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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well of course I can't negate what you are saying, because you are begging the question. Again.

Your arguments are all based on the assumption that there is any "reaching" to do. Reaching from when? Some point in time infinitely long ago? There is no such thing.

Ok, so carry this acknowledgement over to naturalism...because on such a worldview, the past is eternal on an infinitely long timeline.

So with this latest acknowledgement, what does this imply?

You can argue that there is such a thing, or that we don't need a starting point for "reaching" the present to be coherent. Otherwise, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

You lost me here. If you don't see the point that I am getting at, then you are right...no point in continuing this discussion.

Unrelated. Go back and read what my comment was responding to.

Well, it doesn't matter what you was responding to...I made no mention of science and as far as I am concerned, GR and QM is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, the first 'day' is when the earth made it's first rotation in relation to the sun, since that is how we currently define 'day'. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, thus today would be approximately day 1,657,100,000,000. Better? Not sure how this helps you in any way.

So, there weren't 24 hour periods before the earth/sun were made? The infinite timeline can be broken down into 24 hour periods, with/without the sun.

So, if you placed a natural number on every single 24 hour period, from earliest to latest....and you placed these 24 hour periods in numerical order with the present day (9-25-19) being the latest...what number would you place on "today"?

If you are at the 0 yard line on a football field, and I asked you to walk forward 20 yards, and stop. And once you stopped at the 20 yard line, I ask you to walk the opposite direction of the 20 yard line, and stop once you reach equal distance...at what yard line would you stop?

I have no idea because you refuse to tell me what you mean by "equal distance". Equal distance FROM what TO what?

Dude, it ain't rocket science. It ain't brain surgery. If you don't know what "equal distance" means, then I can't help you. I am not in to explaining elementary terminologies and concepts to adults.

If you don't know what "equal distance" in the opposite direction of your forward traversed point..then I can't help you.

Are you asking me to walk an equal distance to that which I just walked? If so, why not clearly state that? The phrase 'equal distance' is meaningless in English if you don't qualify it with something. Maybe this is a language barrier.

If I walked 20 yards and you asked me to turn around and walk the equal distance I just walked to get to the 20 yard line, then of course I will be back at yard 0. i.e. walk a distance equal to that which I just walked.

Dude, what was so hard about that?? If you walked to the 20 yard line from the 0, wouldn't 20 yards in the opposite direction put you right back at the 0?

I suggest phrasing your question properly or you will continue to be met with questions and confusion.

So, if you loaned me 20 bucks..and I say; "next week, I will pay you back the equal amount of money that you loaned me"...wouldn't the "equal amount" be 20 bucks?

No, there is no language barrier..you must be slow on the mental draw or something.

No, point 2 is not clearly defined. If it was, you would happily assign some numbers to it in an example. So far in all these posts I have yet to see you do that.

Let's take your own example. Please fill in the values assuming point 1 is 0. Is point 2 20 yards from point 1? If so, why all the tap dancing? If not, you haven't defined anything.

?

[FarWanderer]

Well of course I can't negate what you are saying, because you are begging the question. Again.

Your arguments are all based on the assumption that there is any "reaching" to do. Reaching from when? Some point in time infinitely long ago? There is no such thing.

Ok, so carry this acknowledgement over to naturalism...because on such a worldview, the past is eternal on an infinitely long timeline.

So with this latest acknowledgement, what does this imply?

Nothing.

Infinite past = coherent
A point in time infinitely long ago = incoherent

Well, the first 'day' is when the earth made it's first rotation in relation to the sun, since that is how we currently define 'day'. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, thus today would be approximately day 1,657,100,000,000. Better? Not sure how this helps you in any way.

So, there weren't 24 hour periods before the earth/sun were made? The infinite timeline can be broken down into 24 hour periods, with/without the sun.

So, if you placed a natural number on every single 24 hour period, from earliest to latest....and you placed these 24 hour periods in numerical order with the present day (9-25-19) being the latest...what number would you place on "today"?

Zero. And it would be in integers. Not natural numbers.

Do you know what it means to beg the question? Because you do it pretty much every post.

[Bust Nak]

If you subtract all of black balls (an infinite amount) from the infinite pile of black/red balls (infinite amount of red balls as well), how many red balls would you have?

Infinitely many.

Nonsense. Undefined or not...

Nonsense? that's the sticking point isn't it? There is no "or not," it is undefined.

if you subtract the infinite amount of black balls from the pile, how many of the infinite amount of red balls would you have?

The same infinite amount I had to begin with, no red balls are removed from the pile.

Red herrings.

It's an analogy with a point relating to the topic at hand, do you think 10/0 = infinity? The point being: If so you are just as wrong as you are on infinity-infinity; On the other hand, if you don't, then apply the same reasoning here.

In the scenario, you subtracted an infinite amount from an infinite amount, and you are left with an infinite amount.

In this scenario, you are not subtracting an infinite amount from an infinite amount thought, you subtracted zero from an infinite amount - you removed no red balls, remember?

If you subtract all of the black balls from the infinite pile, are you not left with an infinite amount of red balls? Yes or no?

Yes.

The total amount of "non red balls" is infinity...and you just admitted that you are left with infinitely many red balls after you subtracted an infinite amount of non-red balls.

So, infinity-infinity=infinity.

Incorrect, that still does not follow. Instead you have a case of infinity-0=infinity because you subtracted zero red balls.

You apparently don't want to admit that you were simply WRONG. Case closed.

Well, it's hard to admit that since I was correct.

Ok, well let me explicitly state; ALL OF THE BLACK BALLS ARE SUBTRACTED FROM THE PILE, SO THAT NOT A SINGLE BLACK BALL IS LEFT.

Is that better?

Yes, that is better.

As an aside:

So, if you placed a natural number on every single 24 hour period, from earliest to latest.

From the earliest you say? You are still thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well of course I can't negate what you are saying, because you are begging the question. Again.

Your arguments are all based on the assumption that there is any "reaching" to do. Reaching from when? Some point in time infinitely long ago? There is no such thing.

Ok, so carry this acknowledgement over to naturalism...because on such a worldview, the past is eternal on an infinitely long timeline.

So with this latest acknowledgement, what does this imply?

Nothing.

Infinite past = coherent
A point in time infinitely long ago = incoherent

You've just contradicted yourself. If an infinite past is coherent, how is it that "a point in time infinitely long ago" is incoherent?

An infinite past is made up of "points in time, infinitely long ago".

Makes no sense.

Zero. And it would be in integers. Not natural numbers.

Natural numbers are integers...so to make a distinction of the two is to show that you don't understand what is going on here.

Natural number: the positive integers (whole numbers) 1, 2, 3, etc., and sometimes zero as well.

This was a failed "gotcha" moment at its finest.

And to put even more icing on the cake..

In mathematics, the natural numbers are those used for counting


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number

Do you see that? Natural numbers are using for COUNTING...and what did I use "natural number" in the context of??? COUNTING.

See what I mean? All of this ignorance and failed/illogical objections, just because they know that at the end of the argument, there is a God.

SMH.

Do you know what it means to beg the question? Because you do it pretty much every post.

Begging the question as far as what?

[benchwarmer]

Well, the first 'day' is when the earth made it's first rotation in relation to the sun, since that is how we currently define 'day'. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, thus today would be approximately day 1,657,100,000,000. Better? Not sure how this helps you in any way.

So, there weren't 24 hour periods before the earth/sun were made? The infinite timeline can be broken down into 24 hour periods, with/without the sun.

Yes, but these were not 'days'. And now you are assuming an infinite timeline? Your question is such a mess it's hard to tell what you are after.

So, if you placed a natural number on every single 24 hour period, from earliest to latest....and you placed these 24 hour periods in numerical order with the present day (9-25-19) being the latest...what number would you place on "today"?

This is undefined unless you are willing to define the earliest day. Will you do that? Then your answer is simple math. If you are not willing, then the answer is simply undefined.

Your question seems to change every time clarification is requested.

Tell us what the earliest 'day' is and we can tell you what number to assign to today. Other wise it's simply undefined and pointless.

If you are at the 0 yard line on a football field, and I asked you to walk forward 20 yards, and stop. And once you stopped at the 20 yard line, I ask you to walk the opposite direction of the 20 yard line, and stop once you reach equal distance...at what yard line would you stop?

I have no idea because you refuse to tell me what you mean by "equal distance". Equal distance FROM what TO what?

Dude, it ain't rocket science. It ain't brain surgery. If you don't know what "equal distance" means, then I can't help you. I am not in to explaining elementary terminologies and concepts to adults.

This seems to be common practice for you. You are asked for clarification and refuse to give it. Perhaps it's because you can't? If you can, why don't you simply do that? Are you testing for clairvoyance or something? I can't read minds.

If you don't know what "equal distance" in the opposite direction of your forward traversed point..then I can't help you.

Yet this is not what you said earlier. You just kept saying "equal distance". Now you appear to be folding and supplying the 'something' we are talking about in relation to the phrase 'equal distance'. You would have saved countless posts and back and forth misunderstanding if you would simply define your questions more carefully.

Are you asking me to walk an equal distance to that which I just walked? If so, why not clearly state that? The phrase 'equal distance' is meaningless in English if you don't qualify it with something. Maybe this is a language barrier.

If I walked 20 yards and you asked me to turn around and walk the equal distance I just walked to get to the 20 yard line, then of course I will be back at yard 0. i.e. walk a distance equal to that which I just walked.

Dude, what was so hard about that?? If you walked to the 20 yard line from the 0, wouldn't 20 yards in the opposite direction put you right back at the 0?

There was nothing hard about because I clearly defined what I was talking about in complete contrast to what you were doing. Now that it's clear what you were talking about your response is insult?

Do you think we are asking you questions just because it's fun? Most of use are trying to communicate with understanding.

I suggest phrasing your question properly or you will continue to be met with questions and confusion.

So, if you loaned me 20 bucks..and I say; "next week, I will pay you back the equal amount of money that you loaned me"...wouldn't the "equal amount" be 20 bucks?

No, there is no language barrier..you must be slow on the mental draw or something.

Note the example you give. Did you just say "equal amount" or did you qualify it? You are proving my point. Insulting me after finally drawing out what you really mean hardly seems appropriate. You should be celebrating we are on the same page.

No, point 2 is not clearly defined. If it was, you would happily assign some numbers to it in an example. So far in all these posts I have yet to see you do that.

Let's take your own example. Please fill in the values assuming point 1 is 0. Is point 2 20 yards from point 1? If so, why all the tap dancing? If not, you haven't defined anything.

?

I've noticed a pattern when you do this. I now take this to mean you understand exactly what I said and have no rebuttal.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If you subtract all of black balls (an infinite amount) from the infinite pile of black/red balls (infinite amount of red balls as well), how many red balls would you have?

Infinitely many.

Nonsense. Undefined or not...

Nonsense? that's the sticking point isn't it? There is no "or not," it is undefined.

You can call it "undefined" all you want, as long as you just acknowledged that you've subtracted an infinite amount from an infinite amount, and was left with an infinite amount.

if you subtract the infinite amount of black balls from the pile, how many of the infinite amount of red balls would you have?

The same infinite amount I had to begin with, no red balls are removed from the pile.

Red herrings.

It's an analogy with a point relating to the topic at hand, do you think 10/0 = infinity? The point being: If so you are just as wrong as you are on infinity-infinity; On the other hand, if you don't, then apply the same reasoning here.

There can be no "if" to it...in the analogy, it is true...infinity-infinity=infinity.

In the scenario, you subtracted an infinite amount from an infinite amount, and you are left with an infinite amount.

In this scenario, you are not subtracting an infinite amount from an infinite amount thought, you subtracted zero from an infinite amount - you removed no red balls, remember?

Hmm, I see that there is no mention of the infinite amount of black balls in your above quote, despite the fact that the mention of the black balls is plagued throughout the analogy.

You are being disingenuous...and it is a crying shame that someone is going through so much trouble as to not admit that they were simply wrong.

If you subtract all of the black balls from the infinite pile, are you not left with an infinite amount of red balls? Yes or no?

Yes.

So, you've subtracted from an infinite amount, and you have an infinite amount left, correct?

The total amount of "non red balls" is infinity...and you just admitted that you are left with infinitely many red balls after you subtracted an infinite amount of non-red balls.

So, infinity-infinity=infinity.

Incorrect, that still does not follow. Instead you have a case of infinity-0=infinity because you subtracted zero red balls.

The subtraction of the red balls isn't part of the discussion/analogy, and you know it isn't. You are being disingenuous.

So, if you placed a natural number on every single 24 hour period, from earliest to latest.

From the earliest you say? You are still thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

I am still thinking that infinity is an irrational concept that cannot reflect reality.

[Bust Nak]

You can call it "undefined" all you want, as long as you just acknowledged that you've subtracted an infinite amount from an infinite amount, and was left with an infinite amount.

No can do. Subtracting infinity from infinity is an incoherent concept.

There can be no "if" to it...in the analogy

What are you talking about? I asked you a yes/no question, then made two follow up statements depending on whether you say yes or no. That's the "if" in the analogy. And by analogy, I was referring to 10/0.

it is true...infinity-infinity=infinity.

It's not true though, it is decidedly false.

Hmm, I see that there is no mention of the infinite amount of black balls in your above quote, despite the fact that the mention of the black balls is plagued throughout the analogy.

Right, but what does that have to do with the fact that no red balls were removed in your example. And while we are here talking about black balls, removing all of them would leave you with 0 black balls, that does not equal to infinity either.

So, you've subtracted from an infinite amount, and you have an infinite amount left, correct?

Correct. I have subtracted ZERO from an infinite amount, and I have an infinite amount left. Big whoop.

The subtraction of the red balls isn't part of the discussion/analogy

Sure it is. You had some red balls, then took no red balls away. It's your scenario. If you don't want it to be part of the discussion then don't mention red balls or subtraction.

I am still thinking that infinity is an irrational concept that cannot reflect reality.

It would be, if you include such things as "the earliest day" of an eternal past, or "points in time, infinitely long ago," or infinity-infinity. The question, is why would you keep including these things when we have told you over and over again they are incoherent and hence don't exist?

[Goose]

Not so fast, infinity-infinity=infinty leads to absurdities, not so with infinity. At worse it's counter-intuitive.

If infinity-infinity=infinity leads to absurdities then, infinity under certain conditions, can lead to absurdities.

You affirm the first premise.

And Ive established that indeed there are conditions where infinity-infinitycan be equal to infinity.

You can't though, because subtracting infinity from infinity is undefined.

*sigh* You just keep saying the same thing over and over as though the statement infinity-infinity is undefined properly addresses the math. Ive linked you to an article where it was mathematically shown that infinity-infinity can equal infinity. Ive linked you to a video where it was shown mathematically how infinity " infinity can equal infinity (as well as negative infinity and zero). I mean she pretty much spelled it out in mathematical terms for crying out loud.

Heres a couple more links showing how infinity-infinity can equal infinity when evaluating limits.

http://www.phengkimving.com/calc_of_one ... us_inf.htm

In the above link go to section 2. And look at limit 3. It shows how infinity-infinity is, in this case, infinity.

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/Cal ... inity.html

In that link pay attention to examples 3 and 9. They take the indeterminate form infinity-infinity as well and once again their answer is infinity.

How many more mathematical examples do you need that demonstrate infinity-infinity can be infinity? I mean good grief.

If you want to continue to hold this position that infinity-infinity cannot ever equal infinity then go ahead and show me where the math in the video and other links was incorrect. Dont just keep telling me mathematicians say infinity-infinity is indeterminant when the very reason they say that is because of the fact that infinity-infinity can have numerous answers one of which is infinity.

What the video does show is just exactly that: subtracting infinity from infinity is undefined. It even says so in the title.

The video shows why it is indeterminate. And thats because she showed mathematically how infinity-infinity can equal infinity, -infinity, and zero. Do you understand what it means when they say indeterminate?

Nah, we know non of them are correct.

Then go ahead and show me where the math in the video was wrong.

That it is defined as indeterminate does indeed negate the claim that infinity minus infinity can equal infinity. It cannot.

Shown to be patently false with numerous mathematical examples.

Because it's not a problem with infinity, but with people's intuition about infinity.

Well whos intuition about infinity is correct then? It seems intuition is all we have if infinity isnt real. Go ahead and show me where infinity has been shown to exist in the real material world.

They are merely counter-intuitive, there is nothing absurd about Hilberts Hotel and Zeno's paradox is solved.

Hilberts Hotel only works with the countably infinite.

Not if there is infinite space in the universe.

Which presumes an infinite universe. What evidence is there that the observable universe has infinite space?

Which is why you should stick to the math and not do stuff by intuition, it is your intuition that lead to absurdities, not infinity.

It was done with mathematics, Bust Nak.

It's not an mathematical argument because infinity isn't a number, but is treated like one in the argument. Which means it is at best an intuitional argument.

No it means its a mathematical argument. If I were trying to prove infinity-infinity=infinity with red and black balls Id be using an intuitional argument.

If infinity isnt a number and we therefore cant use mathematical arguments how do you propose to demonstrate infinity actually exists?

And hence invalidating any mathematical merit from the argument. It literally tells you the argument is starting with an incorrect premise.

It does no such thing. It simply tells us that infinity is not a number but that they will think of infinity as a very large number, so large there isnt another number larger than it. How else should we think of infinity in the context of numbers?

To invalidate the mathematical merit of the argument you need to invalidate the math of the argument " i.e. show where the math is faulty. You havent done that. So you dont get to claim the mathematical merit of the argument is invalid.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No can do. Subtracting infinity from infinity is an incoherent concept.

I agree, subtracting infinity from infinity is an incoherent concept. Now, does this mean that it is impossible for me to have EVER have/had an infinite amount of things??

Is it possible to have an infinite amount of anything (actual infinite amount). Yes or no.

There can be no "if" to it...in the analogy

What are you talking about? I asked you a yes/no question, then made two follow up statements depending on whether you say yes or no. That's the "if" in the analogy. And by analogy, I was referring to 10/0.

So, if I see with my own two eyes that you are beating your wife...does it make any sense to say to you "Hey, Bust Nak, if you are beating your wife, you need to stop".

See where I am going here?

it is true...infinity-infinity=infinity.

It's not true though, it is decidedly false.

Do you, or do you NOT have an infinite amount of red balls after subtracting an infinite amount of black balls...yes or no?

The answer is obviously yes (as you admitted)...so why are you still maintaining that the answer is false, after previously admitting that you will have an infinite amount.

You are being disingenuous.

Hmm, I see that there is no mention of the infinite amount of black balls in your above quote, despite the fact that the mention of the black balls is plagued throughout the analogy.

Right, but what does that have to do with the fact that no red balls were removed in your example.

The fact that no red balls were removed is just a "fun fact" (an irrelevant, fun fact, at that), and has no barren on the truth value of you subtracting an infinite amount of black balls and still having an infinite amount of red balls.

The most clear, blatant, and text book example of a red herring that I've ever seen on this great forum.

And while we are here talking about black balls, removing all of them would leave you with 0 black balls, that does not equal to infinity either.

But since the question is not how many black balls are in the pile after you've subtracted them, that point is completely irrelevant.

Just a crying shame. SMH.

So, you've subtracted from an infinite amount, and you have an infinite amount left, correct?

Correct. I have subtracted ZERO from an infinite amount, and I have an infinite amount left. Big whoop.

Disingenuous. Ahh yes, I can safely move on from you after the blatant disingenuousness coming directly from your fingertips.

The subtraction of the red balls isn't part of the discussion/analogy

Sure it is. You had some red balls, then took no red balls away. It's your scenario. If you don't want it to be part of the discussion then don't mention red balls or subtraction.

I am still thinking that infinity is an irrational concept that cannot reflect reality.

It would be, if you include such things as "the earliest day" of an eternal past, or "points in time, infinitely long ago," or infinity-infinity. The question, is why would you keep including these things when we have told you over and over again they are incoherent and hence don't exist?

Now, I am satisfied/content. Bust Nak, you can have the last word as this conversation (at least on my end) shall continue without you.

Never mind answering the questions above, either. Your choice..just know that I won't be responding.