The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Debate Rounds (4)
"Sound" is defined as "a logically correct argument that withstands all scrutiny."
Simply put - if Con can present evidence or argument that successfully dismantles the Kalam, Con wins.
Round 1 -
Pro: Intro/present argument
Con: 1st Rebuttal
Round 2 -
Round 3 -
Round 4 -
Pro: Final response
Con: Only write "remarks complete."
== Kalam Cosmological Argument ==
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. 
I am the Mac and i will destroy you.
Yoi cannot come to the conclusion of
those attributes with only P1 and P2
Because they don't support the claims
in any way what so ever.
As such, I am forced to guess at the essence of Con's rebuttal since they did not articulate it. A small hint as to what Con meant can be found in the comments section of this debate:
"It is like saying
This donut has a cause.
It began to exist.
Therefore an asian, german speaking female created it."
Here, Con has exposed their total failure to understand the argument. This analogy is not at all like the Kalam Argument, and I think the confusion lies in Con's understanding of the term "universe," so let's start there.
By universe, we mean literally everything that exists. Cars, people, water, planets, time, physics, etc... Knowing this, we can know therefore that before the universe existed, there was nothing. Literally no thing. No space. No time. No material. We also know that nothing cannot produce something - out of nothing, nothing comes. And yet, here we are - our universe exists nonetheless. This is what makes the Kalam Argument so sound - it is the only way to explain how this can happen. We know the universe had a beginning (Con did not dispute this). We know that everything that begins has a cause (Con did not dispute this either). But yet, before the universe there was no space, no time, no material by definition. Therefore, it logically and necessarily follows that whatever caused the universe's beginning was spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
It also must have been uncaused, because it is metaphysically impossible to have in infinite series of past causes. The past cannot be infinite. For example - if an infinite series of events had to occur in the past in order to bring us to the present, we would never actually arrive at the present because an infinite series of events can never be completed. This is absurd. So, we can be confident that the ultimate cause of the universe was uncaused.
Finally, this first cause was extremely powerful. This is self evident, since whatever it was managed to create space, time, and matter from beyond the realms of space, time, and matter.
So, hopefully it is now clear that the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises.
If Con still finds this deduction as random as an Asian woman creating a donut, maybe this will help:
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe (space, time, material, etc...) began to exist.
C: Since the universe began (P2), it must have a cause (P1). Since things cannot create themselves, that cause must have been not space, not time, and not material. It was also uncaused, and unimaginably powerful.
Con has not delivered an actual rebuttal yet, and until they do, my argument stands.
Let us continue.
It is exactly like it if you consider only your round 1.
I know what universe means. -_-
If nothing existed then nothing should yet it does.
You cannot assume there was nothing in the beginning.
You find a ball in a box.
You don't know how it got there but it is still there.
You can try to add attributes to what put it there
but it might have just rolled in without a biological
So if the universe exists then how do you know it didn't always exist?
You said there was nothing in the beginning.
So not god?
You assume it was a very powerful force or
entity of some kind.
This man is very strong.
He moved this car up a hill.
What if it was something simple and finite
such as a tow truck?
You don't have to be very powerful.
What about the still undiscovered TOE?
In all infinity there must be some explanation.
What if the universe is uncaused?
What if it just popped into existence some day?
Why must there be a cause if you say there can
be something uncaused?
And what if immaterial didn't exist?
We cannot assume nothing existed in the beginning
since there is the universe now.
How do we know there was even a before?
And the reason I didn't rebuttal in round one
was because you had zero support.
I also put an introduction there.
Good luck Pro.
Assuming they are, I will continue...
== Response ==
Con's first critique is that "you cannot assume there was nothing in the beginning." Actually, you can. It is logically necessary that before something existed, nothing existed. There is no alternative. You cannot say that before something existed, something else existed, because that "something else" would still be considered "something." Therefore, that would be like saying "before something existed, something existed." This is absurd. It becomes more obvious if you space the word "nothing" out into two words - "no thing." The statement therefore is "before a thing began to exist, no things existed." Con has not demonstrated why this is an incorrect assumption.
Con then says that if nothing existed at the beginning, then god didn't exist either. This is irrelevant, as I have never mentioned god in this debate, and I do not plan to. I merely listed the attributes that the first cause of the universe (whatever it was) must have had. When we say "nothing existed at the beginning" we mean no time, no space, no material. However, we also know the universe still had a beginning, which means it had a cause. Since time, space, and material cannot create themselves, then we know this cause must have been not time, not space, and not material (timeless, spaceless, immaterial). This is precisely what the Kalam Argument concludes. The only other alternative is if the universe is eternal, which I will get to next...
Con asks "if the universe exists then how do you know it didn't always exist?" The answer is simple: logic and science. Logically, I have already demonstrated why an infinite past is metaphysically absurd. I could never actually be in this present moment typing if an infinite sequence of past events needed to happen first, because an infinite sequence is never complete. As another example, pretend you have an infinite number of apples. I come and take every other apple. How many apples do you have left? Infinity! So infinity - infinity = infinity. Then, let's say I come and take all your apples except three. Now how many do you have? Three. So infinity - infinity = 3. This makes no sense. Infinity is, within the confines of space and time, impossible.
Science too confirms this. The vast majority of scientists and scholars acknowledge that the universe had a beginning. Specifically, the theorem developed in 2003 by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning . The renown physicist Stephen Hawking has also confirmed, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." 
So in terms of Con's "ball in a box" scenario, the only alternative to a cause is that the ball has existed inside the box for eternity. But this is impossible, since we have already established that space, time, and material had a beginning. Since the ball exists within the space of the box, in time, and is made of material, then it too had a beginning, and everything that begins to exist has a cause.
In the next section of their rebuttal, Con issues a string of questions. Unfortunately, questions are not arguments, so once again Con has failed to actually rebut anything. I'll still engage the questions though...
Con says this is akin to saying a strong man pulled a car up a hill, when in reality it was a tow truck. The implication here is that it doesn't take something "strong" to cause the car to move. This is a terrible example, because obviously a tow truck is more powerful than even a single, strong human! And even if the world's strongest man was more powerful than a tow truck, this still doesn't help Con, because the comparison is now between a very powerful thing and a very, very powerful thing. It only severs as a double confirmation that moving massive objects requires incredible power. If Con believes that a cause which brings all space, time, and matter into existence is not impressively powerful, then I challenge them to demonstrate how.
Con then asks what if the universe is uncaused? I have already addressed this - the only way this can happen is if the universe (space, time) is eternal. We know this cannot be the case, as confirmed by logic and science.
Con wonders if the universe could have just "popped" into existence. Since I have already established that there must have been nothing before the universe, this is impossible. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness has no properties - no creative potential, no mass, no energy. These are all "things," and we are discussing "no things." Nothing cannot create something - if it could, why do we not observe this happening all the time? Why do we not also see money, and trees, and race cars popping into existence out of nothing? Why would noting only be able to create universes? Again, this idea takes us into absurdity, so we are forced to logically accept that there was a cause to the universe, and that cause must have been timeless, spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, and very powerful. This confirms the Kalam Argument.
Finally, Con asks how something can be uncaused if everything must have a cause? Here we must clarify - when we say "everything" we mean every observable thing - space, time, matter, etc... (aka, the universe). Since the universe cannot create itself, then the cause was necessarily OUTSIDE the universe. This means it was outside time, space, matter, etc... The Kalam Argument only says that everything within time has a cause (everything that BEGINS to exist, "begin" indicates time). So, it is totally plausible that the first cause, which transcends time, can exist eternally and requires no cause.
Con has yet to present a rebuttal that dismantles the Kalam Argument. Looking forward to the next round.
This could have been the universe itself.
You completely ignored my explanation about the ball in the box.
What you trying to prove exists anyways?
They weren't created.
As you put it "uncaused".
This finite matter exists around us, if it exists
then it does not need to be explained how it
logically came to be.
It just is alike what you are trying to prove exists
with your attributes.
There is a probability there was no beginning.
Stop re-directing my questions.
The infinite past of your described thing is also absurd.
You just claim it is uncaused.
Just like the universe could be.
You have so far failed to prove it necessary for these
attributes to be applied to your thing and not mine
It is not impossible for an infinite timeline to exist, it just wont ever end.
Note a law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
That would make everything exist for an infinite time.
And the big bang is the universe coming back
together just to have another big bang happen.
And what evidence?
You have presented none of the evidence
you speak of while talking about your scientist.
What is the theorem?
Ok, you are addressing my box now.
But no evidence disproving it.
I already broke down that argument earlier here.
They are indeed arguments.
Arguments that are arrows piercing your armor.
Questions necessary to answer that when you
have no proper explanation they break you down.
I did, there could be away around having to be very
powerful to create the big bang and create the universe.
These examples are supposed to be helpful.
Stop attacking the examples and attack what they mean.
It can possibly be eternal.
You have not presented the science and your logic has
been broken down.
The universe has always existed, as reasoned earlier.
You have failed to demonstrate why the finite material
cannot be uncaused just at your infinite immaterial.
You need a clear difference.
Your argument proving that there was nothing existed
before the beginning of stuff have been destroyed.
The universe didn't create itself, it was just there
just as your immaterial.
Plausible, but not certain.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been destroyed.
And time doesn't actually exist, it is just a concept we
invented to explain things that have happened, are
happening, and will happen.
"Time" has always existed just as your immaterial.
To address your link 1, it just hasn't collapsed yet.
But it hasn't.
This is the best debate I have had so far.
Thanks Pro for a good time.
Con has not offered legitimate or justified rebuttals to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Argument stands.
Thanks for the debate, vote Pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate