have given me no reason as to why one could not exist, but shown how it hasn’t been empirically verified in our world. The main point here is that an unembodied mind is not made up of physical parts and therefore your method for inductive logic using witnessed minds does not disprove anything.

Defending P1:
I apologize if I was coming across as saying everything has a cause. I meant, as illustrated by P1, everything that begins to exist has a cause. The list of things I gave was all temporal things and had causes. God does not have a cause in that he never began to exist but exists eternal.

You next refer to God being the only thing to be uncaused. I want to clarify that I never said that. There are other things, like numbers, that are uncaused. They exist on their own, they exist necessarily, and they do not require any cause to exist. However numbers cannot cause anything into existence whereas God can.

Next you bring up the fallacy of composition. You state that individual components of the set do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole. The question here is what is the set? The set I’m referring to is all temporal things. I state that every temporal thing has a cause. The universe is a part of this set and therefore had a cause. So under this I would have to say that the fallacy of composition does not even apply as the universe is not the ultimate set whereas all temporal things are.

You ask about the something from nothing. You say how do we know that there aren’t things popping into existence elsewhere that we don’t know about? This is actually when viewed properly a great defense of P1. Why don’t we see things popping into existence from nothing anywhere? Why aren’t apples raining from my ceiling? Why aren’t other planets popping into our solar system? Why is it that a new car exists suddenly from nothing on my driveway? The answer is obvious. Nothing comes from nothing! You can speculate all you want but a rational person would have to go by what is logical here. In the presence of the philosophy of nothing comes from nothing, and by unobserved physical objects coming into existence from nothing, we have good reason to believe in P1.

Defending P2:
You give us the argument that for something to exist there must have been a time that it did not exist. If there is time that it did not exist then there is time. Therefore the universe never began to exist. To me this just sounds like the human mind trying to understand the infinite. There was no time before the universe. Time sprang into existence with the universe. Time came from no-time, but in relation to itself has a 0 point…a beginning, a beginning of being from non-being. You are basing the scale of something existing on a time scale rather existence from non-existence. So yes the universe existed in all points of time, but the universe didn’t always exist. In fact this is implied in the standard model of the big bang. So as bizarre as the statement is, it is not contradictory.

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.
Through the KCA we can find certain attributes of this cause. Attributes like being an unembodied mind, timeless, sufficiently powerful, and personal. God fits this description perfectly and is why this is one of the most powerful arguments for Theists.

Con I thank you for your opening argument and await your responses.


Sources

[1] What is Ockham’s Razor? (http://physics.ucr.edu...)
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

God does not have to be the cause of our universe

Description of the cause of the universe & Occam's Razor

Previously I ask some questions if we assume the universe has a cause what justification do we have for believing it must be all powerful, personal, omi benevolent etc etc. As Pro mentioned Occams razor before... "Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends from among competing hypotheses selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions." [1]

If its possible that the universe can be caused by something that is not maximally powerful, non personal & not all knowing then it would be a violation to of Occams razor to then say the cause is God.

Now Pro seems to concede that the KCA doesn't provide sufficient justification to believe that the "cause" of the universe is omi benevolent. I will let Pro for the purpose of this debate allow God to be defined without any moral characteristics but will still hold Pro accountable for proving that God as defined with all the other descriptions exist.

Must the cause be all powerful or maximally powerful ?

If Pro wants to change all powerful to maximally powerful I can work with that. But the question still is, why must the cause be maximally powerful ?. There doesn't seem to be a necessity shown between cause of universe and maximally powerful.

Must the cause be maximally intelligent and all knowing ?

Pro mentions that choice proves intelligence. Well sure in the most general sense, I mean even a retarded puppy has "intelligence" but I don't think this is the intelligence we are talking about when talking about God. I don't think Pro has shown why its necessary for the cause to possess some sort of maximal intelligence and be all knowing.

Must the cause be timeless and spaceless ?

Pro mentions again that the cause must be outside of our time and space as within this universe. I can grant that, but that doesn't mean the cause can't occupy a time and space different from our own.

Must the cause be personal ?

Pro says..."In other words only timeless events could come forth from a timeless impersonal mechanism." How does Pro know this ? Can Pro prove this or only assert this ? If Pro is free to make such assertions then I can also just assert that temporal events can come from a timeless impersonal state.

A mind without a brain ?

Pro makes the point that the observation that minds are dependent on brains is an inductive point and that it doesn't prove the impossibility of a mind without a brain. I find this to be an inadequate response, cause sure anything that is not a strict logical contradiction is "possible", such as a mind without a brain, but other things that are not a strict logical contradiction and thus "possible" include...100 foot invisible, immaterial dragons on pluto and an alien mother ship with a cloaking device hovering above the earth right now. Does the fact that these things are possible and have not been proved to not exist mean we should believe they exist ? of course not. They don't even establish they are even slightly probable to exist.

Pro makes an appeal to religious experience, the trouble is religious experience gives many different contradictory answers. Such as this brainless mind wants us to find and burn witches, fly planes into buildings to get virgins in paradise, accept one of many human sacrifices as some how pleasing to a God, while rejecting the other human sacrifices and lets not forget that every now and then God sends a hurricane to punish homosexuals and abortionists...""God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin." [2] God never sends a hurricane against the rich and powerful for some reason. Its almost as if people are just making this stuff up eh ?

There is also the problem of the religious experience making claims which are unfalsifiable and thus if they are wrong can never be proved to be wrong and thus giving false affirmation to the adherents of such claims. Evidence only ever affirms what they believe and can never prove what they believe is wrong.

There is also the problem of why we don't have testable proven claims coming from some sort of supreme mind without a brain, maybe because it doesn't exist ?

There is also the problem that minds are not capable of creating physical objects from nothing. If you doubt this feel free trying to create a physical cheese cake using only your mind.

So I think on the scientific data and inductive grounds we have good reason to reject a mind without a brain and no good reason to believe it exists.

Something from nothing

Part of the argument here and within kalam is how its such a big problem to have something come from nothing. But assuming that Pro adheres to creation ex niliho that is to say God created the universe out of nothing and NOT any pre existing stuff, then this shows Pro and/or the KCA is not opposed to something coming from nothing in the general sense.

Pro and the KCA have to make some metaphysical claims in order to justify the claim that nothing from something can't happen without God but can happen with God. But until those metaphysical claims are proven they are merely arbitrary assertions and can be rejected as such.

Premise 1: Premise 1 (P1): Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Pro responds to my question about how can Pro know that OUTSIDE and BEYOND our universe that things don't begin to exist without a cause. Pro makes the point about how we don't observe cars popping into driveways and such. But that doesn't deal with my objection. I can grant Pro that in our universe things don't begin to exist without cause but how does this prove that other things beyond our universe can't begin to exist without a cause or even the universe as a whole began to exist without a cause.

Premise 2 (P2): The Universe began to exist.

Fallacy of composition and the universe

In response to my charge that Pro had commited the composition fallacy Pro says...The set I’m referring to is all temporal things. I state that every temporal thing has a cause. The universe is a part of this set and therefore had a cause."

I doubt Pro can reference any temporal thing outside the universe, as the Iron chariot article said before..."Unfortunately, we are stuck inside the universe, therefore any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole." I submit that Pro can only base their observations on what happens inside the universe too.

As such it doesn't necessarily follow that just because every part of the universe began to exist that means that the universe as a whole began to exist.

What does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ?

My previous argument was...

1) Something begins to exist if there was a point in the past where it did not exist
2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist.

Pro does agree that there has never been a time in the past where the universe does not exist, but Pro doesn't accept the conclusion as Pro says..."So yes the universe existed in all points of time, but the universe didn’t always exist. In fact this is implied in the standard model of the big bang. So as bizarre as the statement is, it is not contradictory."

Pro them self used examples of things that began to exist based on there been a time in the past where they did not exist such as rocks and babies. You can't just get rid of the began to exist principle when dealing with the univeres as a whole like dimissing a taxi once you have reached your destination...beep beep.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
[2] http://www.ranker.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Crede

Pro

Thank you Con for your round and I would like to apologize for how long this one has taken for me to present. So having said that here we go.

Ockham's Razor
To start off I would like to quote one of Con’s statements that he started with last round. “If its possible that the universe can be caused by something that is not maximally powerful, non personal & not all knowing then it would be a violation to of Occams razor to then say the cause is God.” The wrong idea is being presented here. For one the KCA does not provide evidence of a being that is maximally powerful or all knowing. In stead it does provide evidence for an extremely powerful being that is a personal one, and intelligent enough to create a functioning universe. Now these attributes are not necessarily limitless, but they are most closely identified with attributes that are. This is the exact reason why my resolution states that God is the best entity to fit the description. You stated that if it’s possible that the universe could be caused by something that is not personal…I want to point out that I think the KCA shows that the cause is a personal cause. I will expand in the end of this round further why the attributes that must be dictated to the cause are best attributed to God, and therefore Occam’s razor does apply.

Maximally Powerful?
God being maximally powerful is the only entity that fits the description of one that is powerful enough to create the universe. Again this is my original line of thought expressed in my resolution. Now if you want to try and fit these abilities into another entity then why not call that entity God? Here is where Ockham’s Razor played into my reasoning in that I was showing it not to be necessary to create other “Gods” to fill all of these attributes. So does the cause have to be maximally powerful? Maybe…maybe not, but God does fit the bill better than any other potential cause.

All Knowing?
Does the cause have to be all knowing? Again not necessarily…at least not concluded specifically out of the KCA. But again God does fit the description and is the most reasonable answer thus far. We can conceivably say that this cause is extremely intelligent in that it created a functioning universe capable of supporting life. Also that it was able to create a functioning system from nothing shows that the intelligence is so vast that a maximally intelligent being, as we believe God to be, again is the best fit of the abilities of this cause.

Spaceless and Timeless?
God is spaceless and timeless in that he created space and time. Now can He occupy space and time? I see no logical reason why God can’t. Why shouldn’t a creator be able to interact with his creation? Just because He is not subject to the boundaries that are imposed onto his creation, does not mean that he cannot interact with every individual piece of it. Also creating the universe shows that he can interact with it because he created a system subject to space and time, even though he is not. Therefore if he can create a space-time system, he can also interact with it.

Personal?
I demonstrated how only a state to state event could occur from a non-personal cause. I gave the example of the wood floating in water. To say that I’m only asserting this line of logic is invalid because I have given an example for a demonstration. The cause must be a personal one to make a state to event occurrence such as a temporal system coming from a non temporal state. You have not rebutted this.

An Unembodied Mind?
As for religion verifying the existence of an unembodied mind I want to make clear that I was not intending for this line of logic to do that. In fact to assert that there is an unembodied mind would being using the conclusion that God exists as a premise to that conclusion. What is happening with the KCA however is showing evidence on where we can conceive of an unembodied mind existing. There is no evidence to show how one cannot exist. Using inductive logic by comparing all bodied minds with the idea of an unembodied mind is comparing apples and oranges. In using religion I was showing how if you purely speculate there are both sides of the argument that believe in their truth. Showing how the KCA is sound is key evidence in showing the truth behind the existence of an unembodied mind. This argument uses deductive logic and therefore outweighs the improperly placed inductive reasoning used by comparing all bodied minds with the possibility of an unembodied one.

Something Coming From Nothing?
You ask for a metaphysical claim for the truth behind something coming from nothing. Here we have as I stated before philosophical and scientific evidence for this. For one the idea that something can come from nothing without a causer that can bridge this gap makes no sense. How could this happen? Why with inductive evidence have we never observed anything else of this nature happening. Now Con says sure nothing like that happens in our universe, but what about outside of it? Well I think we have great reasons to say why it doesn’t happen. Or if it does happen we have philosophical reasoning to believe that it was caused by a being that can bridge the gap between nothing and existence. Simply asking about a hypothetical something from nothing outside of our universe and beyond our observable parameters is a weak objection to premise one. Premise one still holds. If the two ideas were placed on a scale a rational man would have to side with the idea that only nothing comes from nothing if by nothing. I’m not saying to abandon the idea of it being a possibility, but until there can be evidence of such an event we are subject to the logic behind the universe having a cause.

The Universe Began to Exist?
Now in regards to the universe beginning to exist I think it is evident in showing that it began to exist in relation to itself. It had a 0 moment. Also it began to exist in the form of existence as a whole in comparison to non-existence. So even if you take away the time table of all of existence you still have a beginning of a temporal system, even if it came from a state of non-temporal. You rewind the clock back far enough we get to the beginning of our universe. Can you ask what happened before that? Well kind of, but not with the sense of time that is subject to our universe. Rather you have to understand God and his existence is timeless yet created an existence that is subject to time. Therefore this universe had an absolute beginning even though there was no time before the universe. I also showed how there can’t be an infinite number of past events in a philosophical manner further expanding upon the point of there being an absolute beginning. So no I’m not dismissing the universe as a whole when it comes to terms of having a beginning, rather the contrary. It began to exist.

Can All of This Mean God?
So we have a universe that through the KCA we can conclude that the cause was extremely powerful, extremely intelligent, and a personal unembodied mind. Now lets look at God’s associated attributes:
- Maximally powerful
- Omniscient (all knowing)
- A personal spirt
So does extremely powerful fit into maximally powerful? Quite nicely actually. Does extremely intelligent fit into being omniscient / all knowing? Also very nicely. Does a personal unembodied mind fit into a personal spirit? Bingo! God is therefore as stated in my resolution the best thus far fit for the cause of our universe.

Back to you Con!
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply. Also no apology necessary as I have been busy the past two days and you posting later allows me to post a less rushed and hopefully better response.

God does not have to be the cause of our universe

Description of the cause of the universe & Occam's Razor

Now Pro tells us that KCA provides sufficient reason to believe the cause is God because..."it does provide evidence for an extremely powerful being that is a personal one, and intelligent enough to create a functioning universe." Pro then says well lets just call that God cause its close enough. This is not a correct application of Occams Razor.

Even if it can be proved that the cause of the universe is very powerful, to then say the cause is maximally powerfully is a violation of occams razor.

Even if it can be proved that the cause has enough intelligence to create a universe, to then say the cause must be all knowing is a violation of occams razor.

In other words stick to what is necessary and don't add what is unnecessary.

Pro informs us that the KCA doesn't provide sufficient reason to believe the cause is maximally powerful or all knowing. This is admirably honest from Pro but trouble is God is described by Pro them-self as..."God: The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe." If the cause of the universe is NOT maximally powerful then its it NOT God. If the cause of the universe is NOT maximally intelligent then its not God.

Must the cause be maximally powerful and maximally intelligent ?

Pro concedes insufficient justification for describing the cause as such.

Must the cause be timeless and space less ?

Pro makes some comments about how a timeless God can interact with their creation. That's nice but that doesn't address my objection. Pro has still not given any reason why the cause of our universe can't exist in a time and space different from our own.

Must the cause be personal ?

In order to justify a timeless state causing a temporal state Pro refers to there water and wood example. How exactly does this prove that a timeless cause must be personal ? It seems to me we have more assertion from Pro than justification. Remember we are talking about a meta physical claim here, Pro is claiming its meta physically impossible outside of our universe for non personal timeless thing to cause something temporal. I think we are entitled as to ask how Pro knows this.

Until Pro can prove this, then its possible that the cause of the universe is non personal and thus it unnecessary to attribute personhood to the cause.

A mind without a brain ?

Previously I pointed out how we observe that minds are dependent on brains. Pro once again repeats the claim that well its still possible to have a mind without a brain. I already granted that, its also possible that we are all living in the matrix, point been if you want to establish the existence of something especially the extraordinary you are going to need alot more that just the mere "possibility" of its existence. Don't make me bring up the alien mothership again.

Pro had no reply to the problem of how religious claims/ claims said to have come from the mind of God are contradictory.

Pro had no reply to the problem of the unfalisifiablity of these religious/God mind claims and as such the adherents of these claims can never know nor be proved to be wrong.

Pro had no reply to the problem of how we don't see testable falsifiable claims been made by a supreme mind that can be confirmed.

Pro had no reply to how minds can't produce physical objects from nothing. (I am still trying with that cheese cake but no luck, how are you guys going with that ?)

There is no reason to believe such a mind exists and good reason to believe it doesn't exist.

Something from nothing

Pro says...For one the idea that something can come from nothing without a causer that can bridge this gap makes no sense. How could this happen?

Remember we are speaking about things that can or can't happen OUTSIDE of the universe, This isn't a proof by Pro its an argument from incredulity/inconceivability as wikipedia says...

"Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false." [1]

Things in the past that have been rejected on the basis that its makes no sense, which are absurd, which are inconceivable include...

The earth is not at the centre of the universe (Where else would God put it ?)

The earth is NOT flat (If the earth was a sphere people at the bottom would just drop off, don't be stupid)

The earth is not the product of a divine intelligence (Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that)

Non locality in physics - "In another weirdness, two particles can be bound together such that observing one causes changes in the other, even when they're physically far apart. This quantum embrace, called entanglement (or more generally, non locality), made Einstein nervous. He famously called the phenomenon "spooky action at a distance." [2]

Pro says..."Now Con says sure nothing like that happens in our universe, but what about outside of it? Well I think we have great reasons to say why it doesn't happen. Or if it does happen we have philosophical reasoning to believe that it was caused by a being that can bridge the gap between nothing and existence."

And what are those great reasons ? It can't be based on observations on parts of the universe in order to establish what is true about the universe as a whole as that would be to commit the composition fallacy. It can't be because you can't imagine how it can't be any other way cause that is just to appeal to incredulity.

Pro says..."I'm not saying to abandon the idea of it being a possibility, but until there can be evidence of such an event we are subject to the logic behind the universe having a cause."

This is an interesting concession from Pro, If I am reading this right, Pro is acknowledging that outside of the universe and the universe as a whole (but NOT inside of the universe) that something can come from nothing, Pro replies never the less that logic dictates that we should still regard the universe as a WHOLE as having a cause. But that's the point I have been making, the logic does NOT follow because of committing the composition fallacy and appeals to incredulity.

With the universe as a whole not requiring a cause, then its unnecessary to claim the universe has any cause yet alone that cause be God.

What does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ?

1) Something begins to exist if there was a point in the past where it did not exist

Despite all the talk about infinite past moments and a comparison of the universe vs its non existence, it is still the case that there has never been a "time" where the universe did not exist.

Pro accepts that a rock exists but there was a previous time when it did not exist thus it "began to exist" but Pro does not follow the same kind of reasoning concerning the universe. There was no previous time in which the universe did not exist ergo it did not "begin" to exist.

If Pro rejects this understanding of what it means for something to "begin" to exist, then maybe Pro can tell us what they think it means for something to "begin" to exist.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wired.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Crede

Pro

Thank you Con for your response, and again sorry about the delay as it seems like life gets busy when you want to sit down for a minute.

I want to restate this last round with my resolution:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is logically sound, and provides solid evidence of the Universe having a cause that is thus far best described as being God.

In this resolution I stated that thus far the cause is best explained by God. I did not say that the cause is absolutely proven by the KCA to be God but rather that he is thus far the best suitor for the cause. No other entity has been appropriated the over all power to be the sufficient cause for the universe. The universe as shown through the KCA shows us a personal, unembodied mind that is extremely powerful and intelligent. This argument does not provide the maximal power that God is claimed to have, but He is the best fit in accordance to the attributes that can be attained from the argument. Some might even argue that to the separation from non-existence to existence is infinite and it takes an infinitely powerful being to bridge the gap. I referenced Ockhams Razor in that the only entity said to exist external of space-time, yet space-times creator is God and therefore, if the KCA is true, gives us a sufficient cause. To speculate about other personal causes with the said power to create existence is unnecessary. Ockham’s Razor is completely justified in this scenario as even Con states, “In other words stick to what is necessary and don't add what is unnecessary.”

So as the KCA doesn’t fully prove God with all of his attributes. However God is the best fit into the description of the cause that can be derived from the argument.

Another space-time occupied by the cause / God
Con asks why God, or the cause of the universe, can’t exist from a time and space separate from our own. Well the answer is that He probably could but again these are “what if?” questions. Space and time are related to the physical world and it’s relation to itself. As I have stated before an infinite amount of time, or space cannot exist in that absurdities would arise in the form of contradictions. These contradictions would disprove the existence of such an infinite space-time. So yes he could take part in another space, and another time system, but overall He must be separate in that He is timeless. The same reason why we can conclude that God is space less and timeless from the KCA can be associated with another system. Although these things are nice to speculate, they are off topic. These arguments are better proven through versions of the Ontological Argument. For now let us stick with things we know such as the existence of this universe and what is indicated by it’s existence.

The Personal Cause
Let me give two lines of logic to show person hood to the cause of the universe:

1. The cause as stated before must be external of space and time. Now only two things could fit that description: abstract objects like numbers, or an unembodied mind. Next we look at the two and associate the outcome (existence). Numbers cannot create but do exist outside of time and space. Abstract objects are completely causally impotent. Therefore it follows that the cause is an unembodied mind (person hood).
2. A problem arises when we consider the cause being timeless and causing a temporal effect. How can the cause being timeless be the cause of temporal effects? As Dr. Craig says in his book Reasonable Faith, “How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present.”[1] The idea of an effect that is not of the same state as the cause shows the ability to have intent, and then decide to act on that intent which shows choice. The ability to choose gives us a reason to believe the cause is a personal one.

An Unembodied Mind
Con stated I had no reply in response to him stating that religious assertions are unverifiable. The problem isn’t that I didn’t reply to this. The problem is this was never my argument in the first place. I was saying that religious assertions are logically invalid other than for the individual utilizing them. Now I was saying that the only evidence that states an unembodied mind is impossible is mere assertions. Likewise I was pointing out that the religious also assert that it can and does exist. Both assertions hold no weight in logical debate and can be thrown out. However, arguments such as this one, the KCA, provide good evidence through deductive logic that an unembodied mind can and does exist. So it’s not that I had no reply to his questions, but it was Con misunderstanding my statements earlier and then demanding an explanation of something I never asserted in the first place. In fact I commend my last round argument for an unembodied mind to you Con as I clearly stated this point of view along with giving reasons why the use of inductive logic with bodied minds is invalid.

Something From Nothing
Con says here I am arguing from ignorance. However on the contrary I have given philosophical and logical reasons why nothing only comes from nothing. For this I commend round 2 to you where I spelled out my defense of premise one and gave these reasons for this philosophy. All Con has done to attack premise one is ask how do we know there isn’t other stuff outside of this universe? The problem here Con is your playing a “what if?” game. These are simply distractions to the reader. There is no evidence for any of these things. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but in a logical debate consisting of known truths your “what ifs?” are pointless.

You quote my statement about why we have good reasons to believe these things don’t happen and ask what these reasons are? The problem is you neglected the next statement I made immediately after saying, “Or if it does happen we have philosophical reasoning to believe that it was caused by a being that can bridge the gap between nothing and existence." You have to read my argument as a whole and not take a sentence out to best suit your rebuttal.

Also you state that I concede to the fact that nothing can come from nothing. I never did this, but I was saying it is potentially possible for things to exist outside of our universe. Never did I say that if there is other physical existences outside of our universe that it was an exception to the rule of having to have a cause. So yes, the universe as a whole requires a cause.

Beginning to Exist
Con states that there has to be a time where something didn’t exist for it to begin to exist. For one I don’t concede to this. I state if something can be traced back to a 0 point then it had a beginning. For something to begin to exist it must come from not existing. Time in the temporal sense began to exist from a timeless state. We can see when we rewind the cosmological clock that it had a zero point and therefore came from a timeless state.

Conclusion
The universe had a cause. I have shown as a result of this certain attributes that can be seen to be present in the cause. I have also shown how these attributes are best summed up into the existence of God.

I want to thank Con for his insightful arguments and accepting this debate. I hope you have enjoyed it as well. To the voter I ask for you to look at the evidence presented and see where the logic takes you. I feel the evidence is in strong support of a cause, and that cause being God. Hope you enjoyed reading this debate as much as I did partaking in it.

Sources in comments.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their last reply.

1) That which begins to exist has a cause & The universe as a whole has a cause

Pro in their final round says..."All Con has done to attack premise one is ask how do we know there isn't other stuff outside of this universe?" This is just a blatant mis-characterisation of my objections to Pros argument is this area.

My main critique of this premise was how it goes from what happens inside the universe to making absolute meta physical claims of what is metaphysical possible and impossible outside of the universe. I bought up the composition fallacy showing that its just as fallacious to think that a plane as a whole can't fly cause its parts can't fly as it is to think that the universe as a whole has a cause the parts within the universe begin to exist have a cause.

I also bought up the fallacy of appealing to incredulity/non inconceivability to establish the metaphysical impossibility that what ever begins to exist (outside the universe or the universe as a whole) has a cause.

As such I submit Pro has not been able to establish that what ever begins to exist has a cause is an absolute metaphysical truth outside and beyond our universe and as such it it has not been establish that even if the universe as a whole began to exist it must have a cause.

2) The universe began to exist

I still don't see how my concept of what it means for something to begin to exist has been refuted. Pro is entitled to apply mathematical constructs to the universe and establish a "zero point" mathematically speaking. My argument has been that there was never a time where the universe did not exist ( a point that Pro agrees with) therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist. To take a page out of Pros book the universe as a whole can have a mathematical zero point but never the less it has always existed, although bizarre its not contradictory.

As such it has not been established that the universe "began" to exist.

But what if for argument and curiosity sake there was a cause of the universe, how well did Pro go from cause to God ? Not that well I think.

Must the cause be maximally powerful and maximally intelligent ?

Pro concedes insufficient justification for describing the cause as such.

Description of the cause of the universe & Occam's Razor

Pro again mis applies occams razor. For example if something moves 100 kilos then its only necessary to describe that something as being able to move 100 kilos, you wouldn't say oh it can move one hundred kilos therefore it must be able to move 2000 kilos or even possess unlimited strength.

Pro says..."I referenced Ockhams Razor in that the only entity said to exist external of space-time, yet space-times creator is God and therefore, if the KCA is true, gives us a sufficient cause."

That's not true, I threw out the possibility of the cause of the universe being not maximally powerful and not all knowing and also maybe not personal.

If it can only be shown the cause has to be very powerful then its unjustified to attribute the cause as having maximal power.
If the cause does not need intelligence or knowledge then its unjustified to attribute intelligence or knowledge to the cause.
If the cause does not need to be personal then its unjustified to claim the cause possess personhood.

I think its also worth pointing out if you are claiming that you can prove that God is the cause of the universe then you have to prove that, you don't get to use God as the default answer absent any other hypothesis lest you commit the God of the gaps fallacy..."God of the gaps is a type of theological fallacy in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to discourage reliance on teleological arguments for God's existence" [1]

Must the cause be timeless and space less ?

They are not what if questions, they are what is shown to be necessary vs possible. Pro admits that the cause of the universe could exist in a time/space separate from our own as such it can't be said that the cause MUST be timeless/space less.

A mind without a brain ?

Its not that I had questions for Pro to answer here, it was that observations/evidence don't support Pros claim that a mind without a brain that creates physical objects from nothing exist. Those observations include...

1) Religious claims/ claims said to have come from the mind of God are contradictory. This is what we would expect to happen if such a mind did not exist.

2) The Unfalsifiability of these religious/God mind claims and as such the adherents of these claims can never know nor be proved to be wrong.

3) We don't see testable falsifiable claims been made by a supreme mind that can be confirmed.

If we had evidence of people repeatedly gaining knowledge and making claims that are confirmed and falsifiable and those people were not getting their information from the usual observations/scientific method then clearly we would have established another way of gaining reliable knowledge and this could be used as evidence in support that some sort of supreme intellect & mind without a brain exists. But we don't observe this happening which is what we would expect if such a mind did not exist.

4) Minds can't produce physical objects from nothing.

Even though time after time we have evidence that minds don't produce physical objects from nothing did Pro just think God would be given a special exemption from this observation ? I am certainly not allowing a special exemption.

Pro I think realises that the evidence is not on their side on this one but rather relies on philosophical argument to prove that a mind without a brain that creates physical objects from nothing exists. Trouble is I am contesting those various philosophical premises.....

Must the cause be personal ?

Pro says..."1. The cause as stated before must be external of space and time" No Pro agrees that its possible that a cause of our universe exists in a time/space separate from our own.

Pro says..."Numbers cannot create but do exist outside of time and space. Abstract objects are completely causally impotent. Therefore it follows that the cause is an unembodied mind (person hood)."

No it doesn't follow, cause minds don't create physical objects from nothing.

Craig's argument is an appeal to incredulity/inconceivability to justify the absolute metaphysical impossibility of a non personal timeless cause and a temporal effect as Craig asks..."How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?."

The fact that we don't know nor understand and maybe can't conceive how a non personal timeless cause can produce a temporal effect in no way proves this metaphysical claim by William Craig anymore than people couldn't understand how the earth couldn't be any other shape than flat proves that the earth is flat.

As such its possible that a non personal timeless cause can produce a temporal effect so it has not been established that the cause of the universe (if it has one) is personal and thus it is not proven that the cause possess any intelligence and knowledge as this was claimed on the assumption that the cause was personal.

Conclusion

I argued against that the universe as a whole must have a cause both on the grounds that the metaphysics that it is built on is unestablished and also that the universe did not "begin" to exist.

I also argued even if the universe has a cause the argument does not provide sufficient warrant to believe that God is or is best described as the cause as Pro defined God as..."The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"

I submit for your judgment that the resolution has been negated.

I thank Pro for the debate.

Vote Con

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Crede 4 years ago
Crede
[1] Reasonable Faith. Wheaton: Crossway. 1994. rev. 3rd ed. 2008
Posted by Crede 5 years ago
Crede
I'm so glad to have an opponent that knows what he is talking about. This should be engaging.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
CredeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though the first three premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are flawed, con showed that even if they were all true there is no link to anything intelligent, all powerful, all powerful, or personal. Pro had flimsy arguments trying to tie causation to God.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
CredeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as boggerdoctor. Sorry, Crede, one of the better defences of the argument that I've seen has unfortunately been dismantled by one who knew everything about what he was doing.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 4 years ago
Boogerdoctor
CredeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dismantles the Kalam argument. He shows that even if he grants Pro's first 3 premises Pro can't sufficiently link the cause of the universe to God.