The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[-57]

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?

As you said...."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."

...which is why they were included in that list. As I mentioned, they were covered with wings.
What i see is you nit-picking something your reallly don't understand.

Elliots commentary for English readers has this to say:
And the bat.—The list which opens with the eagle, the king of the birds, fitly concludes with the hybrid bat, the vilest creature, which is between a bird and a mouse, and is appropriately associated in the Bible with the mole as the type of darkness (comp. Isaiah 2:20). From the fact that the air is its home; that like the swallow, which it resembles in mode of flight, it wheels through the air in every direction in search of the crepuscular and nocturnal insects on which it preys; and that it performs the most abrupt and skilful evolutions in its aerial course, the bat was classed among the birds. Bats abound in Syria in a great variety of species. They penetrate into the houses and make the rooms most offensive to live in. Those who have realised the sickening odour of these creatures in the East will readily understand why the loathsome bats are included in the list of unclean birds. Some of the ancient nations ate bats and regarded them as delicious food. Besides being the lowest, the bat is here placed last, because it forms the connecting link between the volatile bipeds and quadrupeds.

Bensons commentary has this to say:
The bat — Moses begins his catalogue of birds with the noblest, and ends it with the vilest, which is the bat, an animal of a dubious kind, between a bird and a mouse. It feeds on insects, as Dr. James observes, and so is improper food for the inhabitants of very warm climates.

Several explanations have been provided for you. Everyone shows you don't understand the verse and what it is really saying...which refutes your 3 points:
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.

Unlike your intentions, God wasn't making a taxonomic list they way you understand taxonomic list.

 

[-57]

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.

You're problem is this....you don't allow for the possibility of there being a God....despite science demanding there be a God.

Remember, nothing creates nothing. Stuff can't be and not be at the same time. You can't self create something from nothing ....which is what your "scientific" model demands.

 

[Athée]

Several explanations have been provided for you. Everyone shows you don't understand the verse and what it is really saying...which refutes your 3 points:
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.

Unlike your intentions, God wasn't making a taxonomic list they way you understand taxonomic list.

I agree that it wasn't meant to be a taxonomic list, that was my point! I understand why the bat was included on the lost of unclean birds, it makes perfect sense from the perspective of a less scientific age. They were not trying to be scientifically accurate. Again that is my point. It seems like you are choosing option three without wanting to admit to it, that God inspired them to write the bible but wasn't concerned about scientific acuracy. Is that correct?

 

[Athée]

You're problem is this....you don't allow for the possibility of there being a God....despite science demanding there be a God.

Remember, nothing creates nothing. Stuff can't be and not be at the same time. You can't self create something from nothing ....which is what your "scientific" model demands.

Actually I do allow for the possibility of a god, but it has to be demonstrated not simply assumed. I agree that science does not know how the universe began but this does not warrant the jump you seem to want to make that therefore it was your God that did it.

 

[-57]

I agree that it wasn't meant to be a taxonomic list, that was my point! I understand why the bat was included on the lost of unclean birds, it makes perfect sense from the perspective of a less scientific age. They were not trying to be scientifically accurate. Again that is my point. It seems like you are choosing option three without wanting to admit to it, that God inspired them to write the bible but wasn't concerned about scientific acuracy. Is that correct?

You seem to be learning somewhat.
You villified the bible because you made that list into a taxonomical standard....then claimed God made a mistake by violating YOUR taxonomic standard.

 

[-57]

Actually I do allow for the possibility of a god, but it has to be demonstrated not simply assumed. I agree that science does not know how the universe began but this does not warrant the jump you seem to want to make that therefore it was your God that did it.

There has to be an uncreated being...one that has always existed and never has not existed...or else there would be nothing today. If this uncreated being didn't exist then there would absolutly nothing...and we know from nothing you get nothing.
Therefore....There is a requirement for an uncreated, eternal being..I call that being, God.

 

[Athée]

Hey, sorry for dragging your thread off topic, I will try to get back on the rails Nice to see you back.

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?

Two things here, I would not say that it is MORE logical to belive in something from nothing vs magic. I think the time to belive in either is when it is demonstrated to be true or likely true.
Second we need to be caution of a category error here. Saying that contingent things in the universe have causes therefore the universe has a cause is similar to saying all Scottish people have legs therefore Scotland has legs.

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.

Oops see above

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.

Indeed, the contention (at least one of them )is that we are not justified in asserting those qualities. How do we get from, the universe seems to have a beginning, to the cauze of that beginning is space less, timeless, I material being with a mind and intentions and incredible power etc?

So would it be reasonable to say that it could be possible that God is the cause? Even if it was a deist God?

Yes it is possible but again this needs to be demonstrated not assumed.

 

[Athée]

You seem to be learning somewhat.
You villified the bible because you made that list into a taxonomical standard....then claimed God made a mistake by violating YOUR taxonomic standard.

Lol Nope, not vilified, just pointing out an error and not even an error from my perspective. I think the bible was written by pre scientific cultural bound humans, you are the one who claimed that the Bible is inspired by a transcendent god who would know what is true and not need to express it in terms of their ancient cultural understandings.
Again though for something like the 4th time you have managed not to take a position in response to a direct question. I asked if you agree, in light of this one example (and there are many more) that it sems to be the case that God did not intend the bible to be 100% scientifically accurate even in cases where the text is meant to be taken literally. Please share.your thoughts on this specific question.

 

[Athée]

OK so let's get back to the argument and premise 1.
Everything which begins to exist has a cause.
This suggests that we can divide the cosmos inot two categories. Things that begin to exist with a cause and things which exist with no cause. Are we agreed?
So how have we demonstrated that a member of the second set exists, that this is a valid distinction to make?

 

[Athée]

There has to be an uncreated being...one that has always existed and never has not existed...or else there would be nothing today. If this uncreated being didn't exist then there would absolutly nothing...and we know from nothing you get nothing.
Therefore....There is a requirement for an uncreated, eternal being..I call that being, God.

Why does there have to be an uncreated being? Saying a being implies a whole bunch of things that are not entailed by the argument or by your evidence so far. A being has a sense of self, a mind, intentions etc, how did you get to those qualities from the simple premise that it seems the universe has a beginning?

 

[-57]

OK so let's get back to the argument and premise 1.
Everything which begins to exist has a cause.
This suggests that we can divide the cosmos inot two categories. Things that begin to exist with a cause and things which exist with no cause. Are we agreed?
So how have we demonstrated that a member of the second set exists, that this is a valid distinction to make?

As mentioned already...if there was no cause for our existence, for the universes existence then there would be nothing.
There is the need for something to have always existed, that was not caused to exist. This being was the cause of our existence.

God had no cause. God always existed.

 

[-57]

Lol Nope, not vilified, just pointing out an error and not even an error from my perspective. I think the bible was written by pre scientific cultural bound humans, you are the one who claimed that the Bible is inspired by a transcendent god who would know what is true and not need to express it in terms of their ancient cultural understandings.
Again though for something like the 4th time you have managed not to take a position in response to a direct question. I asked if you agree, in light of this one example (and there are many more) that it sems to be the case that God did not intend the bible to be 100% scientifically accurate even in cases where the text is meant to be taken literally. Please share.your thoughts on this specific question.

I've showed you several time why this is not an error. Now, you seem to feel the need to continue.

 

[Athée]

I've showed you several time why this is not an error. Now, you seem to feel the need to continue.

And I have explained to you why I also think it was not an error. The point you continually and at this point I almost suspect wilfully miss is that regardless of why, the bible calls bats birds. The fact remains that it does and that they are not (by modern taxonomic standards). As such either God got it wrong and didn't know that bats are not birds (seels unlikely if God exists as described), or the inspired humans misunderstood and mistakenly called them birds (which would call into question the reliability of scripture) or the bible contains scientifically innacurate information because it was never intended to be a science textbook (againni think this is your position but as you have continually dodged answering it is hard to be sure). So for the final time please do me the courtesy of actually taking a position and answering the question. Which of those three options accounts for the classification of bats as birds in the bible, or provide another option and justify it.

 

[anonymous person]

And I have explained to you why I also think it was not an error. The point you continually and at this point I almost suspect wilfully miss is that regardless of why, the bible calls bats birds. The fact remains that it does and that they are not (by modern taxonomic standards). As such either God got it wrong and didn't know that bats are not birds (seels unlikely if God exists as described), or the inspired humans misunderstood and mistakenly called them birds (which would call into question the reliability of scripture) or the bible contains scientifically innacurate information because it was never intended to be a science textbook (againni think this is your position but as you have continually dodged answering it is hard to be sure). So for the final time please do me the courtesy of actually taking a position and answering the question. Which of those three options accounts for the classification of bats as birds in the bible, or provide another option and justify it.

Would you repent of your sins if bats were distinguished from birds the way you think they should have been in the bible?

 

[Athée]

Would you repent of your sins if bats were distinguished from birds the way you think they should have been in the bible?

That is a fair point, but it would certainly lend some credibility to the text if modern taxonomic categories were explicitly included.

 

[Athée]

As mentioned already...if there was no cause for our existence, for the universes existence then there would be nothing.
There is the need for something to have always existed, that was not caused to exist. This being was the cause of our existence.

God had no cause. God always existed.

I see why you want to posit a first cause, an infinite regress of causes is intuitively difficult. What I don't understand is this leap you make from, it seems like the universe has a cause...all the way to, that cause is a being. Can you explain for me the steps in between.

 

[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.

I wasn't asking how they got started. The question is why the stars and galaxies travel in their current tragectories. Science expains it with dark energy and dark matter, which does a good job at explaining it. Can you explain to me why scientists get such good results using these assumptions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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'll start with your last two questions first. Yes, there are particles that come into existence for a short time and then disappear due to quantum effects. It happens all the time.

Now back to the cause of the universe. People have suggested may possibilities. Perhaps it was caused by a God. Perhaps it was caused by a constantly inflating background universe that experienced a quantum effect. Perhaps it was caused by a big crunch from a previous universe. Perhaps it is a "white hole" coming out of a "black hole" in another universe. Perhaps there is no "before", it is simply something that "always" existed, even though there was no time before. We don't know.

Do you know? If you know, how do you know?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Now back to the cause of the universe. People have suggested may possibilities.

Ok.

Perhaps it was caused by a God.

Perhaps, its the only logical cause that never had a cause itself.

Perhaps it was caused by a constantly inflating background universe that experienced a quantum effect.

Who or what caused this "inflating background universe to exist? Could it be possible that a God could have created it to create this universe?

Perhaps it was caused by a big crunch from a previous universe.

Who or what caused this "previous universe" to exist that "crunched"?

Perhaps it is a "white hole" coming out of a "black hole" in another universe.

Who or what caused this"other universe" to exist? Did that one just pop up out of nowhere not no reason whithout cause?

Perhaps there is no "before", it is simply something that "always" existed, even though there was no time before. We don't know.

Do you not agree with the Laws of Thermaldynamics and everything that science has accepted to be true about the energy in the universe is gradually "cooling down"? If the universe is eternal, the universe would have "burnt out" already. So this idea has already been dismissed by science and has proven premis 2 of the argument to be true.

...the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

Stephen Hawking


http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Do you know? If you know, how do you know?

I dont know. But what I do know is that the universe is not eternal and thus has a cause. I do know that if God did not cause the universe to exist...something else did. Unless that cause is eternal, it too had a cause of some sort. Eventually, the only option for something to exist without cause is something that is eternal and without creation...like God. That cause would also have to be timeless and spaceless to exist outside of space-time...like God. That cause would have to be immensly powerful in comparison to whatever energy is found within our universe....like God. With all this being said, can you think of anything more logical than God that would better fill that discription?

I have had many discussions with atheist who sought to change my outlook on the existance of God. This topic is the greatest barrier that keeps me from accepting atheism. Even if science absolutely proved that the God of Abraham is false, I still have to believe that some other eternal being or entity exist that is "god-like". Perhaps deism is the answer. I personally dont think so. However, deism is much more logical than anything else science or mankind has imagined. I challenge you to think of any better option than deism?

 

[Athée]

Eventually, the only option for something to exist without cause is something that is eternal and without creation...like God.

It seems to me that God is your label for the cause of the universe. The problem is that the term god comes with a lot of other baggage (a personal being with intentions etc). Additionally I am not sure eternal makes sense, since eternal is a time bound concept and we are imagining some cause that is not in time somehow (which is also counter intuitive) so basically from this this we get, we don't know what the cause of the universe is, it might be uncaused, it might not exist in our space time and may have preceded it (sort of).

That cause would also have to be timeless and spaceless to exist outside of space-time...like God.

Again we don't know this but it is a possible model sure.

That cause would have to be immensly powerful in comparison to whatever energy is found within our universe....like God

Not necessarily, it could have been simply catalytic.

With all this being said, can you think of anything more logical than God that would better fill that discription?

And here is the crux of the problem. We can imagine any number of causes that would fit this description , an uncaused, timeless particle or an uncaused timeless energy wave or an uncaused timeless rock etc. All of these meet the qualities you set out. Sure the god of classical theism is a possibility, but if the bar is set so low that a loosely defined trancendant being that can neither be demonstrated, confirmed or falsified is able to slink over, then you have ever to accept as possible any number ideas.

I have had many discussions with atheist who sought to change my outlook on the existance of God. This topic is the greatest barrier that keeps me from accepting atheism.

That's interesting. I see this question the same way but from the other side. I see no reason to belive the god that Christianity (whatever that means) exists but this cosmological argument is the most troubling one for me as far as the possible existence of something that operates outside the natural laws as we understand them today.

the God of Abraham is false, I still have to believe that some other eternal being or entity exist that is "god-like". Perhaps deism is the answer. I personally dont think so. However, deism is much more logical than anything else science or mankind has imagined. I challenge you to think of any better option than deism?

So why are you not a deist then? What do you mean by better in this instance. What qualities would make a proposed cause more viable than another?