The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,801 times Debate No: 89615
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (0)




Full Premise:The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

"Sound" is defined as "a logically correct argument that withstands all scrutiny."

Simply put - if Con can present evidence or argument that successfully dismantles the Kalam, Con wins.

Round 1 -
Pro: Intro/present argument
Con: 1st Rebuttal
Round 2 -
Pro: Response
Con: Rebuttals
Round 3 -
Round 4 -
Pro: Final response
Con: Only write "remarks complete."

== Kalam Cosmological Argument ==

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. [1]



Good luck Pro.

I am the Mac and i will destroy you.

Yoi cannot come to the conclusion of
those attributes with only P1 and P2
supporting it.

Because they don't support the claims
in any way what so ever.
Debate Round No. 1


For my response, I wish to note that Con has not actually made a rebuttal. Simply claiming "I will destroy you" and declaring "they don't support the claims in any way" is not a rebuttal. Con must give REASONS to demonstrate why their rebuttal dismantles the argument.. You cannot simply announce you are right - you must demonstrate why, that's what debating is. Since Con has given no reasons to support their two sentence rebuttal, I don't really have anything to respond to. Very disappointing.

As such, I am forced to guess at the essence of Con's rebuttal since they did not articulate it. A small hint as to what Con meant can be found in the comments section of this debate:

"It is like saying
This donut has a cause.
It began to exist.
Therefore an asian, german speaking female created it."

Here, Con has exposed their total failure to understand the argument. This analogy is not at all like the Kalam Argument, and I think the confusion lies in Con's understanding of the term "universe," so let's start there.

By universe, we mean literally everything that exists. Cars, people, water, planets, time, physics, etc... Knowing this, we can know therefore that before the universe existed, there was nothing. Literally no thing. No space. No time. No material. We also know that nothing cannot produce something - out of nothing, nothing comes. And yet, here we are - our universe exists nonetheless. This is what makes the Kalam Argument so sound - it is the only way to explain how this can happen. We know the universe had a beginning (Con did not dispute this). We know that everything that begins has a cause (Con did not dispute this either). But yet, before the universe there was no space, no time, no material by definition. Therefore, it logically and necessarily follows that whatever caused the universe's beginning was spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

It also must have been uncaused, because it is metaphysically impossible to have in infinite series of past causes. The past cannot be infinite. For example - if an infinite series of events had to occur in the past in order to bring us to the present, we would never actually arrive at the present because an infinite series of events can never be completed. This is absurd. So, we can be confident that the ultimate cause of the universe was uncaused.

Finally, this first cause was extremely powerful. This is self evident, since whatever it was managed to create space, time, and matter from beyond the realms of space, time, and matter.

So, hopefully it is now clear that the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises.

If Con still finds this deduction as random as an Asian woman creating a donut, maybe this will help:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe (space, time, material, etc...) began to exist.
C: Since the universe began (P2), it must have a cause (P1). Since things cannot create themselves, that cause must have been not space, not time, and not material. It was also uncaused, and unimaginably powerful.

Con has not delivered an actual rebuttal yet, and until they do, my argument stands.


You have demonstrated your support of the claims.

Let us continue.

It is exactly like it if you consider only your round 1.

I know what universe means. -_-

If nothing existed then nothing should yet it does.

You cannot assume there was nothing in the beginning.

You find a ball in a box.

You don't know how it got there but it is still there.

You can try to add attributes to what put it there
but it might have just rolled in without a biological

So if the universe exists then how do you know it didn't always exist?

You said there was nothing in the beginning.

So not god?


You assume it was a very powerful force or
entity of some kind.

This man is very strong.

He moved this car up a hill.

What if it was something simple and finite
such as a tow truck?

You don't have to be very powerful.

What about the still undiscovered TOE?

In all infinity there must be some explanation.

What if the universe is uncaused?

What if it just popped into existence some day?

Why must there be a cause if you say there can
be something uncaused?

And what if immaterial didn't exist?

We cannot assume nothing existed in the beginning
since there is the universe now.

How do we know there was even a before?

And the reason I didn't rebuttal in round one
was because you had zero support.

I also put an introduction there.

Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not really sure if Con is trying to be serious or not.

Assuming they are, I will continue...

== Response ==

Con's first critique is that "you cannot assume there was nothing in the beginning." Actually, you can. It is logically necessary that before something existed, nothing existed. There is no alternative. You cannot say that before something existed, something else existed, because that "something else" would still be considered "something." Therefore, that would be like saying "before something existed, something existed." This is absurd. It becomes more obvious if you space the word "nothing" out into two words - "no thing." The statement therefore is "before a thing began to exist, no things existed." Con has not demonstrated why this is an incorrect assumption.

Con then says that if nothing existed at the beginning, then god didn't exist either. This is irrelevant, as I have never mentioned god in this debate, and I do not plan to. I merely listed the attributes that the first cause of the universe (whatever it was) must have had. When we say "nothing existed at the beginning" we mean no time, no space, no material. However, we also know the universe still had a beginning, which means it had a cause. Since time, space, and material cannot create themselves, then we know this cause must have been not time, not space, and not material (timeless, spaceless, immaterial). This is precisely what the Kalam Argument concludes. The only other alternative is if the universe is eternal, which I will get to next...

Con asks "if the universe exists then how do you know it didn't always exist?" The answer is simple: logic and science. Logically, I have already demonstrated why an infinite past is metaphysically absurd. I could never actually be in this present moment typing if an infinite sequence of past events needed to happen first, because an infinite sequence is never complete. As another example, pretend you have an infinite number of apples. I come and take every other apple. How many apples do you have left? Infinity! So infinity - infinity = infinity. Then, let's say I come and take all your apples except three. Now how many do you have? Three. So infinity - infinity = 3. This makes no sense. Infinity is, within the confines of space and time, impossible.

Science too confirms this. The vast majority of scientists and scholars acknowledge that the universe had a beginning. Specifically, the theorem developed in 2003 by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning [1]. The renown physicist Stephen Hawking has also confirmed, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." [2]

So in terms of Con's "ball in a box" scenario, the only alternative to a cause is that the ball has existed inside the box for eternity. But this is impossible, since we have already established that space, time, and material had a beginning. Since the ball exists within the space of the box, in time, and is made of material, then it too had a beginning, and everything that begins to exist has a cause.

In the next section of their rebuttal, Con issues a string of questions. Unfortunately, questions are not arguments, so once again Con has failed to actually rebut anything. I'll still engage the questions though...

Con says this is akin to saying a strong man pulled a car up a hill, when in reality it was a tow truck. The implication here is that it doesn't take something "strong" to cause the car to move. This is a terrible example, because obviously a tow truck is more powerful than even a single, strong human! And even if the world's strongest man was more powerful than a tow truck, this still doesn't help Con, because the comparison is now between a very powerful thing and a very, very powerful thing. It only severs as a double confirmation that moving massive objects requires incredible power. If Con believes that a cause which brings all space, time, and matter into existence is not impressively powerful, then I challenge them to demonstrate how.

Con then asks what if the universe is uncaused? I have already addressed this - the only way this can happen is if the universe (space, time) is eternal. We know this cannot be the case, as confirmed by logic and science.

Con wonders if the universe could have just "popped" into existence. Since I have already established that there must have been nothing before the universe, this is impossible. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness has no properties - no creative potential, no mass, no energy. These are all "things," and we are discussing "no things." Nothing cannot create something - if it could, why do we not observe this happening all the time? Why do we not also see money, and trees, and race cars popping into existence out of nothing? Why would noting only be able to create universes? Again, this idea takes us into absurdity, so we are forced to logically accept that there was a cause to the universe, and that cause must have been timeless, spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, and very powerful. This confirms the Kalam Argument.

Finally, Con asks how something can be uncaused if everything must have a cause? Here we must clarify - when we say "everything" we mean every observable thing - space, time, matter, etc... (aka, the universe). Since the universe cannot create itself, then the cause was necessarily OUTSIDE the universe. This means it was outside time, space, matter, etc... The Kalam Argument only says that everything within time has a cause (everything that BEGINS to exist, "begin" indicates time). So, it is totally plausible that the first cause, which transcends time, can exist eternally and requires no cause.

Con has yet to present a rebuttal that dismantles the Kalam Argument. Looking forward to the next round.



Since the universe exists now there must have been something in the beginning.

This could have been the universe itself.

You completely ignored my explanation about the ball in the box.

What you trying to prove exists anyways?

They weren't created.

As you put it "uncaused".

This finite matter exists around us, if it exists
then it does not need to be explained how it
logically came to be.

It just is alike what you are trying to prove exists
with your attributes.

There is a probability there was no beginning.

Stop re-directing my questions.

The infinite past of your described thing is also absurd.

You just claim it is uncaused.

Just like the universe could be.

You have so far failed to prove it necessary for these
attributes to be applied to your thing and not mine

It is not impossible for an infinite timeline to exist, it just wont ever end.

Note a law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That would make everything exist for an infinite time.


And the big bang is the universe coming back
together just to have another big bang happen.

And what evidence?

You have presented none of the evidence
you speak of while talking about your scientist.

What is the theorem?

Ok, you are addressing my box now.

But no evidence disproving it.

I already broke down that argument earlier here.

They are indeed arguments.

Arguments that are arrows piercing your armor.

Questions necessary to answer that when you
have no proper explanation they break you down.

I did, there could be away around having to be very
powerful to create the big bang and create the universe.

These examples are supposed to be helpful.

Stop attacking the examples and attack what they mean.

It can possibly be eternal.

You have not presented the science and your logic has
been broken down.

The universe has always existed, as reasoned earlier.

You have failed to demonstrate why the finite material
cannot be uncaused just at your infinite immaterial.

You need a clear difference.

Your argument proving that there was nothing existed
before the beginning of stuff have been destroyed.

The universe didn't create itself, it was just there
just as your immaterial.

Plausible, but not certain.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been destroyed.

And time doesn't actually exist, it is just a concept we
invented to explain things that have happened, are
happening, and will happen.

"Time" has always existed just as your immaterial.

To address your link 1, it just hasn't collapsed yet.


Who know.

But it hasn't.

This is the best debate I have had so far.

Thanks Pro for a good time.
Debate Round No. 3


Con's final rebuttal is mostly confusing gibberish. The only comprehensible parts are wild, unsupported declarations like "the universe has always existed" and "time doesn't actually exist, it is just a concept we invented..." While these have the potential to form legitimate rebuttals, Con did not explain, justify, or provide evidence for them. As such, they should be discarded.

Con has not offered legitimate or justified rebuttals to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Argument stands.

Thanks for the debate, vote Pro.


Remarks complete.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
@SkyLeach -

Glad you accepted the challenge, I think we're going to have a good debate.
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 2 years ago
I am the reincarnation of The-Holy-Macrel
Posted by SkyLeach 2 years ago
put my debate where my mouth was

btw, I meant 'you both suck' in a not-really-serious way. Sorry if that was taken offensively, it was meant more as a friendly jibe.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
No prob. As you said, we assume time exists and moves forward but our perceptions allow no other conclusion. Even if time were flowing backwards we would perceive it to be moving forward as our perception of time is based on memories compared to current experiences.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
lol. Thanks for enlightening me.....
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Lol. That's funny. You obviously don't understand time. Let me do a step by step for you. Imagine 5 days. On day 1 you write 1. On day 2 you write +. On day 3 you write 2 and on day 4 =. So you get 1+2=.

You remember 4 days and await the 5th day.

Now let's say time is flowing backwards and day 4 gets erased. So you have 1+2. You remember 3 days but day 4 and 5 are the future.

Subjectively you exist in a fraction of a second between the past (memories) and the future (expectations) .
Apart from our perception of time passing, there is no proof it does or that time even moves at all.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
@Furyan5 - I would love to see evidence to the contrary if you have it.... The status quo is most certainly to assume time exists and is moving forward, and the BoP relies on the person attempting to change the status quo.

There is plenty of sound evidence that time moves forward. If nothing else, we can detect it doing so empirically. We only have memories of past events. If time didn't move or moved multiple directions, we should experience memories from the future as well. But we do not.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Why do all arguments concerning creation assume that time is one directional? There is in fact no sound evidence that time is moving forward or even moving at all.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
@theholymacrel, dont worry about them. Guarantee you they won't put their money where their mouth is
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
Oh, want to know what sucks more?

You joined 3 days ago and already feel like a DDO pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.