The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Thirteen
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

You need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 36684
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

Mikal

Con

Pro will take on the BOP in this debate and show that you need or have to have a God in order to explain how the universe began.

Definition of God that we will be debating.

God - 1. A Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.

Generally the God accepted as the Christian God, and accepting everything the bible entails would be ideal. We are not arguing the concept of what people may think a God is, but rather what God is accepted to be by most. The creator of the universe and a all powerful omnipotent being.

Pro will argue that without a God there is no way to explain how the universe began, and take on the BOP in this discussion.

I will argue that you do not need a God in order to explain the beginning on the universe.

Rules

R1 Con: This is my R1 and is simply the rules of the debate
R1 Pro : Since he will agree to take on the BOP, Pro will start to build his own case here

R2 Con: I will establish my own case and may offer rebuttals to pros argument to help build on my own.
R2 Pro : Rebuttals and closing statements. He will refute my points and crystallize his own. He will then offer closing statements

R3 Con: I will offer rebuttals to pros points and crystallize my own as well. I will then offer closing statements.
R3 Pro: He will simply type "no round as agreed upon ", and this will end the debate.
Thirteen

Pro

Argument of Pro: Why the universe cannot be explained without God.

The structure of my argument will be thus:
-The Big Bang Theory
-Origins of Life
-Nature of Mankind

1. If we examine the very beginning of the universe, we are left with the five most simple and basic questions. Who or What? How? When? Where? Why? It is these questions that I would argue the answer points to God. For the sake of time and to get directly to the points, my focus will be on two of the five questions. How and why?

"How", in particular, strives to achieve an answer with solid evidence. How do stars and planets form? How did the dinosaurs die? How did humans become the dominant species on this planet? All questions that we have gathered evidence on in an attempt to answer. From the launching of the Spitzer telescope to Darwin's first observation of finches. From observation, experimentation, and reason, we form answers.

But how did it start? What triggered the Big Bang? How was it that everything within our world came from seemingly nothing? There is an infinite complex. No matter how deep we delve into the building blocks of our universe, there will always remain cause and effect. Therefore, beyond each effect we see, there is a cause. I argue that the ultimate cause is God. Such complexity and structure could not be birthed by randomness.

2. Evolution has taught us a great deal about life. But the one key feature that it misses is its own foundation. How did life begin? It is argued that all of the ingredients needed to begin life were on the planet. That can't be proven however. It is no more than a logical hypothesis established upon a branching theory that is working to become a theory of its own. Even with the ingredients, how did they combine perfectly to become form the first cell? How did the vast amounts of data suddenly establish itself in the DNA?

Hypothesis upon hypothesis have been established, and none of them illogical. However, mathematics is just as much a part of our world as science. And math tells us that with each divergent explanation of the origins of life, and with each reverse engineering process, the odds monumentally increase against randomness.

Anyone can form a hypothesis to explain an event. All you need is an idea and circumstantial evidence gathered from a related theory. But at which time does it become more prudent and more logical to say that a structure and a design exists? Is it not just as logical when observing the universe around us?

3. My final point turns the attention upon ourselves. The ability, capacity, and self-awareness to be conscious of the purpose or non-purpose of our existence. The very idea that we consider the existence of a Creator in many ways establishes that one exists. Mankind has always looked for a purpose and a reason. I do not think this is a weakness or coping mechanism. I think this is a result of the reason we exist. To do exactly that. To look, to explore, to try and find out why.

The question of why goes on eternally. It can never stop being asked, and we as a species are obsessed with its fulfillment. The Bible has a great description in its first book, during the story of creation. It says that God created us to be like him. Genesis 1:26-27. I believe that we are akin to God, less evolved, but related. We are the only creatures that use reason and continue to evolve to this day. We advance. The rest of the nature appears to be at rest and in balance.

I would argue that our obsession with structure is not a flaw in our mental capacity. I argue that it is key to our continued advancement. I would argue that we see structure because there is structure.

I conclude my beginning argument. I look forward to Con's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

I would like to thank my adversary for taking this debate. I will offer some key points to show that we do not need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe. As agreed upon by my opponent he is taking on the BOP to show that in fact we do need a God in order to explain how the universe came to be.

First Contention

Something from nothing.

I will offer a direct quote from my adversary because this ties directly into the point I am making. He states this

"But how did it start? What triggered the Big Bang? How was it that everything within our world came from seemingly nothing? There is an infinite complex. No matter how deep we delve into the building blocks of our universe, there will always remain cause and effect. Therefore, beyond each effect we see, there is a cause. I argue that the ultimate cause is God. Such complexity and structure could not be birthed by randomness."


For all of those who do not read these type of debates on a regular basis, this is a version of the KCA or Kalam Cosmological argument. The KCA states this

Everything that exists has a cause
The universe exists
Therefore the Universe has a cause
The most obvious cause is God(this is added by some Christians)


So for me to break this down, we need to look at the main question. Can something come from nothing? We first need to define the two types of nothing that often get brought up in these debates.

Nothing as know it now - operates under the laws of physics and science that we have available at this moment.
Nothing that existed before time - This is saying that what is nothing now, was not the nothing before the universe

The second can be automatically removed from this argument. It is scientifically impossible to prove, and is counter intuitive. If you say the nothing that we now know, is not the nothing that existed before the creation of the universe then we are assuming that all the laws of science came into fruition when the big bag occurred. The law of general relativity, law of thermodynamics, etc. So if we define nothing this way, it is quite possible to assume that there is a possibility that the universe could arise from nothing because there are variables at play that we do not know about. This is the most logical assumption and is far easier to arrive at than adding a God into the mix. Even if my adversary where to argue that this is the same line of logic that someone could support a God with, I could classify it as a logical assumption using the same line of logic that he uses to support that God. Since he bears the BOP, it would be on him to show that his theory is more sound that mine.

Now lets look at the nothing that we know about now. If he were to state that the nothing then is the same type of nothing as we know now, then all we would have to do is show that something can come from nothing at this present point in time. Is this entirely or logically possible? Doctor Lawrence Krauss has written and entire book on this, and is quite percise with showing that something can actually come from nothing.

For me to break this down there has to be a small lesson in physics. There are two types of physics. Classical mechanics which operates on the scale of atoms, and quantum which goes below that scale. This entire essential argument would entail that quantum fluctuations can produce energy and matter. So on extremely small scales nothing is a bubbling, boiling, brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can't see them. Check the youtube video here >>>>( http://www.youtube.com...), this demonstrates this as a projection. This depiction won the Nobel Prize, and shows that in the empty space in between the quarks of an atom, particles are spawning in and out of existence. In addtion to this the large hadron collider is trying to mimic the conditions in which the universe came into existence, and is working on a way to measure dark matter. Some people even worry what would happen if it actually manages to produce the same conditions in which the universe actually spawned.

http://www.lhc.ac.uk...


Contention 2

The type of Universe in Which we live

We can live in a open,flat, or closed universe, this is depicted below.








An closed universe would have positive curvature, a flat would have 0 and a open would have negative. This is all in euclidean terms. If we look at it further from this perspective, knowing what type of universe we live in would tell us the ending. If we lived in a closed, the universe would in the end re-collapse upon itself. Both an open and flat are infinite in spacial extent, the only difference is that in a flat universe the rate of expansion would slow down at some point. To sum this argument up in a nutshell we have to live in a flat universe because it is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Since this is the case, we are operating under the same laws of physics which allow quantum fluctuations to happen and which could allow a universe to come from nothing.

http://old.richarddawkins.net...



Contention 3

Occam's Razor

This basically states

""If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

Look at it like this, Occam's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation, so if the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary. We can also say that creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way, but creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, should be eliminated.



Rebuttal 1

"Evolution has taught us a great deal about life. But the one key feature that it misses is its own foundation. How did life begin? It is argued that all of the ingredients needed to begin life were on the planet"

This would be after the Big Bang and overall not relevant to the topic at hand, but I will address this shortly anyway.

Lawrence Krauss says this best "If you find comfort in anything, find comfort in the fact you are made of stardust. Christians may say Christ died so that you can be here, but we have to accept reality, stars died so that you can exist today"

What I am gathering from this is that you are calling evolution a theory and then state that there is no possible way to prove it. Which in a way is true. Evolution is a theory and there is no way to recreate the conditions of how the first cell came into existence in a laboratory. We do have a multitude of facts that support evolution. Multitudes upon multitudes of facts that back this theory up. So much so that the catholic church adopted this and accepted it as a common belief. Most trained Catholics will openly admit evolution is a fact. Since there is such strong evidence to support it, it is hard to deny. If you say it is not iron clad you are using a Gap argument, well to be honest even going further.

As to how the first cell was formed, it is a mix of random combination of particles, patterns, and variables. A thousand different dice roll and chances of something actually forming a living molecule. A study says this

"It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids (Figure 1.2). Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Rebuttal 2

"The very idea that we consider the existence of a Creator in many ways establishes that one exists"

This is a fallacy and you can justify anything with this logic. Due to the fact we consider the existence of santa claus and how long he has been around and will always be around, he therefore exists. You could even replace God with the cookie monster and by that logic, it would be a working theory.


In closing

My adversary has shown no evidence to support the fact we need to a God to explain the creation of the universe. I have shown that it is possible for the universe to come into existence without a God and cited various theories and sources to prove so. He has operated off mere personal belief and assumptions and has not met his BOP in this debate. I await his next round. Thank you
Thirteen

Pro

I apologize for branching off in my argument and bringing in evolutionary theory into play. I will narrow my argument to better fit the topic and focus on the birth of the universe.

As to the argument of what nothing is, I will quote Con below on his definitions of nothing:
"Nothing as know it now - operates under the laws of physics and science that we have available at this moment."
"Nothing that existed before time - This is saying that what is nothing now, was not the nothing before the universe"

-Rebuttal: My argument would be that the first definition should not be categorized as a definition of "nothing" since there is indeed something there. Particles that seemingly pop in and out of existence are existing, and therefore not accurately cast as nothing. I believe it folly to call what we can examine "nothing". I use this argument to in refute to the quantum physics lesson Con went on to demonstrate.

To further the second explanation of what "nothing" is, I will again quote Con and refute:
"The second can be automatically removed from this argument. It is scientifically impossible to prove, and is counter intuitive. If you say the nothing that we now know, is not the nothing that existed before the creation of the universe then we are assuming that all the laws of science came into fruition when the big bag occurred. The law of general relativity, law of thermodynamics, etc. So if we define nothing this way, it is quite possible to assume that there is a possibility that the universe could arise from nothing because there are variables at play that we do not know about. This is the most logical assumption and is far easier to arrive at than adding a God into the mix. Even if my adversary where to argue that this is the same line of logic that someone could support a God with, I could classify it as a logical assumption using the same line of logic that he uses to support that God. Since he bears the BOP, it would be on him to show that his theory is more sound that mine."

-Rebuttal: Many things are scientifically impossible to prove, but we explore their possibilities as a part of vital investigation to answer the mysteries within our time. Thoughts about what existed before the universe have been thought of from Plato onward. Top Down Causation for instance is exploring this very frontier.

A couple of references to Top Down Causation:
http://humbleapproach.templeton.org...

And if you have a lot of time on your hands see the youtube links:

Top Down Causation makes an attempt to examine the patterns, and the complexity of everything around us. It sees the cause and does not ignore it as irrelevant. Cause is as much a part as effect. If we examine the effects of the universe so closely, why do we not examine the cause? One who believes that the universe birthed itself, irrationally turns a blind eye to cause. Cause, does not matter, only effect. I argue that this is an illogical view of the universe. Cause is not to be ignored.

My opponent has tried to use what we can see and study within the universe to prove that it can exist without God. I refute this because all that we can see within our universe is malleable. Sapce-time itself can be bent to extremes. Everything we see here is a product of one event, one explosion. What existed before the event is unknown, but investigating the patterns and trying to not only use our current logical processes, but also extend those very processes to search for answers. Patterns, designs, and the echo of the causes from top to bottom should not be ignored by simply tossing around Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor has been too often over-extended. It is a useful guideline meant to streamline scientific findings, not a law. We must advance with and beyond Occam's Razor.

I close my argument. My opponent has provided weak suggestion that the universe does not need a God. I have provided actual theory that it patterns and Top Down Causation does. To step beyond the argument, most of us are sensible enough to know that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. From the beginning, Con has asked the impossible of the Pro to prove that which cannot be proven, and has suggested that he should win by default if the I cannot. I prefer a fair argument that asks equally of the participants. I urge a vote for Pro.

I thank my opponent for a well organized debate. My response in the third round will be no response at all but to say "No round as agreed upon."
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

Rebuttal 1

"My argument would be that the first definition should not be categorized as a definition of "nothing"

You can not say this type of "nothing" is not "nothing". By the very definition of nothing, we know this to not be true. When you stand out at sunrise and look out at a cascading background and you see just the sun setting. You could say "nothing" is there but the sun. Whether or not there is matter and particles within the air, empty space is still nothing. If you are standing still and a hamburger popped of of the air in front of you, you would say" that came from nothing". What we do not know or can not know is what laws in which the universe operated under when the big bang occurred. We can logically assume things but there is no way to rule out this nothing as the nothing that existed prior to the big bang

As far as refuting the quantum physics argument or brief definition i gave, your argument does not refute anything.

Classical and quantum mechanics are real and bear the definitions which I have shown. That is like saying, I don't want to believe the sun is bright. You can chose not to believe that quantum physics in fact operates under the scale of atoms, but it is an objective fact. I have even shown where the theory that supported fluctuations and patterns that can arrive from nothing won the Nobel prize. If this were not a true statement, it would be illogical in itself to think the theory made it to the level in which in did. This is also supportd by a multitude of stuides in which I cited. I will even cite some more to show that this in an objective fact

https://www.simonsfoundation.org...
http://www.thenational.ae...
http://old.richarddawkins.net...



Rebuttal 2

"Many things are scientifically impossible to prove, but we explore their possibilities as a part of vital investigation to answer the mysteries within our time. Thoughts about what existed before the universe have been thought of from Plato onward. Top Down Causation for instance is exploring this very frontier."

He states that the definition of nothing that I gave for the second definition and which is the definition that he classifies as nothing could be a possibility. This is entirely the case but proves my point. Let's assume like my adversary thinks that all the laws of physics and mechanics came into existence at the big bang. This could also be a possibility, but so could the fact that the laws in which we operate under now, existed prior to the big bang. For arguments sake lets say hes right, and the nothing before the big bang is a different nothing. We can draw two logical assumptions from this idea

(1) God made the universe

(2) Something can come from nothing.


So now I ask you this, which would be the most logical? I have already shown that the nothing that we now know can produce particles and matter from no where. Is it such a giant step to assume that even if the nothing before the big bang operated under a set of different laws, that the same possibility might occur. If we can produce something from nothing now, it is quite logical to think the same thing could occur under a different set of laws.

The one thing we know for sure is that what ever set of laws we were operating under, it does not give credibility to the idea of a God. Even if the laws of physics as we know it were shifted and changed, this would only change some of the rules in how the universe operates. This would not give evidence for a God, it would just change the variables around us.

That is where we can invoke Occam s razor. If something is logically sound, there is no need to add a different variable to the mix. This is still a gap argument no matter how we look at it and bears this line of thought that I often point out

Sammy is a turtle
Turtles are green
Therefore Sammy is green

This is an accurate observation but is incorrect because it does not take into consideration all the variables that could play a factor in what color a turtle is.

The point I was making in my original stance is this. If we insert God into this definition of nothing and claim that he made the universe, we could insert any variable in place of God and the theory would still work. (I)(we)(it)(santa)(tom cruise)(jesus)(allah) made the universe. No matter which variable we put in there, the theory still remains the same and is illogical no matter how we look at it.

Rebuttal 3

Top Down causation / fine tuning

"Top Down Causation makes an attempt to examine the patterns, and the complexity of everything around us. It sees the cause and does not ignore it as irrelevant. Cause is as much a part as effect. If we examine the effects of the universe so closely, why do we not examine the cause? One who believes that the universe birthed itself, irrationally turns a blind eye to cause. Cause, does not matter, only effect. I argue that this is an illogical view of the universe. Cause is not to be ignored."

Since this was very vague and did not offer much evidence, I am going to assume his view on this is similar to the KCA. He is stating because of what we can examine around us within the universe, why not examine the cause. Then the next logical step he takes is to assume the cause is a God.

This also bears a huge similarity to the fine tuning argument for God. Life and the universe is fine tuned, and if anything changed by (x) value we would not exist. So the most logical assumption is God. This seems to be the line of thought with this statement he has presented.

This line of logic bears a few major flaws. One of which is that the argument depends on regarding humans as “special”, as though a universe without humans would be improper in some way. Thus the argument is simply illogical in some ways and takes as an axiom (that is what we consider to be that humans are "special") and uses that for what it aims to prove. Just because we think we are special, does not mean we are special to the universe.

A recent study says this

"Entities that are peculiar to and characteristic of their environment are exactly what you would expect from non-intelligent, natural processes. Intelligent design could produce either outcome: inhabitants that are well-fitted to their environment or inhabitants that are not (as in zoos). Non-intelligent processes could only produce the former. Thus, the fact that the universe appears to be “fine tuned” to produce its inhabitants is a direct prediction of atheism, but not of theism. Thus the fine-tuning argument actually argues for an atheistic universe."

Who says the universe is tuned for life? As far as we know, intelligent life only occurs in one to the billions of the universes around us. It’s not the case that the universe is teeming with life, is it? If someone intelligent were going to design a universe to host life, they could do a way better job than by inventing our universe.

The fact is we are just one species in millions and millions that evolved to the point where we could actually wonder why. At some point our galaxy will collide with another and we will be extinct just like most of the other species within the universe. This universe is not fined tuned for us, we are here by sheer probability and chance as evolution shows us.

He wants to exam the cause, and the cause is quite simple. mathematical probability is the only reason we exist, and the main reason that we have to believe we exist.



In closing

My adversary has not met his BOP and has not shown that a God in fact does exist. He has provided assumptions that he concludes are logical in order to support his statement. I have shown how something can come from nothing, and how this is an objective fact. With this being true I think the most viable conclusion that we can draw is that we do not need a God in order to explain how the universe began.

Thirteen

Pro

No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
diddo man, i enjoyed it :)
Posted by Thirteen 3 years ago
Thirteen
Thanks for a well-argued debate, Mikal. It's my first one on this site, and I had fun with it.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Did you really not just read anything I just typed. I said It was the version adopted by Craig and I just cited that it directly states that "God is the cause of the universe".

Which is why I worded it this way. I am going to leave it with that. I feel like a broken record because I am saying the same thing over and over again and it is just flying by you lol.

I know what the original KCA states which is why I did not make the debate "The KCA is sound", or "The KCA is not sound" I wanted someone to take on Craig's argument and try to provide validity to it.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Did you really not just read anything I just typed. I said It was the version adopted by Craig and I just cited that it directly states that "God is the cause of the universe".

Which is why I worded it this way. I am going to leave it with that. I feel like a broken record because I am saying the same thing over and over again and it is just flying by you lol.

I know what the original KCA states which is why I did not make the debate "The KCA is sound", or "The KCA is not sound" I wanted someone to take on Craig's argument and try to provide validity to it.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Well if you wanted to debate the KCA you should have said that. See the KCA is not used in order to explain the beginning. It is used to explain that which begins. There is a difference.

Second, the KCA is not used to prove a perfect God exists or a good God exists. This is how you define God. NO one should accept this debate because everyone reasonable knows that the KCA CANNOT prove that the cause of the universe is good. So you are setting up the debate in such a way that you are debating a straw man.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Dear God that is why I said the one adopted by Craig and it does specifically state you need a God in order to explain it. I worded it in the way that I wanted to debate it.

Stole this from wiki because I am to lazy to get into this before the debate starts. The second is a quote from his site.

"The KCA by William Craig is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of a god."

"William Lane Craig advances an argument for the existence of God in The Kalam Cosmological Argument (London: Macmillan, 1979). In his book, Craig argues that since the universe began to exist, the efficient cause of the universe's existence must have been God. His modern version of the kalam cosmological argument-first formulated by the Mutakallimun, the Muslim scholastics of the ninth century-rests on empirical arguments as well as a priori considerations that an actual infinite is impossible.1 Since an actual infinite is impossible, Craig argues, the universe must therefore be finite in time. In other words, the universe must have begun to exist, and God is therefor the cause"

This is all I am putting because I don't want to have a mini debate in the comment section.

I set the wording for this in direct reference to his version of the KCA. If you do not want to take it, feel free not to take it. If i wanted to change the wording I would have, I am well aware of what I stated and why.

I am not debating the original KCA, but how some people justify the new version of it.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Dear God that is why I said the one adopted by Craig and it does specifically state you need a God in order to explain it. I worded it in the way that I wanted to debate it.

Stole this from wiki because I am to lazy to get into this before the debate starts. The second is a quote from his site.

"The KCA by William Craig is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of a god."

"William Lane Craig advances an argument for the existence of God in The Kalam Cosmological Argument (London: Macmillan, 1979). In his book, Craig argues that since the universe began to exist, the efficient cause of the universe's existence must have been God. His modern version of the kalam cosmological argument-first formulated by the Mutakallimun, the Muslim scholastics of the ninth century-rests on empirical arguments as well as a priori considerations that an actual infinite is impossible.1 Since an actual infinite is impossible, Craig argues, the universe must therefore be finite in time. In other words, the universe must have begun to exist, and God is therefor the cause"

This is all I am putting because I don't want to have a mini debate in the comment section.

I set the wording for this in direct reference to his version of the KCA. If you do not want to take it, feel free not to take it. If i wanted to change the wording I would have, I am well aware of what I stated and why.

I am not debating the original KCA, but how some people justify the new version of it.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Dear God that is why I said the one adopted by Craig and it does specifically state you need a God in order to explain it. I worded it in the way that I wanted to debate it.

Stole this from wiki because I am to lazy to get into this before the debate starts. The second is a quote from his site.

"The KCA by William Craig is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of a god."

"William Lane Craig advances an argument for the existence of God in The Kalam Cosmological Argument (London: Macmillan, 1979). In his book, Craig argues that since the universe began to exist, the efficient cause of the universe's existence must have been God. His modern version of the kalam cosmological argument-first formulated by the Mutakallimun, the Muslim scholastics of the ninth century-rests on empirical arguments as well as a priori considerations that an actual infinite is impossible.1 Since an actual infinite is impossible, Craig argues, the universe must therefore be finite in time. In other words, the universe must have begun to exist, and God is therefor the cause"

This is all I am putting because I don't want to have a mini debate in the comment section.

I set the wording for this in direct reference to his version of the KCA. If you do not want to take it, feel free not to take it. If i wanted to change the wording I would have, I am well aware of what I stated and why.

I am not debating the original KCA, but how some people justify the new version of it.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
But then this is a debate over the KCA not over what you said originally. It is not over whether or not you need God to explain the beginning, its about whether or not you need God to explain the universe itself GIVEN that it has a beginning. So it needs to be reworded

Also, the KCA does not prove an all-perfect God in any way either in goodness, power, etc. No one claims that it does
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Read the KCA as adopted by Craig, It is the bare foundation of this debate.

1. Everything that exists must have a cause
2. The universe exists
3. Therefore the universe must have a cause.

It just goes further to state, that there is logical evidence to support that there is a God.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
MikalThirteenTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments represented a lack of understanding of scientific concepts such as evolution and big bang theory, as well as a fundamental lack of comprehension of the scientific method, evidenced by A) suggesting that the theory of evolution fails to explain abiogenesis, B) suggesting that big bang theory fails to explain the complexity of the universe, and C) suggesting that a hypothesis is as spontaneously formed as inventing an idea and matching it to circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, much of Pro's argument is based on unfounded statements (e.g. 'mathematics...divergent...randomness) and uses of personal opinion as arguments ("I think the best answer is God"). Accordingly, arguments is awarded to Con. Reliable sources is awarded to Con because he had more than one non-video source. I do not consider videos valid sources, as they are just tools for circumventing the character limit. Both debaters conducted themselves well, as well as utilized good spelling/grammar.
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 3 years ago
LevelWithMe
MikalThirteenTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were more organized. Pro failed to meet the burden of proof in showing any inherent prerequisites for necessity.
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
MikalThirteenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this was impossible for pro to debate but he took the challenge none the less. Con had more and better quality sources, while pro just mainly used videos. Cons sources reinforced his stance and he did a good job at reformulating what Doctor Krauss had said. All in all good debate, just impossible for pro to meet the burden that he accepted. Just with sources alone Con swept this.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
MikalThirteenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized from an opening statement that I frequently give: "For me to break this down there has to be a small lesson in physics. There are two types of physics. Classical mechanics which operates on the scale of atoms, and quantum which goes below that scale. ' Now consider what I write in my opening statements: 'I'll start with a little lesson about physics. There are two types of mechanics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics [2]. Classical mechanics deals with things on the scale of atoms, and quantum mechanics deals with things below the scale of atoms.' It's clear that Con took what I said, modified a few words, and tried to pass it off as his own. I've seen him do this before. Poor form, Con, poor form.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
MikalThirteenTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides adequate reason to believe the universe could have come into existence without a cause. However, even if we accept Pros arguments that there must be a cause, he gives no reason that the cause must be God as it is commonly defined. Pro says in his final round of arguments that Con has asked the impossible of Pro, and at the moment I agree with this. But in that case, he should not have accepted the debate in the first place.