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.

[Guy Threepwood]

If there are any misspellings, bad grammar, etc...my bad.

Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. Entropy) applies everywhere including prior to the existence of the universe.

In other words, you are insisting that there must always be an arrow of time, and that time constantly flows from an infinitely distant "past" to an infinitely distant "future".

So yes, if you make that assumption as your premise, then of course you are going to encounter logical contradictions.

So a better idea is to simply discard that premise as unlikely to be true.

It is far more likely that Entropy is a property of our physical universe and would not apply to conditions that may have existed before our universe began to "tick" away in its characteristic manner that we have come to call "Entropy".

So I've solved your problem already. Just give up on trying to premise that Entropy always holds true no matter what, and then the contradictions you current see will vanish and you will no longer have any need to be bothered by them anymore.

Bro, my argument is completely independent of your view of time.. It is also independent of your view on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. It just isn't fazed by any of that stuff...and that is why the argument is so fire-proof.

I am talking about the EVENTS IN TIME...the total amount of events in time which led to the current events in time (today) cannot be infinite, which it would have to be if the past is eternal.

agreed. If it is quantifiable; distance, weight, energy, then there is a certain quantity of it. Time is integrated with these and is no exception, we can measure it, and so there is a finite amount of it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

agreed. If it is quantifiable; distance, weight, energy, then there is a certain quantity of it. Time is integrated with these and is no exception, we can measure it, and so there is a finite amount of it.

Right, and if there is a finite amount of it..it had a beginning...

[Guy Threepwood]

agreed. If it is quantifiable; distance, weight, energy, then there is a certain quantity of it. Time is integrated with these and is no exception, we can measure it, and so there is a finite amount of it.

Right, and if there is a finite amount of it..it had a beginning...

Yes & we pretty much established that- Genesis was right, much to the chagrin of many atheists at the time.

If we agree on an inevitable end though.. how do you see that playing out?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

I don't think the idea of time without events is coherent. You can't separate the "hole" from the "sand".

[Divine Insight]

Bro, my argument is completely independent of your view of time.. It is also independent of your view on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. It just isn't fazed by any of that stuff...and that is why the argument is so fire-proof.

I am talking about the EVENTS IN TIME...the total amount of events in time which led to the current events in time (today) cannot be infinite, which it would have to be if the past is eternal.

Well there you go. This would then also need to apply to your imaginary eternal God. So clearly your God cannot have always existed either.

This follows by your very own reasoning.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Bro, my argument is completely independent of your view of time.. It is also independent of your view on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. It just isn't fazed by any of that stuff...and that is why the argument is so fire-proof.

I am talking about the EVENTS IN TIME...the total amount of events in time which led to the current events in time (today) cannot be infinite, which it would have to be if the past is eternal.

Well there you go. This would then also need to apply to your imaginary eternal God. So clearly your God cannot have always existed either.

This follows by your very own reasoning.

I already took care of this ^

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.

You really didn't read any of what I said, did you, DI? You usually have a lot to say..what is the matter? Is the argument too much for you?

Please address my points, otherwise, don't waste any more of my time. I do mean that with all due respect...but if you can't address my points, then all of this hardcore, anti-theology stuff you have going on means absolutely NOTHING in light of good, valid, sound arguments..which are contrary to your entire basis of being on this great forum.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes & we pretty much established that- Genesis was right, much to the chagrin of many atheists at the time.

Right, a beginning is necessary, and this beginning just HAPPENS to be summed up within the first three words of Genesis..

"In the BEGINNING.."

If we agree on an inevitable end though.. how do you see that playing out?

An end to what? There cannot be an end to time..it is one of those things where, once you start it, you cannot stop it. I will attempt to explain this once we move further along in the argument.

Not that I am an expert or anything..but I think I've figured it out.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

I don't think the idea of time without events is coherent.

Right, it isn't.

You can't separate the "hole" from the "sand".

Right, you can't.

[Divine Insight]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum
This follows by your very own reasoning.

I already took care of this ^

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.

You really didn't read any of what I said, did you, DI? You usually have a lot to say..what is the matter? Is the argument too much for you?

I read everything you said. Just because you said something doesn't make it true.

If you are going to use this reasoning in your arguments about the universe then you need to be consistent and also apply this to any arguments you make about your imaginary eternal God.

So just because you are willing to ignore your own self-contradictions doesn't mean that other people are obligated to do the same.

Please address my points, otherwise, don't waste any more of my time. I do mean that with all due respect...but if you can't address my points, then all of this hardcore, anti-theology stuff you have going on means absolutely NOTHING in light of good, valid, sound arguments..which are contrary to your entire basis of being on this great forum.

I'm pretty sure that most atheists on this forum are willing to concede that our physical universe came to take on the properties it has about 14 billion years ago or so.

So why should you even feel that you need to make an argument for that? Almost everyone will agree that this is indeed the case.

So if your argument is that our universe began to exist in its current form a finite time ago, then I can't imagine too many people disagreeing with that. In fact, that's currently what scientists hold to be true.

~~~~~

But think about this FtK, your purely abstract mathematical argument would actually demand that nothing could have existed forever, not even a God.

So you're the one who's painting yourself into a corner here.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

I don't think the idea of time without events is coherent.

Right, it isn't.

You can't separate the "hole" from the "sand".

Right, you can't.

Then we agree that your analogy is nonsense?