Instigator / Con
20
1510
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#2467

the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
1

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Jarrett_Ludolph
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
10
1469
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

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!

Yeah, I was an idiot and I was irresponsible. I appreciate the positive remarks, Sum1. I'll keep that in my mind.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yes I agree, again I must say that he would have done well, or even have won the debate. But hey, another easy win.

-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph

Dang man, this was looking to be a good debate, and then he just totally quit on you, us the readers, and himself. Free win ig

MarkWebberFan definitely had the ability to at least to do well in this debate, or even win

True

It should've continued. Another waste and loss for me as a learner. :'/

-->
@MarkWebberFan

Dang a FF??

-->
@fauxlaw

thank you for your advice

-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph

Again, I apologize for not taking on this debate. It has a good first round, but as I plan to vote on the debate, I will not tip my hand to any favoritism of argument, etc. However, relative to post #10, and your response in #11, may I recommend that you not engage in conversation with anyone relative to your debate strategy by either description of intent, nor or avoidance. While in debate, stay aloof from direct conversation re: the debate. The debate should be entirely contained within the debate, except for use of comments to post sources, or to converse on subjects completely unrelated to the debate. Voters should be keen to watch for debate outside of the debate, and award points for keeping that distinction.
Same advice to MarkWebberFan.

Thank you CalebEr for your comment.

As for the oscillatory and fluctuating models, yes they are wrong, and have been dead and buried before I was born. That's why I didn't use them in the debate.

As for the philosophical and scientific arguments against a beginningless universe, I will respond to them when/if MarkWebberFan brings them up in the debate.

What CON neglects to mention is that most other proposed models (oscillatory or fluctuating, etc...) invoke theoretical physics that have either been debunked already or are well on their way; it almost goes without saying that many of them don't comport with the data we have now and, in some cases, actually fail to solve the problem. The oscillation model, for instance, would have to run on a limited supply of energy that would increase with each big-bang (meaning that if you run the clock back far enough, you eventually get to a singularity with no energy preceding it). So it doesn't solve the issue, but only pushes it back a few generations.

On a broader scale, none of the models escape the philosophical problems with infinite regress. The things these models would require us to believe (both scientifically and philosophically) are far-fetched and just downright untenable, especially once you get into the nitty-gritty details of it.

Yep, no problem

Appreciate the early argument in R1

-->
@K_Michael

I can make another unrated debate right now, since my last attempt at This debate auto deleted, and this one has been up for 4 days(at the posting if this comment)

-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph

I would be interested but I won't debate religion unless it's unrated. If you still have no takers in 11 days, would you be interested in an unrated debate?

-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph

ok thanks. I probably won't be accepting as I have two debates. However, I may take you up on it later

The core syllogism:

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2 the universe began to exist
C1 the universe has a cause

The conceptual analysis:

P3. Whatever caused all of matter to exist cannot be made of matter (immaterial).
P4. Whatever caused all of the spatial dimensions to exist must exist independent of spatial dimensions (spaceless).
P5. Whatever caused all of time to exist must exist independent of time (timeless).
P6. Whatever caused the universe to exist must be powerful.
C2. The cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and powerful.
P7. If the cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, then it must be a personal agent.
C3. Therefore, the universe has an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal

-->
@MisterChris

The reason I didn't post the syllogism was to ensure the person knows the argument, however, I you say you know the Kalam Cosmetological Argument, I can post the exact syllogism I'll use in the comments, that way you can prepare for the debate

I would suggest to put the exact syllogism of the argument you want to use for the debate. That was one thing that kept me from taking it last time.

Always a classic...