CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Lets start with this. To assert that something is true is to say that something is definite, unchanging, or completely self-consistant. So, to ask the question is there a universal truth is really asking is there something in the universe that is true. To answer this question we must not accept any bias whether it is religious or none religious. So i our assumtion is that anything is possible but then if anything is possible we also assume the possiblity that nothing is possible. Ultimately this statement cannot be true because if anything is possible that would mean it is possible for something and nothing to be possible at the same time which clearly contradict the whole idea in its' self. The answer is that only somethings are possible because nothing cannot exist no matter how you try to make sense of the idea its' just simply impossible. So there you have the final answer to your question. Only something can exist and nothing cannot that is a universal truth. So if something exist what is that something "universal energy", "god", etc. I have my own philosophy about this but i rather keep it to myself at the moment.
I did. As I mentioned (and in other words), if the efficient cause that triggered and determined the beginning of the cosmic process has operated, in turn, randomly or orderly, well, this question is already answered in its own formulation, as the very notion of a connection of cause and effect can only be conceived as a logical set, so as an expression of order. Even if we imagine this cause as purely fortuitous, the internal form of the causal link "in genere" must have preexisted since always, and can not be conceived as fortuitous, since it is precisely the opposite.
To claim the contrary, one would have to demonstrate that all forms and proportions are chaotic and indifferent, that is, to demonstrate that logical-mathematical order does not exist, neither in the manifested cosmos nor as a mere structure of possibility in general. But after that, it would be grotesque to appeal to logical-mathematical tools to prove anything whatsoever. To prove even the empire of chance.
All this is obvious, and denying this is to eliminate any possibility of scientific knowledge, even purely instrumental and conventional.
You would then have to explain how something exists without a cause. You would also have to explain why we should call an uncaused cause god, instead of just a natural phenomenon such as the bang. There is nothing which suggests an uncaused cause could cease to exist after all.
I agree and disagree at the same time. God is the primary cause of all exists but does have a reason for exist. God's cause for existant is that when you consult the basis of all exists and come to its primary cause you'll realize that god as the foundation can't have a cause because if you were to remove god from the equation nothing would exist. Clearly it is impossible for nothing to exist. For example if nothing was to exist then there would be no darkest or light at the same time. How is this possible? Simple. Its not.
Every attempt to prove that life was formed by chance, once certain factors were combined in proper proportions to produce it, without any intelligent cause, is doomed to failure. More the materialists state it without noticing (or without admitting that they notice) that the compound only acquired force to generate life thanks precisely to the proportions, the mathematical ratio between its elements. These proportions, if they had the gift to produce this effect at the moment that the elements met, even if we consider that they randomly met, they had already rhis gift long before that moment, from all eternity. And it is sufficient to know what means ratio or proportion -- "eidos", "logos" -- to understand that no proportion can assert itself and in isolation, outside the integral mathematical order among all possible elements.
If a particular combination of elements could generate a certain effect, it is because the entire system of relations and mathematical proportions that shaped and determined this possibility, eternally pre-existed to its manifestation. In the beginning was the "logos", and there's nothing that the appeal to chance can do against it.
The same applies to the origin of the cosmos in its entirety, long before the advent of "life". The tiniest subatomic phenomenon already appears as a realization of a mathematical proportion that precedes it in time and ontologically transcends it. The Bible states that in the simplest form, by saying that "the spirit of God hovered over the waters". The order of defined possibilities (or internal form of omnipotence) prevails over the disorder of indefinite possibilities, which may only manifest themselves, precisely, from the indefinite to the definite, or, in biblical language, from darkness to light. The internal structure of the first cosmic event (whatever it was) is the manifestation of a form or proportion that, as such, is independent and supratemporal of any event.
Again, as I previously mentioned Anthony Flew... He has not converted. He has only consented to come down from the pedestal of presumptuous ignorance and confront the collective worship of chance with two millennia of philosophical discussion. He did what Richard Dawkins has neither the ability nor the honesty to do. The result was poor (Flew only recognized the generic need of a primary cause), but it was immensely above of the pathetic metaphysics that so many admire about Dawkins.
Well... It sounds like I am playing chess with pigeons here.
Sorry, ithe arguments are not random at all. If you were intellectually honest, you would simply admit your incapacity to understand them... an advice to you: STUDY!
Moreover, the problem in this debate is the consecrated habit, almost a granted right among modern materialists, to opine on issues of metaphysics without the necessary knowledge of classical and medieval philosophy. As example, Antony Flew, when he made a conscientious attempt to study the subject, his beliefs started to lose ground. Neither the old determinism of Darwin nor the latest fashion of omnipotent chance are compatible with a philosophically mature intelligence. Both are no more than immature poses, unable to withstand a critical examination.
The conclusion, while syllogistically sound, is based upon premises that are unsubstantiated.
And even assuming both logical and substantive veracity, it does little to establish the necessity of a god. Occam's Razor shows us that possibility is extraneous and unnecessary.
The first premise states - Everthing that begins to exist has a cause.
Somehow the first premise doesn't include God and as such it commits the fallacy of special pleading by stating that God's existence requires no cause.
Blindly asserting that God is eternal or metaphysically necessary is unconvincing and without any logical basis - a claim without any rigorous justification.
Therefore, to debunk KCA I need only debunk one its premises, which I have done. Thus we must conclude that the KCA is fallacious.
No, this is just a bad argument, against the argument. God is eternal, he existed forever, and thus doesn't require a beginning of his existence. We know this by his definition. Out of all the ways to dispute the argument, you used the worst way :/
Religious claims do not excuse God from being subject to the premise of the argument. (Especially one intended to support the existence of god.)
If the premise is: Everthing that begins to exist has a cause.
And if premise of god according to a particular definition or religion is a being that exists in any sense or acts in physical reality, he too requires a cause. Claiming eternal existence defies the axiom of identity and as such cannot be held as a variable.
Other than that, I agree with your post, but have you by any chance seen DarkAntics on youtube?
I don't know what the axiom of identity is or how it disputes someone who is eternal. But an uncaused being by definition doesn't need a cause, so what you're saying is definitely invalid. There is nothing incoherent with someone who is eternal and also a person.
Couldn't do a little research? Perhaps you should look into the book in the link below.
an uncaused being by definition doesn't need a cause
That claim cannot be held as a variable. I can claim unicorns are mammals but are not subject to the laws governing what a mammal must have. Does not change the fact that such an animal would still be subject to the laws governing reality.
so what you're saying is definitely invalid
Right. You're in the position to assert that, it's not like you don't know what axioms are.
You could as well try to explain how eternal being contradicts the axiom
I posted the means of educating yourself in the matter. Whether or not you read the book or not, if someone mentions to me a concept I am not educated on I research it before making arguments against it. I do not say it's "definitely invalid" without even knowing what it is.
Or you could as well try to support your argument and explain how my point doesn't work rather than just saying "Oh, there's a book that explains stuff about it."
When you argue, you don't just put a syllogism and say it's your argument. You have to defend them. And I'm not buying that book anytime soon, so you might as well try to explain it in short lines.
Or you could as well try to support your argument and explain how my point doesn't work
Forgoing the irony, god man. The link I gave to you was not necessarily to convince you to buy the book, it was to give you a reference point of who or where to research. And you have no point. You had (as VecVeltro wisely put it) a cop-out.
Your "arguments"( In regard to this contention against Kalam) thus far have been:
1. God is infinite(or eternal but this has already been dealt with).
Infinity cannot exist. The axiom of identity (since you fail to use that which Google has given you) states that all things that exist are identified by their properties, that is to say A is A not B. Infinity or eternity represents something that cannot be measured, cannot be identified because it cannot be a property of anything. Infinity does not exist in this reality. Even the theorists who claim the universe is expanding do not(or should not) sum p this growth as infinity, as it could still be measurable if the tools were available for it. Only on the imaginary planes of math can the concept of infinity be mentioned.
2 You don't know what the axiom of identity is.
This is fine, but failing to have enough curiosity to research into it to any degree but still feeling the need to contest it by calling it "definitely invalid" is appalling in its ignorance.
3. My hopes you would you would research axiomatic concepts on your own are ill placed.
Forgive me for hoping you would be willing to type in "Axiom of Identity" and learning a little bit before contesting that t does not contest the claim to eternal existence.
God is eternal, meaning he always existed. WHether or not you say that cannot be grasped as it represents an infinity, it is well a property that there are no clear contradictions with. Your argument is that a being cannot be eternal, then what created what created the God? Or what created the one who created the one who created the God? Do you want to go ad infinitum? I really don't see how what you've said proves anything. And if the axiom you are talking about is only A=A then, duh, you could've just said it.
Besides, if we can't grasp the concept of infinity, I don't see why a perfect being couldn't.
The massive amounts of face palms has left my face bloody.
WHether or not you say that cannot be grasped as it represents an infinity, it is well a property that there are no clear contradictions with.
No contradictions? Do you just not attempt to read at all? Infinity does not exist. God is infinite according to the major monotheism(which Kalam was intended to support). God does not exist.
Your argument is that a being cannot be eternal, then what created what created the God?
And you said the quote did nothing. Go and read it again.
I really don't see how what you've said proves anything.
At this point I'm curious if you'd know if it did.
And if the axiom you are talking about is only A=A
The implication of the axiom go way farther than that, in such a way the only method of recognizing it's impact is to research basic axiomatic principles yourself. But for the sake of this topic, A is A will do the job I suppose.
Besides, if we can't grasp the concept of infinity, I don't see why a perfect being couldn't.
The issue is not grasping it, it doesn't exist. It cannot exist as a property of anything except a mathematical concept.
I suggest researching the Objectivist philosophy, which has its basis in such matters.
I'm trying to argue using theistic logic here. I'm just saying that what you speak of is not a good argument against God, and since I usually don't argue against atheistic logic, I guess I'm not doing a very good job at it.
Infinities can't exist around contingent object, but God is non-contingent so infinities can exist next to it. Just like us contingent beings cannot be perfect, but non-contingent can. Yes, infinity is a mathematical concept, but a supernatural God can very well be infinite.
And all I'm saying is that your reasoning would lead to infinite regress, so there'll never be the first cause, which simply cannot be (or are you agreeing that there can be infinitely many creators who created ultimately many creations?). There has to be a non-contingent first cause, which is by nature eternal.
Infinity cannot exist as a property of anything in our universe, around contingency, a theoretical non-contingent being can be eternal.
You've said that God cannot be eternal since infinities don't exist. Okay. Then the universe itself cannot be eternal as well since it doesn't exist. Nothing can be eternal. Sure. But then we'd need to have an infinite regress of causes that lead to this universe, and an infinite regress would, well, be infinite, so you've technically contradicted yourself.
Please explain how I'm wrong. I'm an atheist, I just think that your argument doesn't disprove God's existence.
Don't worry, your argument is nowhere near actual theist level.
I'm just saying that what you speak of is not a good argument against God
An axiom, the principles that govern reality, is not an effective tool for dismissing theistic claims?
and since I usually don't argue against atheistic logic,
It's not "atheistic" logic, it's just logic.
but God is non-contingent so infinities can exist next to it.
Just like us contingent beings cannot be perfect, but non-contingent can.
Just like us contingent beings cannot be perfect, but a non-contingent can too. I hate to go back to this, but making claims that a certain deity is excused from rules A,B, and C does not mean we excuse it from A,B and C. A giant unicorn (who is a mammal) has four legs, is cold-blooded, reproduces asexually(by means of creating microorganisms in its sweat pores which grow to a full unicorn), has no mammary glands, and breaths fire. Is it still a mammal(let alone possible) creature?
And all I'm saying is that your reasoning would lead to infinite regress
As the quote says. Primacy of existence. Not taking an irreducible starting point.
Infinity cannot exist as a property of anything in our universe
I'm glad the axiom of identity is setting in now. Might be time to go to two others, existence and consciousness.
but a supernatural God can very well be infinite.
Your taking one abstract concept and mixing it with another without just cause for doing so. We have mathematics and the supernatural. Justify using one unjustifiable system with another. ( I say math is unjustifiable in the sense math can only be tested within math. 2 plus 2 equals 4, but only so long as you use a system where 4 isn't 5, I hope this point was made well enough)
There has to be a non-contingent first cause,
Does there? I think so(as a matter of holding existence as the only knowable plane of knowledge), but how do you without axiomatic justification?
Then the universe itself cannot be eternal
I agree.
But then we'd need to have an infinite regress of causes that lead to this universe, and an infinite regress would, well, be infinite, so you've technically contradicted yourself.
You really didn't read the quote did you? Again I do not mean for you to buy the book, you should at least look into Objectivist philosophy.
I'm an atheist, I just think that your argument doesn't disprove God's existence.
I cannot disprove god, not because he's possible, but because he cannot even be proposed due to the laws governing knowledge. It's not possible for the previously mentioned unicorn to naturally exist is it?
"An axiom, the principles that govern reality, is not an effective tool for dismissing theistic claims?"
Not if it doesn't apply to a certain thing like God.
"Just like us contingent beings cannot be perfect, but a non-contingent can too."
A non-contingent thing can be perfect? Please explain how.
"(Unicorn stuff)"
No, this is not a mammal, since it has to have mammary glands and stuff. It clearly defies the definition of mammal, so why did you call it one in the first place?
"As the quote says. Primacy of existence. Not taking an irreducible starting point."
This is the exact copy of your quote:
/It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does/
It obviously involves infinite regress. So you contradicted yourself.
"Your taking one abstract concept and mixing it with another without just cause for doing so. We have mathematics and the supernatural. Justify using one unjustifiable system with another. ( I say math is unjustifiable in the sense math can only be tested within math. 2 plus 2 equals 4, but only so long as you use a system where 4 isn't 5, I hope this point was made well enough)"
The point is, God is supposed to be beyond this universe, and all laws, so he doesn't have to be bound by rules such as "infinities can't exist". It is in God's nature to exist and he exists in all the present and past and future at the same times. We are only temporal beings.
God, as theists claim, just isn't bound by the laws we are, so he can very well be infinite. Unless you somehow explain how God must abide to the same laws, you've made an assertion, so your argument fails.
Oh, and, if you think there must be a non-contingent first cause, what do you think it is?
Not if it doesn't apply to a certain thing like God.
To an infinite god it does. If another universe exists with different laws governing reality, then perhaps not. In this reality, where infinity cannot exist and the only acknowledge plane of existence is our own, axioms apply to this concept of god.
A non-contingent thing can be perfect? Please explain how.
You're the one who said it: Just like us contingent beings cannot be perfect, but non-contingent can
It clearly defies the definition of mammal, so why did you call it one in the first place?
In other words, it defies the laws that govern what defies a mammal? Kinda like how this god exists but defies the laws that govern existence? Both are untrue propositions.
So you contradicted yourself
This is among your more moronic contentions. Behold:
"It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does( if a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first one, and so one.)."
Typically the believer will reply: "one can't ask for an explanation of god. He is an inherently necessary being. After all one must start somewhere." Such a person does not contest the need of a irreducible starting point, as long as it is in the form of consciousness; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of consciousness, a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we know to exist; he insists in jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing."
He was not saying that there is an infinite digress, he is saying that according to the theistic logic, there is. He is supporting the primacy of existence over the primacy of consciousness.
The point is, God is supposed to be beyond this universe, and all laws, so he doesn't have to be bound by rules such as "infinities can't exist".
You didn't answer the challenge. I asked you to justify using one abstract concept, math(which can be demonstrable in regards to reality justifying its use in it) to justify another abstract concept, the supernatural(which is not demonstrable). Where is the justification for supporting one with the other? And again, in our wonderful plane of existence, claims like these that go against the laws of reality cannot be proposed or said to be possible.
Unless you somehow explain how God must abide to the same laws, you've made an assertion, so your argument fails.
Throughout this debate, I've noticed a trend of yours: you seem more focused on winning the argument then being correct. Perhaps this is just my analysis, but would I be correct? And as for god, I've stated why all things in this plane of existence are subject to the laws governing the plane of existence. God isn't an effective cop-out.
It is in God's nature to exist and he exists in all the present and past and future at the same times.
You just said(I realize for the sake of the point) that god exists. If he exists, he is subject to existence. Otherwise, he does not exist. You might argue he transcends existence, but you then leave the point of rational discussion completely and make pointless any debate.
Oh, and, if you think there must be a non-contingent first cause, what do you think it is?
Existence is it's own starting point. No knowledge about any other plane or other description of reality is achievable, so we can only acknowledge this plane of existence.
I think we should probably stop here, as no one is going to stop pushing his own belief. I'm not saying I'm forfeiting, but this has gotten out of hand, so we should probably stop continuing the argument, especially since we're both theists.
And I'll respond to the part where I'm more focused on winning rather than being correct:
I don't really see how could you win without being correct in a debate. Of course, when (most of) those who listen to the debate choose who has won they take presentation and wording into account, and put less emphasis on who actually won the arguments, but I don't really care about what people think who won unless I actually feel like I had won the debate. So no, I would rather be correct than win, since I debate to test my own beliefs and confirm them or change depending on the outcome, and not so "others can see how smart I am". I hope I explained this clearly.
In this case, it is the claim of eternity or infinity and the insistence on the primacy of consciousness.
Witness the popular question, " Who created the universe?" - which presupposes that the universe is not eternal, but has a force beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will. It is useless to object that this question involves an infinite regress, even though it does ( if a creator is required to explain existence, then a second creator is required to explain the first one, and so one.). Typically the believer will reply: "one can't ask for an explanation of god. He is an inherently necessary being. After all one must start somewhere." Such a person does not contest the need of a irreducible starting point, as long as it is in the form of consciousness; what he finds unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. Driven by the primacy of consciousness, a person of this mentality refuses to begin with the world, which we know to exist; he insists in jumping beyond the world to the unknowable, even though such a procedure explains nothing. Leonard Peikoff
The attentional phrase is "begins to exist
Again, it goes back to a claim of eternity. Infinity cannot be acknowledged to exist on axiomatic grounds.
They don't say God is infinite, they say he's eternal. He's always existed, and always will. An uncaused cause doesn't need a cause. Good doesn't need a cause by definition. And before the big bang, space-time didn't exist, so God was timeless.
I still don't see how did you explain that an eternal God is contradictory.
They don't say God is infinite, they say he's eternal
Eternal mean infinite in regards to time. Along with the fact that in the major monotheisms he is in fact infinite in all regards. The argument still stands. All this blather about timelessness and existing without causality in a reality where causality is necessitated ends up in the same unverifiable and philosophically insensible position.
I still don't see how did you explain that an eternal God is contradictory.
There has now been two links and a quote presented to you. Repeating the same contention again will only succeed in not succeeding anything.
Lol. God is timeless because time only exists in our universe. The space-time was created along with it. God is supposed to exist outside of space-time, and therefore you cannot apply time to him. Oh and, why can't things start to exist uncaused? We see a lot of that happening. Radioactive Decay and Quantum Fluctuations are both uncaused, so I don't see how causality applies to all.
The quote really disputed nothing, so I don't see why you even posted it. And you're supposed to support your claims with sources, not to lay out the sources and let them argue for yourself.
God is timeless because time only exists in our universe.
You are aware of the physical laws of how many other universes? And you converse with god and he told he was timeless? Please.
The space-time was created along with it. God is supposed to exist outside of space-time, and therefore you cannot apply time to him.
Despite the array of half-assed claims in this, it doesn't invalidate the axiomatic principles reality abides by. As long as god exists purely as a proposed character
(That is to say until his existence becomes more then just an assumption made by people willing to be gullible to one message or canned philosophy and not another) he is subject to the laws governing reality(which have not been broken).
Oh and, why can't things start to exist uncaused?
Did I say such? While I do hold causality as it applies to human behavior and even much further, we have no examples of nothing to judge whether nothing can produce something, so causality a bit of a standoff for me there. It becomes assumptions and ill-founded claims at that point, so I stay clear making ignorant judgement.
Radioactive Decay and Quantum Fluctuations are both uncaused, so I don't see how causality applies to all.
Not being the scientist, I researched a little bit (perhaps an abysmal degree but just enough to regain the grasp of it that I possessed in high school, if more is required I'd be happy to pursue) and it far as Radioactive decay goes I see no point where it is uncaused. It is the result of an unstable atom. And as for quantum fluctuations, all I see is Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The studies appear to have different distinctive views as well, some changing the law of conservation of energy to allow for such troughs. An established mathematical formula that shows how such events occur is in your mind completely uncaused?
The quote really disputed nothing, so I don't see why you even posted it.
He asked why a mythical claim does not excuse a deity from the rules of reality. I stated why, the primacy of existence over consciousness, and posted a quote from Peikoff that explains why such a primacy is important.
And you're supposed to support your claims with sources, not to lay out the sources and let them argue for yourself.
The argument leads to the conclusion that an eternal God exists, not the opposite. That's why the objection doesn't work. The definition arises from the conclusion of argument, was it sound or not.
The premise states "everything that begins to exist". This is done to evade the "But who created God?" question. God didn't begin to exist, he always existed. That's what the argument leads to, not what you use to dispute the argument.
I'll use a simple argument to refute Kalam. It's first premise is highly unsupported. We see uncaused things all the time, like Quantum Fluctuations and Radioactive Decay, and we know that the creation of the universe is a quantum event (as Stephen Hawking explained), so it didn't need to have a cause.
Besides, when we see that things need to have a cause to start existing, we refer to ex materia creation, the creation from previous matter, which is rearranged in order to create something "new". We've never seen things come ex nihilo, out of nothing, so we can't know if ex nihilo creation has to be caused or uncaused. The argument is assuming they are caused, and is making a fallacy by doing this.
