The Instigator
Augom
Pro (for)
The Contender
billsands
Con (against)

Does the Cosmological argument prove that God exists?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
billsands has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2020 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 298 times Debate No: 123988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Augom

Pro

We'll start off by establishing a two things:
-There is no evidence to suggest that the Universe itself exists separately from Matter
-There are virtually no cosmologists who believe that the material universe is infinite

Now then, Onto the argument:
All material things are bound by time. This is a virtually undisputed fact, Recognized by most modern scientists today. Nothing that is bound by time can be infinite, Due to the (rather obvious) law of entropy, Which states that all things that are organized always, Without fail, Become unorganized in time. In other words: as time passes, All material things degrade. There are a few different things that you can derive from this fact, One of them being:
-The universe is going to come to an end one day

Endings logically necessitate beginnings, As demonstrated by this logical syllogism:
A = Is eternal
B = Has beginning
E = Has end
{1} 1. "B U94; A
{2} 2. E U94; "A
{3} 3. E.
{2, 3} 4. "A
{1, 2, 3} 5. ""B

Translated, That syllogism states:
Whatever has no beginning is eternal.
Whatever has an end is not eternal.
Assume that something has an end.
It would follow that it is not eternal.
Furthermore, It wouldn't be true that it has no beginning.
So, It would have a beginning.
Therefore, Whatever has an end has a beginning.

If you believe that the universe is going to end one day, You must also accept that it had a beginning.
Apart from logic, There is a lot of scientific evidence that suggests the universe had a beginning (we can go into this if necessary).
If the universe did indeed have a beginning (again, This proposition is well supported by science and logic), Then it was dependent upon something else to cause it. Either that "thing" was physical or metaphysical. As I stated before, All physical things are bound by time, And therefore have beginnings. So the cause could not have possibly have been physical; what caused the cause? And what caused the cause that caused the cause? This philosophical problem is called infinite regress, Which is a logically, Philosophically, And scientifically impossible occurrence.
Consider the following:
A= The Universe

A-->B
B-->C
C-->D
D-->E. . .

If only physical things exist, Then that list goes on infinitely.
If, However, Something metaphysical exists, Then infinite regress is not an issue.
If only physical things have ever existed, We wouldn't be here. And yet we are.
The cosmological argument proves that there is a being who caused everything in the universe to come into existence.
billsands

Con

an argument doesnt prove anything evidence does an argument or logic can give you a theory then t you need evidence
Debate Round No. 1
Augom

Pro

It is impossible to do science apart from philosophy. My argument is a mixture of both philosophical and scientific evidence (the universe had a beginning, All material things are contingent, Etc). Therefore, I believe that my reasoning was perfectly acceptable. I will concede that I can't prove with 100% certainty that there is a God, But the cosmological argument gets pretty damn close, With its perfect combination of scientific and logical evidence.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
"Does the Cosmological argument prove that God exists? ". . . No you have to create a god. .
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
Well according to your argument, God exists, But who said that the god is not just a field of energy and a bunch of dark matter? Your god doesn't need to be like a white old man sitting on the clouds. As the universe exists, God exists, Even if not as a superhero.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
Ok, Here is the counter arguments
It's possible that our model of the universe eventually having an end could be something that is disproven as our understanding of the nature of reality through scientific inquiry continues to grow.
If the first cause can be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, Then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion again and again?

If there is to be a "God" that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, Considering that it manifests in different forms.

Basically this counter argument indicates that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe.

Even if we did bite the bullet and said there was a first mover outside the universe, That still wouldn't necessarily imply that it was any of the God figure we as human's have come up with.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.