The Instigator
Jedi4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ra88
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

This gay bathhouse would state: 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ra88
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2014 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 60758
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Jedi4

Pro

First round for accept
Ra88

Con

I gladly accept to refute the famous Kalam Cosmological Argument and thank my opponent jeddi4 for issuing this challenge. I would be a bit more happier if the instigator had issued this challenge under the 'Religion' category than posting it in 'Places-Travel' category, maybe it was a mistake. I have yet not debated in this forum until when I am typing this sentence. I once again thank my opponent for issuing this challenge and wish him all the best.
Debate Round No. 1
Jedi4

Pro

Okayyyyyyyayayayakay.

The KCA cosmological argument states the following premise things.

Premise 1: Everyting that began to exist had a cause

Basicly this is saything that sh1t don't come from nothin.

Premise 2: The Universe had a cause.

I didn't always exist, it began to exist.

Premise 3: The universe had a cause.

Then we gots our sub premises

Premise 4: That causes is god
Premise 3c.4L>0: God must exist to be the cause
Premise -1^2: God exists.

D: God is real.

We know these premises are true if we look within ourselves and outside our selves.

The Defense of the first premise of the KCA cosmologigical argument

Nothing is nothing. Sh1t don't come from it. Because it is nothing. We see this all the time. We see that star wars, herpez, ketchup, demons, burning children, rape ect all have the cause,

We all want p1 to be true. Otherwise we'll be sitting down on our beds thinking about the womens and then a razor blade would appear in our throughts and kill us (uhhh noo :( or we would be laying down and then we just have herpees.

Since we know herpees has a cause i know that b1tch charline gave me it. F*cking charline, she told me she was clean wtf? I was going to ask her to marry me then she f*cking runs off with herpees infecting more victims. B1tch should be shot. B1tches aint sh1t but hoes and tricks.

The defense of the second premise of the KCA cosmolgoical argument

An infinite series of events is illogical and stupid and homophobic. Lets say I tell you I will give you an ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top. In order to get this ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top you must murder a person. You murder that person and I do not give you the ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top. I tell you you have to murder an infinite amount of people to get the ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top. Would you ever get the ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top? No because you can never murder an infinite amount of people, thus no ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top. BTW, I would've never offered a ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top, because a ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top is too good to resist. I would however kill for a ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top. So if you have one name a target.

The present point of the universe is like this ice cream cake brownie with frosting and chocolite with creamy filling and with whip cream on top. We can never get to it if theres an infinite series of events.

The defense of the third premise in the argument were debating called the kca cosmolgoical argument

It follows from the other two.


Premise 4: That causes is god

This is known cuz the universe is materal finite and temporal. The cause must be imaterial, infinite and not within time. Then how could it be the cause? THere must be a will, if theres a will theres a mind, if theres a mind theres a god if theres a god, then he exist, if he exists im right, if im right ive fulfilled my BOP.

Defense of the Premise 3c.4L>0 of the KCA cosmological argument

This is known by definition. Yu cant act if you dont exist.

Premise -1^2: God exists.

THen we get our D:


D: GOd exists.

Ra88

Con

To be frank, I was really irritated to go through the entire thing not because of your sh*t and your b*tch but because of your inability to frame an argument. In fact the argument is already there on the internet and you just have to defend it but it's OK if you are new to this and I'll take the challenge anyway.

//Premise 1: Everyting that began to exist had a cause//
This premise talks about the past and since we are dealing with the origin of the Universe which took place in the past., the first premise can still be used to arrive at the desired conclusion but the correct and the formal statement for the first premise is "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." or "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". Here you make the premise time independent thus making it more flexible to use it in your argument.

Refutation to the First Premise:
The first premise cannot be considered as an absolutely true statement. The principle of causality is applicable within the Universe, you have no justification for the assertion that it is applicable to the Universe itself. Now consider our Universe to be a part of some another mUniverse whose laws are different and the ' cause and effect ' principle is not applicable there, so our Universe came into existence just because it is part of that mUniverse without any actual cause as required by mUniverse.

//Premise 2: The Universe had a cause.//
This is not the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument, but rather the first part of the conclusion which you have stated as the third premise. I see no difference between you second and your third premise The formal and the correct second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, " The Universe had a beginning". As I see that your explanation in which you are trying to defend the second premise is based on the formal one and not the one which you have put here, I'll try to refute the formal one.

Refutation to the Second Premise:
//An infinite series of events is illogical //
How do you justify this? The Universe had a beginning at Big Bang and has General Relativity predicted time itself started at Big Bang. Given that the big bang actually happened, it only implies that our Universe existed for a finite amount of time and not that it had a beginning. Since General Relativity does not work in Planck's time (10 ^ -43 s) , the space time collapses at that point so we cannot be certain if the Universe actually had a beginning since we do not have any theory right now to find out what happened within the Planck's scale and this could be achieved once we are able to unify Relativity and Quantum theory to form quantum gravity on which scientists are working hard for many years. Since time is irrelevant within the singularity, it is very much possible that the Universe existed forever within the singularity before 13.7 billion years ago.
Dr. William Lane Craig, the most famous defendant of the argument, puts forth another argument to depend the second premise which goes like this-
P1). An actual infinite cannot exist.
P2).An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
C). Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Since he is aware that Einstein's Relativity and time dilation is incompatible with the second premise, he has denounced the theory of Relativity and has become an anti-Einsteinian. Any science enthusiast will be knowing how important Relativity is and its contribution in the exploring of our Universe in the past hundred years.

//Premise 3: The universe had a cause.//
This is actually the first conclusion which is supposed to be derived from the first two premises and I'll consider it as a statement because it is yet to serve as a premise until we are not dealing with the second conclusion which you have put forth as the fourth premise here.

Refutation to the third statement:
The closest nothingness known to human beings is the empty space which comprises of quantum vacuum which has fluctuation of quantum energies. So we cannot be sure if there is any absolute nothingness to assert that the Universe has a cause and began to exist from the state of being absolutely nothing.
Nevertheless this statement is still not valid if you are able to defend the first two premises.

//Premise 4: That causes is god
Premise 3c.4L>0: God must exist to be the cause
Premise -1^2: God exists.//
I fail to see the meaning of the symbols "3c.4L>0" and " -1^2:". This is actually the second conclusion which is suppose to be derived form the first two premises and the first conclusion. This conclusion in itself provides no justification how one can logically move from "cause" to "god" nor it can be derived from the previous three statements like the first conclusion is derived from the first two premises. But you have tried to justify it later and I'll counter argue on that. I'll consider this as the fourth statement.

Refutation to the fourth statement:
So from my refutation to the second premise, we are not sure if the Universe actually had a beginning and it could be simply existing because of the assumed mUniverse which is timeless thus requiring no beginning from our perspective or the Universe could have existed forever within the singularity which is also timeless. if you say that it had beginning and god is the cause then you are yet to provide reasons why god cannot have a beginning. So both stand on equal ground, and if you still insist that god existed forever then you are committing 'Special pleading fallacy' by ignoring my position which has equal possibility. But by applying 'Occam's Razor' (which says that while selecting a hypothesis one with fewest assumptions should be selected) I can safely assume or consider it as the most probable scenario that our Universe existed forever because we have evidence for the existence of our Universe but not for the existence of god.

//D: God is real.
We know these premises are true if we look within ourselves and outside our selves.//
This is irrelevant to the argument. I have agreed to debate only on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and not on how I feel when I look inside or outside of my self.
Debate Round No. 2
Jedi4

Pro

Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Ra88

Con

Apparently my opponent has forfeited the third round. Looking forward for his refutation in the fourth round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jedi4

Pro

Inability to frame an argument? Bro, I framed it better than a f*cking photographer.

In defense of the first premise of the KAram.

I have given a justification of the first premise based on ex nihlo nilhlo fits. The principle of causality is not only physical, its metaphysical. I got metaphysical all up in this b1tch, not just physical.

The Karam Thats the asain kalam Cosmloigcla kca argument premise 2 and my defense of it.

If time stated, then youre condeding the second premise. Also I justify this via the impoosiblilt of an infinite. Enstien's relatvity may imply a block theory of the times, but God could create the block. No problemo senior.

Premise three of the american Kalam cosmological argument that the universe had a cause and that cause is God and my defense of this premise

The other two premises are awesome. Also quantum vaccum is something, you cannt say its nothing otherwise youll say tigers and root bear are nothing. Which would be silly billy. LOL.

Premise 12

You fail to see meaning because you failed basic math. You base your criteq on your critic of the second premise which by definition is true. You failed up

D: Holds and doesn't suck.







Ra88

Con

Ra88 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
give this to rational thinker
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Jedi4Ra88Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct here for Pro's behavior, rather than his forfeit, since Con also forfeited. But Pro's trolling, frankly, lacks any panache, and he failed to justify his case in any meaningful fashion. Con, by contrast, made the mistake of thinking that Pro was going to debate seriously; he went through and rebutted what Pro presented as his case. Welcome to the site, Con, I hope you stay. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.