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

The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,238 times Debate No: 31253
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Resolution: The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.
Me and my opponent will be arguing over the validity of the Kalam Cosmological argument, the one popularized by William Lane Craig which can be summarized as follows:
(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
(P2) The universe began to exist;
(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Burden of proof: Shared

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Rounds: 3
Voting Period: 2 weeks
Time to argue: 72 hours
Argument Max: 8,000 Characters
Only members with less than 3 completed debates.


The Kalam Cosmological argument is not flawed primarily based on the definition of cause. Cause is defined as a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition not to be misconstrued or defined as purpose. Therefore, there was a cause to why the universe was created. If anything was done there has to be a driving force, thus being it's cause. If I am driving a car and crash the car there was not necessarily a purpose to the cause, but I would undoubtedly be the reason or CAUSE to why that event occurred. Newton's third law of physics states that to every action there always exists an equal and opposite reaction. The action would be the motion that gave rise to the reaction therefore being it's cause. Whether the universe had come in to existence by a metaphysical entity like the idea of god, or a metaphysical presupposition such as the big bang, there was something that drove the action to occur therefore, there was a cause. This is the reason the pro wins today's debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for accepting.

P1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

William Lane Craig calls this premise 'philosophically unobjectionable'. But this premise isn't true, as virtual particles are an exception [1]. In his book 'On Guard', William Lane Craig gives three reasons to think that Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological argument is true:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.

But even if I didn't have Virtual particles as an example to prove this wrong, that still wouldn't make the statement 'Something cannot come from nothing' correct. As it's famously been pointed out before, nobody has observed nothing and therefore the statement 'Something cannot come from nothing' is pure assertion. His third point commits the same fallacy.

Considering the fact that in order for the Kalam Cosmological argument needs all premises to be correct and a conclusion logically following those premises in order to be sound, I conclude that the Kalam Cosmological argument is unsound.


I look forward to Con's response.


Kamkam197 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


This round was supposed to be for rebuttals, but Con has unfortunately forfeited and given me nothing to rebut. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the end of the debate.


Kamkam197 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nope, you're right. I was mistakenly thinking you could still infer the structure of modus ponens through a quantifier.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
I understand what you mean about soundness, but how is it not modus ponens?

1. A(x) Bx -> Cx
2. Bu
3. Cu

How is that not modus ponens? (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.)
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
I think when some people say "validity," they mean "soundness." Of course there are people who think the argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. If it does, then it IS invalid. But it's not modus ponens (although it could be recharacterized as such). It's a categorical syllogism.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Arguing over the *validity*? It's just a simple modus ponens...
No votes have been placed for this debate.