The Instigator
Cogito-ergo-sum
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

W.L. Craig's formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,302 times Debate No: 12373
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

Cogito-ergo-sum

Pro

Good day to my opponent KRFournier, good day readers and debaters.

I have created this debate as KRF's debate with Geo [1] intrigued me when I read his argument with KCA[2] as his example of a Pro theory for God. I would first like it to be noted that Kalam[3] itself is founded within Islamic Theology. As per the link it did spread in medievil Europe/Asia to both Christians and Islamists; it is however initially grounded in discourse between those of the Islamic faith in regards to Allah and not the Christian God of the Bible. By religious accounts these two gods are not the same individual, they have invoked different customs, ways of worship etc, I find it odd that Christianity found it convenient to cherry pick this theological principal from a rival faith and adopt it for themselves.

From a Christian standpoint, it appears obvious that KCA fails due to Genesis 1:1 [4]
Now, 'In the beginning' leads to some implications when talking about an initial cause for something to occur. The word 'beginning' [5] itself is the downfall for KCA, as you can see on point 5 re noun, origin; source; first cause. This means that 'in the beginning something happened and God was there all of a sudden. It must mean this. Otherwise Gen 1:1 would read 'Some time after the beginning God....'. Doesn't Gen 1:1 record in biblical terms, the start of everything ever? Doesn't Gen 1:1 offer up the notion of a Big Bang?

Your thoughts KRF?

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
KRFournier

Con

The prepositional phrase, "In the beginning," modifies the verb, "created." It was the creation that occurred in the beginning, not God. God is the subject, the one doing the creating. The objects are the heavens and earth. The phrase "the heavens" is generally understood to mean the cosmos as we know it, not Heaven the afterlife. [1] So, from this sentence alone, we can get the following information: at the beginning of something, God created the universe.

What is the beginning being referred to? Well, if the cosmos didn't exist until this moment, then the best deduction is that the beginning refers to the beginning of time and space. At any rate, the least logical interpretation is that God began at this moment. By placing God as the subject, the hidden assumption is that God already was. Indeed, by taking the rest of the bible into account (context is key), we see that God is defined as eternal and transcending his creation. God and his creation are separate. In Ephesians, God is described as "over all and through all and in all." [2] Note that God is not all and all is not God. God is distinct.

Christian doctrine is logically compatible with KCA, as the beginning described in Genesis does not refer to God but the universe. Therefore, There is no basis to affirm the resolution that "W.L. Craig's formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed."

SOURCES
1. http://strongsnumbers.com...
2. http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Where does it say in a holy book, that the beginning and end means the beginning of us and the end of us? Religious people try foolishly to get a new meaning from certain religious texts - What God meant to say was......nonsense.
Posted by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
nah. it's not a contradiction, it's a paradox. beginning and end means - the beginning of us, and the end of us. he set all things in motion and he will end all things in time.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Well that is a contradiction - Eternal and Infinite + Beginning and the End = God. I think there is a flaw in your theory on God. It either has to be one or the other.
Posted by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
scripture again and again calls god eternal and infinite... what more do you need to show he existed before the beginning. it also says he is the beginning and the end - i know divine revelation isn't something you believe in, but maybe God revealed to us before science did that man lives inside of time and space
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
@ KRF

Or lists him to be elsewhere from the heavens and earth, without contradicting omnipresence.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
@ KRF

'Christian theology is based in the accepted Bible.' - Which says nothing of Time and Space, but does, explicity and without quivocation, state when things began. Please show me the scripture that places God before the beginning.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Your alluding to God being very seperate from the Heavens and the Earth seem to directly conflict with a few pieces of scripture -
Jeremiah 23:23,24
Psalm 139:7-10
I Kings 8:27
I just don't understand how a Christian can make the claim of God being Omnipresent and to then turn on a dime and state 'but God is sepearate from all things in our material realm'.
Posted by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
Uh, accepting and being aware that definitions of key terms are mutual between both parties is distinct from accepting premises that a theist assumes to be plainly obvious.
Posted by KRFournier 6 years ago
KRFournier
It doesn't really matter since the issue was about reconciling theology with KCA. Christian theology is based in the accepted Bible. Whether Ephesians should be a source for biblical doctrine is a whole other matter.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Not sure I would have chosen Ephesians since isn't it now credited as 'deutero-Pauline'?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
Cogito-ergo-sumKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Wayfarer 6 years ago
Wayfarer
Cogito-ergo-sumKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
Cogito-ergo-sumKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03