Instigator / Pro

THBT: The Kalam Cosmological argument does not successfully prove the existence of a supernatural deity.


Waiting for the instigator's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 1,006 / 5,000

THBT: The Kalam Cosmological argument does not successfully prove the existence of a supernatural deity.


Bones: The Kalam Cosmological argument does not successfully prove the existence of a supernatural deity.
Contender: The Kalam Cosmological argument successfully proves the existence of a supernatural deity.


Kalam Cosmological Argument =

p1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ergo, there is a supernatural deity

Supernatural = attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding of the laws of nature

1. No Kritik.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. The Burden of Proof is shared.
4. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
5. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
6. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
7. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.

Round 1
Thx 949havoc for accepting. 



In Dr William Lane Craig's The Kalām Cosmological Argument, the argument takes the form of the following syllogism. 
p1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ergo, there is a creator, i.e, God.
Undoubtedly, much of the lethality posed by this argument is its simple premises of which seem to be confirmed by our intuition. However, in Dr Craig’s publication The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, he admits that there are presuppositions required to render the argument successful.  
“From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time
In metaphysics, the A-theory and B-theory of time are two different descriptions of the temporal ordering relation of events. The two series differ principally in their use of tense to describe the temporal relation between events and the resulting ontological implications regarding time. Whilst events continuously change their position in the A-theory, their position in the B theory does not. Events in the A-theory are ordered as future, present and past, whilst the B-theory labels events as asymmetric, irreflexive and transitive. William Craig describes the B-Theory of time as such:
“On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.”
As stated by Dr Craig, the notion of a caused universe is contingent upon the veracity of the A-theory of time. If the A-theory of time is true, the first premise of the KCA is also true. Likewise, if the A-theory of time is not true, the KCA fails. 


Contention I: The competing theories of time

Prerequisites for Causation

  • The Oxford languages dictionary defines causation as that which relates to cause and effect. Where an event involves a cause and results in an effect, causation is associated. By virtue of tautology, without a cause preceding an effect, causality must be absent. Moreover, the time between any cause and effect must be a finite and measurable number. Hence, it can be drawn that causality is inherently tied with the arrow of time, as the cause would have to precede the effect by a finite amount of time.
    • Moreover, the nature of causation requires that cause “X” and effect “Y” both be logically possible, either contingently or necessarily. For example, it is impossible that there exists a cause of which results in the effect of a circular square.
      • Hence, the nature of causation is inherently incumbent on logical, physical and metaphysical laws.
    • Returning to the universe, it becomes clear that the idea of a caused universe is wholly incoherent, as prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither the arrow of time nor physical/logical laws. As the necessary pre-conditions for causation to take place were not in existence before the Big Bang, it is unjustified to speak of the cause of the universe. As the A-theory of time affirms a model in which the universe was caused, the A-series of time is inaccurate. 

B-theory of time

General relativity

The B-series of time, on the other hand, is the alternative theory of which the general scientific community affirms. To recall, the theory asserts that the universe is tenseless and exists with one time and three spatial dimensions, where there is no objective passing of time. This is a contrast to the A-series, which asserts that only the present moment is true. 
Albert Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity supports the B-Theory of time and refutes the A-theory on the following grounds; 
  1. General Relativity depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional, block universe. 
  2. Special relativity holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference. This means that people can disagree on the present moment but are all equally correct. 
Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional plane. The theory provides an infused description of gravity and space-time and asserts that space-time can be curved and distorted by objects with a large mass. General Relativity dictates that the universe is like a block, in that it consists of three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension containing time. All aspects of this block are equally real. Not only does gravity have the ability to affect the movement of an object through space, but it can also manipulate the object's passage through time. 
To validate general relativity universally, an international team of astronomers used gravitational lensing, the phenomenon where objects with large mass curve the spacetime around it, acting like a large lens by bending light so much that the image of a background object is distorted. Using a galaxy 500 million light-years away, scientists conducted their experiments, hypothesizing that if they aligned two objects, the effect known as “Einstein’s ring” would be visible in the photograph. Leading astrophysicists and astronomer Thomas Collett stated that the radius of the observed ring was "proportional to the deflection of the light," and that "if you measure the radius of the ring, you can measure the curvature of space-time", concluding that “as far as we know, even outside our solar system, general relativity is the correct theory of gravity”.
Thus, it is harmonious with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that the past, present and future are already encoded into the “block universe”. From the block time perspective, the past, present and future are equally real. Such a universe renders the A-Series of time false.  

Special relativity

Further still, Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity asserts that absolute simultaneity is impossible and that relative simultaneity is true. Consider the hypothetical event “X” and subjects “Y” and “Z”. It is impossible to assert that Y and Z can witness event “X” at the exact same time if the two subjects are separated in space. This phenomenon is a result of how objects moving at a quicker, but constant velocity relative to another object will observe time more slowly relative to the other object. Hence, this too refutes the A-Theory of time, as it demonstrates that there is no “real present” as a single event can be perceived in different frames of reference, with no appropriate metric to determine who’s “perception” is correct. 


On top of Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum physicists also deny the A-theory of time. As aforementioned, the A-theory of time operates under the laws of causality, which dictate that cause must always precede effect. However, retrocausality, the phenomenon in which an effect precedes its cause, is quite literally the antithesis of this idea. There is an abundance of evidence suggesting that retrocausality is prevalent in the quantum world. Research abundantly suggests that there exists a pervasive asymmetry in time and that this time-symmetry extends to the causal dependencies at the quantum level. Huw Price’s “Backward Causation, Hidden Variables and the Meaning of Completeness”, finds that the notion of time-symmetry directly implies retrocausality. Furthermore, it has also been demonstrated through quantum entanglement that entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally when one particle is observed and its wave function collapses. 


Further failure 

Though the first premise of the KCA has been thoroughly refuted in the above, I wish to show that even if the first two premises are granted, and the commonly accepted A-series of time is true, the conclusion arrived at by the KCA is still a non sequitur. Dr Craig’s first premise asserts that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and supports this notion with our “intuition” and “reasoning”. However, one can find that the “intuition” which Dr Craig refers to is our knowledge on creation ex materia, that is, things being created with existing material. Though we certainly have experience of things being created from existent matter, our “intuition” is very limited when it comes to creation ex nihilo, the relevant form of creation regarding the KCA. Using our experience of creation ex materia to justify creation of the universe ex nihilo is to commit a false equivocation on the term cause. Thus, it can be seen that the “intuition” which Dr Craig refers to has no bearing on whether the universe is caused. 


Thus, the A-theory of time is not only congruent with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity but also makes successful predictions in the quantum universe with tremendous accuracy which otherwise would have been deemed absurd under the A-Theory of time. As such, premise 1 of Dr Craig's Kalām Cosmological Argument is incorrect, thereby negating the conclusion. Furthermore, I have shown that even if the first two premises are granted, the conclusion arrived at is by the KCA is still a non sequitur

Thank you, Bones, for this debate
1. Rebuttal: Pro’s theories of time, and general relativity
a.    Pro offered the A & B theories of time, and Einstein’s general relativity. These ideas have sustained popularity, but are old news. A & B theories of time were first proposed by J.M.E. McTaggart in 1908.[i]  Einstein’s theory of general relativity dates from 1917.[ii]  We’ve moved on a bit in 100 years to Gabriele Veneziano’s string theory in 1966, and even further since then.[iii] Note the coincidence of still thinking old, 100 year-old news, while Veneziano runs in our time in all directions.
b.    History has a way of being replaced by new ideas. What is now written is string theory, and quantum physics.
c.     One of the curious aspects of string theory is dismissing the Big Bang as a beginning, such as is alleged by Pro as the Kalam Cosmological Argument – hereafter KCA.  Pro considers an uncaused beginning of the universe. String theory suggests a caused pre-bang universe.[iv] 
d.    By string theory, there was another version of the universe before the Big Bang. At the “singularity,” just seconds before the bang, conditions were as a black hole, wherein time and space reverse the roles they currently demonstrate,[v]  as well as, perhaps, matter and energy, but, before even that, a previous universe, once expanded, as ours is now, but which contracted to the singularity. At the bang, re-expansion began at an accelerated rate compared to the slower expansion occurring now.[vi]
e.    The concept I will present in rebuttal is that a supreme being, a god, presided over that previous universe, and the god of this present universe is a generation from that god. 
f.     Pro refutes the KCA by declaring an “arrow of time,”[vii]  a “one-way direction," and further argues B-time. As explained above, 1.d, the universe expands and contracts, running continuous cycles, therefore implying that time is omni-directional. In fact, the presented KCA propositions make no mention of time; simply that there is cause and an effect.
g.    But, Pro argues, if, since there must be a beginning according to KCA, the creation must have been ex nihilo,i.e., from nothing.
h.    That argument discounts the sense of what “creation” really is as presented in Hebrew, the biblical text’s original language:[viii]   
                     בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)  אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm) בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā
                or, “In the beginning,       the gods        shaped…”
i.      Given string theory, we interpret “beginning” as just the beginning of the current cycle of the universe’s expansion and contraction.  Note, as well, an acknowledgement by the masculine plural rendering,  elohim; gods, not one god. Finally, the trailing word, shape, implying existing material that is consequently organized, not magically poofed into existence.
2. Definitions that are key to Con arguments
a.    Pro: all definitions offered are to be accepted as is. Agreed.
b.     However, Pro did not offer a definition for “science,” but has used the term in the definition of “supernatural,” which is also a keyword of the Topic. In addition, Pro did not offer a definition of “prove;” another keyword. Finally, a third, and fourth, “theory,” and “nature,” to demonstrate their place in my arguments. I make the same imposition on these definitions as stipulated by Pro, by rule 4: “Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.”   
c.      Definition: science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
d.    Definition: prove:  demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.  
e.      Definition: theory: a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
f.     Definition: nature: the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.
3. The “proof” of science, theory, and nature are not as proof is defined
a.    Pro has assumed by topic that the KCA does not prove existence of a supernatural deity which is said to be outside the scientific laws of nature. 
b.    I offered the definition of “science” just to make this point: science, itself, is not the equivalent of truth, which is the underlying Topic.
c.     Science is explained by “observation and experiment.” What is observed and experimented has repeatable results. Pro argues that KCA’s argument is intuitive. Intuition has little to support science. A thousand trials of 1+1 yielding 2 declares that behavior, and intuition is not to be found. Actually, science does not define the number of observations and experiments required to establish “science,” nor a supernatural condition. Let us agree that “supernatural,” is beyond science. We have, in effect, by my acceptance of the debate, declared that definition as acceptable.
d.    Consider the following:[x]
“Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." - Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), English biologist.
"Science is the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another." - Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), English philosopher, author.
"In essence, science is a perpetual search for an intelligent and integrated comprehension of the world we live in." - Cornelius Bernardus Van Niel (1897-1985), U. S. microbiologist.
e.    Moreover, let us observe:  “The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.”[xi]
f.     Further:  “On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), possible worlds, infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe.”[xii]
g.    Theory does not necessarily relate to truth, but is, as defined, merely well reasoned, observed and experimented phenomena to explain what is not currently within the realm of truth.
h.    Nature does not necessarily relate to truth, either, but is, as defined, merely well reasoned, observed and experimented phenomena.
i.      Thus, the KCA does not attempt science, or theory, or nature, as the terms are understood, and that is clarified in the bolded section of citation  iii, in 3.f. Such matters have no intrinsic, science-based evidence that takes theory onto more solid ground. By definition, neither science nor theory can bridge to truth by their stated methods, alone, without the added benefit of a preponderance of evidence by continued observation and experiment.
j.      Whereas, the definition of “prove” requires the element of truth, let us be certain about our terms, here. Pro maintains that the KCA does not successfully “prove the existence” of supernatural deity. This is because science is not proof, and Pro’s argument is that a deity exists only in the supernatural realm, beyond science. Therefore, the topic is not disproved, and Pro’s argument fails on the nonexistence of disproof.
k.    I may merely ask, since Pro limited any allegation of definition of a deity within the scope of “supernatural,” but did not, for clarification, define “deity:” What if a deity resides within the scope of nature, and not superlative to it?

Round 2
Thx 949havoc for the speedy reply, 



  • My opponent drops my argument from special relativity. 
    • To recall, this argument stipulates that absolute simultaneity is impossible. 
  • My opponent drops my argument from the prerequisites for causation
    • To recall, this argument posits that that the prerequisites for causation to occur were not in effect prior to the big bang. Thus, speaking of the causation of the universe is illogical. 

Pro’s theories of time, and general relativity

CON begins their rebuttal by stating that the A&B theories of time and Einstein's general relativity are dated and therefore can be discounted. I object. The term gravity was coined in 1665 and yet is in use to this day. An argument cannot be refuted purely on the grounds that they are "old". Furthermore, the factual assertion of CON's claim is also false. General relativity was recently proven as true, whilst the two theories of time are still the centre of most discussions regarding time. Moreover, Hitchens razor, which stipulates "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" is useful here. Whilst I have provided evidence for why my arguments are valid, CON has not done so in their rebuttals, and thus can be disregarded. 

Moreover, were my oppositions critique valid, that is, old theories can be disregarded on the basis that it is probable that new ideas will be formulated, the KCA, of which was created in the 17th century, can most certainly be disregarded. 

CON then provides an argument for why string theory should be deemed superior. However, we must recall the burden of proof my opponent must uphold. 

CON: The Kalam Cosmological argument successfully proves the existence of a supernatural deity.

Notice how the truthfulness of string theory can be completely explained in terms of scientific means and thus does not support the existence of a supernatural deity. Though string theory suggests that the universe had a pre-state, it does not imply the existence of a supernatural deity. 

However, I wish to show that string theory is compatible with the argument that I have provided. The B theory of time simply stipulates that time is tenseless. A good way to illustrate the B-theory is by way of analogy. The B-theory can be compared to a video-sharing site like Youtube in which we compare time to a specific video file on the YouTube server. The site operates by extracting data from a video file and playing the segment of the clip which corresponds with the timestamp. The video player can be compared to us, in that we can only experience one segment of time which is the present. However, even though the video player can only display one segment at any moment, this doesn’t change the fact that the entire video exists in its entirety on the server. Likewise, just as how humans can only experience one segment, being the present, this doesn’t mean that the present is all that exists. Just as the piece of data corresponding to segment 3:12 isn’t any more real than the part corresponding to 2:32 the year 610 is as real as our present experience of 2021. 

Notice how this does not negate the possibility that string theory is true, as the B theory only dictates time related events. As prior to the big bang, there was no time, the B theory does not apply when there is no time. 

Moreover, it must be noted that string theory does not entitle that the universe began. To cite the subtitle of the source CON used, String theory suggests that the BIG BANG was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state. No where in the article does Dr. Veneziano postulate that the "preexisting state" can be credited to that which is supernatural. Furthermore the article also states when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe.It can be observed that this source actually works in my favor, as it describes a self-contained system, one which does not require a supernatural deity. 

Next, my opponent introduces the scripture. My first issue is that the term אֱלֹהִ֑ים, according to CON's source, refers to God, or of God in singular, not plural. Moreover, I must address that fact that CON has applied post hoc reasoning in his argument. They assert that because string theory allows for the "creation" of the universe, it was therefore the work of a supernatural deity. Consider the following syllogistic formulation of CON's argument. 


The “proof” of science...

In essence, the entirely of CON's argument boils down to the following. 

949havoc: the definition of “prove” requires the element of truth, let us be certain about our terms, here. Pro maintains that the KCA does not successfully “prove the existence” of supernatural deity. This is because science is not proof, and Pro’s argument is that a deity exists only in the supernatural realm, beyond science. Therefore, the topic is not disproved, and Pro’s argument fails on the nonexistence of disproof.

It appears to me that CON has confused their position for mine. My argument is not that "a deity exists only in the supernatural realm",  in fact, I am arguing for the exact opposite. Moreover, your claim that my argument fails on the nonexistence of disproof is simply false. Of course there exists disproof. To disprove something is simply to show that it is incorrect or incompatible with our view on the world. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. Keyword, evidence. I must ask, if evidence does not lead to truth, then what does? 



CON has not provided any case for why the KCA necessitates the existence of a supernatural deity. At best, they have demonstrated that there was a  phase before the Big Bang, however the only way to attribute this to some supernatural deity is through post hoc justification. Moreover, the rebuttal that they provided attacks the fact that my arguments are contingent upon old ideas, and not actually the ideas themselves. In their response, I would like them to articulate their argument in a syllogistic form, as that could seriously provide some clarity to their argument. 

Back to CON. 

Thank you, Bones, for your arguments and rebuttals. 
1. Rebuttal: Pro’s charge of dropped arguments: special relativity, pre-requisites for causation. 
a.    My opponent will please acknowledge that rebuttals may occur in any round. An opponent is not required to follow an argument with rebuttal in the succeeding round, only. The purpose of both argument and rebuttal is the convincing of reader/voter, and not to convince the opponent.
2. Defense: Con argument of passé A/B time and general relativity 
a.    My opponent charged that just because an idea has been dismissed as passé does not mean it no longer has relevance.
b.    The relevance is challenged in both arguments, just as geocentricity, and heliocentricity were relegated to failed theory status once the greater structure of the solar system, first, and later the galaxy, our Milky Way, second, and third, the universe beyond, understood to exist in similar patterns of structure and motion, as part of a greater expanse of galactic and then universal structure.
c.     Many of the points of light, previously thought to be mere, singular stars in the night sky, were discovered to be whole galaxies, themselves, and not fixed points, but in motion, and subsequently that all are part of the expanding universe. That gravity operates in them on a consistent basis, notwithstanding, that does not guarantee B-theory time.
d.    Pro offers gravity as evidence of A/B time, yet Pro then claims “time is tenseless,” i.e., Pro claims time does not consist of past, present, future. No, that is exactly what time is; we register the sequential nature of time. It is eternity that is tenseless. Time is, by its measureable consistency, finite in its separate segments of past, present, future. There simply is no measurement of eternity by tense, by clock, or by calendar.
e.    But, by the Pro claim that gravity is an enduring recognized force, are we necessarily to conclude that B-time is also an enduring force at work in the universe? Pro claims, “The B theory of time simply stipulates that time is tenseless.”  No, as shown above, 2.d, eternity, not time, is tenseless. Pro claims, “…the B theory only dictates time related events.”  Which is the exact opposite of his earlier claim. Time-related events are not tenseless at all, and Pro confirms this by explaining the impossibility of seeing two events occurring at separate times simultaneously. Since Pro contradicts his own argument within a few sentences, I need say no more. I agree; B-theory time is not supportable, and, therefore, cannot support the Topic.
f.     Let’s close the book on A-theory time: I don’t buy it, either. Can we let that dead dog die?
g.    I will address general relativity, special relativity, prerequisite causation, retrocausality, becausality, and even warp speed in a space-time continuum between Earth and Vulcan, collectively, in R3. It is a very simple rebuttal of consequence.
3. Defense: When did time begin?[i]
a.    Pro’s round 2 rebutted, “No where in the article (my citation  i in 3, above, and cited several times in my round 1) does Dr. Veneziano postulate that the "preexisting state" can be credited to that which is supernatural.” And? Veneziano’s article does not attempt to broach the subject of the supernatural, so, what point, exactly, is Pro trying to make obvious?
b.    Pro is attempting to promote time as the primary argument that a deity cannot exist, let alone any state of the universe prior to the Big Bang, the point at which, allegedly, according to Pro, time began, and proceeds forward as Pro’s round 1 argument says, in a singular, forward direction. Pro further says, as noted above, that Veneziano avoids the subject of the supernatural. He also does not make any mention of dark matter, or even Casper the Ghost. By the way, Pro’s Topic makes no mention of time, either. 
c.     However, the Veneziano article’s subtitle expresses the true point of the article; not avoidance, but a reversal of thought:  “String theory suggests that the BIG BANG was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state.”  As the acknowledged father of string theory, I trust this man’s claim. 
d.    I argued in round 1, that the universe, suggested by string theory, cycles through multiple iterations of expansion and contraction. We exist presently in one of those cycles. There was already existence prior to the initiating events of this current cycle, i.e., previous cycles, and there will be subsequent cycles, as well. Eternity of cycles; Pro’s real tenseless, timeless condition. Not A-time, B-time, or any other alpha-designated time.
e.    By definition, in round 1, I argued, agreeing with Pro’s definition, that supernatural uses science as a springboard, allowing that supernatural is beyond what is nature. Pro failed to define either term, science and nature, which I did in round 1, demonstrating that neither claim truth as territory, but only that which is observable and experimentable. 
f.     The KCA argues, simply, that things which begin to exist have cause, such as the beginning of a universe’s expansion cycle. There being a previous cycle by the argument of string theory, a supernatural deity can have already been in that previous existence to cause the beginning of a new expansion cycle. This would imply the potential of multiple deities? Yes, of course. Multiple cycles yields multiple gods.
g.    However, one must consider, which Pro has not, to date, my trailing question of round 1:“What if a deity resides within the scope of nature, and not superlative to it?”
4. Argument: KCA and Newton 
a.    St. Thomas Aquinas proposed Five Ways in the effort to demonstrate the existence of God.[ii] The First Way, called “God, the Prime Mover” was based upon an Aristotelian principle that,  “whatever is in motion is moved by another.”[iii]
b.    If that sounds strikingly Newtonian, it is because Newton was an Aristotelian. Newton’s First Law:  “…if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.”[iv]
c.     Therefore, The first premise of KCA, as cited by Pro, is, “1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”[v]   These three statements cited in a., b., c. are all saying the same thing: universal cause of motion. Even if Aristotle, Aquinas, and KCA, are deemed “unscientific,” Newton is certainly accepted science. One may argue that Newton was not in any way arguing for an initial deity-as-mover, however, to deny that he discussed the matter, or had no beliefs on the matter, are fallacious.
d.    Newton states plainly: “Does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space . . . sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly.”[vi]
5. Argument: What if a deity resides within the scope of nature, and not superlative to it?
a.    A deity resides within the scope of nature, as nature is defined, since its definition does not offer limits on its scope. I purposefully leave “deity” out of definition, because I will not presume to be enabled with that definition. I simply maintain that our scope of knowledge is limited, with more knowledge to be gained in every direction of either cardinal points of a compass, or a more extensive alphabetic classification than described simply by the Roman alphabet, particularly relative to Pro’s favored subject. 
b.    I have not in any way violated Pro’s definition of “supernatural” except by challenging that nature, itself, is not limited, and that we apply “super-“ to natural only to do what man has done since pre-history: expand our body of knowledge while recognizing that there is more knowledge to be had, currently unknown.
c.     I therefore declare Pro’s Topic as defeated, since the applications of his definitions to the Topic simply do not successfully support the Topic, nor Pro’s arguments.
d.    Why not? Because “supernatural” is a term implying that something beyond nature exists, yet makes no effort to propose a theory as to that existence. One might as well call “supernatural” a condition of ex nihilo nihil fit,  the argument of “nothing comes of nothing.”[vii] Pro defeats his own argument by exercising  reductio ad absurdum;[viii]   absurdity by denial.

Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet