The Instigator
kyleniel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Debater2018
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The cosmologicl argument is false

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: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,024 times Debate No: 117223
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

kyleniel

Pro

The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, But then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise " and say that though God exists, He doesn't have a cause " or else a contradiction to his third premise " and say that God is self-caused. Either way, The theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, But is not explaining whyGod must be the unique exception, Otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, You can ask why the universe itself, Which is also unique, Can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, Or else can be self-caused. Since the buck has to stop somewhere, Why not with the universe?

FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, But our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, Extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, Based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, Was developed by David Hume.

COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, Like the Argument from the Big Bang, And The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, Are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining! "
Debater2018

Con

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, The universe has a cause.
4. If something causes the universe to exist, Then it is not essentially a part of the universe.
5. Thetefore, There is a cause of the universe that is not essentially a part of the universe.
6. If something is not essentially a part of the universe then it is not essentially physical.
7. Therefore, There is a cause of the universe that is not essentially physical.
8. The only non-essentially physical agents are persons.
9. Therefore, The universe has a cause which is a non-essentially-physical person.

This is the extended version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Another short version is:
1. The universe began to exist
2. If the universe began to exist, Then the universe had a transcendent cause
3. Therefore the universe had a transcendent cause.

The universe can only exist in two ways:
Contingently or by Necessity

For the universe to exist Contingently is to mean that it was caused by something else.
For the universe to exist by Necessity means that it exists by it's own nature. . . . That it would be impossible for it not to exist.

Therefore, We know that the universe exists Contingently, Which implies that the cause is not an abstract object, But a mind that is beyond spacetime reality, Matter, And energy.
Debate Round No. 1
kyleniel

Pro

In quantum mechanics, Or some other form of advenaced astrophysics, There is no cause and effect as we know it. Even if there is a caquse, We don't know if it's a deity.
Debater2018

Con

Quantum Mechanics is still in the Philosophy field and not the Scientific field. This may be for some time. Skeptics think they really have something on Theists with this field of study. They do not. For even Quantum Physics cannot get around the 'cause' problem. So far, The latest cutting edge of this study reveals that it too is bound to the Kalam Cosmology argument.
Debate Round No. 2
kyleniel

Pro

How is it bound to the argument? And you still failed to address my second claim.
Debater2018

Con

Quantum Physics does not prove that out of nothing, Something comes. There is still that. 'something' that ties quantum mechanics to the Kalam argument.
Debate Round No. 3
kyleniel

Pro

What's your proof?
Debater2018

Con

The proof that QM is subject to the Kalam argument is that the positive and negative energy needed in order to balance out to zero to spawn our universe. . . . . . . Is something. Therefore, Something did not come from nothing.
Debate Round No. 4
kyleniel

Pro

There is an unequal amount of positive and negative energy.
Debater2018

Con

Thank you so much! For from your last post revealing that the 2 kinds of energy of the QM exist, Therefore are 'something's.

We are again dealing with the Kalam argument.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Debater2018

My douche bag Xtian opponent compares to the dude who repeats himself over and over and over ad nauseum/ad infinitum.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Your version of the cosmological argument is a strawman.

http://edwardfeser. Blogspot. Com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand. Html
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 years ago
21MolonLabe
I've never seen a theist use this argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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