The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Hamin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Kalam Cosmological Argument Does Not Prove God(s) Exist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 120640
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, The universe has a cause.

Religious apologists from this point will extrapolate further and argue the cause is a God or Gods. To prevent an infinite regression of causation, They will argue that the God or Gods are eternal/infinite and never began to exist, Therefore, They are excluded from the Kalam argument.


I will be arguing against the Kalam argument, My opponent will be arguing for the Kalam argument.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals/Conclusions

Good luck! I look forward to a fun debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

I will attempt to keep my argument concise, As I don't see a need for a long winded one.

1) Every effect we can observe appears to have had a cause, But this doesn't necessarily mean every cause has an effect. Perhaps the universe itself is eternal and therefore there was no original cause for its existence. We don't know either way, And currently have no way of ruling it in or out.

2) Even if a cause is required, The cause could be anything, Including but not limited to a multi-verse. This may push the original causation back a step, Possibly into an infinite regression, But this is not a valid reason to just make something up - aka God(s).

3) Occam's Razor - a natural universe created via natural means is simpler than a natural universe created by supernatural means.

The Kalam argument by itself is fallacious because it assumes causal relationships, And it also asserts the universe had one. Neither of these are demonstrable or otherwise evident.

This argument becomes even further fallacious when the cause is assumed to be a God or Gods. This is certainly not demonstrable or evident, And it begs the question of its/their causal origins.

All around this is just a bad argument for religious apologists.
Hamin

Con

Yes but all of you're facts can consist a chance if you really think about it if there is no "God" or anything that couldn't create the universe it would just mean we have evolved but if we're talking about how no god has made the universe well anything in this universe would just had happened and if you think about what is in the universe than it can change your mind for example water, Water is a colour less tasteless thing that had just been discovered? And if we just evolved than how would we know that this is what we need unless something "God" proven to let the world know. Another thing that proves that everything just happened is that our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when you look at such a complexity, Either how each individual planet is and things inside the planets its to much for it to just "Happen"
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

How many sentences can you possibly string together did you ever learn any English why did you accept this debate just to waste everyone's time by the way none of your gibberish has anything to do with the Kalam argument thanks ok bye.
Hamin

Con

Hamin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Pseudo-christians call Atheists "trolls" when they can't confront their arguments!
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
I didn't care who I debated, I just wanted someone with an IQ higher than a stick. Pretty sure @Hamin is either really really young or he/she is a troll.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
You could always challenge the person you want to debate on this topic.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@Hamin did you ninja this debate just to troll or do you plan to actually debate?
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
I removed it for you. It was there to protect the integrity of the debate against trolls haha
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
I would love to debate this topic but there is a criteria for rank/age. Can you remove that?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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