The Instigator
Miles_Donahue
Con (against)
The Contender
Wyattcodered
Pro (for)

The kalam cosmological argument is sound.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wyattcodered has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 102879
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Miles_Donahue

Con

After a long sabbatical, I'd like to return to Debate.org, and this time by arguing against the kalam cosmological argument.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I'll argue that Pro cannot show that the premises of the argument are true, and that's about it. Pro will begin their argument in this opening round, and then not post a response in round four.
Wyattcodered

Pro

First off I want to thank Miles_Donahue's

I will like to start with what made it begin to exist? Then what caused it to exist? Its still the same issue of every cosmological argument. We can understand the why question inside are own universe because we live in it and we know most everyday objects know. Most of the time this Theory is agreed by Religious person (may not be you) if you are that gives the why reason to if it exist or not. That has issues in itself if God even exist, to a religious person he does to a skeptic he doesn't. I am a religious person and I still struggle with the first point. We can only look at universe with a telescope witch only gives us a certain vision. We Humans now can only measure what we see and not what we cant. What I mean by this is humans cant physically see the outside of the universe. Therefore we can only measure what is inside the universe or where we can see through tools. What leads to the question of when the the universe start and was the earth just the current form adding anther planet.

the second point this statement is blank and leaves for lots of questions. How did it exist what happened for it to exist lots of times this theory was used to support a reason for God. This was first used by the Greeks and giving a reason for their god Zeus by Aristotle himself. Later made popular again by William Lane Craig to give a reason for God. It call comes back on giving a reason for God. If the Theory even exist the only thing it proves is that the universe exist and not what caused it. Plus even if accepted it doesn't support Theism, or any other words it debunks the first cause to its own agreement. Just using the agreement itself leaves for lots of wholes and any scientist what uses has to include other augments to prove its point. The issue of the wording it self is it creates a Equivocation Fallacy as it changes from two different definitions first being in sentence two a Scientific one while in sentence three it uses a Colloquial one. It switches from matter in space to everything that exist, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. In other words it does something no sound augment should every do.

In Round two I will agree how else this augment does not work therefore not a sound agreement. Again thank you and hope to have a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Miles_Donahue

Con

My opponent's comments contradict the position he agreed to argue for. He should've argued for the soundness of the KCA, but he argued against it.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
I can argue for the soundness of the kalam cosmological arguement
Posted by Miles_Donahue 1 year ago
Miles_Donahue
Just sent a debate challenge your way.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
I can argue for the soundness of the kalam cosmological arguement
Posted by Wyattcodered 1 year ago
Wyattcodered
@Miles_Donahue sorry about that
Posted by Miles_Donahue 1 year ago
Miles_Donahue
@Wyattcodered, we need to cancel this debate. You are supposed to argue for the soundness of the KCA, not against it.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 1 year ago
Miles_Donahue
@Wyattcodered, Big Bang cosmology would be evidence for premise (2), so it falls within the preview of the debate. Is tha what you mean?
Posted by Wyattcodered 1 year ago
Wyattcodered
@Miles_Donahue i am interested in accepting this debate. Want to make sure I understand where I can argue. Would I be arguing on a separate theory like the Big Bang?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What would be any cause to cause anything if that cause was not caused by a cause that had no cause to exist..Could link to Hawkings.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
Interesting. I will check in here often
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.