the Kalam Cosmological Argument
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I, Jarrett_Ludolph will be holding the CON position, the view that the argument is unsuccessful, while my opponent, PRO, will be taking the view that the argument is successful. Even though there are other arguments for the exist of God, this debate will only cover the Kalam.
I look forward to a lively debate!
I, Jarrett_Ludolph, will be taking the position that the KCA is unsuccessful (as stated in the description) and that it fails. seldiora with be taking the position that the KCA is successful (also stated it the description) and that it doesn't fail.
(KCA) has a core syllogism that is as follows:
P1 everything that begins to exist, has a cause
P2 the universe began exist
C1 The universe has a cause
Whatever caused all of the spatial dimensions to exist must exist independent of spatial dimensions (spaceless).
Whatever caused all of time to exist must exist independent of time (timeless).
Whatever caused the universe to exist must be extremely powerful.
The cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and extremely powerful.
 (interview with theoretical physicist Alex Vilenkin)
Argument 1: Aristotelian Metaphysics
I think the KCA argues that God is a being that existsindependent of time and space. That said, I want to argue that the samemetaphysical idea is present in Aristotle’s writings:
“The actual course of events (e.g. pursuits of knowledge)bears witness to this; for speculation of this kind began with a view torecreation and pastime, at a time when practically all the necessities of lifewere already supplied. Clearly then it is for no extrinsic advantage that weseek this knowledge; for just as we call a man independent who exists forhimself and not for another, so we call this the only independent science,since it alone exists for itself.
For this reason its acquisition might justly be supposed tobe beyond human power, since in many respects human nature is servile; in whichcase, as Simonides says, ‘God alone can have this privilege,’”
Human nature is predisposed to seek knowledge; It seeksknowledge for its own sake. Knowledge is independent of human nature asknowledge only exists as mere fact, not as one that is dependent on humandesires. In this way, acquisition of the entirety of laws of nature must beattributed to a non-dependent cause: God.
Rebuttal: Infinite regress
Con argues that he has serious objections to the secondpremise. He offers an account that the universe is undergoing contraction andexpansion. He argues that there is a possibility of different worlds that simultaneouslyexists. He fails to address the single most important issue: Infinite regress.