The Instigator
Speedrace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Valid?

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 1 vote the winner is...
WrickItRalph
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,653 times Debate No: 120465
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (89)
Votes (1)

 

Speedrace

Pro

I will be arguing that the kalam cosmological argument is valid.

The burden of proof is completely on me, And my opponent must argue only against my points about the kalam cosmological argument. However, Any claims that he makes that are not facts MUST be supported by some type of evidence.

The first round will be an acceptance round.

No jabbing at Christians.

Have fun!
WrickItRalph

Con

I accept your terms and I will be nice to Christians.
Just for clarification, Is it your position that the Christian god is the creator in the model? Or are you just positing that a creator was involved?
Debate Round No. 1
Speedrace

Pro

My position is simply that the kalam cosmological argument is valid and proves that a creator must exist. I am choosing not to specifically argue for the Christian God in this debate.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Premise 3: Therefore, The universe had a cause.

My added premise:

Premise 4: The cause of the universe must be an intelligent creator.

Premise 1:

Whatever begins has a cause. We can conclude this simply because we have not observed something that exists start without a cause. For example, Tables and chairs do not make themselves. They are created by carpenters and the like. If things could simply come into existence, We would have observed this at some times, But no one ever sees cows appear out of nowhere or buildings appear where there was nothing an instant ago. Therefore, It is reasonable to conclude that anything that begins has a cause.

Premise 2:

The universe began to exist. The only other option here is that the universe has been around forever. However, It is simple to prove this is true. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that the universe is constantly running out of energy. However, If we rewind time and the universe was infinite, That means that there therefore must be an infinite amount of energy. But that would then mean that the universe could not be running out of energy!

Another example is as follows:

Let's say that I had an infinite amount of chips (I like to eat), Which I numbered 1-inifinty (let's just assume that I could somehow name an infinite amount of chips). If I gave you all of my even numbered chips, Infinity-infinity=infinity, Because I still have an infinite amount of odd numbered chips left. However, If I gave you all of my chips numbered 5 and above, Infinity-infinity=4, Because I only have chips number 1, 2, 3, And 4 left. Both of these paradoxical examples prove that infinity in the physical world is impossible.

Because infinity in the physical world is impossible, The universe must therefore have a beginning.

Premise 3:

Therefore, The universe had a cause. This is pretty straightforward, But based off of what we said, The universe had a cause.

Premise 4:

The cause of the universe must be an intelligent creator. The Big Bang Theory simply states that the universe was contained in one infinitesimally small point which rapidly expanded into the universe we have today and still have. However, It does not explain how the explosion happened, Or where the particles of the universe even came from.

They could not have just appeared, Because something cannot come from nothing. Besides this, How did the universe as we know it even form from a simple explosion? Order cannot come from disorder.

It happened because an intelligent, All-knowing, All-powerful creator willed it to happen. Chance is not a good argument for how such an explosion happened to form such an orderly and perfect universe.

Over to you!
WrickItRalph

Con

Premise 1:

This premise has been criticized by both philosophers and scientists as being dubious at best. But I won't just appeal to authority. I'll use the famous swan analogy. If I see one white swan, Am I justified to say that all swans are white? No. If I see 100 white swans, Am I justified to say that all swans are white? No. If every swan that I have ever seen in my life was white, Would I then be justified to say that all swans are white. The answer is no. So this ends up being the core problem with premise 1. We have no way of knowing if every single thing in existence always existed. We have no way of knowing if something came from nothing because we have no actual case of nothing to compare it to.

Premise 2:

I would say that there is fairly strong evidence that the universe most likely began to exist. So I'm willing to agree with this premise. I would like to point out here that, In this case, The word exist does not mean it popped into existence. It means that it was formed from materials that probably always existed. I also don't think that the big bang was the first event ever and the big bang only accounts for the observable universe and not the entire cosmos. For all we know, This big bang could have been the 1, 000, 000th in history. There could be a big bang happening in some far away universe every second and we might not realize it.

I would like to point out that infinity is a non sequitur to existence. Infinity is just a place holder for any possible number that one could conceive. It's not real and it doesn't present in reality. I know it's easy to think that infinity is a thing because of time. But time only exist because we are there to see it. Time is our invention. The universe did have a beginning, But not because of infinity not being real. I just want to be clear on that.

Premise 3:

Saying something has a cause doesn't have a cause doesn't do much because now you have to account for the cause. So you've just invoked the infinite regress. What caused the first cause? What caused the cause of the first cause? Etc. The whole idea of an uncaused cause is fallacious as well because it's presuming that time is a real thing and begging the question to make us think that every effect has to be accounted for.

Premise 4:

Positing a creator is unnecessary. You're now saying a being with agency created all things, Including agency. So who created the creator? The creator's creator? Who created the creator's creator? The creator of the creators? Creator? Looks like an infinite regress again.

We have no way to know if something can come from nothing. We don't need to know how it formed, That's backwards thinking. We only need to know it's here. You don't need a cause to justify an effect. Because the effect is present to demonstrate itself. You said order cannot come from disorder. This statement is meaningless and factually incorrect. First of all, There's not such thing as true order. Order just means it's affected by agency. It makes no definition of what the order looks like. I could write random letters on a board and it's still order because I made it. So if the universe wasn't made by intelligence, Then it's actually just disorder making more disorder. Just because it looks fancy and well made to you doesn't mean that it's in order. You only think that because you grew up on this planet and it behaves the way it always has and you find that orderly, But it's all subjective. You're the one making orderly. That's why it's irrelevant. All knowing and All powerful are incoherent concepts. They're physically impossible and if that is part of your argument then the whole thing crumbles right now. The best you can get is a really powerful god with physical limits because god would have to conform to physics to exist.

Your rebuttal
Debate Round No. 2
Speedrace

Pro

"If I see one white swan, Am I justified to say that all swans are white? No. If I see 100 white swans, Am I justified to say that all swans are white? No. If every swan that I have ever seen in my life was white, Would I then be justified to say that all swans are white. The answer is no. So this ends up being the core problem with premise 1. We have no way of knowing if every single thing in existence always existed. We have no way of knowing if something came from nothing because we have no actual case of nothing to compare it to. "

I said specifically "But no one ever sees cows appear out of nowhere or buildings appear where there was nothing an instant ago. Therefore, It is reasonable to conclude that anything that begins has a cause. "

It is REASONABLE to conclude that anything with a beginning has a cause. As you said, We have no way of knowing if something can come from nothing, But since we have yet to observe it happening, It is safe to assume that it cannot happen until it is observed occurring. For example, If a suspect in a crime is under surveillance and is not observed doing anything suspicious or surreptitiously, The police department will eventually assume that they have not done anything bad simply because they have not observed it (assuming there is no outside evidence that they are doing bad stuff).

Premise 1 stands.

"I would say that there is fairly strong evidence that the universe most likely began to exist. So I'm willing to agree with this premise. I would like to point out here that, In this case, The word exist does not mean it popped into existence. It means that it was formed from materials that probably always existed. I also don't think that the big bang was the first event ever and the big bang only accounts for the observable universe and not the entire cosmos. For all we know, This big bang could have been the 1, 000, 000th in history. There could be a big bang happening in some far away universe every second and we might not realize it. I would like to point out that infinity is a non sequitur to existence. Infinity is just a place holder for any possible number that one could conceive. It's not real and it doesn't present in reality. I know it's easy to think that infinity is a thing because of time. But time only exist because we are there to see it. Time is our invention. The universe did have a beginning, But not because of infinity not being real. I just want to be clear on that. "

You conceded premise 2, So it automatically stands. However, I will respond to the rest of what you said. As I showed with the paradoxical infinity arguments, It is impossible for infinity to occur in the physical world, Which means that the universe had to have a beginning. You say it was made from materials, But then THOSE materials would still have to have a beginning.

Infinity is not necessarily a placeholder, But rather more of a representation of something or a set of somethings that never ends.

Time is not our invention. We know this because things were happening in the universe before we were here. The universe must have had a beginning because it would be impossible for it to be around for infinity, As the Laws of Thermodynamics prove. I never said that infinity is not real, Just that it cannot be present in the physical world.

Premise 2 has been conceded and goes through to the conclusion.

"Saying something has a cause doesn't have a cause doesn't do much because now you have to account for the cause. So you've just invoked the infinite regress. What caused the first cause? What caused the cause of the first cause? Etc. The whole idea of an uncaused cause is fallacious as well because it's presuming that time is a real thing and begging the question to make us think that every effect has to be accounted for. Positing a creator is unnecessary. You're now saying a being with agency created all things, Including agency. So who created the creator? The creator's creator? Who created the creator's creator? The creator of the creators? Creator? Looks like an infinite regress again. "

It is my bad for not mentioning this in round 2, But the creator would have to be self-sustaining and himself around for infinity. The creator has no beginning or end, Meaning that there is no infinite regress. The creator is necessary because the existence of one is the only probable and logical solution to explain how the universe came from nothing.

Premise 3 stands.

"We have no way to know if something can come from nothing. We don't need to know how it formed, That's backwards thinking. We only need to know it's here. You don't need a cause to justify an effect. Because the effect is present to demonstrate itself.

The whole point of the kalam cosmological argument is to explain how the universe was formed, So this statement is completely irrelevant.

"You said order cannot come from disorder. This statement is meaningless and factually incorrect. First of all, There's not such thing as true order. Order just means it's affected by agency. It makes no definition of what the order looks like. I could write random letters on a board and it's still order because I made it. So if the universe wasn't made by intelligence, Then it's actually just disorder making more disorder. "

Order: the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, Pattern, Or method.

Per this definition, An example of order is the spherical pattern that all planets follow. Another is the "growth sequence" per se that all stars go through. These are both examples of order in our universe. Order is not order because it was affected by agency.

Furthermore, The universe IS NOT disorder, It is very orderly. For example, All of nature seems to follow mathematical laws that us humans supposedly came up with. THAT is order.

Order cannot come from disorder, And that is a fact. No bomb has ever made a sand castle, Nor has the wind blown down trees that fall perfectly into the structure of a log cabin.

As a verb, Disorder means: disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of. As I noun, It means: a state of confusion.

Either way, It is completely contradictory to say that order can result from disorder.

"Just because it looks fancy and well made to you doesn't mean that it's in order. You only think that because you grew up on this planet and it behaves the way it always has and you find that orderly, But it's all subjective. You're the one making orderly. That's why it's irrelevant. All knowing and All powerful are incoherent concepts. They're physically impossible and if that is part of your argument then the whole thing crumbles right now. The best you can get is a really powerful god with physical limits because god would have to conform to physics to exist. "

I explained above how the universe is an example of order. Order is not subjective. Again, It is my fault for not completely clarifying the attributes of this creator. I will do so now:

The creator is all-knowing, All-powerful, Self-sustaining, Non-physical, Non-beginning, Non-ending, And the creator of everything.

1. A creator does not have to conform to physics in order to exist if he is not made of physical particles.
2. A creator would make the laws of physics, So the creator could simply exclude himself from the laws.

Either explanation works.

Premise 4 stands.
WrickItRalph

Con

"I said specifically "But no one ever sees cows appear out of nowhere or buildings appear where there was nothing an instant ago. Therefore, It is reasonable to conclude that anything that begins has a cause. ""

You obviously don't understand the swan analogy. The whole point is just because every instance of existence you ever seen came from something, Doesn't mean that all existence came from something. Also, You have this weird idea that things can stop existing. I don't know where you got that, Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, You know that right. That nothing actually ever stops existing. Look it up please cause it's clouding your judgment a bit.

"As you said, We have no way of knowing if something can come from nothing, But since we have yet to observe it happening, It is safe to assume that it cannot happen until it is observed occurring. "

Oh heck no it's not safe to assume, It's never safe to assume. You assume things are wrong until proven correct. Not the other way around. The only thing the evidence tells us is that matter doesn't get destroyed. We still don't know how the matter got there. Actually, The fact that matter exists would suggest that if all somethings came from nothings, Then it makes sense that there are no nothings to for us to find, Because they all turned into somethings. So the absence of evidence actually makes my side look better.

You conceded premise 2, So it automatically stands. However, I will respond to the rest of what you said. As I showed with the paradoxical infinity arguments, It is impossible for infinity to occur in the physical world, Which means that the universe had to have a beginning. You say it was made from materials, But then THOSE materials would still have to have a beginning.

I did not concede your premise. I conceded that the observable universe had a cause and I went on to say that the universe was formed [not created] by matter that already existed.

I think my definition of infinity is more coherent, But if you're not using infinity to make and argument I don't really care. The only thing that infinity proves is that It can't exist in reality. That's it. It doesn't tell us anything about the origins of the universe, That's a non sequitur.

Time is definitely our invention. The only reason time can be conceived is because we witness it. It's just our interpretations of the constant motion that surrounds us and we could measure time in any way we like and get different number systems. It's in the same category as infinity. It's an abstract used to demonstrate facts in reality, Nothing more. That's why people say time didn't exist before the big bang. Because we measure time by motion.

""It is my bad for not mentioning this in round 2, But the creator would have to be self-sustaining and himself around for infinity. The creator has no beginning or end, Meaning that there is no infinite regress. The creator is necessary because the existence of one is the only probable and logical solution to explain how the universe came from nothing. ""

lol, I don't suppose you've heard of circular logic have you? Sure it breaks the infinite regress, But it's a fallacy. So you're trading one fallacy for another. You can't justify the creator with itself. The justification has to come from another source that is not contingent upon the creator. The only way the creator can be the first cause was if it came from nothing. That makes your argument fallacious because now you're saying a fully formed agent with superpowers blinked itself into reality. By this point. The universe creating itself sounds more likely. If you say the Agent always existed, Then this breaks the rules of both causality and the premises in your argument.

I'm just gonna glaze over the order thing cause it's just the irreducible complexity argument repackaged and it's quite silly. Order and disorder are concepts created by us. We can't attribute them to nature. It only applies to things touched by agents. I mean real agents, Not creators. Humans, Cause they actually exist. Order just means someone organized it. There's not organized about our planet. If it seems like the earth is suited to you, It's because you think in the wrong direction. The earth isn't suited for you, You're suited for the earth. (evolution)

"1. A creator does not have to conform to physics in order to exist if he is not made of physical particles. "

False. Everything in the universe conforms to physics. If it is metaphysical, Then it's the same as not existing. A creator that can't touch the physical world cannot affect the physical world, Cannot create the physical world, And cannot be seen in the physical world. This means it would conflict with your model.

2. A creator would make the laws of physics, So the creator could simply exclude himself from the laws.

Oh jeez. I don't know where people get this bologna about "changing the laws of physics" It's not a bill you submit to congress. They're not prescriptive laws. They're descriptive laws. That means they simply describes the way the universe. Apologists always give this image of dials to change the universal constants and one little turn breaks everything. You know the silliest thing, They're called constants! That means they literally cannot change! . They're not dials, They're fuses! There is no model where a creator could exist at the "beginning" of the observable universe. The only creator you could describe with your model is one that has some meaningless definition like "energy" or "love"
Debate Round No. 3
Speedrace

Pro

"You obviously don't understand the swan analogy. The whole point is just because every instance of existence you ever seen came from something, Doesn't mean that all existence came from something. Also, You have this weird idea that things can stop existing. I don't know where you got that, Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, You know that right. That nothing actually ever stops existing. Look it up please cause it's clouding your judgment a bit. "

When did I ever say that stuff can stop existing? I'm not sure where you got that from. . .

"Oh heck no it's not safe to assume, It's never safe to assume. You assume things are wrong until proven correct. "EXACTLY. So we assume that the claim that something can come from nothing IS WRONG until proven correct. That is exactly what I said. "Not the other way around. The only thing the evidence tells us is that matter doesn't get destroyed. We still don't know how the matter got there. Actually, The fact that matter exists would suggest that if all somethings came from nothings, Then it makes sense that there are no nothings to for us to find, Because they all turned into somethings. So the absence of evidence actually makes my side look better. "

You obviously did not understand what I said. The whole point of the kalam cosmological argument IS to explain how the matter got here. And your definition of "nothing" is off. By nothing, I mean devoid of anything, An absence of any "things. " It literally means no thing. "Nothing's" are not nouns, It is a concept representing the lack of physical objects. So no, It does not make your side look better because you have incorrectly represented the argument.

Premise 1 stands.

"lol, I don't suppose you've heard of circular logic have you? Sure it breaks the infinite regress, But it's a fallacy. So you're trading one fallacy for another. You can't justify the creator with itself. The justification has to come from another source that is not contingent upon the creator. The only way the creator can be the first cause was if it came from nothing. That makes your argument fallacious because now you're saying a fully formed agent with superpowers blinked itself into reality. By this point. The universe creating itself sounds more likely. If you say the Agent always existed, Then this breaks the rules of both causality and the premises in your argument. "

This is not circular reasoning, Because as I said at the end of the last round, The creator has NO beginning. Therefore, He can still be self-sustaining.

"I did not concede your premise. I conceded that the observable universe had a cause and I went on to say that the universe was formed [not created] by matter that already existed. "

By saying that the universe is formed, You say that it had a beginning, Which IS premise 2. So yes, You have conceded it. You also just conceded premise 3 as well by saying that the observable universe had a cause, Which is premise 3.

Premise 2 has been conceded and goes through.
Premise 3 has been conceded and goes through.

"I'm just gonna glaze over the order thing cause it's just the irreducible complexity argument repackaged and it's quite silly. Order and disorder are concepts created by us. We can't attribute them to nature. It only applies to things touched by agents. I mean real agents, Not creators. Humans, Cause they actually exist. Order just means someone organized it. There's not organized about our planet. If it seems like the earth is suited to you, It's because you think in the wrong direction. The earth isn't suited for you, You're suited for the earth. (evolution)"

I specifically stated what the definition of order is, As well as the one for disorder. The one you are using is wrong. Order can be attributed to nature, As I demonstrated, And since you did not respond to what I said you automatically concede that point.

"False. Everything in the universe conforms to physics. If it is metaphysical, Then it's the same as not existing. A creator that can't touch the physical world cannot affect the physical world, Cannot create the physical world, And cannot be seen in the physical world. This means it would conflict with your model. "

This makes no sense. As I stated, The creator is all-powerful, So there would be nothing holding him back from affecting, Creating, And being seen in the physical world. As YOU said, We must consider anything wrong until proven correct, So until you can prove that things or beings made of metaphysical particles are not actually existing, That claim is wrong.

"Oh jeez. I don't know where people get this bologna about "changing the laws of physics" It's not a bill you submit to congress. They're not prescriptive laws. They're descriptive laws. That means they simply describes the way the universe. Apologists always give this image of dials to change the universal constants and one little turn breaks everything. You know the silliest thing, They're called constants! That means they literally cannot change! . They're not dials, They're fuses! There is no model where a creator could exist at the "beginning" of the observable universe. The only creator you could describe with your model is one that has some meaningless definition like "energy" or "love"

In order to make the universe, The creator would have to make the laws governing the universe. I never said he CHANGED them, I said he MADE them in the first place. As long as US HUMANS have been around, The laws have remained constant and have not changed, But according to the model, The creator would have MADE the laws BEFORE we started existing, So of course we have never observed them change.

Besides this, As I stated above, The creator is all-powerful, So he can do anything. Also, The creator would not exist at the beginning of the universe, But rather he has no beginning. You offered no real evidence against any of my points about the qualities of the creator, So they all go through.

Premise 4 stands.
WrickItRalph

Con

"When did I ever say that stuff can stop existing? I'm not sure where you got that from. . . "

My bad, I'll elaborate. So you keep saying that things "begin to exist" this infers that matter is in a state on non existence in some time or place. Matter never begins or ends existence. I was just pointing this out because I wasn't sure if you knew that or not. It was less of an argument and more tying down facts.

"You obviously did not understand what I said. The whole point of the kalam cosmological argument IS to explain how the matter got here. And your definition of "nothing" is off. By nothing, I mean devoid of anything, An absence of any "things. " It literally means no thing. "Nothing's" are not nouns, It is a concept representing the lack of physical objects. So no, It does not make your side look better because you have incorrectly represented the argument. "

The argument attempts to explain how matter got here, But this is begging the question. We haven't established that the matter actually "got" here in the first place, This goes back to my previous statement. For all we know, All of the matter in the universe has always existed, So we're not justified to give an account of something that hasn't showed to needing accounting for.

"This is not circular reasoning, Because as I said at the end of the last round, The creator has NO beginning. Therefore, He can still be self-sustaining. "

This very statement is what makes it circular. If I laid it out as a logic problem, It would look like. . . A because B and B because B. You're using the creator to justify it self. Saying that the creator is self sustaining is incoherent. Humans are technically self sustaining. What you're really saying when you utter "self sustaining" is that the creator justifies himself logically. This is simply impossible. So you have to find an outside justification OR you have to demonstrated that the creator exist whether I justify it or not. Obviously, You cannot produce it the second way because there is no demonstrable creator to speak of.

"By saying that the universe is formed, You say that it had a beginning, Which IS premise 2. So yes, You have conceded it. You also just conceded premise 3 as well by saying that the observable universe had a cause, Which is premise 3. "

False, I don't believe that it "began to exist" I believe that "it always existed and formed through physics" This is a subtle difference, But it's a difference.

"I specifically stated what the definition of order is, As well as the one for disorder. The one you are using is wrong. Order can be attributed to nature, As I demonstrated, And since you did not respond to what I said you automatically concede that point. "

That's because your definition of order and disorder are impractical. If order and disorder is based of the way that something looks, Then agency doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. Order either denotes intervention of agency, Or it denotes the way something looks. If you try to add both to the definition, It becomes functionally useless, Because there is no way to deduce that something is "orderly" since people could have a different idea of what something looks like when it's in order, And it cannot be used to proved a creator, Because the definition has so many requirements that we can't prove it without having seen it formed firsthand. That's why I reject your definition.

"This makes no sense. As I stated, The creator is all-powerful, So there would be nothing holding him back from affecting, Creating, And being seen in the physical world. As YOU said, We must consider anything wrong until proven correct, So until you can prove that things or beings made of metaphysical particles are not actually existing, That claim is wrong. "

It makes no sense to you, Because you think that things can surpass the limits of physics. The "Omni" qualities of a creator are incoherent and physically impossible. Adding them to a creator falsifies said creator immediately. The reason for this is that it creates logical paradoxes. Just like the paradoxes you showed for infinity. If you think Omnipotence is coherent, Then answer this question. "Can the creator create a stone that is so heavy, That he himself cannot lift it" This problem shows that omnipotence cannot exist in reality. That's why I reject it.

"In order to make the universe, The creator would have to make the laws governing the universe. I never said he CHANGED them, I said he MADE them in the first place. As long as US HUMANS have been around, The laws have remained constant and have not changed, But according to the model, The creator would have MADE the laws BEFORE we started existing, So of course we have never observed them change. "

Once again, You're begging the question. How did you come to the conclusion that the laws of physics had to be "made" This is incoherent. The laws of physics don't actually exist, There's an abstract we use to understand reality. They didn't have to be made because they don't exist. They're effects that have always been around for all of "time" This is the whole problem with the kalam argument. It begs questions that nobody every agreed needed answering. That makes it unscientific and that's why even apologist barely use it anymore. If you use the Kalam to get any further than "the universe had a cause" then you're living in fantasy. Because, If the kalam is correct, Then the first cause of our universe was probably energy or some type of internal chemical reaction within the big bang. There is no room for a creator in the model. Because the creator hasn't been shown to be necessary for the model. I mean, The fact that you had to add an extra premise to the argument to get yourself to a creator shows the fallaciousness of your argument. You thought you could just casually add a premise to an argument that has been debunked left and right and it would just fly?

"Besides this, As I stated above, The creator is all-powerful, So he can do anything. Also, The creator would not exist at the beginning of the universe, But rather he has no beginning. You offered no real evidence against any of my points about the qualities of the creator, So they all go through. "

I don't have to offer evidence. The burden of proof is on you and you said as much in your opening. You haven't actually demonstrated that anything you say is true, Nor have you refuted my criticisms. You're just saying that my criticisms make no sense without showing an example where I'm wrong. If my criticisms are fallacious, Then you should be able to plug them into your system and show why I'm wrong. So I suggest you do that. Because you have NOT met you burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
Speedrace

Pro

"My bad, I'll elaborate. So you keep saying that things "begin to exist" this infers that matter is in a state on non existence in some time or place. Matter never begins or ends existence. I was just pointing this out because I wasn't sure if you knew that or not. It was less of an argument and more tying down facts. "

That is the whole point. At some point, Per the Laws of Thermodynamics, The matter which constitutes the universe did not exist, Because if it always existed, It would then have an infinite amount of energy, But since that amount is decreasing, It therefore cannot have an infinite amount of energy.

"The argument attempts to explain how matter got here, But this is begging the question. We haven't established that the matter actually "got" here in the first place, This goes back to my previous statement. For all we know, All of the matter in the universe has always existed, So we're not justified to give an account of something that hasn't showed to needing accounting for. "

Yes, We have. I have already stated how it would be impossible for that matter to be around for infinity, With multiple infinity paradoxes, Which YOU conceded to. You specifically said "The only thing that infinity proves is that It can't exist in reality. " So you have already conceded that the matter "got here" somehow.

Premise 1 stands.

"This very statement is what makes it circular. If I laid it out as a logic problem, It would look like. . . A because B and B because B. You're using the creator to justify it self. Saying that the creator is self sustaining is incoherent. Humans are technically self sustaining. What you're really saying when you utter "self sustaining" is that the creator justifies himself logically. This is simply impossible. So you have to find an outside justification OR you have to demonstrated that the creator exist whether I justify it or not. Obviously, You cannot produce it the second way because there is no demonstrable creator to speak of. "

Again, You do not demonstrate how the creator being self-sustaining is impossible. I can use the swan model against you, And you, Therefore, Must concede that it is not impossible because YOU yourself used the swan model in your previous arguments. Therefore, You have conceded that it is not impossible for the creator to be self-sustaining.

"False, I don't believe that it "began to exist" I believe that "it always existed and formed through physics" This is a subtle difference, But it's a difference. "

This is not true. For one, If it was FORMED, As YOU just said, It cannot have always existed. That alone is proof of the concession. Again, You specifically said, "The only thing that infinity proves is that It can't exist in reality. " That, Again, Is another concession on your part that the universe has not always existed.

Premise 2 has been conceded and goes through.
Premise 3 has been conceded and goes through.


"That's because your definition of order and disorder are impractical. "

You should've said this in your previous argument. I treated it like a concession because you never said this.

"If order and disorder is based of the way that something looks, Then agency doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. Order either denotes intervention of agency, Or it denotes the way something looks. If you try to add both to the definition, It becomes functionally useless, Because there is no way to deduce that something is "orderly" since people could have a different idea of what something looks like when it's in order, And it cannot be used to proved a creator, Because the definition has so many requirements that we can't prove it without having seen it formed firsthand. That's why I reject your definition. "

You are ignoring the argument. The argument is that order cannot come from disorder. It has nothing to do with agency. Per the definition I gave, Order can ONLY come from order. Therefore, The creator constitutes the order that created the orderly world that we live in today. This is not because the creator has agency, But because there is no other example of order in the universe that is capable of making order. This is simply because no natural thing is, Itself, Orderly.

"It makes no sense to you, Because you think that things can surpass the limits of physics. The "Omni" qualities of a creator are incoherent and physically impossible. Adding them to a creator falsifies said creator immediately. The reason for this is that it creates logical paradoxes. Just like the paradoxes you showed for infinity. If you think Omnipotence is coherent, Then answer this question. "Can the creator create a stone that is so heavy, That he himself cannot lift it" This problem shows that omnipotence cannot exist in reality. That's why I reject it. "

That example is completely flawed and fallacious. The definition of omnipotence is as follows: the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

Your example only means that omnipotent beings are limited to doing the things that are logically possible.

"Once again, You're begging the question. How did you come to the conclusion that the laws of physics had to be "made" This is incoherent. The laws of physics don't actually exist, There's an abstract we use to understand reality. They didn't have to be made because they don't exist. They're effects that have always been around for all of 'time. '"

Go jump off of a building and then tell me that the laws of physics don't exist. Except you won't because of gravity, so that right there is a concession that the laws of physics DO exist.

This is the definition of a law of physics:
"A physical law or a law of physics is a statement "inferred from particular facts, Applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, And expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions bepresent. ""

Just because we put it into words and models doesn't mean that they don't exist independent of us.

You have provided no proof that the laws of physics could not have been made. My proof is simply that when you have eliminated the impossible, Whatever remains, However improbable, Must be the truth. You have already conceded premises 2 and 3, And I have sufficiently backed up premise 1. I have shown how nothing itself is orderly, And therefore the only possible example of an order that made our orderly universe is an orderly being. The laws of physics must therefore have been made by him because he could not exist if he didn't make them.

"This is the whole problem with the kalam argument. It begs questions that nobody every agreed needed answering. That makes it unscientific and that's why even apologist barely use it anymore. "

The kalam cosmological argument is a logical argument, Not a scientific one. It's LITERALLY in the name. The topic is whether it is valid or not, Not whether it is unscientific.

"If you use the Kalam to get any further than "the universe had a cause" then you're living in fantasy. Because, If the kalam is correct, Then the first cause of our universe was probably energy or some type of internal chemical reaction within the big bang. "

I have shown and YOU have conceded that nothing can exist for an infinite amount of time in the physical world. Therefore, Even if energy or some chemical reaction triggered the Big Bang, That energy had to have had a cause.

I would also like to point out that you again admitted to conceding, But this time you conceded premises 1, 2, AND 3 because you said that everything at "the universe had a cause" and before is acceptable. Since premise 3 is the one stating that the universe had a cause, You have conceded to it and the premises that came before it, premises 1 and 2.

Premise 1 has been conceded and goes through.
Premise 2 has been conceded and goes through.
Premise 3 has been conceded and goes through.

"There is no room for a creator in the model. Because the creator hasn't been shown to be necessary for the model. I mean, The fact that you had to add an extra premise to the argument to get yourself to a creator shows the fallaciousness of your argument. You thought you could just casually add a premise to an argument that has been debunked left and right and it would just fly? "

The creator HAS been shown to be necessary for the model because he is the only logical explanation for how an orderly universe was created. The creator is usually discussed in premise 3, I separated them for clarity.

"I don't have to offer evidence. The burden of proof is on you and you said as much in your opening. You haven't actually demonstrated that anything you say is true, Nor have you refuted my criticisms. You're just saying that my criticisms make no sense without showing an example where I'm wrong. If my criticisms are fallacious, Then you should be able to plug them into your system and show why I'm wrong. So I suggest you do that. Because you have NOT met you burden of proof. "

You DO have to offer evidence. I specifically stated in the opening that if you make a claim, You MUST offer evidence for it! This is a blatant lie! I have given proof for my claims, And I have most definitely refuted your criticisms. I did so by showing how they could NOT be logically true in the model, Which is plugging them in.

I do not have to present scientific evidence because the kalam cosmological argument is strictly working from logic, So all of my evidence is logical. If you want to bring in a scientific counter, You must provide scientific evidence.


To summarize:

My opponent has conceded premises 1, 2, And 3, And I have sufficiently proven how premise 4 is necessary for the model. Even if premise 4 is debunked, Premises 1, 2, AND 3 all being conceded is plenty of evidence that the kalam cosmological argument is valid. Thank you to readers for your time.
WrickItRalph

Con

You need to brush up on thermodynamics. Energy doesn't run out. It spreads out and cools. There's a false equivalency going on here with the "infinite" You think infinite means "lasts forever" it doesn't. Infinite means limitless. When the universe cools, It appears to have no energy because everything slows down, But then it can heat back up and the energy pops in. You need to study theoretical particles. All matter and energy has always existed and always will exist. If this is your definition of infinite, Then yes, They are infinite.

This is covered by my previous statement someone, But matter has been around for "infinity" as you define it. You need to understand that the number infinite doesn't exist and time is not real so saying something last for "infinity" is incoherent.

So on the self sustaining thing, You need to research circular reasoning please. I explained that you cannot justify something with itself. You keep saying that I'm not explaining things to you, But really, You just don't believe what I'm saying. That is a dishonest debate tactic. If you don't believe that circular reasoning is real or that you cannot justify something with itself, Then you need to demonstrate those things. You don't just get to say my argument is garbage and toss it aside.

Omg, Do you not know what "formed" and "existed" mean? Exist is to be. Form is to put things that already is exist together. Formed just means that all of the matter and energy that has always existed, Moved into shapes to create the universe. You're painting this image of a creator blinking particles into existence and then "ordering" them to make the "perfect" place for humans to live. Do you not see how ridiculous this is? You're not being logical. If you start with the assumption that the universe was made by something, It clouds all your thinking. You're suppose to think from your brain outward. Not from the universe inward.

Stop telling me that I've conceded points. You're being immature. I think you care more about scoring points than actually having an honest discussion. I do this so I can have my bad ideas torn down and my good ones built up. Not for points. Stop scoring points and debate honestly please.
Debate Round No. 5
89 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Pro had the burden of proof which he stated with this statement: "My position is simply that the kalam cosmological argument is valid and proves that a creator must exist. " At best he was able to give this "Because if it always existed, It would then have an infinite amount of energy, But since that amount is decreasing, It therefore cannot have an infinite amount of energy. ". An if statement is different to it must exist.

Con stated this " So who created the creator? The creator's creator? Who created the creator's creator? The creator of the creators? Creator? Looks like an infinite regress again. " which Pro had a bad response of "But the creator would have to be self-sustaining and himself around for infinity. The creator has no beginning or end" which is adding arguments to the KCA which means by itself the KCA does not state God exists. Adding even more conditions which are not present in the KCA is adding arguments which the premise does not even support. What Pro could have done is define God but didn't and waited before Con debunked his/her points to do so.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Fair point. I get you were just trying to debate it and you don't necessarily believe it.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Oh, And by "Nahhh I'm good" I meant I'm good NOT using the kalam cosmological argument, Not that I'm good USING it lol
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
"I never said that and I don't believe he did either. First of all, Here is a short list of things that fit your creator model: Wizards, Fairies, Pixies, Universe creating unicorns, Universe creating squirrels, Literally anything with Universe creating in it's name. Your model would assume that either ALL of these thing exist or it would assume that only one exists be we can't know which, Which gets you to "I don't know"

All of them will not fit into the model because that would be an infinite amount, And then there would be an infinite amount of creators who wouldn't want OTHER creators to exist, And then they would all just cancel out.

That means that only one can fit.

As to which one, IT DOESN'T MATTER. I have said TWICE already that I was arguing for A CREATOR, Not the Christian God. So yes, Any of those would fit the model.

"Furthermore. Your premise is not sound, If you don't prove the premises sound, Then the validity of the argument doesn't matter. Your conclusion is also included in your premise, Which makes it circular reasoning. Which is a philosophical no no. The kalam argument is dead. . . Just let it die bro. "

The conclusion is that the universe had a creator. . . The premise is just that it had a cause. . . That's not circular. . .

I wasn't trying to revive it lol I just wanted to debate it

"Even most apologists know that it's false. Sye Ten rejects the kalam as being "garbage" his words not mine. Even most evidentiary apologists stay away from this and now use hybrid versions, Combining it with the TAG argument and presupp. "

Again, They combine it with those to justify the Christian God, Not simply a creator. The kalam cosmological argument is only for justifying a creator.

"We've repeatedly mention that the argument doesn't hold up and you're failing to see your fallacies. Please use a better argument. "

Lol, I never said that I specifically use the kalam cosmological argument as justification for my beliefs XD.
Nahhhhh I'm good l
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
""You guys openly admitted that the creator is the only thing that fits the model, BUT that the model still only stands BECAUSE it has not been DISPROVEN, Right? ""

I never said that and I don't believe he did either. First of all, Here is a short list of things that fit your creator model: Wizards, Fairies, Pixies, Universe creating unicorns, Universe creating squirrels, Literally anything with Universe creating in it's name. Your model would assume that either ALL of these thing exist or it would assume that only one exists be we can't know which, Which gets you to "I don't know"

Furthermore. Your premise is not sound, If you don't prove the premises sound, Then the validity of the argument doesn't matter. Your conclusion is also included in your premise, Which makes it circular reasoning. Which is a philosophical no no. The kalam argument is dead and buried and it has been for a long time. Just let it die bro. Even most apologists know that it's false. Sye Ten rejects the kalam as being "garbage" his words not mine. Even most evidentiary apologists stay away from this and now use hybrid versions, Combining it with the TAG argument and presupp. I can assure you, That if you are looking for the truth, You will not find it in the kalam. You need to listen to what we're saying because if you're just going to reject logic, Then this conversation is useless. We've repeatedly mention that the argument doesn't hold up and you're failing to see your fallacies. Please use a better argument.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I don't say that "I don't know" is the path to truth.

You guys openly admitted that the creator is the only thing that fits the model, BUT that the model still only stands BECAUSE it has not been DISPROVEN, Right?

My thing is why wait around for it to be disproven? I don't see why one couldn't accept the model AND continue to look for more counter-evidence, Because the model does offer an explanation for the world.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
I would consider you to rethink your position on the phrase "I don't know" It's actually the path to truth. It is not always ideal or possible to be honestly conclusive.

If I ask you how many hairs are on a zebra, What is the correct response? I believe the correct response is "I don't know" (Unless, You've counted the hairs, In which case, You have some zebra related problems. )

This can apply to a lot of things. I think since the universe has more parts than a zebra has hairs, We should maybe give "I don't know" a fair shake?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
"I don't know" ignores what is in front of you.

Yes, The model is not completely proven, I openly admit that. However, It still logically explains the origins of the universe, And I do not see a reason to both accept it AND look for counter-evidence.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
It does not make me biased, It simply means that I want to be conclusive. I accept the model because there is nothing other TO accept, And I'd rather accept it than simply wait around for counter-evidence to pop into my brain.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@speedrace, @Proven brings up a good point that we don't form a belief because it's the only explanation. We have no way of knowing if there's an explanation that we're unaware of and like he said. "I don't know" is the most honest answer here.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
SpeedraceWrickItRalphTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason in the comments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.