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.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 100 by For_The_Kingdom]

Infinity is not a number like other numbers. Not all infinities are the same. You can't treat it just like any other number.

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.

All even numbers are integers, but not all integers are even numbers. Therefore, they are not interchangeable as you seem to be suggesting.

You appear to be engaged in a fallacy here. I think affirming the consequent.

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?

The same amount of red marbles I started with, whether they were infinite or not. LoL.

But if you had an infinite number of black marbles and one red marble, then you gave away all your black marbles; how many total marbles did you start with, how many total marbles did you give away, and how many total marbles will you have at the end? The answer is infinite, infinite, and one. So we have a situation where infinity minus infinity = 1.

Infinity minus infinity can be any number (including infinity, negative infinity, and anything in between), depending on which infinities we are talking about.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Well, we've already established that your view of reality, typically isn't. Given that you are OFFICIALLY giving me the last word, I am going to the audiences a favor and cut down on the banter.

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.

It doesn't? Then by all means tell me EXACTLY which day you had in mind when you mentoned "'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."

Bearing in mind distance requires two reference points. "Get to today" is clear enough, today is one reference point. Get to today from where? Are you sticking to the "my current position" answer from before? It ain't broke, why fix it, right?

I agree, there is an infinite amount of integers. Cool.

Right, so what is so absurd about infinity? If you think infinity is absurd and you think there is an infinite amount of integers, do you think absurdity can exist?

Makes no sense.

Lets go through it slowly then.

Where is reference point X? "The point where you are standing."
Where is reference point Y? "Past position of equal distance."
Equal distance to X from where? "Your current point would be from where."
What is the distance to X, from my current point? Exactly zero, they are the same place.
So where is Y again? A past position of exactly zero distance away.
And where is that exactly? Where I am standing, right on top of X.

Which of these are you having problem with? I am guessing these are all easy enough to understand and it is the handing over the cash you promised part that is problematic.

Even numbers are integers.

That still doesn't tell me why you thought there aren't more integers than even numbers. I asked you before: are there more, less or equal amount of vehicles and buses, given that buses are vehicles?

How many marbles will I have left over?

There is no answer to this question, the number of marbles you would have is undefined.

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

Well, at first you didn't pin point a location, now that you've said where Y was exactly, "zero" is all it takes to fulfill the gazillion dollars challenge.

Well, depends what you mean by "zero".

I meant the usual definition of zero, the number between -1 and 1.

So, one step at a time, you can "arrive" at infinity?

No, no, no. One step at a time I can transverse infinity, which does not involve such a thing as "arriving at infinity." Traversing infinity and "arriving at infinity" are two different concepts and only the latter is impossible.

Conflating the two is what got you into this mess in the first place, that's why I kept banging on about the "beginning of eternity" as "arriving at infinity" would imply some sort of boundary to infinity. You say you understood that and yet here you are, talking about arriving at infinity again.

We are past all of that.

We are not. We would be past all that if you'd quit with your "so you are telling me...." and "so you are saying..." that turns out to be not what I am saying at all.

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

Well, it's this conversation is more about showing off than convincing you, so you being unable to make sense of things suits me just fine.

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

That's exactly the point: Y IS equal distance from my current point, so that met your going back to a point that is "equal distance in the opposite direction relative to [my] current position" challenge.

I didn't, though.

Incorrect, the record shows otherwise, and I quote: "Why not? Why isn't there a day?" in direct response to me pointing out there is no such thing as "a day prior to ALL. ALL. ALL days" given an infinite past, remember that?

Why hint it, when I can say it?

Only you can answer that. I can only guess that it's because spelling out "equal to the distance between today and the beginning of eternity" explicitly would expose the flaw in your argument even to the most dedicated believer of the KCA.

[Kevin Cross]

I always have asked myself how could eternity exist without a beginning? Something that started at one point, but without ending, I can grasp, but no beginning...thats hard. I can only explain the unexplainable through a Biblical perspective. This is to say God is eternal and eternity and everything in it is part of God. And we read: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (Rev. 23:13). In short, could John have made it up. Intellectually, from a human perspective in the 21st century, perhaps, but faith wise no.

The sand theory, discussed by For_The_Kingdom, is an interesting one, but sand by itself does not have substance or the intelligence to create other material things. If God wants to fill His own hole with sand (some might interpret sand as all things created in eternity) He could because He is the Prime Mover according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Space and time are human concepts to explain experience and the Cosmos and God is paradoxically outside and inside, above and below, and beyond it.

I know there are many people who would like to respond to this line of argument and all are welcome, but it will be difficult to prove false.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 103 by Kevin Cross]

I know there are many people who would like to respond to this line of argument and all are welcome, but it will be difficult to prove false.

No, rather, try difficult to prove true. What you did is essentially acknowledging that there's a problem with eternities and beginnings, and then just handwaving it away by simply saying that God is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, and all the rest.
You explained nothing in your response. What does Alpha and Omega mean? First and Last? Especially in connection with a discussion on eternities, infinities and beginnings? (All these questions are rhetorical by the way). What does it mean to call God the Prime Mover? You just toss in phrases, names and people, and then...nothing. Is Kalam shown to be true simply by saying "God is the Prime Mover, according to Aquinas", as if that's all that has to be said?

[Guy Threepwood]

I always have asked myself how could eternity exist without a beginning? Something that started at one point, but without ending, I can grasp, but no beginning...thats hard. I can only explain the unexplainable through a Biblical perspective. This is to say God is eternal and eternity and everything in it is part of God. And we read: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (Rev. 23:13). In short, could John have made it up. Intellectually, from a human perspective in the 21st century, perhaps, but faith wise no.

The sand theory, discussed by For_The_Kingdom, is an interesting one, but sand by itself does not have substance or the intelligence to create other material things. If God wants to fill His own hole with sand (some might interpret sand as all things created in eternity) He could because He is the Prime Mover according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Space and time are human concepts to explain experience and the Cosmos and God is paradoxically outside and inside, above and below, and beyond it.

I know there are many people who would like to respond to this line of argument and all are welcome, but it will be difficult to prove false.

Like many things in the Bible, I think this makes more sense now; through scientific validation of a beginning, a creation event- a beginning for even time itself as we know it. This entire concept was considered impossible - especially to academic scientists not so long ago.

So God naturally transcends time- since he is not bound by the laws of his own creation

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

I could care less about whether you feel as if my explanation of the KCA meets or exceeds YOUR expectations.

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

Problems with what? Problems that you've raised, or that others have raised? Probably others, considering you've done nothing but piggy back off of what others have said, with a "like" here and a "like" there, without offering absolutely nothing of your own.

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

Hmm...no one has accused me of not clearly defining the premises yet. You must be the only one that don't understand the premises.

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

So tell me, what have I said that makes you think I can't deal with the rebuttals? Or is this a "filler" line?

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.

You probably won't reach the same conclusion as I did, regardless of the case presented. Some people are just best left in the dark. Good luck.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 100 by For_The_Kingdom]

Infinity is not a number like other numbers. Not all infinities are the same. You can't treat it just like any other number.

I am treating it like the absurdity that it is.

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.

All even numbers are integers, but not all integers are even numbers.

Bro, what are you talking about? Do you unbelievers cross-check each other? Like, at all? I am responding to a guy who asked me "are there twice the amount of integers as there are even numbers".

Since even numbers are integers, that only leaves the odd numbers...so what is being essentially asked is "are there twice the amount of odd numbers are there are even numbers"..and the answer is, no.

Therefore, they are not interchangeable as you seem to be suggesting.

I am suggesting that even numbers are also integers, so the question, as I understand it, makes no sense.

You appear to be engaged in a fallacy here. I think affirming the consequent.

Check the rationale of the question that I was asked first, before you come to me. You people never check the rationale of anything that is said by the unbeliever, no matter how irrational the statement is.

The same amount of red marbles I started with, whether they were infinite or not. LoL.

Thanks for conceding my point..moving on.

But if you had an infinite number of black marbles and one red marble, then you gave away all your black marbles; how many total marbles did you start with, how many total marbles did you give away, and how many total marbles will you have at the end? The answer is infinite, infinite, and one. So we have a situation where infinity minus infinity = 1.

So, I have an infinite amount of black marbles, and one red marble..and I gave away all of the black marbles

Infinity minus infinity can be any number (including infinity, negative infinity, and anything in between), depending on which infinities we are talking about.

Thanks again for conceding my point..when dealing with infinity, you get contradictory results.

Moving along..

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 102 by Bust Nak]

*scans post 102*

Hmm, I don't see the whole "infinity - infinity does not equal infinity" business you were harping on earlier, as if I didn't understand infinity and was wrong in stating that infinity-infinity=infinity.

That leads me to believe that, as I presumed, it is YOU who didn't understand infinity and was rightfully educated by me.

So, I can only take that as you conceding my point, that infinity-infinity=infinity..and I will also take the W on our exchanges and move on to my other posts in this regard.

Unless anyone else has something to say?

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 104 by rikuoamero]

rikuoamero

Let's get real! Shall we. Sorry to confuse you. Alpha means beginning, Omega means end, respectively, in Greek. Prime Mover is an ontological (what exists) concept that says there is some force or being that creates and manages everything else in the universe. There is nothing beyond that entity. Nothing else created the Prime Mover and nothing can destroy that entity. To many people, the Prime Mover is some type of God or spiritual diety. To others, it means a power.

Yes, i think from the human point of view, I think there is a problem with how did eternity began or was it always there, not because there is not such a reality of beginningless eternity, but because humans cannot comprehend it. One way may be to conceptualize it into endless moments of beginnings such as people being born, learning new skills, start to a new day, beginning a new job, beginning of life on Earth or other planets far away, flowers blooming, etc. If there are new beginnings all the time, perhaps that's why eternity can never end -- it is always renewing itself. I don't know if that's the final answer, but it's a start.

Now you refuted me harshly but you did not ideas of your own on eternity. We're supposed to be arguing on who has the better ideas. I want to see your ideas. If you are just an "attack dog" without an alternative view, the readers may ignore you. Com'on put your cards on the table.

[Bust Nak]

*scans post 102*

Hmm, I don't see the whole "infinity - infinity does not equal infinity" business you were harping on earlier...

Well, that's just typical, isn't it? Read my posts properly. It's right there, and I quote:

How many marbles will I have left over?

There is no answer to this question, the number of marbles you would have is undefined.

You do not understand infinity and was wrong in stating that infinity-infinity=infinity, as infinity-infinity is undefined.

That leads me to believe that, as I presumed, it is YOU who didn't understand infinity and was rightfully educated by me...

I still don't know where you get so much confidence from. I guess that's what people call faith, being so sure of oneself in spite of the evidence.