The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[-57]

Wait a minute, so it's good science and evidence that the Bible is true when modern cosmology ppints to a beginning for the universe, but all of a sudden not good science when biology (and a host of other disciplines) confirm an evolutionary account that doesn't like up with Genesis? Why the double standard?

You do understand that life and its building blocks are way to complicated to have evolved. The double standars is something you seemed to have dreamed up.

Secondly, yes, the universe had to have a beginning. Your big bang fails. Stufff can't create itself from nothing. You do know that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What do you mean by good science? A theory of origins that requires 90 some % of a stuff that we can't see...or find because it's dark?

Dark matter and dark energy have been used by science to explain the motions and locations of stars and galaxies. We don't really know what either is. Dark matter best explains the motions of heavenly bodies. "Dark energy" is actually a term for the fact that something is making the universe expand at an accelerating rate. It is little more than an observation that the universe is accelerating, and we don't know why.

So yes good science should admit that the universe is accelerating and we don't know why, and good science should admit that the motion of heavenly bodies can best be explained by the presence of matter that we cannot detect.

If you don't believe in dark energy or dark matter, what explanation would you put in their place to explain what we observe?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You do understand that life and its building blocks are way to complicated to have evolved.

No, I didn't know that. Since this is off topic, should we start another thread so you can explain it to me?

 

[-57]

Dark matter and dark energy have been used by science to explain the motions and locations of stars and galaxies. We don't really know what either is. Dark matter best explains the motions of heavenly bodies. "Dark energy" is actually a term for the fact that something is making the universe expand at an accelerating rate. It is little more than an observation that the universe is accelerating, and we don't know why.

So yes good science should admit that the universe is accelerating and we don't know why, and good science should admit that the motion of heavenly bodies can best be explained by the presence of matter that we cannot detect.

If you don't believe in dark energy or dark matter, what explanation would you put in their place to explain what we observe?

Sure, dark matter has been used to explain (wink, wink) the working of the universe. Dark matter was invented....to explain something that might not actually be happening. Is that good science or fabricated science?

 

[-57]

No, I didn't know that. Since this is off topic, should we start another thread so you can explain it to me?

That's up to you. Start one if you like.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sure, dark matter has been used to explain (wink, wink) the working of the universe. Dark matter was invented....to explain something that might not actually be happening. Is that good science or fabricated science?

I don't know what you mean. The motions of the stars and galaxies have been observed many times, and dark matter best explains what is happening. What is your explanation? I haven't seen your explanation. I have only seen your claim that science has it wrong.

 

[-57]

I don't know what you mean. The motions of the stars and galaxies have been observed many times, and dark matter best explains what is happening. What is your explanation? I haven't seen your explanation. I have only seen your claim that science has it wrong.

I believe God spread out the stars...just as the bible says.
I don't think the universe self created itself from nothing. I believe what the bibles says...there was a creator.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's up to you. Start one if you like.

OK, please go to

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-way-too-complicated-to-have-evolved.7964423/ and explain to me why life is too complicated to have evolved. Thanks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I believe God spread out the stars...just as the bible says.
I don't think the universe self created itself from nothing. I believe what the bibles says...there was a creator.

The issue is not that the stars are spread out. The issue is that they are now traveling on paths that can be explained by dark matter and dark energy. If you don't accept those explanations, how do you explain the fact that these explanations do a good job of predicting star and galaxy motion?

 

[-57]

OK, please go to

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-way-too-complicated-to-have-evolved.7964423/ and explain to me why life is too complicated to have evolved. Thanks.

A reply has been posted.

 

[Athée]

Im not going to rush out and by the Quran because I have one and have studied it in depth.

Secondly, the scientific evidence points to an absolute beginning of all matter, energy, and the spacetime manifold itself some 16 billion years ago. Exactly what Genesis 1:1 describes.

Thirdly, I am not a follower of Christ because the Genesis account of creation is supported by scientific findings. I appealed to the fact that it is for your benefit, not as some sort of appeal to why I am a Christian. Such evidence is but a mere part of a comprehensive and cumulative case for Christianity.

Fourthly, I have no trouble with the notion that there are things in the Quran that may indeed owe their existence to the work of one inspired by a supernatural entity. Such an entity is not God however, but is demonic.

So the evidence in other religions is proof that they are empowered by demons but the very same kinds of evidence in your religion are proof that a good God is responsible? This seems like another case of special pleading.

 

[Athée]

Once again I have to ask...do you think the people of that time period were so ignorant that they have never seen a bat up close?
Did the human authors get it wrong...No. It appears you have gotten it wrong. It appears you have misunderstood what the intention of the verse is about.

I am sure they had seen bats and I absolutely understand why they classified them as birds, they have wings and they fly, they eat insects etc. So they put them in the category of birds. We now know that they are not birds because bats are mammals.
In any case your problem still remains. You want to say that even back then the people knew bats and birds were in different taxonomic categories (please provide evidence for this if you want to insist on it). Even if you are correct you still have to account for why the bible describes them as birds. Is it because :
1) God got it wrong
2) The inspired writter made a mistake.
3) God didn't care if the bible was scientifically accurate and so just gave them a category they would understand at the time.

Which is it?

 

[Athée]

Once again I have to ask...do you think the people of that time period were so ignorant that they have never seen a bat up close?
Did the human authors get it wrong...No. It appears you have gotten it wrong. It appears you have misunderstood what the intention of the verse is about.

I added this next comment as an edit to an earlier post so I am re posting it in case you missed it (my fault entirely ).
Since you didn't mention my critique about cherry picking I asume you to be arguing that no such cherry picking is required, that all the information in the bible can be confirmed as accurate. Is that correct?

 

[Athée]

You do understand that life and its building blocks are way to complicated to have evolved.

I will wait for your demonstration of this assertion....

The double standars is something you seemed to have dreamed up.

Perhaps, I haven't gotten a direct answer from you on that front yet so you could be right. If you are willing to take all the bi local passage's that are intended to be literal in their literal sense then there is no cherry picking. If however you want to say some are literal (the ones that science agrees with usually) and some are figurative (the ones that don't agree with modern science usually) then there is a double standard in your methodology of interpreting the Bible.

Secondly, yes, the universe had to have a beginning. Your big bang fails. Stufff can't create itself from nothing. You do know that?

We don't actually know that although I agree that it is certainly counter intuitive Quantum particles come into existence without cause (but not necessarily from nothing) etc. In any case there is no reason to jump from, science can't explain it to, therefore my god did it. The time to belive something is when there is sufficient evidence that it is true or likey true and not a second earlier.

 

[anonymous person]

So the evidence in other religions is proof that they are empowered by demons but the very same kinds of evidence in your religion are proof that a good God is responsible? This seems like another case of special pleading.

Let God be true and every man a liar. Whatever directly contradicts the Bible is a lie and not of the truth.

If the sum of two and two is four, it is not special pleading to say that every other answer other than four for the equation is wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

I will wait for your demonstration of this assertion....


Perhaps, I haven't gotten a direct answer from you on that front yet so you could be right. If you are willing to take all the bi local passage's that are intended to be literal in their literal sense then there is no cherry picking. If however you want to say some are literal (the ones that science agrees with usually) and some are figurative (the ones that don't agree with modern science usually) then there is a double standard in your methodology of interpreting the Bible.


We don't actually know that although I agree that it is certainly counter intuitive Quantum particles come into existence without cause (but not necessarily from nothing) etc. In any case there is no reason to jump from, science can't explain it to, therefore my god did it. The time to belive something is when there is sufficient evidence that it is true or likey true and not a second earlier.

Where did you come up with the idea that quantum particles come into existence without a cause?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Kalam is not rejected because we don't understand the cause. The Kalam is rejected is because it is logically invalid, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.

Would you say that it is more logical for the universe to exist from nothing by nothing as if by magic? Can you name any other example in the universe where this has assumed to have happened? Has there been any other objects that just came to exist without cause?

I would argue that the answer is no. So why do you assume that it happened with the universe? It is more logical to believe in magic than to believe that something came to exist without cause.

I noticed that many people really dont understand what the argument is saying. It is saying that whatever caused the universe to exist (spaceless, timeless, ect..) has many of the same principle characteristics that is used to describe God. So would it be reasonable to say that it could be possible that God is the cause? Even if it was a deist God? The only honest reaponse I have gotten from anyone is that "technically it is possible, but just as possible as saying faries created the universe". I honestly find this amusing because the same people who say that they "have no reason to believe in God because there is no evididence to suggest it" are the same people who find it more logical to assume that the universe magically popped out of thin air for no reason without cause. Where is the evidence that suggests magic without cause and why is it more logical to believe than a God?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If "whatever begins to exist has a cause," then would the set of everything that begins to exist also have a beginning and thus also have a cause?

Yes.

 

[Athée]

Let God be true and every man a liar.

So who actually wrote the bible, the words on the page in the autographs? Men? Then the bible was written by liars, so why trust it?

If the sum of two and two is four, it is not special pleading to say that every other answer other than four for the equation is wrong.

I agree but this is not analogous. Your equation with regards to religion seems to look like this (obviously simplified for space):
In other religions miracles + scriptures = demonic powers
In my religion miracles + scriptures = good God.
To go back to the math you are saying in christianoty 2+2=4 but when other religions try it 2+2= x (where x is not equal to 4)
This is why it is a case of special pleading.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Dark matter and dark energy have been used by science to explain the motions and locations of stars and galaxies. We don't really know what either is. Dark matter best explains the motions of heavenly bodies. "Dark energy" is actually a term for the fact that something is making the universe expand at an accelerating rate. It is little more than an observation that the universe is accelerating, and we don't know why.

So yes good science should admit that the universe is accelerating and we don't know why, and good science should admit that the motion of heavenly bodies can best be explained by the presence of matter that we cannot detect.

If you don't believe in dark energy or dark matter, what explanation would you put in their place to explain what we observe?

So...how did dark matter come to exist? Is there any explanations that science has to offer that does not violate the Law of Conservation of Matter? Do you even think the universe has a begining or are you one of those people who thing the universe is eternal?