Instigator / Pro
3
1553
rating
76
debates
55.26%
won
Topic
#4880
The cosmological argument succeeds in demonstrating God's existence
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Either something came from nothing, something always existed or somethingness came from something that didn't need something nor nothing to come before it in order to exist. This means unless God was the first thing to properly exist, Con will have to demonstrate how somethingness can always have existed for no reason or how it can pop out of nothing for no reason. Before God (if you can call it before) there was the simultaneous existence and non-existence of "possibilities". God is a Boltzmann brain that actually had the ability to make itself and other things real, unlike a human or animal etc. Boltzmann brain which wouldn't be properly real without a real reality to live in because their brains are made to perceive and not create realities. God exists in a meta-world where nothing is real and everything is real at once, and nothing other than a God which exists in such a world can make things tangibly real rather than just a quantum "could be". Our reality is by necessity built on top of quantum fluctuations which are in between being real and being nothing, and must be built by a God, unless real things can be demonstrated to come from nothing or something can be demonstrated to "just exist". The only alternative is something equal to a God which isn't a God.
a. The Argument
- Pro never states precisely what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is. Weirdly, pro seems confused about it. I'll take care of that first. As most notably defended by William Lane Craig:
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. The Universe had cause
- There is typically a second stage that goes from the conclusion of the main syllogism to a demonstration of the first cause as God. Pro must successfully defend all premises in addition to this second stage to satisfy the burden demanded by the debate proposition.
b. Confusion?
- Because Pro never actually cites the argument he does not seem to have defined any of the premises of the argument. Quick address, however:
Con will have to demonstrate how somethingness can always have existed for no reason or how it can pop out of nothing for no reason.
- Con will not have to demonstrate anything as pro holds the burden in the debate. The first round has basically been a waste otherwise. Furthermore, suppose you grant that nothing comes from nothing, the falsity of that claim is consistent with the falsity of every premise of the Kalam. It could be the case that something can't come from nothing and that things can being to exist uncaused. All pro has given are various random assertions. There is not a single argument provided for any of the premises in the Kalam. Among that are other clear false dichotomies:
...unless real things can be demonstrated to come from nothing or something can be demonstrated to "just exist". The only alternative is something equal to a God which isn't a God.
- It's not the case that either something can come from nothing or God exists. There is no reason an atheist would have to believe that something can come from nothing. All that said, pro needs to be direct now down to two rounds. Start by defending premise one, followed by defending premise two, and finally, end by defending stage two, this should not be complicated.
Round 2
Forfeited
- Extend for now.
Round 3
Forfeited
- Well, we can extend this.
