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.

[Divine Insight]

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

Well, there's no evidence that the world we live in was "designed". In fact, if it was designed then shame on the designer for having done such a poor job.

Also, the universe did not evolve by "blind chance". The universe evolved because of the properties of the elements that make it up. It was simply doing the only thing it can do. In fact, if the universe were operating on "blind chance" as you have suggested, then it would be nothing but a total chaotic mess and we wouldn't be here to even talk about it.

So, "blind chance" is clearly not the position of naturalists.

If you're going to argue against naturalism you need to first understand what naturalism is saying. The moment you speak about "blind chance" you reveal your ignorance of naturalism as well as physics in general.

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Well, there's no evidence that the world we live in was "designed". In fact, if it was designed then shame on the designer for having done such a poor job.

example of poor design?

Also, the universe did not evolve by "blind chance". The universe evolved because of the properties of the elements that make it up. It was simply doing the only thing it can do. In fact, if the universe were operating on "blind chance" as you have suggested, then it would be nothing but a total chaotic mess and we wouldn't be here to even talk about it.


So, "blind chance" is clearly not the position of naturalists.

If you're going to argue against naturalism you need to first understand what naturalism is saying. The moment you speak about "blind chance" you reveal your ignorance of naturalism as well as physics in general.

read again before unleashing the standard ad-hom

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

.....design, not operate

I'm sure you understand this distinction, you seem like a perfectly intelligent, knowledgeable person to me.

Naturalism posits pure blind chance to account for the design process of many things- including human beings, obviously not the operation of them

We both agree that a watch does not tell the correct time by pure 'blind chance' nor does it do so by creative intelligence- but by it's design.

Whether or not that design blundered into existence by pure blind chance or creative intelligence... that's a separate question

[Divine Insight]

We both agree that a watch does not tell the correct time by pure 'blind chance' nor does it do so by creative intelligence- but by it's design.

Whether or not that design blundered into existence by pure blind chance or creative intelligence... that's a separate question

Fine Guy. So since you are demanding that everything that does anything that isn't purely "blind chance" it must have been designed, then how do you explain the existence of a purposeful intelligent God?

By your very own argument that God then must have necessarily been designed.

If you allow for anything other than this then you necessarily flush your very own argument down the toilet.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

That question has been answered, as you well know DI.

'Turtles all the way down' is a fallacy.

"If there is a GOD, who created the GOD and who created that GOD ..." infinite regress is a fallacy.

Timelessness vs infinite regress argument
Finding holes in arguments.

♦More magical thinking...

♦Why can't we presume the universe had no cause?

♦There is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause.

♦It is logical to assume that the universe was created by an eternal being

♦Straw-man distractions are never good arguments

♦Are we moving from "Timelessness vs infinite regress argument" to "The universe has always existed" argument?

♦Atheistic bents through bias in regard to the Big Bang theory are bogus inventions...

♦Should agnostics argue from the position of strong atheists? The claim that the Big Bang is eternal is debunked.

♦YOU are claiming the BB had no beginning. I am talking about that being a ridiculous claim.

♦Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity

♦"Zero" does not mean "nothing" because zero is something.

♦'Nothing' therefore does not really exist, because the mind of the creator is 'something'.

♦Every 'thing' exists in the Mind of The First Source

♦Uncaused[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

♦If it is 'On The Table' it is potentially food for thought.

[Divine Insight]

That question has been answered, as you well know DI.

Yes I do know this. But not for the reasons you've pointed to in your long list of links.

[Bust Nak]

The Sandman: imagine there is a particular man, with an infinite amount of sand... standing above a bottomless hole... 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?

That question is incomplete - possibly reach any present point from which previous point? In general, you reach the present point from a previous point by passing a finite amount of time, what the exact amount is, depends on what time you have in mind.

The ONLY possible way to fill the hole entirely with sand, is if there is a BOTTOM FOUNDATION to the whole.

Right, but that's moot since no one is expecting a bottomless hole to fill up. "Fill" implies starting from the bottom, and there is no bottom. The concept of "fill" does not apply to bottomless holes. The question is why you would think filling a hole is analogous to reaching the present moment. You said the man shoveling is supposed to be the present moment in time, not filling the hole.

Likewise, the only POSSIBLE way for us to reach the present moment if there is a past boundary/foundation/beginning of time.

The only POSSIBLE way for us to reach the present moment from any prior moment is to past a finite amount of time, with or without a past boundary/foundation/beginning of time.

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!!

Meh, there are infinitely many integers, there are infinitely many even numbers, yet there are twice as many integers as even numbers. There is nothing absurd here, at worse it's counter-intuitive, not matter how many exclamation marks you use.

In closing, there are many different ways one can demonstrate the absurdities which comes come an actual infinity...

The only absurdities here are the concept of the "bottom of a bottomless pit," or in this specific case the "beginning of eternity." Discard these absurdities and the flaw in your suggestions here becomes apparent.

So, in conclusion; the universe began to exist, because...

... We have observed empirical evidence of an expanding universe. Stick to science and abandon your other attempts, they aren't going to get you very far. Your P2 is okay, but your reasoning, not so much:

Even if nothing within time can be eternal, it does not mean that the universe itself cannot be eternal, because there can be infinite amount of temporary things. One cannot have an eternal universe with only finite parts (events) within the universe, so obvious alternative is to have infinite parts (events) within the universe.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Where is the infinite amount of sand which is readily available to the man?

Imagine the man is standing above a bottomless hole (or pit)..and what is meant by bottomless?

There is a top to the hole. So you are saying that it is infinite in only one direction. How is that infinite?

Well, if something was to fall in the hole, it would fall forever and ever, because the hole is bottomless..no foundation.

Then they would not be falling they would effectively be floating.
But if the sand disappears into the hole then from the perspective of the man shoveling the sand into the hole, the sand simply disappears.

Obviously gravity is involved in the sand being able to fall, so where is the gravity situated in the bottomless hole and what is causing it?

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

In that analogy, the man is eternal in relation to the infinite pile of sand. Thus you are saying that the present is eternal

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

Shouldn't the beginning to time be recognized as the eternal man shoveling the infinite pile of sand into the abyss?

Indeed the movement of the sand falling into the abyss is the way to measure the time because the sand is moving - or perhaps it is the movement of the man with the shovel which determines time...

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

I don't think the sand can represent that because its background is the abyss itself - effectively the sand moves within a timeless space so the only thing one could measure is the amount of sand going into the abyss, the amount of times the man shovels the sand into the abyss, the amount of grains of sand going into the abyss, but not 'time' itself...and how can one actually go back in time when the abyss is infinite anyway? If one could imagine oneself on one grain of sand which the man has already shoveled into the abyss, one would not be thinking one is going back in time free falling into a bottomless hole.

So the man has been shoveling for eternity and the hole is infinite, the beginning has to be the point where the hole starts.

And where there is a beginning at one end, means that even if something then remained forevermore, it is not infinite because of that starting point.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 26 by Divine Insight]

You know, DI..nothing will make me more happier than actually dissecting everything in your post. But there is a problem with me doing that...and the problem is; I would be responding to complete and utter irrelevancy.

Now, I invite you to explain to me (please) what does entropy have to do with ANYTHING that I said.

The irrelevancy of your objection (based on entropy), is REAL.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Because there is more than one way to skin a cat.

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.

And that will be taken care of in the conclusion: therefore, the universe has a cause.

By the way, I personally have nothing against any arguments or proofs for the existence of a potentially eternal God.

I see what you're saying..however, when you say "potentially eternal God", that needs to be looked at a little more.

To the contrary I would be thrilled to hear an argument that could suggest that this might be possible.

Then stay tuned.

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.

True, the argument may not get you to Judeo-Christian theism..but it does get you to theism, in general. And that is enough in itself to be a defeater of naturalism.

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.

Ok, and I will take that as being open-minded to theism and that is the first step towards Christianity.

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.

I wholeheartedly AGREE with you there. At this point, lets get to "a" god first...and after we establish that, then we can get to "which" God exists.

We have to learn to crawl before we walk, and THEN we learn how to tie our shoes. For what its worth, DI, hopefully you are "truly" open-minded to the evidence..and is willing to follow it WHEREVER it may lead you, even if it is towards Christianity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Then motion would be impossible. Or look at it this way..there are an infinite amount of points between 1 and 2, right?

Well, how is it that you can successfully count from 1 to 2 (bypassing all of the points in between)...yet, if you literally count all of the points between 1 and 2, you will never get to 2?

Don't you find that rather...strange??

Nature does not have to be infinite in time, on naturalism.

If nature is eternal (on naturalism) how is there no "infinite time" element there?

If finite in time, nature must simply be uncaused (just like your God).

Um, finite time means it had a beginning.