My First Debate!

I had my first online debate with some atheists on Reddit Friday regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument (by William Lane Craig) for the existence of God. 

Here is how the Kalam goes:

1.      Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

2.      The universe has a beginning of its existence;

3.      Therefore, The universe has a cause of its existence

My question was, “Which of the premises of the Kalam are incorrect and why?”

Here were my reasons for supporting the premises:

1.   Observation shows #1 to be true. What has not been observed is something beginning to exist without a cause

2.   Big Bang Theory, 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, an actual infinite cannot exist in nature.

a.   The Big Bang Theory shows that there was a massive expansion of energy, but that energy either pre-existed this expansion or was created at the expansion.

b.   The 1^st Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created in nature.  If the energy was created, only a cause outside of nature could create the energy.

c.   The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy (usable energy) will continue to increase until there is no more usable energy left.  As a result, the universe will enter a state of Heat Death where everything turns cold and nothing can live. 

d.   If the universe has an infinite past, the universe would have reached the Heat Death state an infinite time ago.

 

Here are some of the rebuttals I saw:

1.  “creation ex material” and “creation ex nihilo” cannot be compared since we’ve never seen “creation ex nihilo”

2.  We don’t know if the Big Bang was ex nihilo or ex material

3.  Virtual particles pop in and out of existence and are uncaused (even though the cause is the energy in the vacuum fluctuations) because this phenomenon occurs randomly.  There is no hidden mechanism for their appearances; the energy merely sets the conditions for this to occur.

4.  Radioactive decay does not have a cause.  It just happens.

5.  We don’t know if the philosopher’s “nothing” is possible.

6.  If nothing exists, then something coming into existence cannot have a cause since there was nothing to act on.

7.  “It's laughable nonsense that only a childish intellect would consider valid... neither premise is known to be true and it's merely begging the question.  The cosmological argument for God is silly, the ontological argument for God is silly, and the teleological argument for God is silly. These are tools used by intelligent, but dishonest, people to convince dumb or ignorant people to subscribe to their irrational belief system, and it works, extremely well. There have been many discussions on Reddit where former atheists were asked why they became theists and a common answer is one or more of these arguments.”

 

I believe the argument stood up well, although the atheists would disagree.  I suppose we are all biased.  Care to guess which rebuttal is my favorite?  #7 inspires me to continue these types of debates on Reddit. 

One may ask, “Why bother debating atheists?  You aren’t going to change their minds.”  I agree, I’m not likely to convert one of the atheists that I’m debating with.  They are very entrenched in their beliefs.  However, there are many Christians who silently struggle with doubt.  They do not feel free to be open and honest with the questions they have.  In searching for answers, the internet is the place they’ll go.  It’s not always about who someone is discussing an issue with; it’s also about who is listening (or reading).