The Instigator
critical_mind
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

problem with the cosmological argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,696 times Debate No: 29576
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

critical_mind

Con

i am going to lay out the cosmological argument with some of Thomas Aquinas premise:
1)everything that began to exist have a cause
2)the universe began to exist
3)the universe have a cause
4)there could never be an infinite chain of causes
5) there must be a first cause itself uncased
6)god is without a beginning therefore uncased
7)god is the uncased cause
8) therefore god exist

here premise number 2,6,7 are assumed
i ask pro to prove
1)the universe began to exist at some point
2)god have no beginning
3) there's no uncased cause other than god
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

I'm not sure where con got his format, but I'm pretty sure that's not TAC.

As far as the cosmological argument goes, god is defined as some being that is outside of time, can exist without being created, & has the power to create.
The cosmological argument seeks to show that such a being must exist.

The universe began to exist at some point:

1) Science:
According to modern science the universe is somewhere between 12 & 15 Billion years old.

2) Philosophy:
While infinity is used in mathematics all the time, it has it's limits (pardon the pun), when it comes to certain things like time. The most famous infinity paradox is known as Hilbert's hotel. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
If the universe is infinitely old, there are the same number of "days" as there are "years" in the existence of the universe.

"god have no beginning"

God by definition is an abstract being, that is outside of time, thus he has no beginning.
The cosmological argument seeks to prove that such a being exists.

" there's no uncased cause other than god"
This is a little backward, whatever the uncased cause is, is what we are calling god.
The cosmological argument does not seek to prove some previously conceived god, with specific attributes.
The argument creates god so to speak. it shows that there must be some creative being, that need not be created, & is outside of time. This being is what we call god for purposes of the cosmological argument.
It proves a general god, not a specific god.
The only aspects of god that the argument proves are those 3.
Some also use the cosmological argument to show that god must be personal, but I don't think I need to get into that.
Debate Round No. 1
critical_mind

Con

first i would like to welcome my debater
1) science:
i assume you refer to the big bang theory but it doesn't say that the universe began to exist it only say the universe began to form or expand from a hot and dense state to what we see today since what happen before the event we call the big bang is unknown you cant know if there was something or nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ssscott.tripod.com...
http://www.skwirk.com.au...
2) philosophy:
here you are saying that anything without a beginning is impossible to exist because that requires infinite past event so the time is required to go from one event to the other would be infinite and therefore never happen
but remember ((ANYTHING)) that have no beginning is impossible to exist

i think you misunderstood the question why does the cosmological argument end with a god while there may be other other explanation that also by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning

i beg the differ not all the uncased causes is god because there other possible scenarios like a mother universe (bubble theory ) or causes you cant imagine that are not a god or simply nothing

my question is what evidence is there to say that it's god not something else from the other possible scenarios
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

"the big bang theory but it doesn't say that the universe began to exist..."
I'll quote from the very 1st paragraph of cons link:
According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.77 billion years ago,[2] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[3][4][5][6]

"here you are saying that anything without a beginning is impossible to exist..."

Strawman. I did not say that.
What I said was that by saying that the universe always existed, leads to the infinity paradox.

"there may be other other explanation that also by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning"
Like what?

There are only two kinds of things that are both timeless and immaterial: minds and abstract objects (like the number 2). Since abstract numbers cannot stand in causal relations to the universe, by process of elimination, we can rightly conclude that the first cause is a mind. Moreover, the first cause is a free agent. An impersonal mechanically operating cause is not a possibility since such a cause cannot exist without its effect. If such a machine contains within it the sufficient condition for a temporal effect then it must also have temporal effects built into it as well, which defeats the aforementioned timelessness.

Only an immaterial mind that freely chooses to create time can do so without defeating the necessary precondition of timelessness and changelessness, since such a thing does not require any antecedent determining conditions in order to produce a temporal effect. (1)

"i beg the differ not all the uncased causes is god because there other possible scenarios like a mother universe (bubble theory ) or causes you cant imagine that are not a god or simply nothing" [sic]

I'm not sure what the "mother universe (bubble theory)" is.
As far as I know, the bubble theory is a theory in economics.(2)
& Mother universe is something I've never heard of. (I googled it & I found this, http://en.wikipedia.org..., but I don't think that's what con is referring to.).

Whatever it is, I think what I wrote before, suffices to show that the creator (i.e. cause of creation), must be a personal being.

(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://www.investopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 2
critical_mind

Con

The universe began to exist at some point:
"1) Science:
According to modern science the universe is somewhere between 12 & 15 Billion years old."

i assumed here you said that the universe began to exit between 12 & 15 billion years old while i didn't disagree with the age of the universe i disagree with the statement that it didn't exist before that time the universe did exist just in different form (hot,dense state)
because the big bang theory said the universe began to expand not to exist from a hot and dense state .

example: if the age of a person is 19 years old that doesn't mean he didn't exist before that time because he did exist as a baby in his mother womb

"2) Philosophy:
While infinity is used in mathematics all the time, it has it's limits (pardon the pun), when it comes to certain things like time. The most famous infinity paradox is known as Hilbert's hotel. http://en.wikipedia.org......'s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
If the universe is infinitely old, there are the same number of "days" as there are "years" in the existence of the universe."

here i wasn't straw maning the problems you pointed out about a infinite existence say that ((anything)) that doesn't have a beginning is illogical to exist so if the universe doesn't have a beginning then the universe is illogical to exist then it must have a beginning and not only the universe requires a beginning in our understanding of reality but everything requires a beginning


and anything without a beginning would lead to infinity paradox


"there may be other other explanation that also by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning"
Like what?

nothing is by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning so instead of saying god created the universe i can say the universe came from nothing.

and (af ab sgsg gfgh) that's something by definition outside of space time and have no beginning and its not a god


"There are only two kinds of things that are both timeless and immaterial: minds and abstract objects (like the number 2). Since abstract numbers cannot stand in causal relations to the universe, by process of elimination, we can rightly conclude that the first cause is a mind. Moreover, the first cause is a free agent. An impersonal mechanically operating cause is not a possibility since such a cause cannot exist without its effect. If such a machine contains within it the sufficient condition for a temporal effect then it must also have temporal effects built into it as well, which defeats the aforementioned timelessness."

IF YOU MEAN BY MIND (consciousness) THEN IT CANT BE BOTH TIMELESS AND IMMATERAL
because if there a timeless conscious mind then he is required to precise all action happening all at once because for such mind there wont be (past ,present or future) and if that being is also infinite then he is required to precise infinite action happening all at once some of those action would be contradictory.

and also cant be immaterial because we know that consciousness originate from the brain and the brain is a material object so the mind cant be immaterial because it require a material object like the brain to exist.

the bubble theory say that our universe exist on a bubble and that bubble is one of many bubbles (multiverse) and those bubbles can split from each other and make new bubbles and there may be a a mother bubble(universe) splitting from it other small bubbles(universes)



1Devilsadvocate

Pro

Can the universe have an infinite past?


Science:
Until the 20th century it was widely believed that the universe always existed, in a static state.
Along came the big bang theory, with evidence that the universe is expanding, & demolished that belief.
Then some people said maybe the universe is not static, but infinite never the less.
They were able to say this by theorizing that the universe is perpetually expanding & contracting.
This worked well until scientists discovered that the universe is so spread out that gravity would never pull it back.
According to the standard model of the big bang theory, the universe (i.e. space time & matter) did not exist before the big bang.

In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the early universe. Because we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe—which some scientific popularizers have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have an absolute beginning. (1)


Philosophy:

here i wasn't straw maning the problems you pointed out about a infinite existence say that ((anything)) that doesn't have a beginning is illogical to exist.

Nope.
The infinity paradox only applies to specific types of things.
The most simple & intuitive counter example is mathematics/numbers.
Numbers exist outside of time (i.e. they are not effected by time.)

nothing is by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning so instead of saying god created the universe i can say the universe came from nothing.

"Nothing", by definition also can’t be a cause.
Remember were looking for an “uncased cause” [sic].

and (af ab sgsg gfgh) that's something by definition outside of space time and have no beginning

?
In what dictionary?

IF YOU MEAN BY MIND (consciousness) THEN IT CANT BE BOTH TIMELESS AND IMMATERAL
because if there a timeless conscious mind then he is required to precise all action happening all at once because for such mind there wont be (past ,present or future) and if that being is also infinite then he is required to precise infinite action happening all at once some of those action would be contradictory.

I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say.

we know that consciousness originate from the brain
Nope.
Consciousness originates from the mind, not the brain.
It interacts with/through the brain, but it does not originate there.
The mind is something we only know of through universal intuition, it cannot be “observed”/measured scientifically.



I think my opponent means to bring up the multiverse theory, but what he mentions about it seems rather irrelevant to this debate.

Multi verse:

1) The multiverse theory is a highly speculative, undeveloped theory for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I
its called theoretical physics for a reason. & If you notice, the video provided by con, begins with the following:

SCI Fi Science
Physics of the impossible


2) It doesn't counter the philosophical elements of the KCA--so long as infinity is still impossible the multiverse had a beginning, all things beginning have a cause thus you eventually must get to an immaterial and timeless being that brought these into existence-God.


3)
In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the early universe. Because we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe—which some scientific popularizers have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have an absolute beginning.(1)


(1) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 3
critical_mind

Con

i have nothing more to add as i see it my argument still stand but that's left for the voters
and i would like to thank my debater for this debate
1Devilsadvocate

Pro


I'm shocked by my opponents lack of response. He basically F.F.

"i [sic] have nothing more to add..."

What is that supposed to mean?

In the previous round, I brought up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which shows that the universe must have an absolute beginning.

No rebuttal. Not even an attempt.

I addressed all of con's arguments (those that were comprehensible) against the philosophical imperative for the universe having begun.

I asked con to clarify some of his incomprehensible points he made.

& he has "nothing more to add"?
Did he even read my response, & requests for clarification.

This is a forfeit.

I addressed his "mother earth/bubble theory", which turns out to be the multiverse theory.
I gave 3 responses to it.

& he has "Nothing more to add".

(I would have liked to get deeper into the multiverse theory, but that was far from necessary.
Con didn't even explain how the multi universe theory would help, i.e. Impact the matter at hand, i.e. He didn't explain that different bubbles could have different laws of nature etc.)

I rest my case, con has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by critical_mind 4 years ago
critical_mind
i would like to say something to the voters round 4 is not a forfeit even if i have said something in it my opponent would still have had the next round to respond and then i couldn't have answered because he would have had the last round
i didn't reply because the argument presented was enough as i see it i presented my case he presented his
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
These aren't Thomas Aquinas's premises. As a matter of fact he explicitly argued against some of them.
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
the third premise is impossible to prove, the second is inherent in the definition of god and the first is common sense.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
critical_mind1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because con basically concedes at the end by saying, " I have nothing more to add." S&G to pro because con has poor grammar, forgets to capitalize his words, and doesn't puntuate his sentences. Arguments to pro because pro uses more proof to support his arguments, and con's concession doesn't help him much, either. Sources are even because both sides used sources.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 4 years ago
Skepsikyma
critical_mind1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar to Pro, due to the fact that Con's lack of punctuation and capitalization, not to mention bad grammar, came close to making my eyes bleed. Please remedy this, as it detracts much from an otherwise decent case. Arguments to Pro, since he had the burden of proof by Con's own conditions, yet Con declined to respond to Pro's arguments in the final round. Con did make some good arguments, but one cannot neglect to address the opposition's arguments when they have the burden of proof. Conduct to Pro for the apparent forfeiture.