The Kalam Cosmological Argument (+Conceptual Analysis) is sound
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Universe: In
this argument, the universe is defined as the entirety of all physical reality,
that is to say all of space, time, and matter.
- Begins to exist: It
is defined as "coming into being". It entails having a finite history
of existence. That also means that eternal and timeless beings did not begin to
exist, rather they have always existed. More formally, its criteria can be
formulated as: X began to exist if X exists at time T and there are no prior time
where X existed. (There can't also be any state of affairs where X existed
timelessly.)
- Cause: Merriam-Webster
defines cause as "something that brings about an effect or a
result." Aristotle classified causes into different types. For the
sake of this argument, we can focus on what he called a Material
Cause (physical origin of an effect) and an Efficient
Cause (the agent responsible for an effect).
1. Whatever that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.But if a cause of the universe exists/existed, what properties would it have? Let's dig deeper.
4. Whatever caused all of matter to exist cannot be made of matter (immaterial).5. Whatever caused all of the spatial dimensions to exist must exist independent of spatial dimensions (spaceless).6. Whatever caused all of time to exist must exist independent of time (timeless).7. Whatever caused the universe to exist must be powerful.8. The cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and powerful.9. If the cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, then it must be a personal agent.10. Therefore, the universe has an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal cause.
1. Whatever that begins to exist has a cause.
- When a carpenter finishes the chair he's making, the chair began
to exist (it wasn't a defined as a chair before it was finished). Attached with
the completion of the the chair is a material cause (the wood and other
materials that make up the chair) and an efficient cause (the carpenter).
- When you were conceived, you began to exist (you weren't defined
as you before you were conceived). Attached with your conception is a material
cause (sperm and egg) and an efficient cause (your parents).
- When virtual particles fluctuate into existence, it began to
exist (they weren't virtual particles before they fluctuated). Attached with
this fluctuation is a material cause (quantum vacuum).
2. The universe began to exist.
b. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."
c. "Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."
4. Whatever caused all of matter to exist cannot be made of matter (immaterial).5. Whatever caused all of the spatial dimensions to exist must exist independent of spatial dimensions (spaceless).6. Whatever caused all of time to exist must exist independent of time (timeless).
9. If the cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, then it must be a personal agent.
- Cause | Definition of Cause by Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause
- Four Causes. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
- Kalam cosmological argument. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
- Kalam: Al-Ghazali, Kitab al-Iqtisad fi’l-I’tiqad
- [Grim Reaper] New Evidence for the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(with Dr. Rob Koons). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X6ism4-KKw
- P. J. Zwart, About Time (Amsterdam: North-Holland,
1976),p. 136.
- P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,”
in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag,
1978), pp. 78-9.
- Stephen Hawking on What Existed Before the Big Bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M&t=10s
- Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space
and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.:
Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.
O1: Energy (matter is energy through Einstein’s equation: e=mc^2 [1]) cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. [2]
If x, then y. If not y, then not x. [3]
In order for an argument to be true, it must be logically sound. If it isn’t logically sound, then it is not true.
Therefore, cause = the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
- Anything that begins to exist has the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has the existence of the universe as its causal condition. In other words, the universe caused the universe to exist.
Energy (matter is energy through Einstein’s equation: e=mc^2) cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. This is known as a transformational creation. Something else existed before it was created. This stance is additionally supported by the conservation of matter (energy (and thus matter) can never be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another) P1 posits its claim using transformational creation. (This is extensively demonstrated in previous argument)
Premise: The labelling/naming of objects are entirely subjective.
- All objects exist as an arrangement of atoms/molecules under a certain name/label.
- The label made to a particular object only exists in the mind of the conceiver (subjective).
- If the names of objects were objective, then it would mean the entire range of all possible entities (even abstract ones) would have to be considered as objectively existing. This includes made-up, nonsensical entities such as the “abfieidjcieoc”, an invisible being with exactly 124245203473485072 appendages, which (objectively speaking) exists because it is technically within the range of all possible entities. This would mean that there are many more objects than there are atoms which make up objects, which is impossible given a finite universe with a beginning.
- Different conceivers have different interpretations of different objects. If the names of objects were objective, then each of these interpretations would objectively exist. That is, the function of the object would itself be an objective concept. I could call any object anything, and it would then begin to exist objectively. Since there are infinitely many attributes I could give an object, following the assumption that labels are objective, it would once again follow that an infinite amount of things would come from a finite amount of particles.
Since all of the energy that makes everything that exists ultimately came from the big bang (creation of the universe), and that everything else that is derived from said energy is subjective (abstracts do not objectively exist), we can say that the universe is synonymous with everything that exists/began to exist (all of the energy in the universe).
- The universe has the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has the existence of the universe as its causal condition. In other words, the universe caused the universe to exist.
As I have demonstrated that the KCA is logically unsound (it contradicts itself, and commits logical fallacies), it now rests on my opponent to counter the argument presented. Due to character limitations, I will present my rebuttal of the conceptual analysis next round.
- http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Derive.htm#.Xa29LJNKg1g
- https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-chemistry/chapter/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
- https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/english/sections/linguist/independent/kursmaterialien/TechComm/acchtml/caus.html
- https://ripplecentral.com/newtons-law-of-rippling/
- https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/
- https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2007-8/93914/_HANDOUTS/sorites.pdf
OBJECTION 1: KCA is contradictory. Since all events in the universe happen due to the existence of the big bang they are all effects. Therefore, the only certain, definite cause is the big bang itself.
- Statement A: The cause of water freezing is the temperature being below 0°C.
- Statement B: The existence of the universe as its causal condition of water freezing is the temperature below 0°C.
- Statement C: The cause of water freezing is the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
OBJECTION 2: Equivocation Fallacy. P1 posits its claim using transformational creation and P2 is talking about creation ex nihilo.
OBJECTION 3: The universe is synonymous with everything that exists/began to exist (all of the energy in the universe)
- CON must properly define his terms. What does he mean by "the big bang"? Is he referring to the initial singularity? Is he referring to inflationary spacetime?
- CON: "Since all events in the universe happens due to the existence of the big bang they are all effects." This is circular. "All events" must include the big bang. This then becomes implicitly circular: "the big bang happened due to the existence of the big bang". It also admits that the big bang itself is an effect (from the clause "they are all effects").
- CON: "Therefore, the only certain, definite cause is the big bang itself." This could be interpreted to mean that there are no causes other than the big bang which is obviously false.
- Cosmological argument - What caused the First Cause?. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#What_caused_the_First_Cause?
- Begging the question. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- Special Pleading. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
- Metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
- Equivocation. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
- Ex nihilo. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
- Causal Premiss of the Kalam Argument. William Lane Craig. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument/
- Sorites Paradox. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
- Red herring. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
- Formal fallacy. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
- Naturalism. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
- Unsubstantiated Premise/B+W Fallacy
9a. An immaterial, spaceless, timeless cause can be either an abstract object or a personal agent.
10a. It is not an abstract object.
11a. Therefore, it is a personal agent.
_________________________________________________________________________
9b. If the cause of the universe were a timelessly existing impersonal condition, the universe must timelessly or eternally exist.
10b. The universe does not exist timelessly or eternally.
11b. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal cause
- Begging the Question
_________________________________________________________________________
- Contradicts definitions
Additional Points
- Ambiguous Definitions
In conclusion, I have shown how the conceptual analysis (proving that the cause of the universe, assuming there is one, is a personal one) is logically flawed. I will provide a rebuttal to all of Pro’s arguments next round. In the meantime, I look forward to Pro's next argument.
OBJECTION 4: Black and White Fallacy (Premise 9a)
OBJECTION 5: Unsubstantiated Premise (Premise 10a)
OBJECTION 6: Begging the Question (B Syllogism)
OBJECTION 7: Contradicts Definitions (B Syllogism)
- False Dilemma. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
- False Dilemmas and False Dichotomies (How to Respond to False Dilemmas). https://effectiviology.com/false-dilemma/#How_to_respond_to_a_false_dilemma
- Abstract Objects. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#CausInefCrit
- Modus Tollens. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
- Causality. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes
- Straw man. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- God's Timelessness sans Creation. ReasonableFaith.Org. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/gods-timelessness-sans-creation/
1. Whatever that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. Whatever caused all of matter to exist cannot be made of matter (immaterial).5. Whatever caused all of the spatial dimensions to exist must exist independent of spatial dimensions (spaceless).6. Whatever caused all of time to exist must exist independent of time (timeless).7. Whatever caused the universe to exist must be powerful.8. The cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and powerful.9. If the cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, then it must be a personal agent.10. Therefore, the universe has an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal cause.
9a. An immaterial, spaceless, timeless cause can be either an abstract object or a personal agent.10a. It is not an abstract object.11a. Therefore, it is a personal agent.
9b. If the cause of the universe were a timelessly existing impersonal condition, the universe must timelessly or eternally exist.10b. The universe does not exist timelessly or eternally.11b. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal cause.
O1. The Big Bang
In Pro’s argument, it was stated that time, space, and all energy/matter originated from the moment of the big bang. At first, this seemed like a reasonable statement. However, upon further research, I found that this was not the case. To respond to Pro’s question about what the big bang is, it is the earliest point in which we can trace back our universe (by reversing the cosmic expansion we observe) to which our laws of physics would still make sense. [1] Once we try to go back before the big bang, our physics breaks down. This is because the General Theory of Relativity (the current model used to describe space and time) is incompatible with the quantum realm that an infinitesimally small universe would be under. [2] In that sense, we cannot definitively say that all time, space, and matter began at the big bang. Instead, we can only say that the physical laws describing our universe (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) started making sense in the first few instances after the big bang.
In Pro’s argument, it was stated that abstract objects are immaterial, and that they are not bounded by the physical universe. This is false. Abstract objects are things conceived in a mind. [3] As such, the process of which the mind creates thoughts are well known. Electrical currents which are fired from synapses from one neuron to the next creates thought processes, and those thought processes are what give rise to the conception of abstractions. [4] In fact, neuroscientists have already invented a machine that can (for now, crudely) predict what you are thinking based off of the electrical signals given off by the brain. [5] Other neuroscientists have even gone so far as to “input” action thoughts into the brains of mice using electrical currents. [6] Given that our brains, fundamentally, are made of the same stuff as mice (as all brains are made of the same stuff and work in basically the same way) [7], it would not be unlikely that thoughts could be input into our brains too. Since electrical currents are concrete, and that thoughts are produced by said currents, the abstractions which are produced by those thoughts are concrete, in the form of electrical signals.
1A. Begging the Question
In Pro’s counter, he stated that my first objection claimed that the big bang was the first cause. This is not what my argument stated. By “the only certain, definite cause is the big bang itself”, I meant that the earliest cause that we can be sure actually happened (shown in observation 1) is the big bang. We would not be able to describe what happened before using our current laws of physics, so therefore, we cannot be certain or definite of them. The earliest moment to which we are sure the causal chains go back to, therefore, is the big bang itself.
This counter can be addressed with the exact same rebuttal as the previous one. I did not assert that the big bang was the first cause, I stated that it is the first cause that we can be sure of, using our laws of physics.
In this counter, Pro stated that you cannot equivocate “cause” and “the causal condition of the existence of the universe”. This would only be true if there were objects not attached to the universe, since if everything were in the universe, and everything has a cause, then the earliest certain cause (big bang) would be the causal condition of everything that follows. As shown by Observation 2, this is not the case. To respond to his Freezing Water analogy, temperature can be added or removed by external factors. The reason that the water freezes is because heat energy was removed from the water into the surroundings. That is a cause, and since all causes are causally connected, the original statement still remains true. As for the 1+2=3 analogy, I have also covered it in O2.
This point has been thoroughly covered by O2. That is, abstract objects are concrete. Beethoven’s fifth was conceived by his mind, which shown in O2, is completely concrete.
Pro argues here that because I directly laid out the Sorites Paradox as the justification that the universe is synonymous with everything that exists/began to exist. I never laid it out directly from the Sorites Paradox. I simply used it to show that you couldn’t give an object a definite starting/ending point. Objection 3 ultimately goes back to the fact that as far as we are concerned, everything that was “created” was made from pre-existing matter.
Here, Pro argues that "universe" is not synonymous with "everything that exists". He elaborates on this point by saying that abstract objects exist and that they are not part of the universe. I have shown that abstract objects do not exist in O2.
O2 sufficiently deals with this point.
In Pro’s counter, he argued that since the only two possible entities that can fit the description of an immaterial, spaceless, and timeless beings are abstract objects and personal agents, that there is no B+W fallacy here. However, even if we are to accept that abstractions exist outside of the mind, there are more than two entities which fit the description. For example, in string theory [8], there are quantum-scale strings which form the elementary particles, which make up matter. They are immaterial, as they “create” matter (X cannot come from X). They are spaceless, as the 6 other dimensions of string theory do not occupy physical space (x, y, and z axis). They are timeless, because the other 5 dimensions are unaffected by the 4th dimension (time axis).
Pro has substantiated his claim. However, in the process of doing so, has stated that concrete mental objects exist. In other words, a mind can create a concrete object through sheer willpower. This has never been demonstrated before (as all things created were made from pre-existing material). Without any evidence to back this assertion up, this is not only another unsubstantiated claim, but is now also a special pleading fallacy (as Pro has also stated that God has created all material ex nihilo).
There are two things that I have to say about this. Firstly, Pro states that X (a personal agent endowed with the ability to choose) can choose to make the universe out of his own volition. However, the process of choosing to do something requires time, and since this realm is timeless, there would be no time for X to make his choice. Secondly, Pro again asserts that the universe was created 13.8 Billion years ago. O1 deals with this sufficiently.
I presented this premise as a conditional, and since Pro does not believe that eternal existence is the reason for the causal inertness of an abstract object, this premise would not apply.
In this round, I have refuted Pro’s counters with two additional observations (O1 and O2). I look forward to Pro’s final round.
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/
- https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11758.html
- http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4r.htm
- https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/
- https://www.jneurosci.org/content/36/22/6069.short?sid=39264297-467f-403a-9806-429798f2237c
- https://www.nature.com/news/laser-used-to-control-mouse-s-brain-and-speed-up-milkshake-consumption-1.20995
- http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2893
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
Objection 8: Physics break down at planck time
Objection 9: Abstract objects are concrete
Rebuttal 1A and 1B. CON denies claiming the Big Bang is uncaused.
Rebuttal 1C. CON denies falsely equivocating "cause" and "causal condition of the universe"
- Statement A: The cause of water freezing is the temperature being below 0°C.
- Statement B: The existence of the universe as its causal condition of water freezing is the temperature below 0°C.
- Statement C: The cause of water freezing is the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
Rebuttal 2. Beethoven's Symphony is concrete.
Rebuttal 3b. CON accuses me of saying abstract objects exists that's why the universe is not synonymous with everything that exists.
Rebuttal 4. Strings are immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.
Rebuttal 5. A mind creating concrete objects through sheer willpower has never been demonstrated before
Rebuttal 6. The process of choosing to do something requires time
I'm awarding the convincing arguments for this round to pro for the following reasons.
1. Con Does not address the scientific implications of a past-eternal universe as it relates to thermodynamics or unsolvable paradoxes.
2. Con's argument that abstractions exist in a concrete sense because of electric activity in the brain is unconvincing when pro points out that the electric neural "code" that represents an abstraction is not the same as that abstraction actually existing in a concrete sense.
3. Pro was on shaky ground with the argument about time being necessary for a personal agent to choose to create the universe. But instead of pressing the attack and breaking down a major argument, con forfeits the last round leaving pro's argument standing.
4. pro's Modus Tollens approach to the issue of a timeless being was powerful and as I said before, con started to make progress against the argument but stopped short leaving this powerful argument standing.
Tough one, but I'd say after considering both sides I deem this a tie.
Both had good arguments and conduct for the most part however neither stood out above the other
Yeah I agree
A lot of reports are made to waste moderator time unfortunately, I tend to just default to not removing tied votes.
lol someone reporting a tied vote tho
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
**************************************************
Such numbers are an ideal reference point. You can even embed the links into them without it costing characters.
Generally in online debating there isn't a benefit to using MLA or any other academic standard.
Thanks for this. If I may ask, do you mean that we should be putting numbers like [1][2] as references?
I will not be voting after-all. I R1 ended up losing me... Here is the start of my review (I hope it gives insight to voter frames of mind for future debates), but it's not going to be finished:
---
1. Part 1
A main syllogism, designed to lead into a secondary analysis to conclude things about said cause.
2. Part 2
Grim Reapers: It’s as good an analogy as any for showing a finite amount of time.
Heat death: Again, a nice showing that infinite years do not exist (not sure the point of this, as the big bang model replaced the static universe model a long time ago).
expansion of the universe: This shows there was no need for the previous two premises. I am very unclear as to where the leap in logic to personal agent came from; and yes, I see that it was done with a couple false dichotomies, but not why it would be necessary.
3. Part 3
References should be referenced in the debate proper. I’m actually cool with a further reading section, but it contributes nothing to weighting arguments and sources, and when mixed with sources causes confusion which forces me to reject them from consideration.
4. KCA is contradictory
A good use of invalidity to reject soundness, via rewriting the KCA.
5. KCA commits Equivocation Fallacy
I don’t quite find this justified, but looking forward to pro’s response...
6. KCA commits Circular Reasoning
Confusing opening to this, as it shows a flaw but not one of circular reasoning. (it was in this section I stopped)
---
Its hard to vote when sleepy. The arguments are long and winding. lol
I'll try to vote on this. I just read another on the same topic as a warm up; but am now a bit sleepy.
Or even an argument that I'm an Asian man, will pass every test of validity, but will still need a little proof of soundness beyond just being valid.
FYI, I haven't even skimmed this yet, so I don't know if your opponent used lack of proof of soundness or not as an argument.
Yeah. If I understood correctly, in proving validity, you dont have to defend the truth of the premises. So, you may have a valid argument with false premises. Like say, all men are asian, im a man, im asian. Its valid but not sound because not all men are asian.
I might get around to this one. However, I do need to say that proving soundless is a lot harder than proving validity.
Absinthe talkin
Must be some cosmic stuff god was eating then.
You sir, are a genius
sometimes shit just happens man like that time i got massive diareah from to much absinthe and buffalo wings man stuff was coming out both ends
i bet thats how a universe begins god gets the trotts
well that was easy to solve
Addendum to round 1 argument:
My third point is actually arguing that KCA begs the question. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning, but I just wanted to state that to avoid any confusion
Thank you so much