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]

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

Oh, ok..you read it, you just went on a tangent about entropy/second law...each of which had NOTHING TO DO with ANYTHING in the thread.

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.

First, grant the soundness/validity of the argument..and then we can talk about my God..because you are already starting off on the wrong foot when you say "eternal God", which shows that you have a free lesson on God/eternity brewing.

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

Bro, first of all..either God did it, or nature did it. They both can't be wrong...so one of them have to be right. I've just proved that nature couldn't have done it...so God is the only game left in town...and if you think the "God" option is absurd, then you obviously lack a true understanding about what is going on here.

I 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 that is the thing; the argument does not just cover "our" universe...the argument covers all NATURAL REALITY, PERIOD. You do understand this, right?

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.

Bro, you don't think I have this already covered? Obviously, God is exempt from this..I just haven't gotten around to it yet. The point is; admit that the argument is sound/valid.

If you think otherwise, the floor is yours.

[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.

Then we agree that your analogy is nonsense?

Um, no. I didn't say anything contrary (in the OP) to what we both just agreed on. If you think otherwise, then articulate.

[wiploc]

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.

The universe is everything, all of existence. If gods exist, they are part of the universe.

If existence is finite, gods--if they exist at all--must be too.

If you're looking for an ultimate cause of everything, why would you arbitrarily stop when you think you've gotten to gods? Where did the gods come from is the obvious next question. There's no reason to "save all that talk."

Irrelevant to any point that I made in the thread.

So you concede that your argument--if it works at all--proves that your god is finite, and had a beginning, and was caused by something prior to itself?

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

What you've proven is that transfinite math isn't the same as finite math.

Um, no. What I've proven is that when you apply infinity to real life scenarios, you get real life absurdities.

You could have done the same trick with calculus or imaginary numbers or irrational numbers.

What trick?

They one where you say that you don't understand how transfinite math works, and therefore infinities don't exist.

And that doesn't have anything to do with how things got started. You don't get to say, "I know a math trick so I get to declare how the universe began." That doesn't follow at all.

Bro, you didn't address anything in the argument at all, and neither did DI. You guys are just talking, that's it. Its all good, though..because it only goes to show just how powerful the argument is.

You can say nothing, because you've got nothing.

You're projecting.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So you concede that your argument--if it works at all--proves that your god is finite, and had a beginning, and was caused by something prior to itself?

Um, God has nothing to do with the argument thus far. Please focus on the points of the thread. That is the problem; you guys are so quick to attack God/theology, even when there is no mention of God/theology.

SMH.

They one where you say that you don't understand how transfinite math works, and therefore infinities don't exist.

I never said I don't understand how transfinite math works, first of all. Second, do you understand how it works?

Ok, well, using transfinite arithmetic, please tell me how you can get to the present day, after traversing an infinite amount of prior days to get here.

Since apparently, I don't know how things work around here. Well, educate me. Or is this just a red herring tactic?

You can resurrect Georg Cantor from the grave, and not even he will be able to help you here.

You're projecting.

Oh, not at all. You know the good thing about the truth, wiploc...is the fact that you can't rebuttal it.

[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?

Um, no. I didn't say anything contrary (in the OP) to what we both just agreed on. If you think otherwise, then articulate.

Your OP is premised on the "sand" and the "hole" being distinct from one another. I am saying they are not.

In other words time and events, if infinite, are the same infinity. You are saying they are different infinities and comparing them to one another.

[Divine Insight]

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

Oh, ok..you read it, you just went on a tangent about entropy/second law...each of which had NOTHING TO DO with ANYTHING in the thread.

Well sure it does. You're very argument is that an infinite number of events cannot be said to have occurred before "now" because it would be impossible to have reached "now" if "now" is said to have only happened after an infinite number of events had already occurred. Right?

That's your argument. I'm simply saying that this argument only applies if you assume that entropy is always in play. That's the part that you don't seem to understand.

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.

First, grant the soundness/validity of the argument..and then we can talk about my God..because you are already starting off on the wrong foot when you say "eternal God", which shows that you have a free lesson on God/eternity brewing.

I've already granted your the soundness/validity of your argument, if and only if[/i] we accept the premise that entropy is always in play the entire time.

This was my point. Your argument requires that we embrace that premise. All I'm saying is that I see no need to embrace that premise. And because of this, then your argument is no longer sound/valid.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I already explained this in the first few paragraph of post #4 on the first page of this thread. Yep, I just looked. I would suggest that you go back and re-read that post.

So I had already addressed the "soundness/validity" of your argument in post #4.

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

Bro, first of all..either God did it, or nature did it. They both can't be wrong...so one of them have to be right. I've just proved that nature couldn't have done it...so God is the only game left in town...and if you think the "God" option is absurd, then you obviously lack a true understanding about what is going on here.

Sorry, but you did not establish this at all.

In fact, all you are doing is assuming that "nature" requires that entropy must always be in force. But there is no reason to make that assumption. All you are doing is demanding that naturalists accepts your ignorance of their view of nature.

Why in the world would they do that?

I 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 that is the thing; the argument does not just cover "our" universe...the argument covers all NATURAL REALITY, PERIOD. You do understand this, right?

Of course I understand this. But this doesn't mean that entropy had to exist prior to the formation of the universe. In fact, it is actually well-known that entropy is indeed a property of a macro world. This has been shown to be the case. There is no reason to think that entropy even applies in the quantum realm.

So once again, all we are dealing with here is your ignorant of what naturalists mean by NATURE. They don't limit nature to only having properties that may actually require a macro physical world to exist. In other words, entropy (and a directional time that we experience in this universe) is am emergent property of the physical universe itself. It's not a fundamental property of nature.

So all this amounts to is your ignorance of what naturalists mean by nature.

You are trying to force your limited understanding of physics and nature down the throats of naturalists. But they have no reason to accept your incorrect misunderstanding of physics and nature.

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.

Bro, you don't think I have this already covered? Obviously, God is exempt from this..I just haven't gotten around to it yet. The point is; admit that the argument is sound/valid.

If you think otherwise, the floor is yours.

Ok here we go,....

I agree with your purely abstract mathematical argument that if entropy is premised to always hold true, then it does lead to the conclusion that an infinite number of events could not have preceded this current point in time.

I do not agree that there is any reason to believe that either entropy, or even human mathematical formalism, necessarily exists outside of our universe.

So fine. Then we are finished on this particular argument right?

So now that we are finished here it's time for you to make your arguments for your God who is supposedly exempt to the above arguments and conclusions.

[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.

Then we agree that your analogy is nonsense?

Um, no. I didn't say anything contrary (in the OP) to what we both just agreed on. If you think otherwise, then articulate.

Your OP is premised on the "sand" and the "hole" being distinct from one another. I am saying they are not.

In other words time and events, if infinite, are the same infinity. You are saying they are different infinities and comparing them to one another.

Bro, that is all fine and dandy..and even though I disagree with you and your assessment, there is no need for me to refute it and thus get caught up in its pure irrelevance.

My point is; the concept of an infinite amount of events in time is logically absurd...and if natural reality is eternal (which it would have to be, on naturalism), then there is no negating this fact.

[Divine Insight]

My point is; the concept of an infinite amount of events in time is logically absurd...and if natural reality is eternal (which it would have to be, on naturalism), then there is no negating this fact.

So why not just start with this as your premise, and then explain why this doesn't apply to your proposed God?

It would seem to me that if you are onto anything it would need to reside in your explanation of why your hypothesized God is supposedly exempt from this.

By the way, I personally have nothing against any arguments or proofs for the existence of a potentially eternal God. To the contrary I would be thrilled to hear an argument that could suggest that this might be possible.

Keep in mind that at that point all we would have done is argue that an eternal God could exist. This would give credence to all religions, not just Hebrew Mythology.

So even if you could demonstrate that an eternal God could make sense my first reaction to that would be that maybe then Buddhism might be true.

There would certainly be no reason for me to jump to the conclusion that Zeus, Yahweh, or Allah are true mythologies just because it has been shown that an eternal God might be logically possible.

[FarWanderer]

Your OP is premised on the "sand" and the "hole" being distinct from one another. I am saying they are not.

In other words time and events, if infinite, are the same infinity. You are saying they are different infinities and comparing them to one another.

Bro, that is all fine and dandy..and even though I disagree with you and your assessment, there is no need for me to refute it and thus get caught up in its pure irrelevance.

My point is; the concept of an infinite amount of events in time is logically absurd...

Well, according to Zeno's tortoise paradox there are an infinite number of events even in finite time, assuming space is infinitely divisible.

and if natural reality is eternal (which it would have to be, on naturalism), then there is no negating this fact.

Nature does not have to be infinite in time, on naturalism. If finite in time, nature must simply be uncaused (just like your God).

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

Time, as we understand it is part of creation, the creator is not subject to it's own rules- be that God or the Flying Spaghetti Multiverse. Beyond that any 'first cause' paradox applies equally to both 'where did THAT come from?'

So that's a wash, and a moot point, because here we are, clearly there is a solution one way or 'tother

But what's not even is the capacity for creative intelligence v blind chance to design the world you see around you.