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.

[William]

[Replying to post 76 by For_The_Kingdom]

So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

Dude! Get on with it already!! We are already post # 91!!!


SMH.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Well yeah because all you've done is special pleading and question-begging.

You say God is infinite, while you argue that the universe must be finite because infinitity is impossible. This is a special pleading, clear as day.

First of all, I don't recall saying that God is infinite.

OK so hes neither finite nor infinite in time. Yet hes in time, whatever that means.

That is the problem, you people are so hell bent on denying the existence of God, that you bring God up even when the conversation has nothing to do with him.

Oh please. This is all about God. And by God I mean the supposed cause of the universe that you are trying to prove. You could replace my every use of the word God in this thread with cause of the universe and Ill say it all again if that would satisfy you.

And we people are individuals. I dont even deny the existence of God, just evidence for his existence.

We are talking about the UNIVERSE right now, not God.

Which is what exactly? Matter? Energy? Space? Time? Causality? The set of all events? The container for some or all of these things? Kalam will inevitably fail, but it will fail in a different way depending on which you choose.

Kalams apparent strength relies heavily on ambiguity in the meanings of universe and begin to exist, and the equivocation fallacies that inevitability result. And an equivocation fallacy cannot be exposed when looking at a premise of an argument in isolation, as you are insisting we do.

So I am simply not playing the game the way you want me to, and doing so for good reason. If that is the problem, then the problem is your problem.

The naturalistic worldview is absurd in light of the irrefutable case that I've laid out..so instead of worrying about God, worry about the absurdity of your worldview.

As I said before in the other thread, any worldview that assumes causality will have issues.

As for the irrefutability of your case, it is as irrefutable in so far as it is nonsensical.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Right, because the guy who a) brings up "infinity-infinity = infinity," or b) thinks there aren't more integers than even numbers, isn't the one ignorant about infinity?

Please explain, based on the examples you gave, how any of that makes me "ignorant about infinity".

I never said anything about the "beginning of eternity", though.

Hence the accusation of "hinting at it" instead of "saying it."

Hence, me saying "I never said ANYTHING about the beginning of eternity" would include "hinting it".

Keyword: ANYTHING.

So to start that off as a premise of what I said, is a straw man.

It's not though, you spoke of a day prior to all days, remember? That's the "beginning of eternity."

When did I speak of a "day" prior to all days?

Said it, meant it, demonstrated it.

So answer the follow up question: what is the largest integer, as you said, meant and demonstrated infinity is absurd?

That question is locked and loaded.

I don't recall asking you a question in this regard..

Doesn't matter if you recall asking me or not. I am asking you right now

Ooo, feisty.

what is the highest possible amount of money one can have, if infinite money is, as you claimed, an absurdity?

A person can have a potentially infinite amount of money...but no one is claiming that a potentially infinite amount of infinity is absurd..so my point is not negated.

And I told you what I meant by that.

Not directly though, you only implied that it is a point that is "equal distance." Equal to what? Equal distance to my current point, but from where?

Your current point would be from where. Dilly dallying.

That question is irrelevant, considering even if even numbers are including in the set, the total amount of integers in the set is infinity...and if you exclude even numbers from the set, the total is still infinity.

But that still doesn't tell me why you would think there aren't more integers than even numbers.

Dilly dallying.

That is what is so absurd about it, infinity-infinity = infinity. Clear absurdity.

Right, so by all means discard the notion that "infinity-infinity = infinity." Why would you suggest such a thing in the first place? Why on Earth would you want to remove even numbers from the integer list? Perhaps more important, why would you think this helps support your claim that infinity is absurd? Does 10/0 being absurd, imply 0 is absurd?

Bro, infinity - infinity = infinity. How can you subtract from an amount, and still have the same amount?

Makes no sense..thus, absurd.

I've already explained what I meant by equal distance.

Your "explanation" isn't fit for purpose, since you never picked another reference point. Equal distance to what? Equal to the distance I travelled to get here, you say? Get here from where though? You are thinking of from "where I started running" aren't you? You were thinking equal distance "from the beginning of eternity to today," aren't you?

There are two points of reference..the point where you are standing X..and the equal distance from the point where you are saying Y.

Dilly dallying.

No thank you. I cannot trust someone who think there aren't more integers than even numbers; nor can I trust someone who promised me money but doesn't pay up.

LOL.

Which is analogous to events in time..having never begun...existing (the timeline), forever. Yeah. Go on..

Yes, I know, so where is my money?

You didn't earn the money.

Hmm, I seemed to have missed the part where you turned back around with the task of running equal distance East that you ran West..and stopping at the equal point of reference.

Well, I am reminding you of that now, give me my money.

Put in the work first.

Right, so you admit that it is impossible to go back equal distance..

Equal distance to what though? One step? That is quite possible. I am standing there, one step away right now, demanding my money, remember?

One step is not equal distance of the totality of points it took you to get here (current point).

the problem is, you SHOULD be able to go back, because you've already TRAVERSED the points anyway.

Those are previously traversed points. They should still be there..

Sure, they are still there, so I should be able to go back; I can and I have, it's not a problem, so give me my money.

You said you have, yet, your above answer is "one step", which means you didn't. SMH.

BTW, as you can see, I am keeping my responses short & sweet. As I fade to black, recognizing that you've got nothing but dilly dallying and disingenousness.

Which, of course, allows me to throw another dub in the W column.

and if you admit that they are not there...

Well I am not admitting that, so that's moot. The points are right there, I am standing on one even as we speak.

I said go back, traversing all points until you get to equal distance relative to the point you are now.

Your answer is "one step" backwards, which is not a traversal of all points, which means you've failed to complete the task.

You are telling me to pick a distance, yet when I pick a distance (equal distance the opposite direction,) you then admit that it is impossible to go back to that point.

That's not a distance, meaning it's does not specify a point, and that's why it's incoherent. It's hardly worth noting that it's impossible to go back to a non-existent point.

The specified point is the point of equal distance backwards, relative to your current position/point. If you admit this point is nonexistence, then explain how you arrived at your current point in the first place?

If you believe that it is indeed possible for you to "arrive" at your current point, based on the given scenario, then I will again ask you to tell me what point will you arrive, if you run the opposite direction you came, stopping at equal distance.

So then, right back at square one.

Oh, I see what is going on here. When I say "go back", I am saying that only to drive home the point that you CAN'T GO BACK. I am not implying that there is an actual point to go back to.

But I can go back, there are gazillion of actual points to go back to. One step back, one day ago, you name it, I can get there.

Right, so keep going back until you get to equal distance of your current point. That is where the big money is.

The only thing left must be this "beginning of eternity," that I cannot get back to, because it is incoherent and hence non-existent.

So if there is no "beginning point", then how can you arrive at "any" point. And for whatever answer you give, I will ask you to go back equal distance.

Can't do it, can you?

Excuse me, sir...but you are moving on as if you've adequately addressed the logical flaws which plague your worldview.

That's because I have adequately addressed the so called "logical flaws which plague my worldview."

I wouldn't call an answer of "one step back" an adequate answer to the question of "what is equal distance (backwards) of infinity).

I call that an inadequate answer. The answer is logically absurd, is what I am trying to say.

A summary to the main point is provided here for your convenience: The only reason why there is no answer to your challenge is because it is incoherent, in failing to specify two reference points, as "a day equal to the distance between today and a day prior to all days" is just a long winded way of referring to the non-existent "beginning of eternity."

There are two points..

X: Current position
Y: Past position of equal distance

The points have been identified. Its funny, you say there aren't two reference points, yet you yourself stated that the two reference points are..

X: Current position
Y: One step backwards

Even your inadequate answer has two reference points...so why all the trouble when it comes to mines? Because, my two reference points ain't happening on any past eternal scenario, which is what YOUR worldview reflects.

The flaw lies solely within the challenge and not with "my worldview." Pick another reference point (such as "one step away") and the challenge can be trivially met.

Why would I do that when I know that isn't where the flaw lies?

You refuse to pick two points not because there aren't two to pick from, but because you know how easy a coherent from of the challenge can be answered.

I refuse to pick two points..yet, I am picking two points..

X: Current position
Y: Past position of equal distance

If we've traversed an infinite amount of days to arrive at "today", and I have a time machine and I want to traverse an equal "infinite" amount of days to arrive at a specific day (whatever day of equal distance), what day would I stop at?

You tell me, what does "equal infinite amount of days to arrive at a specific day (whatever day of equal distance)" even mean? You are thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

Well, I've already explained it to you countless times..your ignorance here is just a red herring..but even if it isn't, it doesn't change the fact that there is no equal point on an infinite timeline (or otherwise).

It is a simple question, a question that should be able to be answered, if an infinite amount of days was actually traversed.

Incorrect. It is a incoherent question because there is no such thing as this "specific day" as you called it, i.e. "the beginning of eternity" I was speaking of.

Again, I never said anything about a "beginning of eternity". Straw man.

As such there can have no answer. The logical flaws you spoke of lies in your question, not with "my worldview."

Those logical flaws reflect your worldview. If you had a time machine, you can't travel back in time the equal amount of days into the past, relative to the days traversed to get to the present.

It aint happening.

Dude, no one is arguing against that..so your analogy is irrelevant, since we are in agreement there.

I know, I am tying to get you to think about your own argument, beginning in agreement is a great start.

So, you are getting me to "think" about my own argument, by stating a fact that we both agree with.

Hmm.

What you need to be explaining is how, on a beginningless chain of events, can any specific point be "reached" (or come to past) on an infinite timescale..since that is what YOUR worldview implies...not mines.

Sure, I have explained exactly how: on a beginning-less chain of events, each and every single specific point be "reached" (or come to past) on an infinite timescale one step at a time, one minute at a time, one hour at a time, because there is a final gap between each pairs of points. Name a specific point and I can tell you exactly what settings you need to enter into your time machine.

Right, and I am saying..that if, what you are saying is possible, then simply tell me at what "point" is the one of which is of equal distance.

You admit that it can't be done..if not, then tell me the reference point.

What you kept hinting at on the other hand, this "beginning of eternity," is NOT what "my worldview" implies - an eternity has no beginning.

Never said anything about a beginning of eternity.

I am not sure I understand the question...

What's so difficult about my questions? I am asking you, is there a finite amount of integers or not?

If you say yes, the follow up challenge is for you to name the largest number.

If you say no, then what exactly is stopping you from connecting "counting infinitely many integers" with "traversing infinitely many days?"

I can never successfully count all of the integers in the number set. I can admit this, and my point STILL not be negated. Not sure where you are going with this but it does nothing to stop me.

Nonsense. If I've ARRIVED at today...after having JUST traversed an INFINITE amount of days to arrive at TODAY...I should be able (if I had a time machine)..to GO BACK IN TIME, the EQUAL amount of days in the past, that I PREVIOUSLY traversed to arrive at today.

"Previously traversed to arrive at today" you say, but arrive at today FROM which day?

Go back in time, and traverse all of the days that you pasted before you arrived at today, and stop at that day. Which day is that day?

That is the day.

I have previously traversed from yesterday to arrive at today, so is the amount of days 1 then? I have also previously traversed from last week to arrive at today, so is the amount of days 7? I have also previously traversed from last year to arrive at today, so perhaps the amount of days is 365? Is this sinking in yet? You haven't picked two reference point, as such your challenge is malformed.

Nonsense. I clearly said to go back the equal amount of days that you traversed to get today (in a past eternal scenario). Obviously, the equal amount of days traversed to arrive at today on an infinite timeline would be more than just one day.

SMH.

Perhaps more importantly, instead of a lack of reference points to pick from, this demonstrates that there are infinitely many reference points.

Sure, whatever you say...now go back equal distance.

I mean, it is quite simple. In the "infinite road" analogy...all you are being asked to do is simply run the opposite direction and stopping at a point that you ALREADY traversed.

That much is simple, EVERY SINGLE point that I have ALREADY traversed, I can get back to. That's why you owe me one gazillion and one trillion dollars.

You just said it; every single point that you have already traversed, you can get back to..and since the "equal distance" point would be included in that "every single point" thingie you just mentioned...tell me what point would you stop at.

The point that you keep missing is that "a day prior to ALL days," AKA "equal distance" from some unstated beginning, AKA the "beginning of eternity" is not a point I have traversed, because such a thing does not exist.

Nonsense. Go back equal distance relative to your current point. You've already traversed it...now simply go back to it.

Pointing out that I cannot get to a non-existent point, and hence could not have came from a non-existent point, doesn't not help you one bit. Since it does not imply that I cannot stop at a point that I have ALREADY traversed. I can and now you owe me money.

So basically, you are telling me that the point is nonexistence, despite the fact that you would have traversed this same "nonexistence point" to get to where you are currently now.

LOL laughable.

That is just basic, simple stuff here. Either you can do it, or you can't do it...

And I can, so give me my money.

But if the point is nonexistent (as you just stated), then why are you saying you can..but above, you said you can't?

SMH.

Why not? Why isn't there a day? If you had a time machine..why isn't there a day prior? Just more and more absurd as we go along.

Think about what you are saying here... If you had a time machine.. there IS always a day prior, and that's exactly why there isn't a day prior to ALL days.

I never said nor/implied that there is a "day prior to all days". Straw man.

That's why I keep telling you, there is no such thing as the beginning of eternity, you say you agree and yet there you are, still asking about that absurdity.

I never said there was a "beginning of eternity". Straw man.

If that is too much for you, I point once again at simple numbers, try and answer these questions yourself: Why isn't there a largest number given an infinite number line? If you have a number... why isn't there a number exactly 1 higher than that?

Because infinity isn't a discrete "number" for there to be a higher number of. That was easy.

Wait a minute, above you just SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP SOMEWHERE THAT DOES NOT EXIST. That is what YOU said...

Sure, but that wasn't what I was responding to. Recall if you will, you said it should be POSSIBLE to go back and stopping at a point that I ALREADY traversed; then you went on to claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE. And I am telling you, no, that is very much POSSIBLE, I can indeed stop at any previously traverse day.

So, if you can stop at any previously traversed day...then why can't you stop at the point of equal distance relative to your current position?? That point will indeed be a point of "any previously traversed day", because you've ALREADY TRAVERSED IT.

The fact that you've already traversed it meets your criteria of a "previously traversed day".

So what is the problem, here? It can't be done...and if it can't be done in a simple thought analogy, it can't be done in reality, which is what the though analogy reflects.

You've got problems, my man. But hey, look at the bright side; it only gets worse for naturalism from here.

You do understand that while it's impossible to stop at a non-existent place, that wouldn't stop me from stopping at every single existent place, right? You seem to be under the impression that the two concepts are somehow linked.

I agree that the point is definitely non-existence lol..that is the problem. You can't do it...yet, if the past is eternal, you SHOULD be able to do it. Since you can't do it, the past must not be so eternal after all.

and you also stated in an earlier post that you can't reach equal distance without two reference points...and in the analogy, there AREN'T TWO REFERENCE POINTS..so the conclusion is; IT CAN'T BE REACHED.

So pick TWO REFERENCE POINTS.

I just said there aren't two reference points...yet, you tell me to pick two reference points. SMH.

Yes, I will take this dub, while you hold this L.

Why would I pick a beginning point of reference, if my analogy is analogous with a beginningless timeline (on naturalism).

That would defeat the purpose of my critique, wouldn't it?

Exactly, and that's the point, your critique is trivial to defeat, as simple as picking another reference point - that's why you wouldn't pick one. So I picked a step away for you, now hand over the cash.

If you didn't do what I asked, how are you deserving of the reward, which was supposed to be given once you do what I asked?

Hmm.

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?

Imagine a magician asking you to "pick a card, any card" and you say, "the 96th one... now what? Which card is that?" Now you pick again, what you picked is not a card at all, there are only 52 cards.

Imagine the magician having 52 cards in a deck, and each card was numbered, from 1-52..and the magician telling you to "pick a card, any card, and no matter which card you choose, you will win at least a million dollars..so you won't walk away with anything less than a million dollars, regardless of which card you pick"...and you say "I pick card #96"..

And you proceed to pick any arbitrary numbered card while the magician looks at you with a dumbfounded look on his face (me looking at you right now)..and not only do you pick a card which is not numbered in the deck, but you also still demand your million dollars (you demanding your gazillion dollars despite not completing the task).

I think my analogy is more accuratel to the current situation here.

Or more appropriately, a mathematician is asking you to "pick a number, any number," and you say "infinity-infinity... now what? What number is that?" Now you pick again, as "infinity-infinity" isn't a number at all, it is undefined.

The infinity-infinity thing was just to show the absurdity of infinity. Nothing more, nothing less. So I fail to see what that has to do with ANYTHING you are talking about here. It just doesn't fit the narrative.

It is irrelevant, is what I am trying to say.

Or in this actual case, "So now what? Which point is that?" now you pick again, as "a POINT of equal distance" is not a reference point at all, it's non-existent, the "beginning of eternity," even if you put it in capital letters.

Dude, the implication is; if it is nonexistence, then you will never arrive to the current point (today). If you've arrived at the current day, there should be a past day of equal distance. That is the implication.

Now, you can certainly feel free to CONTINUE playing ignorant all you want to..but your colleagues on here, they know the deal...that is why they left you swimming in shark infested waters all by yourself.

Guess who is the shark? Me. Well actually, logic/reasoning is the shark. I am just the guy on the one, lone boat in the water..watching the shark do its thing while you are sinking, trying your best to get out of the water.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 76 by For_The_Kingdom]

So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

Dude! Get on with it already!! We are already post # 91!!!


SMH.

It is hard to move on with Bust Nak still yapping.

[For_The_Kingdom]

OK so hes neither finite nor infinite in time. Yet hes in time, whatever that means.

Welll..we will get to that. With God, there is a certain why we gotta "play it". We will get to it.

Oh please. This is all about God. And by God I mean the supposed cause of the universe that you are trying to prove. You could replace my every use of the word God in this thread with cause of the universe and Ill say it all again if that would satisfy you.

True, it is..it just ain't about God....NOW. God will show his handsome face here, just not now.

And we people are individuals. I dont even deny the existence of God, just evidence for his existence.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Unbelief is unbelief, regardless of the qualifiers.

We are talking about the UNIVERSE right now, not God.

Which is what exactly? Matter? Energy? Space? Time? Causality? The set of all events?

Yup..all of that good stuff.

The container for some or all of these things? Kalam will inevitably fail, but it will fail in a different way depending on which you choose.

Kalams apparent strength relies heavily on ambiguity in the meanings of universe and begin to exist, and the equivocation fallacies that inevitability result. And an equivocation fallacy cannot be exposed when looking at a premise of an argument in isolation, as you are insisting we do.

By "universe", I mean all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). That being said, I don't know what you are talking about. Instead of speaking in generalities, how about laying out specifically how those terms are being equivocated.

So I am simply not playing the game the way you want me to, and doing so for good reason. If that is the problem, then the problem is your problem.

Hey, you can think whatever you want to think. All I know is, my premises and argumentation along with my premises are left unrefuted by you, or anyone else for that matter.

So either adequately address my point, or...see ya around.

The naturalistic worldview is absurd in light of the irrefutable case that I've laid out..so instead of worrying about God, worry about the absurdity of your worldview.

As I said before in the other thread, any worldview that assumes causality will have issues.

As for the irrefutability of your case, it is as irrefutable in so far as it is nonsensical.

I agree, any worldview that assumes causality in PAST-ETERNAL (time) will have issues..but that is not the case, here.

[Bust Nak]

Please explain, based on the examples you gave, how any of that makes me "ignorant about infinity".

Because you didn't seem to know about cardinal numbers re: twice as many integers as even numbers; nor did you know that infinity-infinity is not infinity, demonstrating your ignorance about infinity.

Hence, me saying "I never said ANYTHING about the beginning of eternity" would include "hinting it".

But you did though, you spoke of a day prior all days.

When did I speak of a "day" prior to all days?

Post #71. And I quote "Yesterday is not "equal distance" of all traversed days it took to get to today. Do you see that? ALL. ALL. ALL days. Not one day. Not two days. ALL days."

That question is locked and loaded.

Loaded sure, but how? Because there isn't a largest number, isn't it? Say it: there is an infinite amount of integers.

Ooo, feisty.

Dilly dallying. That still does not answer my question.

A person can have a potentially infinite amount of money...but no one is claiming that a potentially infinite amount of infinity is absurd..

If the potential is not absurd, then how can actualization be absurd?

Your current point would be from where.

Oh? FROM my current point, TO my current point you say? Well the distance is zero. One moment... I am there now, zero step away, now hand over the money.

Dilly dallying.

That still doesn't tell me why you thought there aren't more integers than even numbers.

Bro, infinity - infinity = infinity.

Bro, you are wrong. Infinity - infinity most decidedly does not equal infinity.

How can you subtract from an amount, and still have the same amount?

Makes no sense..thus, absurd.

Absurd you say? X - 0 = X. Now I am pretty sure that wasn't what you had in mind, but seriously think about what you are about to say before opening your mouth (or the online equivalent.)

You had the right idea though, that's why infinity - infinity does not equal infinity.

There are two points of reference..the point where you are standing X..and the equal distance from the point where you are saying Y.

I am at Y right now, so hand over the cash.

You didn't earn the money.

Not my problem, you were the one who offered the cash in a stupid challenge.

Put in the work first.

No work is required. The distance I was asked to travel, turned out to be exactly zero.

One step is not equal distance of the totality of points it took you to get here (current point).

But apparently zero step is. Good job.

You said you have, yet, your above answer is "one step", which means you didn't.

Well, after your clarification - zero step is exactly zero step away.

I said go back, traversing all points until you get to equal distance relative to the point you are now.

Right, so hand over the money now that I've done exactly that. My answer is now "zero step" backwards, which a traversal of all points between the two reference points given (FROM my current point, TO my current point,) which means I've completed the task.

Feel like changing your answer to the "but from WHERE" question?

The specified point is the point of equal distance backwards, relative to your current position/point. If you admit this point is nonexistence, then explain how you arrived at your current point in the first place?

It exists, I am standing on it. Holding you accountable to your promise, now hand over the cash.

If you believe that it is indeed possible for you to "arrive" at your current point, based on the given scenario, then I will again ask you to tell me what point will you arrive, if you run the opposite direction you came, stopping at equal distance.

It is where I am standing RIGHT NOW. Show me the money.

Right, so keep going back until you get to equal distance of your current point. That is where the big money is.

So you keep saying, but there is no money here.

So if there is no "beginning point", then how can you arrive at "any" point.

I told you exactly how - one step at a time, one minute at a time, one year at a time.

And for whatever answer you give, I will ask you to go back equal distance.

Pay me first before asking me to move again.

I wouldn't call an answer of "one step back" an adequate answer to the question of "what is equal distance (backwards) of infinity).

I call that an inadequate answer. The answer is logically absurd, is what I am trying to say.

Merely saying it wouldn't do you any good. It is perfectly logical - zero step away, is exactly zero step away.

There are two points..

X: Current position
Y: Past position of equal distance

The points have been identified.

Right you are, I have stopped on Y, so hand over the cash.

Its funny, you say there aren't two reference points, yet you yourself stated that the two reference points are..

X: Current position
Y: One step backwards

Even your inadequate answer has two reference points...so why all the trouble when it comes to mines?

There is no problem now that X and Y are both identified, all that's left for you to do is to hand over the cash.

Why would I do that when I know that isn't where the flaw lies?

Well, the "why" is moot now that you have given me two points... Thanks.

I refuse to pick two points..yet, I am picking two points..

X: Current position
Y: Past position of equal distance

I am standing on Y now, you owe me money.

Well, I've already explained it to you countless times..your ignorance here is just a red herring..but even if it isn't, it doesn't change the fact that there is no equal point on an infinite timeline (or otherwise).

But there is an "equal point on an infinite timeline," I am standing on it now.

Again, I never said anything about a "beginning of eternity". Straw man.

Incorrect, see above for link.

Those logical flaws reflect your worldview. If you had a time machine, you can't travel back in time the equal amount of days into the past, relative to the days traversed to get to the present.

But I can.

So, you are getting me to "think" about my own argument, by stating a fact that we both agree with.

Yes, so are you thinking about it?

Right, and I am saying..that if, what you are saying is possible, then simply tell me at what "point" is the one of which is of equal distance.

That's easy, it's Y, i.e. where I am standing right now. It couldn't be done because you didn't pin point where Y is until this latest post of your. Now that you have, it's trivial.

Never said anything about a beginning of eternity.

Again, see link.

I can never successfully count all of the integers in the number set. I can admit this, and my point STILL not be negated. Not sure where you are going with this but it does nothing to stop me.

Sounds to me you think there an infinite amount of integers? Can you affirm that with a simple yes?

Go back in time, and traverse all of the days that you pasted before you arrived at today, and stop at that day. Which day is that day?

Today.

Nonsense. I clearly said to go back the equal amount of days that you traversed to get today (in a past eternal scenario). Obviously, the equal amount of days traversed to arrive at today on an infinite timeline would be more than just one day.

Incorrect, zero day is not more than one day, it is less than one day.

Sure, whatever you say...now go back equal distance.

Done and done.

You just said it; every single point that you have already traversed, you can get back to..and since the "equal distance" point would be included in that "every single point" thingie you just mentioned...tell me what point would you stop at.

Right here, where I am standing right now.

Nonsense. Go back equal distance relative to your current point. You've already traversed it...now simply go back to it.

I am already here, give me my money.

So basically, you are telling me that the point is nonexistence, despite the fact that you would have traversed this same "nonexistence point" to get to where you are currently now.

No, I am NOT telling you that at all. This is far from the first time I am telling you to read my post carefully.

Instead, I am telling you the "beginning of eternity" is non-existence, as such that I would NOT have traversed this "non-existence point" to get to where we are currently now. I am also telling you I can get to and from EACH and EVERY single point of an infinite past I have traversed to get to where I am currently now, include point Y.

But if the point is nonexistent (as you just stated), then why are you saying you can..but above, you said you can't?

Because I was talking about two different points. The point "beginning of eternity" is nonexistent, as such I cannot get there. The point Y however, exists just fine, I can get there. And I AM there, demanding my money.

You thought Y was the "beginning of eternity," didn't you?

I never said nor/implied that there is a "day prior to all days".

And yet there you were, asking me why there can't be a "day prior to all days."

I never said there was a "beginning of eternity".

Sure, you never said it, just hinted at it.

Because infinity isn't a discrete "number" for there to be a higher number of. That was easy.

There you go, with this in mind, think about what you were asking me...

So, if you can stop at any previously traversed day...then why can't you stop at the point of equal distance relative to your current position??

I can. That's why you owe me cash. The only problem I have is getting you to do as you promised.

I agree that the point is definitely non-existence lol..that is the problem. You can't do it...yet, if the past is eternal, you SHOULD be able to do it. Since you can't do it, the past must not be so eternal after all.

Do what exactly? If you meant get to the beginning of eternity? Why should I be able to do it? On the other hand if you meant getting to Y, sure I should be able to do it, I can do it.

I just said there aren't two reference points...yet, you tell me to pick two reference points.

Well, you said there aren't two reference points and yet there you are picking out X and Y.

If you didn't do what I asked...

But I did exactly as you asked, so that's moot. Now give me my reward.

Imagine the magician having 52 cards in a deck, and each card was numbered, from 1-52..and the magician telling you to "pick a card, any card, and no matter which card you choose, you will win at least a million dollars..so you won't walk away with anything less than a million dollars, regardless of which card you pick"...

I think my analogy is more accuratel to the current situation here.

Well the magician part is pretty accurate: you did after all, offer me a way to win cash regardless of which card I pick, and now the magician is trying to squirm his way out of giving me my money.

The infinity-infinity thing was just to show the absurdity of infinity.

Well, all you've managed to show was ignorance on infinity.

Dude, the implication is; if it is nonexistence, then you will never arrive to the current point (today). If you've arrived at the current day, there should be a past day of equal distance. That is the implication.

Right, given that it (meaning Y, as opposed to the beginning of eternity) exists, I should be able to get there; and guess what, I can, so give me my cash.

Now, you can certainly feel free to CONTINUE playing ignorant all you want to..but your colleagues on here, they know the deal...that is why they left you swimming in shark infested waters all by yourself.

I don't know where you get the nerve to say that in light of "likes" I've been getting. From where I am standing, I see a feeding frenzy where my colleagues are all trying to get a bite of you before there is nothing left.

[marco]

It is hard to move on with Bust Nak still yapping.

Moderator Warning



Apart from the non-contributing one-liner you cannot speak uncivilly about other posters.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 76 by For_The_Kingdom]

So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

Dude! Get on with it already!! We are already post # 91!!!


SMH.

It is hard to move on with Bust Nak still yapping.

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

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

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.

[FarWanderer]

OK so hes neither finite nor infinite in time. Yet hes in time, whatever that means.

Welll..we will get to that. With God, there is a certain why we gotta "play it". We will get to it.

Like I said, a special pleading.

And we people are individuals. I dont even deny the existence of God, just evidence for his existence.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Unbelief is unbelief, regardless of the qualifiers.

Unbelief in what? Your God, maybe. I am somewhere between ignostic and agnostic. God is something beyond precise definition, and as such, not something that could ever be proven intellectually. In fact, I actually see human attempts to prove God's existence as a kind of insult to any God there might actually be.

We are talking about the UNIVERSE right now, not God.

Which is what exactly? Matter? Energy? Space? Time? Causality? The set of all events?

Yup..all of that good stuff.

The container for some or all of these things? Kalam will inevitably fail, but it will fail in a different way depending on which you choose.

Kalams apparent strength relies heavily on ambiguity in the meanings of universe and begin to exist, and the equivocation fallacies that inevitability result. And an equivocation fallacy cannot be exposed when looking at a premise of an argument in isolation, as you are insisting we do.

By "universe", I mean all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM).

OK, and how do events relate to the universe? Are they themselves the universe, or are events things that happen in the universe?

If the latter, then your OP's argument about events being necessarily finite is a non-sequitur. Even if events are finite, that wouldn't mean time (the universe as you would be defining it) is finite.

If the former, then if the universe were created, it's own creation (an event) would have to be part of itself, leaving no need for any non-universe intervention in its creation.

If you argue that we shouldn't separate time and events, being as they define one another, then it's time you addressed the "pure irrelevance" I was talking about in my first post of this thread.

That being said, I don't know what you are talking about. Instead of speaking in generalities, how about laying out specifically how those terms are being equivocated.

"Begins to exist" is often equivocated between "begins to exist ex materia" and "begins to exist ex nihilo". It is also highly questionable whether the statement "time begins to exist" is even coherent. "Universe" is equivocated in all sorts of ways (one example already supplied above). It's traditional definition is something like "all of material reality", but it's not clear whether time or space is "material". Worse, modern cosmology has adopted language that speaks of multiple "universes", which is clearly at odds with the traditional definition.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Because you didn't seem to know about cardinal numbers re: twice as many integers as even numbers

Again, even numbers are integers..you keep mentioning this as if you are making this grand of a point, when in reality, you aren't.

Just more irrelevance and dilly dallying.

; nor did you know that infinity-infinity is not infinity, demonstrating your ignorance about infinity.

Dude, you've been demonstrating your ignorance of infinity from the time we began to have this conversation. Here, let me educate you on this..

Infinity-infinity is infinity. If you have an infinite amount of marbles and placed a natural number on each one of them...and you gave me all of the even numbered marbles from the set, I will have an infinite amount of even numbered balls.

That will leave you with an infinite amount of odd numbered balls...so you gave me an infinite amount from your infinite set of marbles, and yet you STILL have an infinite amount of marbles (odd numbers).

Like I said; infinity-infinity = infinity.

No charge for the free lesson on infinity. Hopefully (false hope) this will keep you from making more inaccurate statements about infinity.

Hence, me saying "I never said ANYTHING about the beginning of eternity" would include "hinting it".

But you did though, you spoke of a day prior all days.

?

When did I speak of a "day" prior to all days?

Post #71. And I quote "Yesterday is not "equal distance" of all traversed days it took to get to today. Do you see that? ALL. ALL. ALL days. Not one day. Not two days. ALL days."

What you quoted me as saying is not indicative of what you are accusing me of...so I don't know what you are talking about.

That question is locked and loaded.

Loaded sure, but how? Because there isn't a largest number, isn't it? Say it: there is an infinite amount of integers.

I agree, there is an infinite amount of integers. Cool. That is irrelevant to my case, but it is a "fun fact", isn't it?

A person can have a potentially infinite amount of money...but no one is claiming that a potentially infinite amount of infinity is absurd..

If the potential is not absurd, then how can actualization be absurd?

Now who is demonstrating their ignorance of infinity...you see, if you understood the distinction between the two types of infinity, you wouldn't be asking this question.

Tell ya what, here is another free education...see my Kalam thread in the "Random Rambling" forum. If you have any further questions, let me know.

Your current point would be from where.

Oh? FROM my current point, TO my current point you say? Well the distance is zero. One moment... I am there now, zero step away, now hand over the money.

Makes no sense.

Dilly dallying.

That still doesn't tell me why you thought there aren't more integers than even numbers.

Even numbers are integers.

Bro, infinity - infinity = infinity.

Bro, you are wrong. Infinity - infinity most decidedly does not equal infinity.

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?

More free education.

How can you subtract from an amount, and still have the same amount?

Makes no sense..thus, absurd.

Absurd you say? X - 0 = X. Now I am pretty sure that wasn't what you had in mind, but seriously think about what you are about to say before opening your mouth (or the online equivalent.)

If you are pretty sure that wasn't what I had in mind (and you are correct), then the implications of what you are trying to say is irrelevant.

You had the right idea though, that's why infinity - infinity does not equal infinity.

If you have an infinite amount of red marbles, and an infinite amount of black marbles...and you gave me all of the black marbles...how many red marbles will you have?

Answer: An infinite amount.

Infinity-infinity = infinity

More free education.

There are two points of reference..the point where you are standing X..and the equal distance from the point where you are saying Y.

I am at Y right now, so hand over the cash.

Still seeking rewards for wrong answers. SMH.

You didn't earn the money.

Not my problem, you were the one who offered the cash in a stupid challenge.

Well, considering you gave stupid answers to the stupid challenge, which relates to the stupid concept of traversing infinity, which correlates with the stupid worldview of naturalism.

Hey..it aint my worldview.

Put in the work first.

No work is required. The distance I was asked to travel, turned out to be exactly zero.

I had thought to myself "he has run out of wrong answers to give". But you've just prove me wrong.

One step is not equal distance of the totality of points it took you to get here (current point).

But apparently zero step is. Good job.

You've got nothing. First it was "one step"..now it is "zero". SMH.

You said you have, yet, your above answer is "one step", which means you didn't.

Well, after your clarification - zero step is exactly zero step away.

Well, depends what you mean by "zero".

I said go back, traversing all points until you get to equal distance relative to the point you are now.

Right, so hand over the money now that I've done exactly that. My answer is now "zero step" backwards, which a traversal of all points between the two reference points given (FROM my current point, TO my current point,) which means I've completed the task.

Feel like changing your answer to the "but from WHERE" question?

Um, no. Judging by the fact that your answer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I am gonna stick with my original "but from WHERE" question.

As long as more ridiculous answers keeps getting offered by the likes of you, there is no need to fix what ain't broken.

The specified point is the point of equal distance backwards, relative to your current position/point. If you admit this point is nonexistence, then explain how you arrived at your current point in the first place?

It exists, I am standing on it. Holding you accountable to your promise, now hand over the cash.

Like I said, no need to fix what aint broken.

So if there is no "beginning point", then how can you arrive at "any" point.

I told you exactly how - one step at a time, one minute at a time, one year at a time.

So, one step at a time, you can "arrive" at infinity? Makes no sense.

And for whatever answer you give, I will ask you to go back equal distance.

Pay me first before asking me to move again.

If the answer is "zero", you didn't move in the first place. SMH.

I wouldn't call an answer of "one step back" an adequate answer to the question of "what is equal distance (backwards) of infinity).

I call that an inadequate answer. The answer is logically absurd, is what I am trying to say.

Merely saying it wouldn't do you any good. It is perfectly logical - zero step away, is exactly zero step away.

Makes no sense.

There is no problem now that X and Y are both identified, all that's left for you to do is to hand over the cash.

*Alex Trebek voice* We don't reward wrong answers here, sir.

Why would I do that when I know that isn't where the flaw lies?
Well, the "why" is moot now that you have given me two points... Thanks.

I refuse to pick two points..yet, I am picking two points..

And apparently, those two points didn't help you one bit.

I can never successfully count all of the integers in the number set. I can admit this, and my point STILL not be negated. Not sure where you are going with this but it does nothing to stop me.

Sounds to me you think there an infinite amount of integers? Can you affirm that with a simple yes?

Yes.

Go back in time, and traverse all of the days that you pasted before you arrived at today, and stop at that day. Which day is that day?

Today.

Thanks for these ridiculous answers. Makes moving on that much easier.

Nonsense. I clearly said to go back the equal amount of days that you traversed to get today (in a past eternal scenario). Obviously, the equal amount of days traversed to arrive at today on an infinite timeline would be more than just one day.

Incorrect, zero day is not more than one day, it is less than one day.

Zero day? Makes no sense. Ahh yes, I can move on after all.

So basically, you are telling me that the point is nonexistence, despite the fact that you would have traversed this same "nonexistence point" to get to where you are currently now.

No, I am NOT telling you that at all. This is far from the first time I am telling you to read my post carefully.

We are past all of that. You've got nothing, sir. Those bogus answers are just a testament to how strong the argument actually is.

Instead, I am telling you the "beginning of eternity" is non-existence, as such that I would NOT have traversed this "non-existence point" to get to where we are currently now. I am also telling you I can get to and from EACH and EVERY single point of an infinite past I have traversed to get to where I am currently now, include point Y.

No, what you are telling me is something about zero steps, and zero day...each of which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The bottom line is; you ain't traversing no infinity.

But if the point is nonexistent (as you just stated), then why are you saying you can..but above, you said you can't?

Because I was talking about two different points. The point "beginning of eternity" is nonexistent, as such I cannot get there. The point Y however, exists just fine, I can get there. And I AM there, demanding my money.

Nonsense. Y is still equal distance from your current point...so I am not sure what you are talking about here.

You thought Y was the "beginning of eternity," didn't you?

Nope. I "thought" Y was exactly what I said it was; equal distance in the opposite direction relative to your current. No need to add/take away from it...again, if it aint broke, dont fix it.

I never said nor/implied that there is a "day prior to all days".

And yet there you were, asking me why there can't be a "day prior to all days."

I didn't, though.

I never said there was a "beginning of eternity".

Sure, you never said it, just hinted at it.

Why hint it, when I can say it?

Because infinity isn't a discrete "number" for there to be a higher number of. That was easy.

There you go, with this in mind, think about what you were asking me...

I am doing more than just thinking about it, I am explicitly stating that naturalism is self-defeating in light of the case I laid out.

I just said there aren't two reference points...yet, you tell me to pick two reference points.

Well, you said there aren't two reference points and yet there you are picking out X and Y.

Exactly, I am using something that doesn't exist, to show you why it doesn't exist. I got skills.

Well the magician part is pretty accurate: you did after all, offer me a way to win cash regardless of which card I pick, and now the magician is trying to squirm his way out of giving me my money.

Dilly dallying, huh?

I don't know where you get the nerve to say that in light of "likes" I've been getting. From where I am standing, I see a feeding frenzy where my colleagues are all trying to get a bite of you before there is nothing left.

Ahh, yes..we've reached the end...so now, you can OFFICIALLY have the last word in all of that other stuff...the only thing I will respond to you in this regard is the stuff about the infinity-infinity thing.

Beside that, it is obvious you've got nothing..well, actually, you got a lot of nonsensical answers, flip flopping, dilly dallying, etc.

But as far as substance...you've got nothing. Moving along.