The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological argument for God can be logically interpreted as false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,267 times Debate No: 21614
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I will logically argue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false, it clearly has objective flaws that can be easily detected.

First round for acceptance


I accept, but I ask my opponent to list the principles of the Kaalam argument. This should be a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

I'm going to argue that the Kalam Cosmilogical Argument isn't fully sound, and has manny errors and flaws with it (enough for it to be logically interpreted as false).

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Classical argument

P1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause
of its existence;

P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;

P3: The universe has a cause of its existence.

P4: Since no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the

origin of the universe, the cause must be personal

William Lane Craig's reformulated argument

P1: Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.

P3: Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.

P4: This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because he chose to create

the universe.

Refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument's claims

Rebutting Premise 1
(applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)

The problem with the first premise is that it is a completely basesless assertion. We have no
intuition (which is what the premise is based on) regarding things coming into existence, only
regarding pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged.

Example 1:

Nothing a human being is composed of "began to exist" when a person was conceived, a pre-existing sperm cell
and egg cell change their state
by combining. This process divides, evolves, and enlarges into what we label a
human being eventually. [1]
The human body is mostly made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen,
calcium, and phosphorus [2], all of which existed before the person in question, for example.

Example 2:

The car you drive didn't "begin to exist", most of it was originally pre-existing steel, the steel was ore, the ore
was orginally dirt and so on and so forth.

Basically, a "car" is just a label we gave to something that is re-arranged pre-existing matter,
nothing actually began to exist when the car was made.


Claiming that intuition tells us "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" (or any version of this) is a baseless
claim, because we have no intuition based on things beginning to exist. We only have intuition involving
pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged.

Reasons To Believe Premise 1 Is False

We can actually indirectly observe virtual particle fluctuations actually popping in and out of
existence (beginning to exist), due to The Casimir effect, which is a direct consequence of virtual
particles so we know they happen.
They seem to be spontaneous, random, and uncaused (this does not mean that they for sure don't
have a cause, but the way they behave inticates they most likely do not).

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom
decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with
quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the
quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived
particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient
particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the

- Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville

Quantum effects are essentially uncaused, as far as is known, with several examples of violations
of Bell's inequalities [3].


Virtual particles seem to begin to exist uncaused

Conclusion regarding Premise 1:

1) The premise is baselss because we don't observe things beginning to exist in our lives,
we observe pre-existing things changing form and being rearranged.

2) One example of things "beginning to exist" we can indirectly observe are virtual particle fluctuations, which seem
be random, spontaneous, and uncaused.

3) The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be interpreted as baseless,
not sound, and false.

Rebutting Premise 2
(applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)

Theists use Big Bang cosmology to defend this premise, and while the universe as we know it did
have a beginning, there is no evidenece that the universe began to exist.

The Singularity contained infinite density, temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.[4]

So if the singularity contained infinite time, then it's safe to say that the universe has existed for an
infinite amount of time (or at least contained and infinite amount of time). The universe as it was
(the singularity) expanded 13.7 billion years ago as the theory explains, there is nothing in Big Bang
cosmology which suggests that the singularity just popped into existence out of nothing (although
it may be possible due to what we know about Quantum Mechanics, but this is not what The Big
Bang Theory suggests)

Conclusion regarding premise 2:

The only thing backing this claim up is The Big Bang Theory, however the theory never suggests

that the singularity began to exist, only that the unviverse as we know it had a beginning and it
originated from the singularity.

Rebutting Premise 3 (applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)

Since neither Premise 1 or 2 are logically sound, then there is no reason to assume that this premise
holds any weight. It is a baseless assertion.

Rebutting Premise 4 (classical argument)

This premise commits the common logical fallacy called God of the Gaps [5], and therefore can be

(Basically the God of the Gaps argument is "I can't understand this so God did it.")

Rebutting premise 4 (reformulated argument)

Claiming that the cause must be personal because he chose to create the universe is yet, another
baseless assertion and completely irational. The premise assumes the cause must be a being with

Lets assume (for the sake of argument) that the only logical conclusion is that the universe had a
cause. This still wouldn't be a solid argument in favor of an intelligent creator, there are theories
which invoke causes of the universe that are not involving conscious beings.


also provided another crucial aspect of the puzzle in that it explained how the Big Bang

might have occurred, with two membranes colliding. The energy produced from such a collision is
mathematical consistent with what we know from existing science." [6]

There are also other theories which invoke causes of the universe as well (none of which have
solid evidence to support them, but still more evidence than God explanations).

Master re-cap:

1) Premise 1 (of either version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument) is not logically sound because

our intuition, which is the only basis for this premise, only leads us to an understanding of
pre-existing things changing form or rearranging, not things beginning to exist. Premise 1 is also most likely false,
because we can indirectly observe the effects of virtual particle
fluctuations (things beginning to exist) which seem
to be uncaused.

2) Premise 2 may be true, but it may not be. Either way, there is no way to tell and there is no way
anyone can claim that the logic surrounding this premise is absolute.

3) If one of the two previous premises is not sound, then the third cannot be.

4) Premise 4 of the classical argument commits the logical fallacy known as God of the Gaps,
Premise 4 of the reformulated argument creates the fallacy of assuming that if a cause of the
universe is fact, then it is a conscious being


The Kalam Cosmological argument for God can be logically interpreted as false




Greenwolfdebates forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebutting my opponent's refutations of my argument:

My opponent made no refutations to rebut.

Re-Hashing/ Continuing my case:

The only thing that backs up the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is intuition.

For example: An exe began to exist therefore it had a cause, this is intuition.

The problem with that example: Nothing began to exist when the axe was created.

I'm going to assign a number to a specific "thing" to demonstrate my point further.

Lets say there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

1 and 2 are put together, 2 and 4 are put together, 5 and 6 are put together, and all 6 things are
tied together by 7. Now imagine that you deemed all 7 things together as one "The invention"...

Nothing actually began to exist when "The invention" was made, because "The invention" is just a
rearrangement of pre-existing things.


Our intuition isn't based on things beginning to exist, it is based on things that already exist
changing form or being rearranged.

More reasons why Premise 1 is a fallacy:

P1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument also commits the fallacy of stating that a set of things
inherits the characteristics of the individual parts thereof. This is to say that they are stating that
because things within the Universe have causes, the Universe too must have a cause.
The argument, when depicted as a syllogism would be as follows:

Things within the Universe require causation.

Therefore, the Universe requires external causation.

This is obviously fallacious.

Things that happen inside the universe, cannot be evidence of what theoretically happens outside
of it.

Syllogism depicting the above point

: All examples of causes are synonymous with nature in the universe

P2: All known causes are observed to be forces of nature which act on matter/ rearrangements of
matter that precede their effect in time.

P3: There is no reason to believe a cause can exist without forces of nature, matter, and time

P4: Forces of nature, matter, and time can only exist if the universe exists.

P5: If the universe doesn't exist, then there is no reason to believe a cause can exist.


If one premie is baseless, then the whole argument can be considered baseless. Since there are clear fallacious flaws in the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which tries to make the claim that it is absolute logical truth), then the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be logically interpreted as false as an argument that portrays to be absolute logical truth.


Greenwolfdebates forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


The Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell:

P1: Every human that begins to exists was born from a woman

P2: The School Board began to exist
P3: The School Board was born form a woman

The above is obviously fallacious, but just as much as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why?
Because the sum of the whole is not the same as the individual parts. Basically, what goes on
inside the universe (causes AKA individual parts) does not necessarily apply logically to the universe
as a whole.

Continuing my refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Also lets say we grant the Premise 2 that the universe began to exist, and lets say I'm wrong
about virtual particles beginning to exist uncaused. All this would mean is that the only thing we have an example
of that "began to exist" would be the universe itself due to the fact that I already demonstrated how
our observations aren't of things beginning to exist, but they are of pre-existing things changing
form or being rearranged after the universe "began to exist". So if we reform the cosmological
argument more accurately, we get something like this:

P1: Everything that begins to exist The Universe, has a cause
P2: The universe had a beginning
P3: The universe had a cause

Basically when the conslustion and one of the premises for it are basically the same, we call that
circular reasoning and the person pushing the KCA would be commiting the fallacy known as
"begging the question".

Theists are also asserting that two different types of beings exist:

1) Beings that never begin
2) Beings that begin

According to Theists, the only potential being who can never begin is God.
Basically, the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be re-written as:

P1: Everything that is not God has a cause
P2: The universe is not God
P3: The universe had a cause

The only way a theist could refute my contention is by claiming that the reason the external cause does
not have a beginning, is because time only exists internally within the universe. Basically what the theist would be
claiming is that time exists within the set God created (the universe), and since God isn't within time, then
a beginnings (a point in time) would have no meaning to God's existence.

However, if we use that logic, then the singularity couldn't have a beginning because because the singularity didn't
exist within time, it contained time.

Basically, if things that don't exist within time don't need a beginning, then the singularity didn't need a beginning
because it didn't exist within time (if we accept the logic of why God doesn't need a beginning).

Also once more, the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument assumes a cause is possible outside of time
when all avaible evidence shows that causes seem to be synonymous with spacetime. Lets assume that
causation is possible outside of our known version of time, this would just be as much of a point for M-Theory
as it would be for a supernatural God creation argument for the beginning of the universe (even though both aren't
backed up by any observable evidence).

If The Kalam Cosmological Argument's purpose is to logically prove a supernatural personal creator of the
universe in a form that portrays to be absolute logic, then it is false no matter how many angles
you take it on from. Especially considering that the argument is a non-sequitor fallacy (even if you grant
Premises 1 - 3, Premise 4 does not logically follow).

Because the first and third premises of the KCA can be easily torn down (not even the second is
backed up), however even if they stood, this would still be just as much an argument for many
Non-God theories about a hypothetical cause of the universe as it would be an argument for God.

Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trying to say that God is the only option, then the KCA
fails on all accounts.


Greenwolfdebates forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
I'm just going to re-hash this debate, it doesn't seem like Greenwolfdebates is going to participate and I want to hear some valid refutations to my objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago

It should already be implied that I have the burden. I accept those conditions for sure.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Of course the KCA *can* be logically interpreted as false, the question is whether it should be. A logical interpretation does not require all aspects to be proven or explained in depth. If all aspects are considered and weighed against each other then you have a logical conclusion, not an interpretation.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Oh you are just begging KRF to take this debate. Practically begging.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
lol "obvious".... semantics anyone?
Posted by Trent_H 4 years ago
I am interested in debating you on this topic if the following conditions are met:

1. You are arguing the affirmative that the Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is false. In doing so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is false, not on me to demonstrate that is is true. That would be fair if you open I have to argue the negative. In other words, my aim in the debate is to show you have not made the case that the KCA is false, not that I have shown that the KCA is true beyond reasonable doubt.

2. I understand the KCA to be formulated this way:

P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
P2 - The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Let me know if this works. Otherwise, this looks like a fun debate to have.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF....