The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Now, moving right along..to my second analogy..

The Sandman: imagine there is a particular man, with an infinite amount of sand at his disposal. The man can never run out of sand, because he has an INFINITE amount. Imagine the man is standing above a bottomless hole (or pit)..and what is meant by bottomless? Well, if something was to fall in the hole, it would fall forever and ever, because the hole is bottomless..no foundation.

Got it?

Now, suppose the man is shoveling sand into the bottomless pit..and imagine the man was shoveling sand into the pit for eternity...he never began, and he never stopped..he has been shoveling for eternity.

The man's goal is to keep shoveling until he has successfully filled the entire hole with sand, until the sand reaches the top of the hole, and is thus, FILLED.

The million dollar question is; how long will it take the man to fill the hole with sand?

Answer: the man will NEVER fill the hole with sand. Why? Because the hole is bottomless, that's why. If you can't reach the bottom, from the top...then how can you reach top, from the bottom??

Hmm.

This example is analogous to the reality of our world...if you can't go back in time (a past boundary), then how can you possibly reach any present point?

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

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

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

The ONLY possible way to fill the hole entirely with sand, is if there is a BOTTOM FOUNDATION to the whole. If there is a foundation at the bottom, the sand can successfully reach the man at the top, where he is PRESENTLY shoveling.

Likewise, the only POSSIBLE way for us to reach the present moment if there is a past boundary/foundation/beginning of time. If there is a past boundary, the events which led up to today can successfully...led up to today.

One final problem with the concept of an actual infinity..is the quantities itself. Think about it, if the past is eternal, that would mean..

That the total amount of seconds amounts to infinity..
The total amount of minutes amounts to infinity..
The total amount of hours amounts to infinity..
The total amount of days amounts to infinity..
The total amount of weeks amounts to infinity..
The total amount of months amounts to infinity..
The total amount of years amounts to infinity..
The total amount of decades amounts to infinity..
The total amount of centuries amounts to infinity..

and finally..

The total amount of millenniums amounts to infinity..

There is an obvious problem here, because each of those intervals/measurements of times, each one has different values!!! Yet, all would have the same value if they are infinite!!

This is an obviously clear absurdity..which can not reflect reality.

In closing, there are many different ways one can demonstrate the absurdities which comes come an actual infinity...the point of this thread is to prove, that an absolute beginning is necessary..and by "beginning", I mean a "beginning of all beginnings".

There had to be ONE, SINGLE, INITIAL action, which all other actions resulted from. There is just no way out of it. Neither science, nor any scientist can help you here. Neither philosophy, nor any philosopher can help you here. Neither math, nor any mathematician can help you here.

And finally, God himself, he can't even help you here. God can't neither fill the hole with sand, or reach equal distance of infinity.

So, in conclusion; the universe began to exist, because it is logically impossible for any thing within "time", to exist eternally within time. So, if nothing "within" time can be eternal, it follows that the universe itself cannot be eternal, for the same reasons that everything WITHIN the universe cannot be eternal.

You cannot have an eternal universe with only finite parts (events) within the universe. If the parts are finite, then so is the universe.

Oh, and btw, save all of the "But, what about God, God also would have to have a beginning"...save all of that talk, because the universe is the subject of interest right now.

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

[For_The_Kingdom]

? LOL!!!!

You want a discrete number for today? It's 1 day from yesterday. Distance of 1. QED

Trust me, if the answer was that simple, I wouldn't be sitting here challenging you with it.

How about 09/21/2018. 21 days from the start of September. 9 months from the start of the year. 2018 years from the point in time we started using the current year numbering system.

If you placed a natural number on every day which lead to "today"...and the days are in numerical order from earliest to latest..what number would you place on today (9-24-18)?

So, you again are refusing to define what you mean by 'equal distance'.

If I step 1 step away from you, we are both 1 step away from each other which is an equal distance. I'm here, you are 1 step away, we are each 1 step from each other. QED.

Again, I wouldn't dare challenge you to tell me what is 2+2. Oh, if only the challenge was as simple as 2+2=4.

Now, what the heck do you mean when you are talking about an equal distance? An equal distance FROM what TO what. If you won't actually define the FROM and TO parameters you are not defining a distance, you are just putting out an undefined term. It's like if I asked how old you are and you said "Equal number of years". Absurd and pointless.

If you are at the 0 yard line on a football field, and I asked you to walk forward 20 yards, and stop. And once you stopped at the 20 yard line, I ask you to walk the opposite direction of the 20 yard line, and stop once you reach equal distance...at what yard line would you stop?

If you want to make logical arguments, you have to be willing to define all your terms. Failure to do say lays the argument to waste even if it might be a good argument (which is hard to tell when you won't define everything).

Point 1: Current point
Point 2: Point of equal distance in the opposite direction.

2 points..clearly defined.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I think you'll find that the fact that infinity-infinity is undefined does indeed negate your claim that infinity-infinite = infinity.

So you started with an infinite amount of red balls, took no red balls away and you are left with exactly the same amount of red balls as you had before. What's so absurd with that?

Also note the difference between giving away all the black balls and giving away an infinite amount of black balls.

The fact of the matter is, infinity-infinity not infinity.

Nope, stick with the scenario, because the dilly dallying ain't working for you...

Now; an infinite amount of black balls was SUBTRACTED from the infinite pile of black/red balls..which means that you are still left with an infinite amount red balls in the pile, despite having subtracted an infinite amount (of black balls).

Infinity (red/black balls) - infinity (black balls) = infinity (red balls).

Just like I said.

Where is the contradiction? It lies solely with your conjecture that infinity-infinity = infinity.

Again, according to the scenario; there was an infinite amount of black balls, and an infinite amount of red balls...all in one big giant pile...

And all of the black balls (infinite amount) was subtracted from the pile of black/red balls, which means that you are still left with an infinite amount of red balls.

Which means..infinity-infinity=infinity...which is contrary to your false claim that infinity - infinity does not equal infinity.

You were simply wrong..you do not understand the nature of infinity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

But they aren't absurdities. Even your own example isn't absurd. If you have an infinite number of marbles and you give an infinite number away, then the number left is undefined.

LOL the "number left" can't be any more undefined as the "infinite number" of marbles that you started off with.

You could perhaps call an "undefined" math result to be absurd. But that's not your example: you actually contrive a scenario in which the answer is not undefined. And you do this by defining out different kinds of marbles and specifying what you are doing by marble kind.

What? If I am able to have an infinite amount of X, then you can't stop me from successfully subtracting from X. So again, the "undefined" result cannot be any more "undefined" as me actually being able to possess an infinite amount of X.

Like I said, the concept is absurd.

In other words, your example of a situation in which "infinity-infinity=infinity" is clearly not absurd, because in the example you laid out it is actually true.

If you subtract from an amount, you are supposed to have less than what you started with. In the example, you still have the same amount, despite subtracting from the amount.

And basic arithmetic tells you that if you have a quantity, and you subtract the same quantity from it, then you are supposed to have zero left.

But not with infinity, you will have the same amount, despite subtracting from the same amount (in the scenario), which is logically absurd.

Problems arise only when you say infinity=infinity when we are talking about different infinities. For example, if you consider infinity(all marbles)=infinity(red marbles) to be the same thing then you would be in errror.

?

You can make arguments about traversing infinity in time or space being impossible, but that's entirely different from saying the concept itself is absurd.

How is it not absurd if you can't traverse it?

Like I said in the very first post I made in this thread, I don't see why there's supposed to be a distinction between the "sand" and the "hole".

The sand is the matter, and the hole is the "space"...which are both analogous to you (matter) moving (time) in space (preexisting height, depth, and width).

If the "sand" defines the "hole" then there's no problem; there's no undefined infinity-infinity because there is no math operation being applied in the first place.

The problem is, if the sand cannot file the hole and reach the top as the man is currently shoveling..then there is no way the past can reach the present moment as we are currently traversing time.

In a universe with no absolute beginning in time there is no "temporal distance" that defines the whole past. The absurdity from which you base your objection comes from your own assumption that there would have to be.

Bruh, you can't reach a "present" moment on an infinite timeline. Nothing you say negates this, as you can say nothing...considering we are in the "present" moment and all.

No. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics say quite resoundingly that we don't.

Please explain how GR and QM somehow negates my point that you can never reach any present moment in time if you have to traverse an infinite amount of prior moments to get there.

My argument is independent of science, sir.

[Bust Nak]

Now; an infinite amount of black balls was SUBTRACTED from the infinite pile of black/red balls..which means that you are still left with an infinite amount red balls in the pile, despite having subtracted an infinite amount (of black balls).

Right, what's so absurd about that? You didn't subtract any red balls, so you are left with the same amount you had before.

Infinity (red/black balls) - infinity (black balls) = infinity (red balls).

Nah, that's still wrong, your units don't match. Try this:
Infinity (red balls) - 0 (red balls) = infinity (red balls).
Infinity (black balls) - infinity (black balls) = undefined amount of (black balls).

Again, according to the scenario; there was an infinite amount of black balls, and an infinite amount of red balls...all in one big giant pile...

And all of the black balls (infinite amount)...

Which is it? All of the black balls or infinite amount of black balls?

was subtracted from the pile of black/red balls, which means that you are still left with an infinite amount of red balls.

You might still have some black balls left though. But that's besides the point, that still doesn't mean infinity-infinity=infinity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Right, what's so absurd about that? You didn't subtract any red balls, so you are left with the same amount you had before.

First, you need to concede that, at least in the case that was presented to you, infinity-infinity =infinity..contrary to you saying otherwise. We can't move on from there until you simply admit that you were wrong.

Nah, that's still wrong, your units don't match. Try this:
Infinity (red balls) - 0 (red balls) = infinity (red balls).
Infinity (black balls) - infinity (black balls) = undefined amount of (black balls).

This is dilly dallying. The scenario is; you have both; an infinite amount of black balls, mixed with an infinite amount of red balls.

And you gave away your entire collection of black balls, which means that you are left with an infinite collection of red balls.

There is no need to deviate from the scenario. The scenario is what is, and it proves my point; infinity-infinity=infinity.

Which is it? All of the black balls or infinite amount of black balls?

If I started off by saying that the amount of black balls are infinite, then all of the black balls would be an "infinite amount of black balls".

Stop dilly dallying. Admit you were wrong, so we can move on.

You might still have some black balls left though. But that's besides the point, that still doesn't mean infinity-infinity=infinity.

If I specifically said that you gave away ALL of the black balls, why would you have the nerve to maintain that there may be some black balls left?

SMH.

[FarWanderer]

In a universe with no absolute beginning in time there is no "temporal distance" that defines the whole past. The absurdity from which you base your objection comes from your own assumption that there would have to be.

Bruh, you can't reach a "present" moment on an infinite timeline. Nothing you say negates this, as you can say nothing...considering we are in the "present" moment and all.

Well of course I can't negate what you are saying, because you are begging the question. Again.

Your arguments are all based on the assumption that there is any "reaching" to do. Reaching from when? Some point in time infinitely long ago? There is no such thing.

You can argue that there is such a thing, or that we don't need a starting point for "reaching" the present to be coherent. Otherwise, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

No. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics say quite resoundingly that we don't.

Please explain how GR and QM somehow negates my point that you can never reach any present moment in time if you have to traverse an infinite amount of prior moments to get there.

Unrelated. Go back and read what my comment was responding to.

[benchwarmer]

If you placed a natural number on every day which lead to "today"...and the days are in numerical order from earliest to latest..what number would you place on today (9-24-18)?

Well, the first 'day' is when the earth made it's first rotation in relation to the sun, since that is how we currently define 'day'.

The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, thus today would be approximately day 1,657,100,000,000. Better? Not sure how this helps you in any way.

If you are at the 0 yard line on a football field, and I asked you to walk forward 20 yards, and stop. And once you stopped at the 20 yard line, I ask you to walk the opposite direction of the 20 yard line, and stop once you reach equal distance...at what yard line would you stop?

I have no idea because you refuse to tell me what you mean by "equal distance". Equal distance FROM what TO what?

Are you asking me to walk an equal distance to that which I just walked? If so, why not clearly state that? The phrase 'equal distance' is meaningless in English if you don't qualify it with something. Maybe this is a language barrier.

If I walked 20 yards and you asked me to turn around and walk the equal distance I just walked to get to the 20 yard line, then of course I will be back at yard 0. i.e. walk a distance equal to that which I just walked.

I suggest phrasing your question properly or you will continue to be met with questions and confusion.

If you want to make logical arguments, you have to be willing to define all your terms. Failure to do say lays the argument to waste even if it might be a good argument (which is hard to tell when you won't define everything).

Point 1: Current point
Point 2: Point of equal distance in the opposite direction.

2 points..clearly defined.

No, point 2 is not clearly defined. If it was, you would happily assign some numbers to it in an example. So far in all these posts I have yet to see you do that.

Let's take your own example. Please fill in the values assuming point 1 is 0. Is point 2 20 yards from point 1? If so, why all the tap dancing? If not, you haven't defined anything.

[Bust Nak]

Exactamundo! Infinity can lead to absurdities. Thank you.

Not so fast, infinity-infinity=infinty leads to absurdities, not so with infinity. At worse it's counter-intuitive.

What makes the absurdity is that we can mathematically arrive at the answer infinity by subtracting infinity from infinity...

You can't though, because subtracting infinity from infinity is undefined. What the video does show is just exactly that: subtracting infinity from infinity is undefined. It even says so in the title.

And thats why infinity minus infinity is considered indeterminate (or undefined) because we dont know which answer is correct, they all are.

Nah, we know non of them are correct. That it is defined as indeterminate does indeed negate the claim that infinity minus infinity can equal infinity. It cannot.

Well thats not as outlandish a claim as you seem to be implying. Indeed, you said above that, Infinity"infinity is undefined because anything else leads to absurdities. So how can you then go on to take issue with the claim that infinity is absurd?

Because it's not a problem with infinity, but with people's intuition about infinity.

The concept of infinity produces numerous paradoxes such as...

They are merely counter-intuitive, there is nothing absurd about Hilberts Hotel and Zeno's paradox is solved.

But I would ask, how can you actualize in the real material world an infinite amount of money without running into absurdities like the possibility of filling the observable universe with dollar bills?

Not if there is infinite space in the universe.

You are missing the point of the arguments. The intuitional arguments and mathematics show that infinity-infinity can equal infinity.

Which is why you should stick to the math and not do stuff by intuition, it is your intuition that lead to absurdities, not infinity.

We must be reading different articles then. It quite clearly showed with a mathematical argument how infinity-infinity=infinity.

It's not an mathematical argument because infinity isn't a number, but is treated like one in the argument. Which means it is at best an intuitional argument.

And?

And hence invalidating any mathematical merit from the argument. It literally tells you the argument is starting with an incorrect premise.

[Bust Nak]

First, you need to concede that, at least in the case that was presented to you, infinity-infinity =infinity..contrary to you saying otherwise.

Nah, I am not in the habit of conceding to ill-thought-out claims. Infinity-infinity most assuredly does not equal to infinity in any case.

We can't move on from there until you simply admit that you were wrong.

That's up to you, I do wonder why you picked this hill to die on though, a casual google search for any mathematical site about infinity would tell you that infinity-infinity is undefined. Don't you usually just let me have the final word and move on regardless?

Look here, how many groups of zero balls can you make with 10 balls? Infinitely many? Does that mean 10/0 = infinity? Of course not - 10/0 is undefined. Same thing applies here, I can affirm your scenario without affirming that infinity-infinity would somehow equal to infinity, it does not. Granted this is beyond basic algebra but is hardly difficult not is it controversial: infinity-infinity is undefined.

The scenario is; you have both; an infinite amount of black balls, mixed with an infinite amount of red balls.

And you gave away your entire collection of black balls, which means that you are left with an infinite collection of red balls.

That's much is fine. There is no need to deviate from the scenario, it just still doesn't imply infinity-infinity=infinity, no matter how many times you double down on it. You are literally wrong by definition. You begun with infinitely many red balls and took away non of the red balls, that leaves you with infinitely many red balls, that's hardly a revelation.

If I started off by saying that the amount of black balls are infinite, then all of the black balls would be an "infinite amount of black balls".

Well, no, you started off saying subtracting an infinite amount of black balls, as opposed to all the black balls, so I was left wondering which you meant.

If I specifically said that you gave away ALL of the black balls, why would you have the nerve to maintain that there may be some black balls left?

That's because you also specifically said "infinite amount of black balls" too. They don't mean the same thing. If you gave away ALL of the black balls, as opposed to an infinite amount, then there wouldn't be any left.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Nah, I am not in the habit of conceding to ill-thought-out claims. Infinity-infinity most assuredly does not equal to infinity in any case.

If you subtract all of black balls (an infinite amount) from the infinite pile of black/red balls (infinite amount of red balls as well), how many red balls would you have?

That's up to you, I do wonder why you picked this hill to die on though, a casual google search for any mathematical site about infinity would tell you that infinity-infinity is undefined.

Nonsense. Undefined or not, if you subtract the infinite amount of black balls from the pile, how many of the infinite amount of red balls would you have?

Don't you usually just let me have the final word and move on regardless?

But this ain't usual.

Look here, how many groups of zero balls can you make with 10 balls? Infinitely many? Does that mean 10/0 = infinity? Of course not - 10/0 is undefined. Same thing applies here, I can affirm your scenario without affirming that infinity-infinity would somehow equal to infinity, it does not.

Red herrings. In the scenario, you subtracted an infinite amount from an infinite amount, and you are left with an infinite amount.

Granted this is beyond basic algebra but is hardly difficult not is it controversial: infinity-infinity is undefined.

If you subtract all of the black balls from the infinite pile, are you not left with an infinite amount of red balls? Yes or no?

That's much is fine. There is no need to deviate from the scenario, it just still doesn't imply infinity-infinity=infinity, no matter how many times you double down on it. You are literally wrong by definition. You begun with infinitely many red balls and took away non of the red balls, that leaves you with infinitely many red balls, that's hardly a revelation.

The total amount of "non red balls" is infinity...and you just admitted that you are left with infinitely many red balls after you subtracted an infinite amount of non-red balls.

So, infinity-infinity=infinity. You apparently don't want to admit that you were simply WRONG. Case closed.

Well, no, you started off saying subtracting an infinite amount of black balls, as opposed to all the black balls, so I was left wondering which you meant. That's because you also specifically said "infinite amount of black balls" too. They don't mean the same thing. If you gave away ALL of the black balls, as opposed to an infinite amount, then there wouldn't be any left.[

Ok, well let me explicitly state; ALL OF THE BLACK BALLS ARE SUBTRACTED FROM THE PILE, SO THAT NOT A SINGLE BLACK BALL IS LEFT.

Is that better?