The Kalam cosmological argument is sound
Debate Rounds (4)
KCA is good, Im saying yes Con saying no.
I accept. In this debate I am going to argue against the soundness of the KCA as it is commonly presented by William Lane Craig (1).
P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Praise the black jesus
P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The universe began to exist.
P3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Look around yourself. You see money coming out of nowhere? You think Bill gates got to be a rich a$$hole because he sat around while money was coming into existence by virtual particles? Nope, he uitilized premise one to become rich in 7 simple steps. Do good whores come out of nowhere? Nope! They must be birthed and trained. They all must have causes.
Assuming something began without a cause. X cause was uncasued. Uncaused is the same thing as saying nothng cause it. QED Nothing was the cause. X began to exist and was caused by nothing.
P1 Is true boo.
By universe I mean this sh1t
We know it begans because if it didn't the second law of thermodynamics would f*ck everything up. Entropy increases the universe would be dead by now. Science like BVG theorem and the big bang theory tells us the uni began 13.6 billion years ago with a bang that was big.
Infinitey dont make sense. If I promised to give you a kiss when you take an infinite amount of bites out of an ice cream (a chocolate cherry one) would you ever feel my soft suclent manly lips? Nope How the f*ck do you expect to get to the present then? Y'dont.
Look above sh1ts transitive.
God exists. Because the thing that caused all this sh1t must be above this sh1t. It cannot be physical or natural it must be superphysical/supernatural to cause thems universe. It gots to be powerful and intelligent to know how to cause this sh1t.
That's God bro, case closed. Proof in the pudding. Salute to mien furer. Mul#5;umesc, Cu plăcere Sunt Jedi4!
Design your universe b1tches
I thank my opponent for presenting his case. This debate originated from a thread I made some days ago (http://www.debate.org...) where Jedi4 and I decided to debate God and presentism. I suggested doing both in the context of the Kalam argument, which is why I am going to focus on presentism in my rebuttal.
Without further ado, let's get started.
Presentism - Presentism is the view that only present objects exist.(1)
Eternalism - Eternalism is the view that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. (1)
P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
First of all we have to be clear on what is meant by "begins to exist". William L. Craig defines it as follows:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t,
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists,
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and
(iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.(2)
(iv) predicates the Kalam on the A-theory of time and with it presentism. Hence I am going to present two objections to it.
This is probably the most well known objection to presentism and it is pretty straight forward. Presentism asserts that there is one single plane of simultaneity, a single privileged frame of reference.
Einstein's special theory of relativity treats time like just another dimension together with the three spatial dimensions. Accordingly the notion of a present time is meaningless in Minkowski spacetime as there is no observer independent plane of simultaneity.
The only ontology of time this is compatible with is eternalism.
Both of the following objections are derived from Theodore Sider's book Four-Dimensionalism.
Minor Objection: Cross-Time Relations
Presentism has a very intuitive side and a very counterintuitive one. For example it intuitively makes sense to say "dinosaurs don't exist". This is compatible with presentism as only present objects exist. However what is rather difficult for a presentist is to make sense of propositions like 'Once dinosaurs roamed the earth'. Typically a presentist wants to allow some talk about past and future events and therefore introduces tense operators like 'WAS(Φ)' and 'WILL(Φ)', which can be informally expressed as "At some past time t, Φ was is true at t" and "At some future time t, Φ is true at t" respectively. For example 'Once dinosaurs roamed the earth' could be translated into 'WAS (Dinosaurs roam the earth)'. These operators are not ontologically committing.
At first glance it might seem like the presentist is able to talk about other times, however, in the following I am going to present a example from Sider's book utilizing cross-time relations (2):
Consider the claim that some American philosophers admire some Greek philosophers, how would a presentist capture this?
ExEy(x is an American philosopher, and y is an ancient Greek philosopher, and x admires y)
This would obviously be false since presently no ancient Greeks exist.
WAS: ExEy(x is an American philosopher, and y is an ancient Greek philosopher, and x admires y)
Is just as erroneous, because at no time when an American philosopher existed, an ancient Greek philosopher existed, too.
Ex(x is an American philosopher, and WAS: Ey(y is an ancient Greek philosopher, and x admires y))
Here 'x admires y' is in the scope of the 'WAS' operator, and existence is no longer at issue. However there is yet another problem since this claim is about two separate times at once and we cannot treat both as real.
Another example by David Lewis goes like this: "There have been two kings of England named George". Since the 'WAS' operator can only be true at an instant, not time spans. It seems hard to capture.
Major Objection: Cross-Time Spatial Relations
We have seen that presentists struggle with these kinds of statements, however the actual defeater is yet to come.
Science requires us to compare objects' locations at different times to understand velocity and acceleration. According to the Russellian theory of motion an object's instantaneous velocity is not just defined by how an object is at one particular time, but instead to have instantaneous v at t is to be located appropriately at infinitesimally immediate future and past times. The presentist cannot capture this in his tensed language.
As established under Premise one, eternalism is the superior ontology of time. Therefore, as William L. Craig himself puts it, "[t]he universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning" (3), not a beginning in the sense required for the KCA.
My opponent brings up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem in support of his position. However the BGV theorem does not conclude a universe had to begin, it concludes that it is past indeterminate (we have yet to figure out what is happening). Furthermore it relies on classical physics and as such does not take into account quantum mechanics.
Unfortunately I wrote "P3" instead of "C)" last round. This was a mistake since "Therefore, the universe has a cause." is of course the conclusion, not a premise.
I have presented several serious objections to the KCA and negated the resolution.
(2) Theodore Sider, Four-Dimensionalism, p.26
Presentism and why its the sh1t
Presentism explains why we onlt experience the present. You cant see the past you cant taste the future. the present is all. Time includes passage. B theory dont got passage making b in B theory stand for bullsh1t. And the a in a theory stand for awesome!
Eternalism and why it eats sh1t
Special relativity. If you think special relativity proves eternalism, then your special in the head relative to us smart people!
One, relativity might not exist. Look at my famous refutation of relativity
Anti-atheist doesnt believe in realtivity and he has a BA in physics
He stomped now liberal "Ron-paul" in that debate!
Two, relativty works without simultaneity
This is a real objection?
When the presentos are talking about past objects they are refering to what use to be the present. The present is moving and we say oh where the present once was we like that. and maybe it refers to our mental state of time.
I think Marlyn manroe was a hot b1tch refers to me temporal memory of history. Our minds dont make sh1t about the real past.
Cross-Time Spatial Relations
Russellian theory of motion? Like from bertrand russel? The same russel that kids like to get high and read?
Full bodied laugh
Con gives no reason to believe in this pot headed theory of russelian motion. His argument is nil and invalid
VGB theorem says the past is finite there are ways around it but the atheist will be f*cking himself in the a if he uses them
Classical mechanics invalidats it? Heh no! BVG dont give a sh1t about the quantuos
“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value” [Vilenkin,Many Worlds in One pg 175]
Passage and Knowledge
My opponent starts out by arguing that presentism must be true because we cannot see the past and future and it explains the passage of time.
Let me grant that there exists one single frame of reference, just as presentism states, does that mean that you know what is happening everywhere in the universe? After all, everything exists simultaneously. Obviously that would be ridiculous. This is analogous to perceiving the future under eternalism: it's an epistemic problem, not an ontological one.
The passage of time is an illusion.
Con presents three objections, (1) SR is false, (2) Anti-atheist thinks it's false and (3) SR works without simultaneity.
(1) His arguments from the debate he referred to are ridiculous. Accordingly, he lost it. To sway people that the STR, one of our best empirical theories, is wrong requires more work than linking some other debate. An argument would be a nice start.
(2) This is an attempted appeal to authority. Anti-atheist lost the debate 28-0.
(3) Special relativity, as I have presented it, is the orthodoxy among scientists. Linking some article is insufficient to overthrow scientific consensus. Again, an argument is the minimum requirement.
Pro misses the point of this objection. It's all fine and dandy to refer to memories, but one's current memories are not truthmakers for events she did not experience. "1939 a world war started" is obviously true, but I don't have memories of it and for a presentist the year 1939 does not exist. Therefore there is no truthmaker for the above claim.
Presentist can't, as my opponent puts it, refer "to what use to be the present", since nothing else exists! You can't refer to something that does not exist. I explained why this is the reason presentists use tensed operators like 'WAS' and 'WILL'.
Cross Time Spatial Relations
The fact that one guy did drugs while reading Russell's A History of Western Philosophy does not discredit his work in the slightest.
Pro correctly points out that I did not give any reason to accept Russell's theory. That is because I took it as a given.
Why is that? It's because I and presumably my opponent, too, learned about it in school. It's what all textbooks and most scientists use.
"An object’s velocity can be identified with the first time derivative of its trajectory" (1)
That is Russell's theory right there.
No, classical mechanics does not invalidate it. I have never said it is invalid in general, all I have said is that it does not support the KCA.
I'll leave the talking to Vilenkin himself:
"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."(2)
Back to Pro.
(2) Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, p.176
Passage and Knowledge
The passage of time is an illusion? Why believe that B-theory boy? Yeah we cant see the whole universe but we can observe time! I feel the present ergo i can feel time. Why only the present huh?
1) Voting doesnt make something true or false. The voters probably didnt understand the arguments. Saying the voting makes it false is an appeal to majority thats what you said I was doing wtf?
2) Above and the voters probably voted for him because everyone worships the user ron-paul because he goes with the DDO Hivemind
3) APpeal to scientific majority fallacy.
when you say in 1939 WWII started you are refering to your memory of history that refers to the memories of those who were there. I cant refer to something that doesnt exist? why cant nothing cant have properties eh b theory boy? No defense for that.
Cross Time Spatial Relations
It DOES discredit it. It shows the type of people it attracts. It attracts that kind of people because the book is written by stoners FOR stoners. Took it for a given? If its in school its automatically true? Whats next taking atheism for a given? ALl you need to do is say the KCA is wrong because of atheism!
Appeal to majority fallacy.
Wtf. B theory boy said
"Furthermore it relies on classical physics and as such does not take into account quantum mechanics."
Do you have retrograde anmesia or something?
I extend my argues cuz B theory boy dont address sh1t.
The illusion of passage is a consequence of Minkowski spacetime.
In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now."(1)
I answered this last round.
My opponent accuses me of commiting an argumentum ad populum. But this is ridiculus.
Appealing to scientific consensus is not a fallacy.
Pro claims "1939 a WW started" refers to the memories of those present a the time. This still misses the point of presentism, there are no past people, they do not exist, I canoot refer to their memories as there are no such memories.
Unfortunately the rest of this section is unintelligible.
Cross-Time Spatial Relations
Again, appealing to the scientific consensus is not a fallacy.
The intention I had behind the quote was merely to say that the theorem is not invalid as is, you just cannot get to the universe being created with it.
I still got Vilenkin on my side and Pro does not contest his claims.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly wins on arguments. Pro's defenses of the premises are primarily appeals to intuition. Con thoroughly refutes premise 1 and premise 2 via four-dimensionalism and eternalism. He justifies eternalism with special relativity. The debate comes down to Con's justification of eternalism. Pro, surprisingly, attacks special relativity itself. Their justifications: (1) anti-atheist (user) thinks it's wrong, (2) he has a very weak argument against SR, and (3) a *single* source against SR. Con refutes these: (1) is an appeal to authority, (2) is a weak argument that led Pro to lose the debate, and (3) is a single source against the scientific consensus itself. Pro accuses Con of ad populum, but this is unjustified because the consensus is based on studies. Con clearly wins on the eternalism objection. S&G is also awarded to Con since Pro frequently uses profanity and derails their arguments, e.g. "premise" as "pee", etc. The profanity hurt readability. Thus, S&G and arguments to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.