The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Now, moving right along..to my second analogy..

The Sandman: imagine there is a particular man, with an infinite amount of sand at his disposal. The man can never run out of sand, because he has an INFINITE amount. Imagine the man is standing above a bottomless hole (or pit)..and what is meant by bottomless? Well, if something was to fall in the hole, it would fall forever and ever, because the hole is bottomless..no foundation.

Got it?

Now, suppose the man is shoveling sand into the bottomless pit..and imagine the man was shoveling sand into the pit for eternity...he never began, and he never stopped..he has been shoveling for eternity.

The man's goal is to keep shoveling until he has successfully filled the entire hole with sand, until the sand reaches the top of the hole, and is thus, FILLED.

The million dollar question is; how long will it take the man to fill the hole with sand?

Answer: the man will NEVER fill the hole with sand. Why? Because the hole is bottomless, that's why. If you can't reach the bottom, from the top...then how can you reach top, from the bottom??

Hmm.

This example is analogous to the reality of our world...if you can't go back in time (a past boundary), then how can you possibly reach any present point?

The man shoveling: Represents the PRESENT moment in time, as the man is presently shoveling.

Bottomless hole: Represents past eternity, of which there is no beginning to time.

Sand: Represents events in time, and as the sand is traveling in the hole, this is analogous to going back in time.

The ONLY possible way to fill the hole entirely with sand, is if there is a BOTTOM FOUNDATION to the whole. If there is a foundation at the bottom, the sand can successfully reach the man at the top, where he is PRESENTLY shoveling.

Likewise, the only POSSIBLE way for us to reach the present moment if there is a past boundary/foundation/beginning of time. If there is a past boundary, the events which led up to today can successfully...led up to today.

One final problem with the concept of an actual infinity..is the quantities itself. Think about it, if the past is eternal, that would mean..

That the total amount of seconds amounts to infinity..
The total amount of minutes amounts to infinity..
The total amount of hours amounts to infinity..
The total amount of days amounts to infinity..
The total amount of weeks amounts to infinity..
The total amount of months amounts to infinity..
The total amount of years amounts to infinity..
The total amount of decades amounts to infinity..
The total amount of centuries amounts to infinity..

and finally..

The total amount of millenniums amounts to infinity..

There is an obvious problem here, because each of those intervals/measurements of times, each one has different values!!! Yet, all would have the same value if they are infinite!!

This is an obviously clear absurdity..which can not reflect reality.

In closing, there are many different ways one can demonstrate the absurdities which comes come an actual infinity...the point of this thread is to prove, that an absolute beginning is necessary..and by "beginning", I mean a "beginning of all beginnings".

There had to be ONE, SINGLE, INITIAL action, which all other actions resulted from. There is just no way out of it. Neither science, nor any scientist can help you here. Neither philosophy, nor any philosopher can help you here. Neither math, nor any mathematician can help you here.

And finally, God himself, he can't even help you here. God can't neither fill the hole with sand, or reach equal distance of infinity.

So, in conclusion; the universe began to exist, because it is logically impossible for any thing within "time", to exist eternally within time. So, if nothing "within" time can be eternal, it follows that the universe itself cannot be eternal, for the same reasons that everything WITHIN the universe cannot be eternal.

You cannot have an eternal universe with only finite parts (events) within the universe. If the parts are finite, then so is the universe.

Oh, and btw, save all of the "But, what about God, God also would have to have a beginning"...save all of that talk, because the universe is the subject of interest right now.

So, as I've just proven, on logical grounds...that it is absolutely, positively necessary for the universe to begin to exist.

[benchwarmer]

Perhaps the real reason it's hard to move on is that at every single turn, your arguments are refuted. I thought this was supposed to be a clear, well laid out explanation of the KCA that would set us all straight?

I could care less about whether you feel as if my explanation of the KCA meets or exceeds YOUR expectations.

I acknowledge that you don't care, but I was giving an explanation why this probably isn't going anywhere.

It turns out you can't get past the first premise without running into all kinds of problems.

Problems with what? Problems that you've raised, or that others have raised? Probably others, considering you've done nothing but piggy back off of what others have said, with a "like" here and a "like" there, without offering absolutely nothing of your own.

Why restate what others are already stating? Perhaps you don't know that the 'like' function means. It means I agree with this post and/or like how it has been explained. For this particular topic, I so no need to restate the exact same things. I also did reply with a summary of what I saw happening here: [post 90 by benchwarmer]

Face it, the KCA as presented so far in this and the parallel thread, is dead in the water. If you can't clearly define the premises

Hmm...no one has accused me of not clearly defining the premises yet. You must be the only one that don't understand the premises.

Then what have the last 11 pages worth of posts been about? People agreeing with you what is meant by the premises? I guess I missed that.

and coherently deal with the rebuttals brought up, this isn't going to go anywhere.

So tell me, what have I said that makes you think I can't deal with the rebuttals? Or is this a "filler" line?

See my post that I linked to. You have thus far been spinning in circles when asked simple questions about your understanding of distance, eternity, and infinity.

Even if you move on to the next part, you've left a gaping chasm behind that cannot be crossed if you hope to lead us to some conclusion at the end of all this.

You probably won't reach the same conclusion as I did, regardless of the case presented. Some people are just best left in the dark. Good luck.

You presuppose too much. If you actually presented a solid case for something I would be agreeing with you. I have no religious beliefs to defend. If you can logically show something, based on evidence I can examine, I will agree with it. I have no fear of offending my existing god concept because I have none. I follow the evidence to the best of my ability.

How very Christian of you to think some people are best left in the dark. For the kingdom indeed. I want not part of whatever kingdom you are pedaling with that attitude. I would prefer everyone is brought into the light of truth regardless of whether they currently agree with me or not. I guess your belief system really doesn't care about that.

[Goose]

You do not understand infinity and was wrong in stating that infinity-infinity=infinity, as infinity-infinity is undefined.

F_T_K is not necessarily wrong to say infinity " infinity = infinity. Hes not necessarily right either. It depends. There are numerous possible answers to the question infinity " infinity = ? one of which can be, well, infinity. Have a read of this article as it gives a pretty good explanation.

Infinite sets can be said to be different sizes. You alluded to this yourself when you pointed out that there are more integers than even numbers. So we could say something like this: if we start with an infinite set of {1,2,3,4,5,6...} and take away from that infinite set the infinite set of {2,4,6...} we are left with the infinite set of {1,3,5...}. In light of that I think your answer to F_T_K questions about the marble riddle lacks some rigour.

If I have an infinite amount of marbles, each labeled with a number (with no marble having the same number)...and I give you all of the even numbered marbles..

1. How many marbles will you have?
2. How many marbles will I have left over?

Heres how I would answer the questions.

1. I will have an infinite set of even numbered marbles.
2. F_T_K will have an infinite set of numbered marbles that do not contain any even numbered ones.

[Bust Nak]

F_T_K is not necessarily wrong to say infinity " infinity = infinity...

Please don't encourage him, stick to the math: infinity - infinity is undefined. If you allowed infinity-infinity to get you any old number you like, as opposed to no answer at all, you would end up with stuff like 1=2.

1. I will have an infinite set of even numbered marbles.
2. F_T_K will have an infinite set of numbered marbles that do not contain any even numbered ones.

But that still doesn't mean infinity " infinity = infinity... Even the article you linked to says intuition doesnt really help.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I acknowledge that you don't care, but I was giving an explanation why this probably isn't going anywhere.

Well, it went exactly where I wanted it to go.

Why restate what others are already stating?

So, are you concluding that those others gave adequate answers? How so?

Perhaps you don't know that the 'like' function means. It means I agree with this post and/or like how it has been explained. For this particular topic, I so no need to restate the exact same things. I also did reply with a summary of what I saw happening here: [post 90 by benchwarmer]

I stand corrected. I will respond to post 90 shortly.

Face it, the KCA as presented so far in this and the parallel thread, is dead in the water. If you can't clearly define the premises

Hmm...no one has accused me of not clearly defining the premises yet. You must be the only one that don't understand the premises.

Then what have the last 11 pages worth of posts been about? People agreeing with you what is meant by the premises? I guess I missed that.

Whether or not they agree/disagree has no barren on whether or not they think the premises was defined/undefined, which is what you accused the premises of; not being defined.

and coherently deal with the rebuttals brought up, this isn't going to go anywhere.

So tell me, what have I said that makes you think I can't deal with the rebuttals? Or is this a "filler" line?

See my post that I linked to. You have thus far been spinning in circles when asked simple questions about your understanding of distance, eternity, and infinity.

Ok, so give me an example of what you are talking about. I want specific examples of me "spinning in circles when asked simple questions about my understanding of distance, eternity, and infinity".

If you are going to accuse me of something, please give specific examples...because I obviously disagree, considering the fact that I've given detailed explanations of both the argument, and my rebuttals to objections of the argument.

Even if you move on to the next part, you've left a gaping chasm behind that cannot be crossed if you hope to lead us to some conclusion at the end of all this.

You probably won't reach the same conclusion as I did, regardless of the case presented. Some people are just best left in the dark. Good luck.

You presuppose too much. If you actually presented a solid case for something I would be agreeing with you.

I simply disagree.

I have no religious beliefs to defend. If you can logically show something, based on evidence I can examine, I will agree with it. I have no fear of offending my existing god concept because I have none. I follow the evidence to the best of my ability.

How very Christian of you to think some people are best left in the dark. For the kingdom indeed. I want not part of whatever kingdom you are pedaling with that attitude. I would prefer everyone is brought into the light of truth regardless of whether they currently agree with me or not. I guess your belief system really doesn't care about that.

Well, according to my belief system, man is without excuse for not believing (Rom 1:20). So, take that up with the author of Romans (Paul), not me.

[Goose]

Please don't encourage him...

Why not? Dont you encourage people to express their views even if you dont share them? I do.

...stick to the math: infinity - infinity is undefined.

Yes mathematicians often leave it as undefined. But why is it left undefined?

You, probably unwittingly, hinted at the answer to that question when you next say...

If you allowed infinity-infinity to get you any old number you like, as opposed to no answer at all, you would end up with stuff like 1=2.

Precisely. When we do the math on infinity " infinity = ? it can lead to different answers like zero, 1 , infinity, etc. In other words it can produce a contradiction or as F_T_K has put it, an absurdity. I think this is the very point F_T_K is making. And I dont see where youve offered a coherent rebuttal aside from reiterating infinity minus infinity is undefined.

But that still doesn't mean infinity " infinity = infinity...

But the argument does seem to show that an infinite set minus an infinite set can equal an infinite set. You havent shown otherwise with the marble analogy nor with my integer/even number analogy.

Even the article you linked to says intuition doesnt really help.

It also went on to show how infinity " infinity can equal infinity. So again, F_T_K is not wrong to say infinity minus infinity equals infinity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

*scans post 102*

Hmm, I don't see the whole "infinity - infinity does not equal infinity" business you were harping on earlier...

Well, that's just typical, isn't it? Read my posts properly. It's right there, and I quote:

How many marbles will I have left over?

There is no answer to this question, the number of marbles you would have is undefined.

You do not understand infinity and was wrong in stating that infinity-infinity=infinity, as infinity-infinity is undefined.

You are speaking nonsense, as usual. The fact that it is "undefined" doesn't stop me from giving away any amount that I choose, if I had an infinite amount. Either I have the amount, or I don't.

If I do, then I can freely give away however many members of the set that I choose, and just because you label it undefined does not negate that point.

Second, this is a clear double standard (taxi cab fallacy)..because the fact that infinity is "undefined"; that didn't stop you from being able to traverse it (you stated earlier that you can traverse infinity), did it?

Now all of a sudden, when I ask you to subtract from the same amount that you claim can be traversed..now of a sudden "hey, you can't do that, it is undefined".

Yet, it being undefined didn't prevent you from traversing it. If it is "undefined", then you shouldn't be able to traverse it, either.

You are using fallacious logic, is what I am trying to say.

When you "thought" that you were able to pull of this grand (impossible) stunt of traversing infinity, it was ok to traverse infinity, despite infinity being "undefined...

But now, when it dawned on you that "I (you) was wrong; infinity-infinity = infinity"... now all of a sudden its "Hey, you can't do that, because infinity is undefined".

LOL.

Anyways, back to this mountain of a dilemma for you..

Your claim is that infinity-infinity is not infinity..yet..

If I have an infinite amount of red balls, mixed with an infinite amount of black balls...I have an infinite amount of red/black balls..

If I give away an infinite amount of black balls, I will still have an infinite amount of red balls..

Like I said; Infinity-infinity= infinity. You and your worldview is simply caught up in a lot of mess.

That leads me to believe that, as I presumed, it is YOU who didn't understand infinity and was rightfully educated by me...

I still don't know where you get so much confidence from. I guess that's what people call faith, being so sure of oneself in spite of the evidence.

Reptiles to birds = faith.

[Bust Nak]

Why not? Dont you encourage people to express their views even if you dont share them? I do.

That depends on a case by case basis.

You, probably unwittingly, hinted at the answer to that question when you next say...

Hinted? I thought I was being clear. Infinity"infinity is undefined because anything else leads to absurdities.

In other words it can produce a contradiction or as F_T_K has put it, an absurdity. I think this is the very point F_T_K is making...

Had F_T_K have said infinity-infinity is in itself an absurdity, I would have agreed with him. He didn't though, he insisted that it is equal to infinity, and it is the fact that it is infinity minus infinity is equal to infinity that makes it an absurdity. Worse still, he insists that infinity itself is an absurdity. This is why you should not encourage him.

But the argument does seem to show that an infinite set minus an infinite set can equal an infinite set. You havent shown otherwise with the marble analogy nor with my integer/even number analogy.

That much is fine though, as they are not not absurd. The problem is jumping form these analogies to the conclusion that infinity-infinity=infinity.

It also went on to show how infinity " infinity can equal infinity.

It stopped short of doing that though, instead it showed that if you run with your intuition you would end up with answers such as infinity. The article begun with the caveat that infinity is not a number but the author would treat it incorrectly as one to facilitate discussion; and ends on a warning to be careful when dealing with infinity.

[Bust Nak]

You are speaking nonsense, as usual. The fact that it is "undefined" doesn't stop me from giving away any amount that I choose, if I had an infinite amount. Either I have the amount, or I don't.

If I do, then I can freely give away however many members of the set that I choose, and just because you label it undefined does not negate that point.

That much is fine though, I didn't say nor implied that you couldn't give away any amount that you choose, given that you had an infinite amount. By all means give away however many members of the set that you choose.

The fact that infinity-infinity is undefined does however stop you from saying infinity-infinity equal infinity. Well, I guess you can still say it, but you'd be incorrect.

Second, this is a clear double standard (taxi cab fallacy)..because the fact that infinity is "undefined"...

That is not a fact at all, infinity is not undefined. Read carefully: I said infinity-infinity is undefined. That's a very different claim to "infinity is undefined." Your attempt at a counter argument is starting off on the wrong premise. Care to give this part another go in light of this?

Your claim is that infinity-infinity is not infinity..yet..

If I have an infinite amount of red balls, mixed with an infinite amount of black balls...I have an infinite amount of red/black balls..

If I give away an infinite amount of black balls, I will still have an infinite amount of red balls..

Sure, you have an infinite amount of red balls, but the amount of black balls you have is undefined, so you are still wrong: infinity-infinity still does not equal infinity.

Reptiles to birds = faith.

No faith required, I have empirical evidence.

[FarWanderer]

Bro, what are you talking about? Do you unbelievers cross-check each other? Like, at all? I am responding to a guy who asked me "are there twice the amount of integers as there are even numbers".

Since even numbers are integers, that only leaves the odd numbers...

What??????

"Only leaves"???

WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU EXCLUDING EVEN NUMBERS??? He didn't say "non-even integers" or "other integers".

He's asking if there are twice as many even numbers as there are even and odd numbers in total.

Why on Earth would you think he meant anything else.

But if you had an infinite number of black marbles and one red marble, then you gave away all your black marbles; how many total marbles did you start with, how many total marbles did you give away, and how many total marbles will you have at the end? The answer is infinite, infinite, and one. So we have a situation where infinity minus infinity = 1.

So, I have an infinite amount of black marbles, and one red marble..and I gave away all of the black marbles

Infinity minus infinity can be any number (including infinity, negative infinity, and anything in between), depending on which infinities we are talking about.

Thanks again for conceding my point..when dealing with infinity, you get contradictory results.

They aren't "contradictory". It depends on the infinity in question. Claiming that different results makes it absurd is like claiming "up" is absurd because it's not always the same direction.

If infinity were absurd, a statement like "infinity > 1" couldn't be said to make any sense. The word has some kind of meaning, obviously. You can make arguments about traversing infinity in time or space being impossible, but that's entirely different from saying the concept itself is absurd.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You say there are many reference points...fine..and I am picking the "reference" POINT of equal distance. So now what? Which point is that?

LOL, you were asked a simple question and you are clearly tap dancing to avoid it. When you say "the 'reference' point of equal distance" you are not answering the question with anything coherent. Equal distance to what? Maybe you don't understand what reference point means? It's like me asking you what 4 minus the reference point of equal distance is. You can't answer it because it's a nonsensical question.

Dude, you asked this question in post #90, yet the question was answered in post #76. Bust Nak asked the same question; "equal distance to what"?

And my answer to that was clearly..

I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING"

Now, what part of that don't you understand? Or do I need to keep pasting the answer to the question..

I will do so again..

I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING"

Do you not understand this??

All I see is you made a challenge, it was met, and now you are going around in circles pretending you don't understand.

When was the challenge met? You just said that you didn't know where the other reference point is, yet the challenge is based on two reference points...so how are you suddenly meeting the challenge if you didn't even know where the reference point was?

You didn't meet ANY challenge, is what I am trying to say.

The options I see are:

1) You don't understand what 'distance' means. It requires two reference points.

I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING"

You do understand that there are two reference points in there, right? Or do you need me to spell it out for you.

Distance A: Current point
Distance B: Point of equal distance of current point

Point 1 = A
Point 2 = B

Do you not see that? 2 points. Again, what part of that don't you understand?

2) You don't understand what a 'reference point' is. You have to actually pick something or it's undefined.

I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING"

3) You know exactly what's going on, but don't want to admit you were wrong. Rather than admit the error and perhaps restate the problem, you are doubling down and going around in circles.

I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING"