Does the Kalam Cosmological argument negate God's existence.

Posted by: famousdebater

The argument goes in the following syllogism: (1) Everything that began to exist had a cause (2) The universe began to exist (3) The universe had a cause (4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God (5) Therefore, God exists

  • Yes

  • No

57% 8 votes
43% 6 votes
  • The logic seems pretty airtight to me.

  • When explained in more detail, it is flawless. My more detailed version can be accessed by viewing one of my debates.

    Posted by: Bob13
  • Just watch this and you will get the whole idea

  • The KCA is very brief and is massively flawed. Even the most basic rebuttal (referencing to what caused God) works in refuting it. If everything that begins to exist has a cause then what about God? When theists are asked this question after bringing up the argument 9/10 times the answer either avoids the question or they say some BS that makes no sense. Sometimes you get more intelligent people who can argue it and get around fallacies like this but the argument itself does not negate atheism.

  • The only place where effects are known to have causes, is within the confines of the universe, because that is a natural law. Therefore it is safer to assume that the rules of the universe don't apply to the creation of the universe, since that must have happened outside the universe. But maybe it didn't because then the law of time wouldn't apply either. Do you see how the laws of logic fall apart concerning the beginning of the universe? This is why logical arguments cannot be made concerning the beginning of the universe. Furthermore, even if the universe requires a cause that we can even wrap out brains around, it doesn't logically equate to an omnipotent, omnipresent and all-knowing God/gods.

  • It only affirms theism.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
famousdebater says2016-02-28T15:52:54.0391064Z
Ignore the error in the title. It is supposed to say "negate atheism" not the existence of God.
PetersSmith says2016-02-28T19:45:20.0605034Z Also notice the differences in stubbornness between the atheists and theists (how several atheists believe with 100% certainty that a god does not exist, while no theists believe with 100% certainty that a god exists).
Bob13 says2016-02-28T20:25:26.9375320Z This debate has my detailed version of the Kalam.
Bob13 says2016-02-28T21:16:02.4049900Z
Tell me if you have any objections.
Black-Jesus says2016-02-28T21:45:11.6286029Z
@PetersSmith, what are you talking about? I've met extremely numerous amounts of gnostic theists, and I have never met a single gnostic atheist.
PetersSmith says2016-02-28T22:47:48.6836385Z
Black-Jesus: According to those poll results, apparently there's a lot of gnostic atheists on here. No theist said that the arguments against god's existence is 100% illogical, but several atheists said the arguments for god's existence is 100% illogical. This is "evidence" that the atheists on this site display a tendency to not be willing to see the other side of arguments and believe that they are right completely.
Black-Jesus says2016-02-29T01:36:48.9843476Z
@PetersSmith, in the polls listed, the best reason atheists are atheists is because of a perceived lack of enough evidence. The best reason theists are theists is because of the Kalam Cosmological argument and other cosmological arguments. Therefore, atheists don't believe in God because there isn't enough evidence and theist do believe in God, because they find it more logical, meaning atheist are illogical. The polls you listed only helped my point precisely. And, I don't know who you've met, maybe you have just met different people than me, but all atheists I've ever known, including myself would be theists if they saw enough evidence, in fact, quite a bit of them want to be theists, but their standard of evidence is too high. The majority of theists I've met think extremely low of atheists, and no sane person could call their view of atheist arguments as "open minded." So, I don't know, I suppose we are just meeting different people, because that's all I can figure.
Black-Jesus says2016-02-29T01:39:51.7551192Z
@PetersSmith, I mean, even Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, some of the most anti-theistic people I can think of couldn't comfortably refer to themselves as gnostic atheists.
MechVarg says2016-02-29T06:19:06.5429028Z
I define a god as an intelligent entity that created the universe and/or is supreme overlord of the universe.
MechVarg says2016-02-29T06:19:34.1088096Z
So no.
mwtech says2016-03-05T21:19:55.4854475Z
No, because the premises are unfounded. Especially the premise that the cause must be a god. That is merely an assumption and couldn't possibly be known.
UtherPenguin says2016-03-05T21:22:44.9031243Z
If you agree with the KCA would you put your answer in "yes" or "no", the title implies you put it in the "no" category, but the images imply the "yes" category.
Black-Jesus says2016-03-05T22:06:32.7281027Z
@UtherPenguin, famousdebator tried to ask if the KCA negates atheism. So by voting yes, you would be supporting the KCA and God and by voting no you would be rejecting the KCA and not supporting God.
Black-Jesus says2016-03-05T22:07:27.0330951Z
And by "tried" I meant "meant", but I, like him, made a typo-o
Black-Jesus says2016-03-05T22:08:35.3628471Z
And then I made another type-o by spelling type-o "typo-o"

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

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