Kalam cosmological agument

[atheist buddy]

The argument goes like this:

Everything which begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



Here is another argument:

Everything which breaks has a cause
My toaster broke
Therefore the breaking of my toaster has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



How do the notions that the universe existing has a cause, and my toaster breaking has a cause, in any way logically lead to the concusion that this cause is an allpowerful sentient intelligent being who reads our minds and doesn't want us to masturbate?


Assume that the argument properly defines what "begins" means (which the argument doesn't), assume that everything which "begins" to exist indeed has a cause (although it hasn't been demonstrated), assume that the argument properly defined what the universe is (although the argument doesn't), assume that it began to exist (although it hasn't been demonstrated), and then, sure, you come to the conclusion that something caused the universe.

Much like something caused my toaster to break.

Why not assume something like a quantum fluctuation in the singularity, or a power surge from a circuit breaker burning out?

[Bust Nak]

Physical reality cannot be past eternal.

Well it's logically possible, it just happens to be not the case for our universe. Philosopher have long argued for an eternal universe until science came along as showed otherwise.

How about addressing the meat and potatos of what I said?

That's exactly what I did in my last post.

Are you accusing me of asking a question that I knew couldn't be answered?

Yes.

But there are an infinite amount of points to travel from, assuming there is no ultimate beginning.

Correct. Is that a problem?

I am talking about the totality of all the points, which is an infinite amount. If there were an infinite amount of days that preceded "today", how would today ever get here?

By travelling one day at a time obviously. You know, like how I got to Friday from Monday by moving along the timeline over five days.

Funny...because you think you made an excellent point, but you actually proved mines. You are saying that there are an infinite amount of "finite" days which lead to today...ok, fine....that is still an infinite amount, isn't it? It is. So how does that negate anything that I said?

Because you thought you couldn't get to "today" when it's clear that you can.

The "set" of all days which lead to today is infinite. For us to arrive at today would mean that there were an infinite amount of prior days, all of which lead to today..and this cannot happen because you cannot traverse infinity.

That's the same non sequitur as before, and that's why my "excellent point" negate everything that you said. "One cannot traverse infinity" does not imply one cannot arrive at today from an infinite amount of prior days.

If my name was Earl, my name would be Earl.

Is your name Earl?

...I challenge you to run the opposite direct (west), and once you reach equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me (east)...

At this point I would stop you and say, I don't understand what you are challenging me to do - what exactly are you referring to by "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me?" Reached you from where?

Now tell me, at what literal point would you stop?

You tell me, I have no idea what this "literal point" you are referring to is supposed to be.

What will be equal going west (where you came from) relative to east?

That depends on how you answer is to my question above.

When can you collect your money?

Presumably never because you don't seem to know what it is you are challenging me to do?

Use whatever math you need to use to answer this, please.

I could use a fairly simply mathematical proof to show I can count to an infinite amount of integers, would you like that?

You did? You can indeed prove me wrong by answering the above question.

Does saying "I have no wife" count as an answer to the question "when did you stop bearing your wife?" If so I have answered your question. If not then well, I have no answer because your question is malformed.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well it's logically possible, it just happens to be not the case for our universe. Philosopher have long argued for an eternal universe until science came along as showed otherwise.

Judeo-Christians have always been saying that the universe had a beginning. The discovery of a finite universe in the early 1920's was old news to us.

Yes.

The difference is, it wasn't unanswered for the fact that there is an answer and the person just didn't know the answer. Rather, it wasn't answered because it is impossible to answer based on the circumstances.

And if it is impossible to answer based on the circumstances, then the circumstances cannot possibly reflect reality...and if it cannot possibly reflect reality, then it is impossible.

Therefore, the idea of a past eternal universe is impossible.

Correct. Is that a problem?

Damn right it is a problem.

By travelling one day at a time obviously. You know, like how I got to Friday from Monday by moving along the timeline over five days.

But you didn't travel an infinite amount of days to get from Monday to Friday, did you?

Think about it this way; if there were an infinite amount of days between Monday and Friday...and your goal was to travel from Monday, to Friday...would you ever arrive at Friday??

If you are able to arrive at Friday, you would have successfully traversed an inifnite number of days. Do you not see the problem with this?

Because you thought you couldn't get to "today" when it's clear that you can.

Ok, well lets see how you answered the analogy below, before we start to gloat.

That's the same non sequitur as before, and that's why my "excellent point" negate everything that you said. "One cannot traverse infinity" does not imply one cannot arrive at today from an infinite amount of prior days.

Ok...so therefore you shouldn't have any problem responding to the above contention.

If you can arrive at "today" from an infinite amount of prior days (as you JUST stated), then you should be able to arrive at Monday, from an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday (if you started Friday).

So the question is, how long will it take for you to get to Monday...and if you applied a natural number to all of the days in between Friday and Monday (in numerical order), what number can be placed upon the day that is just prior to Monday?

Go ahead, have fun with that one.

At this point I would stop you and say, I don't understand what you are challenging me to do - what exactly are you referring to by "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me?" Reached you from where?

You tell me, I have no idea what this "literal point" you are referring to is supposed to be.

Ok, so you were running for an infinite amount of time, on an infinitely long road in both directions (West-East). This means that you never "began" to run, you were running forever, going East, on an infinitely long road.

As you are running on this infinitely long road headed East, you see me standing in the middle of the road, and where I stand is an arbitrary point on the road, correct?

Now, you just traversed an infinite amount of points to reach me, so you should be able to turn back around and travel the opposite direction that you came, and you should be able to reach equal distance headed West that you reached to get to this arbitrary point on the road where I am currently standing.

The question is, where would this arbitrary point of equal distance in the opposite direction be?

Presumably never because you don't seem to know what it is you are challenging me to do?

And what made you draw that conclusion? It is funny, because above you asked "reached you from where?"...why would you ask "reached you from where", when I clearly stated in the analogy that you've been running FOREVER..there is no starting point...or point to be reached from, per se.

However, subconsciously, you are smart enough to realize than an arbitrary starting point is needed in order for any further points to be reached...but a starting point is exactly what we DON'T have if the past is eternal.

But these are all your problems, not mines.

I could use a fairly simply mathematical proof to show I can count to an infinite amount of integers, would you like that?

What is the last number prior to the very last integer that you can count to?

Does saying "I have no wife" count as an answer to the question "when did you stop bearing your wife?" If so I have answered your question. If not then well, I have no answer because your question is malformed.

Red herrings. The question is not malformed...the question/analogy is a direct parallel to what it would be like if there was a past-eternal chain of cause/effect relations.

It can't happen, and if you think it can happen, you should be able to answer the question. And don't worry, I will gladly spend as much time needed to help you understand the analogy...so that there will be no excuses.

Either you can answer it, or you can't...and if you can't, you've got problems.

[Bust Nak]

Judeo-Christians have always been saying that the universe had a beginning. The discovery of a finite universe in the early 1920's was old news to us.

The doesn't affect a thing I said. You claimed it was physical reality cannot be past eternal. I corrected you and said it CAN be, just isn't. Whether a the big bang was old news or not is irrelevant to my point.

The difference is, it wasn't unanswered for the fact that there is an answer and the person just didn't know the answer. Rather, it wasn't answered because it is impossible to answer based on the circumstances.

Right, that is exactly what I am accusing you of doing. Guity as charged.

And if it is impossible to answer based on the circumstances, then the circumstances cannot possibly reflect reality...and if it cannot possibly reflect reality, then it is impossible.

That doesn't follow at all. I can imagine why you would even think that. You cannot answer the question "who created God," does that mean God existence is impossible? Think before you post please.

Damn right it is a problem.

Do elaborate.

But you didn't travel an infinite amount of days to get from Monday to Friday, did you?

No, it was five. I stated so in my previous post.

Think about it this way; if there were an infinite amount of days between Monday and Friday...and your goal was to travel from Monday, to Friday...would you ever arrive at Friday??

No, but that moot since there isn't an infinite amount of days between Monday and Friday.

If you are able to arrive at Friday, you would have successfully traversed an inifnite number of days. Do you not see the problem with this?

Of course. It only took five days and not infinite number of days.

Ok, well lets see how you answered the analogy below, before we start to gloat.

Too late for that, I' started gloating days ago.

Ok...so therefore you shouldn't have any problem responding to the above contention.

No, and there wasn't any problem responding to the above contention.

If you can arrive at "today" from an infinite amount of prior days (as you JUST stated), then you should be able to arrive at Monday, from an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday (if you started Friday).

Incorrect. I have no idea where you got this idea from. Why do you think one "should be able to arrive at Monday, from an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday?" What does "an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday" even mean?

So the question is, how long will it take for you to get to Monday...and if you applied a natural number to all of the days in between Friday and Monday (in numerical order), what number can be placed upon the day that is just prior to Monday?

Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. I counted 4 days, four. Not infinity. The day just prior to Monday is Sunday. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be gloating.

Ok, so you were running for an infinite amount of time, on an infinitely long road in both directions (West-East). This means that you never "began" to run, you were running forever, going East, on an infinitely long road.

As you are running on this infinitely long road headed East, you see me standing in the middle of the road, and where I stand is an arbitrary point on the road, correct?

So far so good.

Now, you just traversed an infinite amount of points to reach me, so you should be able to turn back around and travel the opposite direction that you came, and you should be able to reach equal distance headed West that you reached to get to this arbitrary point on the road where I am currently standing.

You lost me there. Be specific, what point is this supposed to be? Why should I be able to reach some undefined point?

The question is, where would this arbitrary point of equal distance in the opposite direction be?

Well, tell me, I am dying to know what the hell you are talking about.

And what made you draw that conclusion?

Because you couldn't and still can't tell me what this arbitrary point is supposed to be and why I should be able to reach it.

It is funny, because above you asked "reached you from where?"...why would you ask "reached you from where", when I clearly stated in the analogy that you've been running FOREVER..there is no starting point...or point to be reached from, per se.

Well there you go, you've once again affirmed you asked a loaded question, quit it. You need to up your game.

However, subconsciously, you are smart enough to realize than an arbitrary starting point is needed in order for any further points to be reached...but a starting point is exactly what we DON'T have if the past is eternal.

"Subconsciously?" Give me more credit than that. That was the point of my posts, you were asking question about some supposed starting point when you knew full well I was proposing no starting point. That why I said your question is malformed. If anything this is one more reason to gloat, it seemed my point went over your head and you thought I was subconsciously doing anything.

What is the last number prior to the very last integer that you can count to?

I just told you there are infinitely many of them, and you want to ask me about the last one? And you had the nerve to ask me not to gloat?

Red herrings. The question is not malformed...

Evidence says otherwise. If there is no beginning, then questions about a beginning makes no sense. If there is no end then questions about an ending are malformed. This is no so hard to understand, is it? Dare I say it's trivial.

Either you can answer it, or you can't...and if you can't, you've got problems.

The same way you have a problem answering questions about the creator of God.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The doesn't affect a thing I said. You claimed it was physical reality cannot be past eternal. I corrected you and said it CAN be, just isn't. Whether a the big bang was old news or not is irrelevant to my point.

"It can be, just isn't"...so if physical reality ISN'T past eternal, as you JUST admitted..then it had a beginning, right?

So, what can initiate physical reality?

Right, that is exactly what I am accusing you of doing. Guity as charged.

So, you are more pissed at the question that was asked instead of being pissed at what the question corresponded to?

That doesn't follow at all. I can imagine why you would even think that. You cannot answer the question "who created God," does that mean God existence is impossible? Think before you post please.

Right, I can't answer the question of "What caused the Uncaused Cause". Sorry for not being able to answer such a question.

That aside, you've just blatantly ignored the jest of what I said and just rendered your response to "That doesn't follow at all". Care to tell me why it doesn't follow?

I said "if it is impossible to answer based on the circumstances, then the circumstances cannot possibly reflect reality...and if it cannot possibly reflect reality, then it is impossible."

Tell me why it doesn't follow that, if the question that I asked can't be answered, how can it reflect reality? The question corresponds to circumstances that would be possible if reality is what naturalists claim it is (that the universe is past eternal).

Dont get mad at the question, get mad at the concept that the question corresponds to.

No, it was five. I stated so in my previous post.

Well, in the scenario I gave, there are an infinite amount of days in between Friday and Monday.

And last I checked, infinite is more than 5.

No, but that moot since there isn't an infinite amount of days between Monday and Friday.

See, now you are just being disingenuous. It is apparent that you know the problems that you face with your naturalistic worldview of the universe...and these lackadaisical ass responses is evident of that.

The point isn't moot, considering the fact that if the past is eternal then there were an infinite amount of days which lead to today, and the scenario that I gave you is a situation where there are an infinite amount of days to be traversed in order to arrive at a specific day. In other words, the scenario reflects what you claim can happen and has happened. Yet you can't give an intelligible answer to it.

Your careless responses only mean that the argument is working. So now I can gloat.

Of course. It only took five days and not infinite number of days.

There was an infinite amount of days which lead to today, assuming the past is eternal. I gave a scenario where you were required to travel an infinite amount of days to reach a specific day, and I asked when would you get there.

How you figure it takes 5 days to traverse infinity is beyond me. Either you clearly don't understand the scenario, or you are just being flat out disingenuous. Either way, it is sad.

No, and there wasn't any problem responding to the above contention.

"I traversed infinity in 5 days" <----is the problem..which I am running out of patience of entertaining.

Incorrect. I have no idea where you got this idea from. Why do you think one "should be able to arrive at Monday, from an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday?"

If you got the correct comprehension of what I was saying, you would have noticed that I was making a paraphrased deduction of what YOU had said, which was that you can arrive at today from an infinite amount of prior days.

I took what you said, and stated, "Ok, since you can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days, you should be able to arrive at Monday even if there was an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday (beginning at Friday).

It is pretty simple, actually. But only someone that is drowning in a pool of absurdities would pretend like he doesn't know what is going on.

What does "an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday" even mean?

It means that there are an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday.

Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. I counted 4 days, four. Not infinity. The day just prior to Monday is Sunday. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be gloating.

Changed the scenario to suit your fancy, huh? Disingenuous. Its aight, though. This will be my last post to you in this regard.

You lost me there. Be specific, what point is this supposed to be? Why should I be able to reach some undefined point?

You are asking what point is this supposed to be when I clearly stated that this point is "where I am standing on the road".

It is there clear as day, yet you act as if it isn't there at all. SMH.

Because you couldn't and still can't tell me what this arbitrary point is supposed to be and why I should be able to reach it.

How can one read "....get to this arbitrary point on the road where I am currently standing", and still have the nerve to say "you can't tell me what this arbitrary point is supposed to be".

SMH.

Well there you go, you've once again affirmed you asked a loaded question, quit it. You need to up your game.

So, you make mean faces at the question, but make happy faces at the concept of a past eternal universe...that the question corresponds to.

SMH.

"Subconsciously?" Give me more credit than that. That was the point of my posts, you were asking question about some supposed starting point when you knew full well I was proposing no starting point.

Right, I knew full well that you was proposing no starting point. Cool..but did you notice that in the scenario, the guy that is running (you) was running forever, for an infinitely long time...which means that the guy didn't have a STARTING POINT!!

Now, you stated above that you PROPOSED no starting point....and in the scenario, there was no starting point. So what is the problem? As I said, the scenario accurately reflects what you are proposing HAPPENED in reality...yet you can't answer simple questions related to what you are proposing. SMH.

That why I said your question is malformed. If anything this is one more reason to gloat, it seemed my point went over your head and you thought I was subconsciously doing anything.

You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to even THINK about gloating, bruh.

I just told you there are infinitely many of them, and you want to ask me about the last one? And you had the nerve to ask me not to gloat?

LOL. If there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today, a natural number can be placed on every single day within the "set" of days, and all of the days prior to today can be numbered in numerical ordered....so the question is, what number would you place on "today", and what number would you place on "yesterday".

Now, you can get upset and say "But you can't do that with infinity", but then again, if it happened, no one can STOP me from applying a number to every number within the set...so that would mean that since we've actually arrived at today, then "today" can have a natural number applied to it, and so can yesterday, and the day before...and so on and so forth.

And all I am asking is what number are we on? What number is today? This is a legitimate question if what you said happen can actually happened..but the fact that you CAN'T answer the question means that it can't happen..and that is the point...it CAN'T HAPPEN.

Evidence says otherwise. If there is no beginning, then questions about a beginning makes no sense.

Right, and the reality of a past eternal chain of events which lead to the present day also makes no sense. And if you think it makes sense, you would be able to provide an adequate answer to the analogy. But you won't, because you can't.

The same way you have a problem answering questions about the creator of God.

No, I don't...the infinity problem is a logical problem, a logical impossibility...therefore, the only way out of this problem is to postulate an Uncaused Cause....and God is the only explanation that fits the bill.

The universe is obviously here, and so is mankind. The universe either had a beginning, or it didn't have a beginning.

If it didn't have a beginning, then the past is eternal. But it is evident, as you now know, that the past can not be past eternal. If the universe cannot be past eternal, then it has a cause.

The only thing that can give physical reality its existence is an entity whose existence was not itself part of physical reality, and an entity that does not depend on anything outside itself for its existence. The entity must have a mind, which is extremely smart, powerful, and have a moral capacity.

God.

I will give you the last word on this issue. The argument/analogy works. It works. Now I can gloat.

[Bust Nak]

"It can be, just isn't"...so if physical reality ISN'T past eternal, as you JUST admitted..then it had a beginning, right?

Yes.

So, what can initiate physical reality?

Don't know. Some grander, meta reality I suppose.

So, you are more pissed at the question that was asked instead of being pissed at what the question corresponded to?

Well, I was first annoyed at you for thinking you made a slam-dunk point by asking a loaded question. Then increasing annoyed as you mistook my carefully worded responds as "careless" or "lackadaisical" when they are designed to get you to think about what you are really asking. If anything, you should be accusing me of being patronizing.

Right, I can't answer the question of "What caused the Uncaused Cause". Sorry for not being able to answer such a question.

That aside, you've just blatantly ignored the jest of what I said and just rendered your response to "That doesn't follow at all". Care to tell me why it doesn't follow?

I just gave you a counter example of a person not being able to answer a loaded question without affecting that person's stance. The conclusion that "a person's stance is impossible" does not follow from the premise that "that person couldn't answer a question about said stance." How is that not obvious?

Tell me why it doesn't follow that, if the question that I asked can't be answered, how can it reflect reality?

The problem is with the question, that it doesn't reflect reality is exactly the point. I outright told you it was a loaded question, and worse still, it was malformed. I gave you an analogy if you recall - "when did you stop beating your wife" is a loaded question, worse still is when you ask someone who has no wife.

The question corresponds to circumstances that would be possible if reality is what naturalists claim it is (that the universe is past eternal).

But it doesn't correspond - just like a question about "the creator of God" does not correspond to circumstances portrayed by Christianity.

As a side point, I want to clarify that I am not claiming that the universe is past eternal. I am saying it is logically possible that the universe is past eternal. I am saying philosophical reasoning alone is not enough to rule our past eternal. We only know the universe had a beginning from scientific observation.

Well, in the scenario I gave, there are an infinite amount of days in between Friday and Monday.

I was going to ask "How exactly does that work?" Since you don't seem to react well to questions, let me instead say: That scenario is illogical, please stick to scenarios that bear some resemblance to how days work in real life.

See, now you are just being disingenuous. It is apparent that you know the problems that you face with your naturalistic worldview of the universe...and these lackadaisical ass responses is evident of that.

No, I was trying to get you to double check your own reasoning by asking you clarify your posts. The "lackadaisical ass responses" are there to teach you relatively straight forward facts about counting with respect to infinities: There are infinitely many integers, yet each one of those infinitely many are finite - with a finite gap between each and every combination of pairs. Granted it's not basic math. The proof for this is pretty straight forward, if it wasn't completely obvious at a glance.

The point isn't moot, considering the fact that if the past is eternal then there were an infinite amount of days which lead to today

Yes, that much is fine and well understood, then you jumped off the deep end and conclude that one "cannot get to today," not realising that you are referring to some non-existent beginning, despite numerous hints from me.

the scenario that I gave you is a situation where there are an infinite amount of days to be traversed in order to arrive at a specific day.

An infinite amount of days to be traversed from, as opposed to traversing an infinite amount of days. In terms of integers - an infinite amount of numbers to count from, as opposed to having an infinity gap between two integers.

In other words, the scenario reflects what you claim can happen and has happened. Yet you can't give an intelligible answer to it.

Incorrect, I can't give an intelligible answer because the question was malformed. It's hardly my fault for failing to tell you what X-Y is, if you refuse to tell me what Y is.

There was an infinite amount of days which lead to today, assuming the past is eternal. I gave a scenario where you were required to travel an infinite amount of days to reach a specific day, and I asked when would you get there.

I know what you were attempting to do, I am trying to get you to understand why your scenario doesn't corresponds to circumstances proposed by infinite regression.

How you figure it takes 5 days to traverse infinity is beyond me. Either you clearly don't understand the scenario, or you are just being flat out disingenuous. Either way, it is sad.

Or perhaps I am just better at mathematic than you give me credit for? You asked me elsewhere, why is it that you kept being accused of not understanding something. In this particular case, it's because it's quite obvious that you do not understand mathematic with regards to infinite sets.

"I traversed infinity in 5 days" <----is the problem..which I am running out of patience of entertaining.

Then stop entertaining it. I have never proposed such a thing. It's a fantasy of your own creation.

Instead I am asking you to entertain the idea that "I traversed N days in N days, where N can be any number. N can be 5, 10, 5000 or anything you like, there is an infinite number of alternatives you can pick to substitute for N." Do you have enough patience to entertaining this?

If you got the correct comprehension of what I was saying, you would have noticed that I was making a paraphrased deduction of what YOU had said.

I noticed you tried and failed.

I took what you said, and stated, "Ok, since you can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days, you should be able to arrive at Monday even if there was an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday (beginning at Friday).

And you were and still are wrong. The conclusion "one should be able to arrive at Monday even if there was an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday" does not follow from the premise "you can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days."

One could arrive at Monday only because there was an finite amount of days between Friday and Monday. Just as one can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days, only because there is finite amount of days between today and every single one of those infinite amount of days.

It is pretty simple, actually.

Pretty Simple sure, and pretty wrong too.

It means that there are an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday.

But there isn't an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday. Nor is there an infinite amount of days between any two days in an infinite regression.

Changed the scenario to suit your fancy, huh? Disingenuous.

No, I corrected the scenario to suit reality. There are not an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday. There is a finite amount of days between Friday and Monday. More to the point, which seems to be constantly flying over your head: There is a finite amount of days between any two days in an infinite past.

Its aight, though. This will be my last post to you in this regard.

I will take that as a win then. Hope you learned something about mathematic re: countable infinite today. I wonder if any one else want to pick up where For_The_Kingdom left off.

You are asking what point is this supposed to be when I clearly stated that this point is "where I am standing on the road".

That's the destination. I was asking you about this point where you want me to start measuring from. And you still haven't tell me where that was supposed to be. You can't tell me where that is, because it is this "beginning" that you know full well is non-existence.

So, you make mean faces at the question, but make happy faces at the concept of a past eternal universe...that the question corresponds to.

No, I am making mean faces at you for asking the question that does not correspond to what I am saying.

Right, I knew full well that you was proposing no starting point. Cool..but did you notice that in the scenario, the guy that is running (you) was running forever, for an infinitely long time...which means that the guy didn't have a STARTING POINT!!

Yes, I did notice that. That's why I keep telling you, your question is malformed. You know full well the guy didn't have a STARTING POINT!! And still you were asking questions that refer to some non-existent starting point.

Now, you stated above that you PROPOSED no starting point....and in the scenario, there was no starting point. So what is the problem?

To hammer the point home: The problem was you were still referring to some starting point that doesn't exist in an infinite past. You were asking a loaded question.

You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to even THINK about gloating, bruh.

I would say me winning in style is a great reason for gloating.

LOL. If there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today, a natural number can be placed on every single day within the "set" of days, and all of the days prior to today can be numbered in numerical ordered....so the question is, what number would you place on "today", and what number would you place on "yesterday".

I propose 0 for today, 1 for yesterday, 2 for two days ago and so on. You good with that?

Now, you can get upset and say "But you can't do that with infinity"

Or I could give you a straight forward answer when the question wasn't malformed for once? See how easy your question can be answered when it actually corresponds to what I am proposing?

... but then again, if it happened, no one can STOP me from applying a number to every number within the set...so that would mean that since we've actually arrived at today, then "today" can have a natural number applied to it, and so can yesterday, and the day before...and so on and so forth.

Yes, that much is pretty simple. I am guessing you didn't notice the difference between questions that correspond to a proposal and those questions that don't, and you don't seem to appreciate me trying to lead you to work out the solution yourself, so let me spell it out:

Last time you asked "what is the number prior to the very last integer that you can count to" where as this time round you are asking "what is the number prior to this particular integer?" The former refers to a non-existent last integer, the latter does not. There is no answer to the first question because it is malformed.

Right, and the reality of a past eternal chain of events which lead to the present day also makes no sense. And if you think it makes sense, you would be able to provide an adequate answer to the analogy. But you won't, because you can't.

Evidence says otherwise. I can provide perfect answer to analogies that fits my proposal. Not being able to answer for false analogies and loaded questions, aren't exactly my problem.

No, I don't...the infinity problem is a logical problem, a logical impossibility...

Incorrect. There isn't any logical problem.

If it didn't have a beginning, then the past is eternal. But it is evident, as you now know, that the past can not be past eternal.

But it can logically be eternal, we just figured out it isn't because of a discovery in cosmology.

The only thing that can give physical reality its existence is an entity whose existence was not itself part of physical reality

Why just one entity and not two, or thirty? "Just one" is not a logical necessity.

and an entity that does not depend on anything outside itself for its existence.

That doesn't follow, at best you could say is that said entity does not depend on anything inside this universe for its existence.

The entity must have a mind, which is extremely smart, powerful, and have a moral capacity.

You say "must" but none of those are logical necessity. A dumb impersonal cause cannot be ruled out.

I will give you the last word on this issue.

You can't even get to a God conclusion having been granted a finite past. The Kalam cosmological argument fails.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist.

Yes.

Glad you admitted that the universe began to exist...for the record.

Don't know. Some grander, meta reality I suppose.

Grander, meta reality = supernatural reality.

I know, you are going to say "no it isn't". Well, explain to the audience what in the hell does a "meta reality" mean if it isn't synonymous with "physical reality".

Or is it one of those "anything but God" postulations where you can just postulate anything, as long as there is no "G" word attached to it, everything is just fine.

It is one of those, right?

Well, I was first annoyed at you for thinking you made a slam-dunk point by asking a loaded question.

It would have been a loaded question if it doesn't reflect reality. I asked a question that helps demonstrate the absurd viewpoint that YOU hold to. If you don't like the question, change your worldview.

Then increasing annoyed as you mistook my carefully worded responds as "careless" or "lackadaisical" when they are designed to get you to think about what you are really asking. If anything, you should be accusing me of being patronizing.

Sure, get me to "think". LOL.

I just gave you a counter example of a person not being able to answer a loaded question without affecting that person's stance. The conclusion that "a person's stance is impossible" does not follow from the premise that "that person couldn't answer a question about said stance." How is that not obvious?

Umm, huh?

The problem is with the question, that it doesn't reflect reality is exactly the point. I outright told you it was a loaded question, and worse still, it was malformed. I gave you an analogy if you recall - "when did you stop beating your wife" is a loaded question, worse still is when you ask someone who has no wife.

Ohh, you mean kind of like when you asked "what created God". Ohh, that was a loaded question too then, right?

But it doesn't correspond - just like a question about "the creator of God" does not correspond to circumstances portrayed by Christianity.

Stick to the analogy. The place is beginning to crawl with red herrings.

As a side point, I want to clarify that I am not claiming that the universe is past eternal. I am saying it is logically possible that the universe is past eternal.

Cool, that is all honest and genuine and all of that good stuff...the problem is, if you negate a First Cause, which you kinda ARE...you are implying that the universe is past eternal..which is a logically absurd position.

I am saying philosophical reasoning alone is not enough to rule our past eternal.

Then I shouldn't be able to make a philosophical case against a past eternal universe. But I can.

We only know the universe had a beginning from scientific observation.

Then you should be able to adequately respond to my philosophical case. But you can't.

I was going to ask "How exactly does that work?"

Since you don't seem to react well to questions

If you don't know how it works, then you shouldn't be sitting there advocating the position that it DOES work.

, let me instead say: That scenario is illogical, please stick to scenarios that bear some resemblance to how days work in real life.

You are right, the scenario IS illogical because it is meant to demonstrate an illogical concept. You can't even begin to explain how it is illogical without also exposing the absurdity of the position that you are advocating for.

No, I was trying to get you to double check your own reasoning by asking you clarify your posts.

I don't need clarification on anything. But what I'd like for you to do is give an adequate response to the scenario.

The "lackadaisical ass responses" are there to teach you relatively straight forward facts about counting with respect to infinities: There are infinitely many integers, yet each one of those infinitely many are finite - with a finite gap between each and every combination of pairs. Granted it's not basic math. The proof for this is pretty straight forward, if it wasn't completely obvious at a glance.

Ok, now take what you just said, and APPLY IT to the scenario. However you want to put it. I really don't care, nor does it matter what kind of arithmetic you use, what kind of mathematical formulas you appeal to, nor any mathematician you'd like to consult.

You cannot arrive at infinity from a beginning point, nor you arrive at infinity from a beginning-less point.

I gave two scenario's, one was from a beginning point, and one was from a beginning-less point...and face it, you were not able to respond to either one. Plain and simple.

You call the scenario's illogical, but the scenario isn't any more illogical than the concept that it proving to demonstrate as absurd. To prove an illogical position, I can only give an illogical analogy that reflects the position.

Now of course, you can say "but the scenario doesn't reflect reality"...but I CHALLENGE you to explain how it doesn't. But you can't.

All you can do is make an entire post of "it doesn't make sense"...but yet you've made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to explain why it doesn't make sense.

This is a red herring tactic.

Yes, that much is fine and well understood, then you jumped off the deep end and conclude that one "cannot get to today,"

And i explained why.

not realising that you are referring to some non-existent beginning, despite numerous hints from me.

Nonsense. In the "running" example, there was no beginning to the running at all. That was pointed out to you in the scenario, multiple times.

An infinite amount of days to be traversed from, as opposed to traversing an infinite amount of days.

1. An infinite amount of days to be traversed from
2. Traversing an infinite amount of days

Dude, they mean the same thing. SMH.

In terms of integers - an infinite amount of numbers to count from, as opposed to having an infinity gap between two integers.

I fail to see how these distinctions negate anything that I've said. Again, red herrings.

Just response to the freakin' scenario. I'd prefer to see DIRECT QUOTES from the scenario instead of all of this lollygagging babble that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Incorrect, I can't give an intelligible answer because the question was malformed. It's hardly my fault for failing to tell you what X-Y is, if you refuse to tell me what Y is.

Bruh, you are spending too much time focusing on the question instead of focusing on the alleged reality of worldview that the question corresponds too. If the question seems malformed/illogical is only because of the concept that it reflects.

The question cannot be answered because it cannot happen. It is absurd. Now, unless you can tell me how the scenario DOESN'T accurately reflect the reality of the alleged actual situation (past eternity), then you simply have to admit that it can't happen.

I know what you were attempting to do, I am trying to get you to understand why your scenario doesn't corresponds to circumstances proposed by infinite regression.

Which you failed miserably at doing. Paste the quote of what I said, and your response at which you explained why my "scenario doesn't correspond to circumstances proposed by infinite regression".

Go ahead, paste my quote, and your former response to the quote. I will wait.

Or perhaps I am just better at mathematic than you give me credit for? You asked me elsewhere, why is it that you kept being accused of not understanding something. In this particular case, it's because it's quite obvious that you do not understand mathematic with regards to infinite sets.

I refuse to get distracted with red herrings. I said "how you figure it takes 5 days to traverse infinity is beyond me".

Respond to that, please.

Then stop entertaining it. I have never proposed such a thing. It's a fantasy of your own creation.

I said, if there was an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday, how would you arrive at Monday, from Friday.

Answer that, please. Either tell me how you can arrive at Monday, or simply say "I can't.

Instead I am asking you to entertain the idea that "I traversed N days in N days, where N can be any number. N can be 5, 10, 5000 or anything you like, there is an infinite number of alternatives you can pick to substitute for N." Do you have enough patience to entertaining this?

I'd like my questions to be answered first, then I will entertain whatever questions you have.

And you were and still are wrong. The conclusion "one should be able to arrive at Monday even if there was an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday" does not follow from the premise "you can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days."

"You can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days"

Ok, so lets just take the bold quote above and ask ourselves this question; if all of the "days" in this "set" were in numerical order, with "today" being the highest numbered day in the set...what number would "today" be?

LOL LOL LOL. You see, I could care less about the distinction that you made in your quote, because either way, you can't traverse infinity.

But yeah, please answer the question.

One could arrive at Monday only because there was an finite amount of days between Friday and Monday.

So are you agreeing that infinity cannot be traversed? You cannot traverse an infinite number of points to get to a specific point, right?

Just as one can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days, only because there is finite amount of days between today and every single one of those infinite amount of days.

Ok, so answer the above question...and I will repeat it again...if, as you say, one can ARRIVE at today from an infinite amount of days...

If you placed all of the days in numerical order (from past days to the present day), "today" would currently be the highest numbered day in the set. The question is, what number would "today" be?

You got problems, sir.

But there isn't an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday.

Because there can't be.

Nor is there an infinite amount of days between any two days in an infinite regression.

There would be, if the past is eternal.

No, I corrected the scenario to suit reality. There are not an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday.

The scenario wasn't given to reflect reality as it relates to a man-made calendar system. The scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point.

There is a finite amount of days between Friday and Monday.

Again, no one is saying that there isn't. It was an example...no one is arguing that, according to the calendar, there is a finite amount of days between Friday and Monday...again, I used the mon-fri thing as an instrument to demonstrate that you can't reach a specific point if you traverse infinity.

More to the point, which seems to be constantly flying over your head: There is a finite amount of days between any two days in an infinite past.

Ok, and there was an infinite amount of days which preceded today, according to you...now, please answer the above questions.

I will take that as a win then. Hope you learned something about mathematic re: countable infinite today. I wonder if any one else want to pick up where For_The_Kingdom left off.

I couldn't help myself...I've decided that intellectually owning you is more fun than ignoring you.

That's the destination. I was asking you about this point where you want me to start measuring from.

Um, probably from where you were told to stop, turn back around and run the opposite direct. Yeah, probably there.

And you still haven't tell me where that was supposed to be. You can't tell me where that is, because it is this "beginning" that you know full well is non-existence.

Dude, it is simple. If you are at a football stadium and you are standing at the 0 yard line...and you walked from the 0 yard line to the 20 yard line, and stopped at the 20. If you turned around, and walked EQUAL distance in the opposite direction that you've walked to the get to the 20, where would you stop? Tell me.

It is simple. What is equal distance from your location going backwards that you've traversed going forward? Plain and simple.

Yes, I did notice that. That's why I keep telling you, your question is malformed. You know full well the guy didn't have a STARTING POINT!! And still you were asking questions that refer to some non-existent starting point.

Bro, with all due respect, are you stupid? If the contention is that the past is eternal, that would mean that there is no BEGINNING...there is NO arbitrary starting point to the "set" of days which lead to today. You follow me?

So, I gave a scenario, at which there was also NO starting point (of you running). Do you understand that? Do you not see the correlation?

To hammer the point home: The problem was you were still referring to some starting point that doesn't exist in an infinite past. You were asking a loaded question.

Actually, the problem is, you are lying. In the running scenario, there was no starting point to the running.

Yes, that much is pretty simple. I am guessing you didn't notice the difference between questions that correspond to a proposal and those questions that don't

What I noticed is a failure on your part to either under and/or adequately answer the questions.

, and you don't seem to appreciate me trying to lead you to work out the solution yourself

I wasn't aware that there was a solution.

, so let me spell it out:

Last time you asked "what is the number prior to the very last integer that you can count to" where as this time round you are asking "what is the number prior to this particular integer?" The former refers to a non-existent last integer, the latter does not. There is no answer to the first question because it is malformed.

Those are your problems, not mines. I am not the one positing the traversal of infinity...you are...and since such a notion is absurd, there can be no coherence to come out of such an absurdity...now if you can't handle the question that is being asked as it relates to an absurd view that you hold to, then you should abandon the absurd view that you hold to.

Evidence says otherwise.

And where is this phantom evidence?

I can provide perfect answer to analogies that fits my proposal. Not being able to answer for false analogies and loaded questions, aren't exactly my problem.

You said that, not me. You keep talking about false analogy this, and loaded question that. Yet you make said "an infinite amount of days can lead to today", while not realizing how absurd the statement is. You are the one with the problem.

That is like me telling you "if you take an infinite amount of steps down that road, it will lead to you getting a trillion dollars that will be all yours once you take those infinite amount of steps".

If you begin to walk down the road, do you ever think you will get to money? No. Because every step that you take, you are not getting any closer to the "money".

Yet, an "infinite amount of days can lead today". LOL.

Incorrect. There isn't any logical problem.

Please adequately respond to the "running man" scenario before you make such an empty statement.

But it can logically be eternal

How?

, we just figured out it isn't because of a discovery in cosmology.

And?

Why just one entity and not two, or thirty? "Just one" is not a logical necessity.

At least one. All that is required is one...occams razor..no need to go beyond necessity...only one cause is needed and there to go beyond what is necessary to explain the effect is...unnecessary.

That doesn't follow, at best you could say is that said entity does not depend on anything inside this universe for its existence.

It does follow, the cause must be necessary...the argument makes a case for a necessary First Cause.

You say "must" but none of those are logical necessity. A dumb impersonal cause cannot be ruled out.

How about this....extremely intelligent...and we draw this conclusion based upon the mathematical precision that the universe is balanced on. No dummy (i.e. Mother Nature) can pull that off.

You can't even get to a God conclusion having been granted a finite past. The Kalam cosmological argument fails.

SMH.

[Bust Nak]

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist.

I was expecting that.

Glad you admitted that the universe began to exist...for the record.

That's the scientific consensus, why would I not admit such a thing?

Grander, meta reality = supernatural reality.

I know, you are going to say "no it isn't". Well, explain to the audience what in the hell does a "meta reality" mean if it isn't synonymous with "physical reality".

Some other universe that operates under different, purely natural rules.

Or is it one of those "anything but God" postulations where you can just postulate anything, as long as there is no "G" word attached to it, everything is just fine.

Why not both? No "G" word AND not synonymous with our physical reality.

It would have been a loaded question if it doesn't reflect reality.

Hence my comment about wife beating when there is not even a wife to beat.

I asked a question that helps demonstrate the absurd viewpoint that YOU hold to.

That's impossible with questions that doesn't reflect the viewpoint that I hold to. Try asking questions that matches my viewpoint.

Sure, get me to "think". LOL.

Hey, I had to try.

Umm, huh?

Ohh, you mean kind of like when you asked "what created God". Ohh, that was a loaded question too then, right?

Yep. That's one example of a loaded question.

Stick to the analogy. The place is beginning to crawl with red herrings.

I AM sticking to the analogy. I am accusing it of being a strawman version of what I am proposing.

Cool, that is all honest and genuine and all of that good stuff...the problem is, if you negate a First Cause, which you kinda ARE...you are implying that the universe is past eternal..which is a logically absurd position.

No it isn't. We only know there is a beginning to this universe because we now know the universe is expanding. I've already pointed out that philosophers have long proposed a eternal universe. That fact alone should have gave you pause before you announced it impossible. But no, Aristotle was just too stupid to realise a logical absurdly. Or perhaps you are just over stating your case.

If you don't know how it works, then you shouldn't be sitting there advocating the position that it DOES work.

The "it" you are referring to in "don't know how it works," isn't the position that I am advocating. It was a fantasy of your own creation. The position I am sitting there advocating works just fine philosophically, in the way you and I understand as how time flows in everyday life.

You are right, the scenario IS illogical because it is meant to demonstrate an illogical concept.

Good, well done beating that strawman down. So can we get back to what I was actually proposing now?

I don't need clarification on anything. But what I'd like for you to do is give an adequate response to the scenario.

Let me repeat it for your convenience: Your question/challenge is loaded, malformed and does not correspond to what I am proposing. There is no answer to your question/challenge. Try asking a question that does reflect my proposal.

You cannot arrive at infinity from a beginning point, nor you arrive at infinity from a beginning-less point.

Correct. That's why I am not proposing such things. Your questions and challenges were centered around these absurd concepts and does not reflect what I am telling you. That's why I've pointed out again and again, your questions are loaded and malformed.

I gave two scenario's, one was from a beginning point, and one was from a beginning-less point...and face it, you were not able to respond to either one. Plain and simple.

The record will show I did respond to them. My responds were, and still is, I have no answer to them because they are loaded questions. They are malformed and does not correspond to what I am proposing.

You call the scenario's illogical, but the scenario isn't any more illogical than the concept that it proving to demonstrate as absurd.

Your scenarios is illogical because it presuppose there is a beginning or an ending to a sequence that has not beginning or ending. My scenario does not propose a beginning or an end.

To prove an illogical position, I can only give an illogical analogy that reflects the position.

The problem here, is what you think is "the position" isn't the one I am proposing.

Now of course, you can say "but the scenario doesn't reflect reality"...but I CHALLENGE you to explain how it doesn't. But you can't.

Incorrect. I can and I did. Let me repeat it for your convenience: you were referring to some boundary point that doesn't exist in an infinite past. You were asking a loaded question, and a malformed one at that.

All you can do is make an entire post of "it doesn't make sense"...but yet you've made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to explain why it doesn't make sense.

Incorrect. The record shows otherwise. It's one thing to say you do not understand my responses, so they don't count as explanation to you, but to say I've "absolutely no attempt," well, that's takes it on to a whole different level.

Nonsense. In the "running" example, there was no beginning to the running at all. That was pointed out to you in the scenario, multiple times.

I know, that's why I said you knew full well there was no beginning. Yet you still referred to it, that's what made it all the more absurd.

1. An infinite amount of days to be traversed from
2. Traversing an infinite amount of days

Dude, they mean the same thing. SMH.

Dude. 1 is possible. 2 is impossible, they cannot be the same thing.

I fail to see how these distinctions negate anything that I've said.

It is the difference between the 1 and 2 you listed above, that means they are not the same thing. I thought it rather obvious.

Just response to the freakin' scenario. I'd prefer to see DIRECT QUOTES from the scenario instead of all of this lollygagging babble that has nothing to do with anything I said.

What I said has everything to do with what you said. Ask if you don't understand why I am saying the things I am saying, don't just call out "red herring" as if to hand wave it away; and don't just repeat the same things after I gave you a response to them.

Bruh, you are spending too much time focusing on the question instead of focusing on the alleged reality of worldview that the question corresponds too. If the question seems malformed/illogical is only because of the concept that it reflects.

I don't care about the worldview that these questions correspond to. It's not a worldview that I hold. I want you to focusing on the worldview that I do hold.

The question cannot be answered because it cannot happen. It is absurd. Now, unless you can tell me how the scenario DOESN'T accurately reflect the reality of the alleged actual situation (past eternity), then you simply have to admit that it can't happen.

Already done. Now you need to address my respond as to HOW your scenario DOESN'T accurately reflect the situation I am alleging. Repeating your original scenario again doesn't help.

I refuse to get distracted with red herrings. I said "how you figure it takes 5 days to traverse infinity is beyond me".

Respond to that, please.

I did respond to that. Repeated here for your convenience: "I have never proposed such a thing. It's a fantasy of your own creation." I know you saw it, you even quoted it right here. What's your excuse for claiming that I didn't response to you?

I said, if there was an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday, how would you arrive at Monday, from Friday.

Answer that, please. Either tell me how you can arrive at Monday, or simply say "I can't.

I can't.

I clearly stated I can arrive at Monday from Friday only because there is a finite amount of days between them. I know you've read it, why didn't it stick?

"You can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days"

Ok, so lets just take the bold quote above and ask ourselves this question; if all of the "days" in this "set" were in numerical order, with "today" being the highest numbered day in the set...what number would "today" be?

Today has to be highest number? Last time I proposed 0 for today, 1 for yesterday, 2 for two days ago and so on. But if you insist then I propose 0 for today, -1 for yesterday, -2 for two days ago and so on. Is that good enough?

LOL LOL LOL. You see, I could care less about the distinction that you made in your quote, because either way, you can't traverse infinity.

Well perhaps you should start caring so we can actually move beyond your strawman? No where have I said, nor implied such a thing as traversing infinity. On the contrary, I explicitly denied such a thing.

So are you agreeing that infinity cannot be traversed? You cannot traverse an infinite number of points to get to a specific point, right?

Correct. I stated that in the second reply I sent you, five days ago.

Because there can't be [infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday].

Good, we are making progress.

There would be [infinite amount of days between any two days], if the past is eternal.

I challenge you to present two days with an infinite amount of days between them, given the assumption of an eternal past. i.e. without presuming some beginning.

Do that or retract your claim.

The scenario wasn't given to reflect reality as it relates to a man-made calendar system. The scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point.

And I keep telling you - there is no beginning point in an infinite regress. I accuse you of referring to some non-existent beginning point. Guilty as charged.

Ok, and there was an infinite amount of days which preceded today, according to you...now, please answer the above questions.

Done and done.

I couldn't help myself...I've decided that intellectually owning you is more fun than ignoring you.

Well, I am glad you couldn't help yourself.

Um, probably from where you were told to stop, turn back around and run the opposite direct. Yeah, probably there.

No, you are not answering my question. This point where I am told to turn around is the same point you were referring to before, where you are standing on the road. I already know that much.

Where is the other point? This other point that is supposed to be "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that I reached when I met you (east)?"

You are referring to some non-existent beginning, aren't you?

Dude, it is simple. If you are at a football stadium and you are standing at the 0 yard line...and you walked from the 0 yard line to the 20 yard line, and stopped at the 20. If you turned around, and walked EQUAL distance in the opposite direction that you've walked to the get to the 20, where would you stop? Tell me.

It is simple. What is equal distance from your location going backwards that you've traversed going forward? Plain and simple.

I started at the 0 yard line walked 20 yard to the 20 yard line, turned around and walked equal distance i.e. 20 yards, I end up back at 0 yard line. That much is simple.

Notice how in this particular scenario you gave me two specific points, the 0 yard line and the 20 yard line, to measure from? In your original scenario you can only give me one specific point - where you are standing, where I was supposed to turn around. THAT is what made your challenge malformed. Where is the other point?

Bro, with all due respect, are you stupid? If the contention is that the past is eternal, that would mean that there is no BEGINNING...there is NO arbitrary starting point to the "set" of days which lead to today. You follow me?

Yes.

So, I gave a scenario, at which there was also NO starting point (of you running). Do you understand that?

Yes.

Do you not see the correlation?

Up to this point, sure, but then you jumped off the deep end and started referred to some non-existent starting point, when there is not supposed to be any starting point of me running.

Actually, the problem is, you are lying. In the running scenario, there was no starting point to the running.

Dude, you've even done it right here in this very post, and I quote "the scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point." You have the nerve to call me a liar?

What I noticed is a failure on your part to either under and/or adequately answer the questions.

That's hardly surprising give that the questions were malformed.

I wasn't aware that there was a solution.

That's where I come in. Tell me the two points I was supposed to be measuring from then I will give you an precise answer. Do that, or accept that the question is malformed and stop asking it.

Those are your problems, not mines. I am not the one positing the traversal of infinity...you are...

Incorrect. That's not what I am positing at all. I clearly labelled it as "a fantasy of your own creation" and yet you are still repeating this strawman.

And where is this phantom evidence?

Right here, you only need to scroll up and back page to see our entire conversation.

You said that, not me. You keep talking about false analogy this, and loaded question that. Yet you make said "an infinite amount of days can lead to today", while not realizing how absurd the statement is.

That's because it's not absurd at all. What is absurd, are statements along the lines of "an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday" or "traversing infinity."

That is like me telling you "if you take an infinite amount of steps down that road, it will lead to you getting a trillion dollars that will be all yours once you take those infinite amount of steps".

If you begin to walk down the road, do you ever think you will get to money? No. Because every step that you take, you are not getting any closer to the "money".

No problems there.

Yet, an "infinite amount of days can lead today". LOL.

LOL all you like. "infinite amount of days can lead today" does not mean the same thing as "infinite amount of days between day X and today." You kept attacking the latter with no effect on the former.

Please adequately respond to the "running man" scenario before you make such an empty statement.

Take about empty statement, so says the guy who says "LOL" as responds. Ironic.

How?

By being internally consistent.

And?

And that's the only way to come to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.

At least one. All that is required is one...occams razor..no need to go beyond necessity...only one cause is needed and there to go beyond what is necessary to explain the effect is...unnecessary.

Much better.

It does follow, the cause must be necessary...the argument makes a case for a necessary First Cause.

Not so fast, I was just granting you a beginning to this universe. Even if God created this universe, it doesn't mean God is the first cause, he could be 50 down the line, or 100 or 2000.

How about this....extremely intelligent...and we draw this conclusion based upon the mathematical precision that the universe is balanced on. No dummy (i.e. Mother Nature) can pull that off.

Better, but that's just the fine tuning argument with it's own counter-arguments, I won't repeat them here as my point you said it MUST be God but you cannot deductively rule out the alternatives.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's the scientific consensus, why would I not admit such a thing?

There are those that don't.

Some other universe that operates under different, purely natural rules.

That would still be physical reality, sir.

Why not both? No "G" word AND not synonymous with our physical reality.

But you just said above that it operates under "natural rules"...only physical reality operates under natural rules.

SMH.

That's impossible with questions that doesn't reflect the viewpoint that I hold to. Try asking questions that matches my viewpoint.

Your viewpoint is that it is possible for us to arrive at "today" after having traversed an infinite amount of prior days.

That is on the record.

Yep. That's one example of a loaded question.

Yet, that is precisely what you asked.

No it isn't. We only know there is a beginning to this universe because we now know the universe is expanding.

That would be true, if and only if we didn't have a historical record of guys like Thomas Aquinas and Gottfriend Leibniz making arguments for a finite universe hundreds of years before scientists were.

I've already pointed out that philosophers have long proposed a eternal universe. That fact alone should have gave you pause before you announced it impossible. But no, Aristotle was just too stupid to realise a logical absurdly. Or perhaps you are just over stating your case.

Any one can propose anything, sir. There is a difference between proposing something and making a case for something. Do we have a record of Aristotle making a case for a eternal universe? Any syllogisms?

We have those things from the guys that I mentioned above...they did more than just propose, they made actual cases. Cases that are still being used in apologetic circles to this very day.

The "it" you are referring to in "don't know how it works," isn't the position that I am advocating. It was a fantasy of your own creation. The position I am sitting there advocating works just fine philosophically, in the way you and I understand as how time flows in everyday life.

Ummm, what?

Good, well done beating that strawman down. So can we get back to what I was actually proposing now?

Yeah, lets get back to the "infinite days leading to today" absurd of a thing.

Let me repeat it for your convenience: Your question/challenge is loaded, malformed and does not correspond to what I am proposing. There is no answer to your question/challenge. Try asking a question that does reflect my proposal.

What proposal?

Correct. That's why I am not proposing such things. Your questions and challenges were centered around these absurd concepts and does not reflect what I am telling you. That's why I've pointed out again and again, your questions are loaded and malformed.

Again, if you are talking about your contention of "an infinite number of days lead to today", then please tell me how the scenario I gave mispresents your contention.

Your scenarios is illogical because it presuppose there is a beginning or an ending to a sequence that has not beginning or ending. My scenario does not propose a beginning or an end.

Nonsense. In the "running man" scenario, there was no beginning to you running..you never began to run in the scenario...so it is simply a lie to state that the scenario presupposes there is a beginning when there was none.

The problem here, is what you think is "the position" isn't the one I am proposing.

The scenario was in regards to a beginningless chain of cause/effect relations...which is would ultimately be a reflection of reality should there not be a First Cause.

Incorrect. I can and I did. Let me repeat it for your convenience: you were referring to some boundary point that doesn't exist in an infinite past. You were asking a loaded question, and a malformed one at that.

Notice the above quote states "you were referring to some boundary point that doesn't exist in an infinite past".

Yet, in post 20, the scenario states "Now imagine you are running on this road, running East. Imagine that you've been running for eternity, never stopping."

In the scenario, you were RUNNING FOR ETERNITY. So where is his boundary point that you CLAIM I said in regards to a loaded question???

Now, either you wasn't hip to the fact that "running for eternity" implies no boundary, or this is simply another one of your lies.

Now imagine you are running on this road, running East. Imagine that you've been running for eternity, never stopping.

Incorrect. The record shows otherwise. It's one thing to say you do not understand my responses, so they don't count as explanation to you, but to say I've "absolutely no attempt," well, that's takes it on to a whole different level.

I should of said "you didn't made no attempt to adequately respond"...since technically speaking, any lackadaisical response is still a, response.

I know, that's why I said you knew full well there was no beginning.

Right, and if an infinite amount of days lead to today, as you claim it could, then you "know full well that this would mean that there was no beginning".

Yet you still referred to it, that's what made it all the more absurd.

Still referred to what?

Dude. 1 is possible. 2 is impossible, they cannot be the same thing.

Empty statement.

It is the difference between the 1 and 2 you listed above, that means they are not the same thing. I thought it rather obvious.

More empty statements.

What I said has everything to do with what you said.

No it doesn't.

Ask if you don't understand why I am saying the things I am saying, don't just call out "red herring" as if to hand wave it away; and don't just repeat the same things after I gave you a response to them.

I call out red herrings as I see'em.

I don't care about the worldview that these questions correspond to. It's not a worldview that I hold. I want you to focusing on the worldview that I do hold.

All I know is, the statement "there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today" is logically absurd...and you made the statement.

Already done. Now you need to address my respond as to HOW your scenario DOESN'T accurately reflect the situation I am alleging. Repeating your original scenario again doesn't help.

If it was really "already done", I wouldn't be still looking for an adequate response to the scenario.

I did respond to that. Repeated here for your convenience: "I have never proposed such a thing. It's a fantasy of your own creation." I know you saw it, you even quoted it right here. What's your excuse for claiming that I didn't response to you?

You stated that it is possible for an infinite amount of days to lead to today.

I can't.

Of course you can't.

I clearly stated I can arrive at Monday from Friday only because there is a finite amount of days between them. I know you've read it, why didn't it stick?

But the problem is, you are under the false impression that you could have arrived at Monday after having traversed an infinite amount of days with no beginning....so the absurdity continues.

Well perhaps you should start caring so we can actually move beyond your strawman? No where have I said, nor implied such a thing as traversing infinity. On the contrary, I explicitly denied such a thing.

Yet you stated a few quotes above that the option of 1. An infinite amount of days to be traversed from was possible...which is the exact contention that you are denying right now.

You said that AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS TO BE TRAVERSED FROM IS POSSIBLE....now, in the quote directly above, you stated "No where have I said, nor implied such a thing as traversing infinity"

You are contradicting yourself because, you either don't fully understand the nature of infinity...or you are just being disingenuous, as you've been thus far.

I challenge you to present two days with an infinite amount of days between them, given the assumption of an eternal past. i.e. without presuming some beginning.

Do that or retract your claim.

I gave you a scenario at which there was no beginning, and you weren't able to adequately respond to my challenge regarding that. Until you are able to provide an adequate answer to basically the question of "what is equal distance to infinity", then you don't need to be issuing any challenges to me.

And I keep telling you - there is no beginning point in an infinite regress.

Right, which is why in the scenario there was no beginning to your running, correct? So the scenario reflects what you are claiming above. That is not the point of contention.

There is absolutely no reason for you to tell me that "there is no beginning point in an infinite regress" as if I am somehow advocating otherwise.

I gave you a scenario at which there was NO BEGINNING to an infinite regress, plus you have been quoted as telling me "you knew full well there was no beginning".

Well, if I knew full well there was no beginning, and I gave a scenario which reflects no beginning, why are you wasting your time, and my time, by implying that I have a contention that I don't have?

I accuse you of referring to some non-existent beginning point. Guilty as charged.

The scenario was of a person (you) that have been running for an infinitely long time on an infinitely long wrong. Where is a beginning point in the scenario of a person that was running for an infinitely long time?

More lies?

No, you are not answering my question. This point where I am told to turn around is the same point you were referring to before, where you are standing on the road. I already know that much.

Where is the other point? This other point that is supposed to be "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that I reached when I met you (east)?"

Bruh, that is the point!!! Equal distance...the distance that you traveled to reach me is infinite...it is an infinite "set"....if you cant traverse the same amount of points going the opposite direction and arrive at a SPECIFIC point of equal distance relative to where you stopped to get to me..you never really got to me in the first place.

You said that there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today (according to you, it could happen)...so that would mean that if you went back in time (day by day) and traversed the SAME AMOUNT of infinite days into the past that you traversed to get to the present, what day of the past would you end up at??

It is impossible to give a day when, no matter what day you give, there would have STILL been an INFINITE amount of days prior to even that day.

If you can't reach an equal amount of days relative to today going backwards in time, then how could you ever get to today...because the same thing will apply if we use the same concept when talking about future days.

So for example...if there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today (as you claim there could be)...if you were to travel to the future an EQUAL AMOUNT OF INFINITE DAYS relative to today what day would you stop at in the future??

Same problem. The only way you can arrive at any given point is for there to be a beginning....a past-boundary.

I started at the 0 yard line walked 20 yard to the 20 yard line, turned around and walked equal distance i.e. 20 yards, I end up back at 0 yard line. That much is simple.

Ok, so apply that same line of reasoning to the "running man" scenario...turn back around and travel equal distance that it took you to get to me in the middle of the road.

Notice how in this particular scenario you gave me two specific points, the 0 yard line and the 20 yard line, to measure from?

Right, which would mirror you starting from me (in the road), and going back equal distance. And it would also mirror you starting from today, and going back an equal amount of days into the past (or future).

In your original scenario you can only give me one specific point - where you are standing, where I was supposed to turn around. THAT is what made your challenge malformed.

You still don't understand what is going on here. This one specific point where I am standing represents TODAY!!!!

In the scenario, you arrived at me after having just traversed an infinite amount of steps, days, years, whatever.

In reality, we arrived at today having just traversed an infinite amount of days, years, whatever.

Do you not see the equivalency? How can the challenge be any less malformed than your view that it could actually happen?

Up to this point, sure, but then you jumped off the deep end and started referred to some non-existent starting point, when there is not supposed to be any starting point of me running.

The only starting point in the scenario is when you stopped after reaching me, and beginning to start running again the opposite direction after having just traversed an infinite number of steps to arrive at a specific step.

But the scenario BEGAN with you running for an infinitely long time. The scenario could have been for you to not stop at all when you got to me...you could have simply turned back around after you reached me without stopping, all while still running...therefore, there wouldn't be a starting point, would there? Yet the same problem would exist.

Dude, you've even done it right here in this very post, and I quote "the scenario was used as an arbitrary conceptual device to demonstrate that one cannot traverse infinity from a beginning point." You have the nerve to call me a liar?

Ok, I see the quote...but where is the lie?

That's where I come in. Tell me the two points I was supposed to be measuring from then I will give you an precise answer.

From (me), to the equivalent point the opposite direction that you TRAVERSED to get to me. Those are the two points. Now answer...more more dodgy-dodgy, flippy-flippy games?

Incorrect. That's not what I am positing at all. I clearly labelled it as "a fantasy of your own creation" and yet you are still repeating this strawman.

If you came from an infinite distance to arrive at a specific point, you should be able to go back the opposite direct you came and arrive at specific point of equivalent distance.

That's because it's not absurd at all. What is absurd, are statements along the lines of "an infinite amount of days between Friday and Monday" or "traversing infinity."

Or, "an infinite amount of days can lead to today"...that is what you said, right? The difference is, I said what I said to POINT out the absurdity...you said what you said because you don't realize the logical incoherency in making such a statement.

No problems there.

So, you admit that an infinite amount of steps wouldn't lead you to the money, you believe that an infinite amount of days can lead us to today? SMH.

LOL all you like. "infinite amount of days can lead today" does not mean the same thing as "infinite amount of days between day X and today." You kept attacking the latter with no effect on the former.

That isn't the point...but again, you admit that an infinite amount of steps wouldn't lead you to the money, you believe that an infinite amount of days can lead us to today?

Not so fast, I was just granting you a beginning to this universe.

Right, but the universes' existence couldn't have been a product of an infinitely long chain of cause/effect relations.

If you can't take an infinite amount of steps to get to the trillion dollars, how could a past-eternal chain of events ever get to the point of a universe existing?

Even if God created this universe, it doesn't mean God is the first cause, he could be 50 down the line, or 100 or 2000.

God himself is subjected to laws of logic...which would mean that God himself cannot walk an infinite amount steps and collect the trillion dollars. It is logically impossible. That point is key, because you think that multiplying prior causes somehow negates the problem, when it doesn't...not only doesn't it negate the problem, but it IS the problem.

Better, but that's just the fine tuning argument with it's own counter-arguments, I won't repeat them here as my point you said it MUST be God but you cannot deductively rule out the alternatives.

Bro, we are talking about the necessity of a First Cause. There had to be one cause which initiated all other causes. There has to be a beginning of all beginnings.

To not have a First Cause is to fall right back to the problem of infinite regression, and all of those scenarios which demonstrate the absurdity of infinite regression will be right back in play.

Thats the point, the God Hypothesis has more explanatory value than all other alternatives and if you think otherwise, then simply present the alternatives and we will see.

[Bust Nak]

There are those that don't.

Meh I am not one of those. Ironic statement coming from a creationist.

That would still be physical reality, sir.

But you just said above that it operates under "natural rules"...only physical reality operates under natural rules.

If you want to call it a physical reality, I have no objection. I said it was different natural rules to ours, that's why I choose to call it a meta-universe. I am perfectly happy to use terms you are more comfortable with.

Your viewpoint is that it is possible for us to arrive at "today" after having traversed an infinite amount of prior days.

Incorrect, I explicitly denied such a thing. Recall if you will, I stated "an infinite amount of days to be traversed from, as opposed to traversing an infinite amount of days."

That is on the record.

I challenge you to present a quote.

Yet, that is precisely what you asked.

Correct, I ask that question as an example of a loaded question, to illustrate my point that an inability to answer such questions is not a detriment to a viewpoint.

That would be true, if and only if we didn't have a historical record of guys like Thomas Aquinas and Gottfriend Leibniz making arguments for a finite universe hundreds of years before scientists were.

They were question begging arguments that only works if one presumes a finite universe.

Any one can propose anything, sir. There is a difference between proposing something and making a case for something. Do we have a record of Aristotle making a case for a eternal universe? Any syllogisms?

Why yes, we do have such records. In a book titled "Physics."

Ummm, what?

I was accusing you of a strawman argument.

What proposal?

Infinite regression obviously. i.e. The existence of an infinite number of days that lead up to today.

As opposed to traversing an infinite number of days from the beginning to today. The latter is clearly absurd.

Again, if you are talking about your contention of "an infinite number of days lead to today", then please tell me how the scenario I gave mispresents your contention.

I've already explained. That would be when you introduced the non-existent boundary, as well as the suggestion of some sort of traversal of an infinite amount of days, when my contention explicitly denied such things.

Nonsense. In the "running man" scenario, there was no beginning to you running..you never began to run in the scenario...so it is simply a lie to state that the scenario presupposes there is a beginning when there was none.

That much is fine until you start asking about some weird non-existent point. Consider the following question, "The Bible says God is eternal, but who created God?" Is the question any better for acknowledging God is supposed to be eternal?

That's what you are doing. "There is no beginning in an infinite regression, but how can you get from the beginning to the present?" The question is still malformed.

The scenario was in regards to a beginningless chain of cause/effect relations...which is would ultimately be a reflection of reality should there not be a First Cause.

That much is fine until you start introducing the weird beginning stuff and the traversing infinity stuff.

Notice the above quote states "you were referring to some boundary point that doesn't exist in an infinite past".

Yet, in post 20, the scenario states "Now imagine you are running on this road, running East. Imagine that you've been running for eternity, never stopping."

In the scenario, you were RUNNING FOR ETERNITY. So where is his boundary point that you CLAIM I said in regards to a loaded question???

That would be the point where I was somehow supposed to "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me (east)." Such a thing makes no sense given the I had been running for eternity.

To hammer the point home:

A: "The Bible says God is eternal, but who created God?"
B: "The question is loaded and doesn't reflect Christianity, your question refers to a non-eternal God."
A: "My scenario states clearly that God is eternal. Where is this non-eternal God that you CLAIM I said in regards to a loaded question???"
B: "That would be where you asked about a non-existent creator of God."

Now, either you wasn't hip to the fact that "running for eternity" implies no boundary, or this is simply another one of your lies.

Or you don't even understand what your own scenario is saying. I am pretty sure it is that.

I should of said "you didn't made no attempt to adequately respond"...since technically speaking, any lackadaisical response is still a, response.

Much better. You say my attempts to respond is inadequate, the stuff about how I can get to today is still being debate, so I'll let that slide. But you also challenged me to put a number to today and prior days. I respond with "0 for today, and -1 for yesterday." I noticed you don't have anything to add to what I said. I take it you found it adequate?

Right, and if an infinite amount of days lead to today, as you claim it could, then you "know full well that this would mean that there was no beginning".

Yep, I do know full well that this would mean that there was no beginning. Which I is why I objected strongly to this non-existent beginning, and accusing you of a strawman.

Still referred to what?

Some non-existent boundary point, this beginning that can't be there in an infinite chain.

I call out red herrings as I see'em.

Not good enough. Explain why you see them as red herrings.

All I know is, the statement "there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today" is logically absurd...and you made the statement.

Then prove it is logically absurd. Present a syllogism if you will.

If it was really "already done", I wouldn't be still looking for an adequate response to the scenario.

I can only conclude you didn't understand my responses.

You stated that it is possible for an infinite amount of days to lead to today.

Yes, I did. I can prove it too with a relatively simple deductive argument.

Of course you can't.

You say that like it's a problem. I have never suggested one would be able to traverse an infinite number of days.

But the problem is, you are under the false impression that you could have arrived at Monday after having traversed an infinite amount of days with no beginning....so the absurdity continues.

No, I am not under that impression at all. It is a fantasy of your own creation. You were informed of this on multiple occasion: I can arrived at Monday after having traversed an finite amount of days with no beginning. Quit with the strawman.

Yet you stated a few quotes above that the option of 1. An infinite amount of days to be traversed from was possible...which is the exact contention that you are denying right now.

Incorrect. An infinite amount of days to be traversed from, is a different contention to "having traversed an infinite amount of days." Again I point to the analogy with numbers - the former corresponds to having "an finite amount of numbers to count from" which is a different contention to "having counted from infinity." This is hardly controversial mathematically. Do you not see the equivalency?

You said that AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS TO BE TRAVERSED FROM IS POSSIBLE....now, in the quote directly above, you stated "No where have I said, nor implied such a thing as traversing infinity"

Correct. That alone should have been enough to tell you "an infinite amount of days to traverse from" is a distinct proposition to "traversing infinity." Somehow that is still not clicking. Is that really so hard to understand? Pay attention to what I said about the number line. People understands it with counting numbers, what is this blockage that is stopping you from generalising counting numbers to traversing days?

That is assuming you do understand the nature of infinity re: counting numbers.

You are contradicting yourself because, you either don't fully understand the nature of infinity...or you are just being disingenuous, as you've been thus far.

Alternatively, as I suggested before, I am much better at mathematics than you give me credit for.

I gave you a scenario at which there was no beginning, and you weren't able to adequately respond to my challenge regarding that. Until you are able to provide an adequate answer to basically the question of "what is equal distance to infinity", then you don't need to be issuing any challenges to me.

My responds were perfectly adequate, repeated here for your convenience - your challenge was malformed because at every point on the road I am running, the distance to you is finite; at no point is the distance infinity. Your challenge were referring to some non-existent point.

Sounds like you cannot meet my challenge. Do that or retract your claim.

Right, which is why in the scenario there was no beginning to your running, correct? So the scenario reflects what you are claiming above. That is not the point of contention.

There was an implication of a beginning in your scenario, despite you stating that there is no beginning. The scenario you proposed is internally contradictory and does not reflect the one I am proposing. That absolutely is the a point of contention.

There is absolutely no reason for you to tell me that "there is no beginning point in an infinite regress" as if I am somehow advocating otherwise.

But you ARE advocating otherwise by challenging me to measuring the distance between this non-existent point and where you are standing.

Well, if I knew full well there was no beginning, and I gave a scenario which reflects no beginning, why are you wasting your time, and my time, by implying that I have a contention that I don't have?

Loaded question cannot be answered. That you gave a scenario which reflect a beginning is exactly the problem. Your whole contention boils down to "I know there is no beginning, but since it is impossible to travelled infinite distances, you couldn't have travelled an infinite distance from the beginning to here, could you? LOL."

The scenario was of a person (you) that have been running for an infinitely long time on an infinitely long wrong. Where is a beginning point in the scenario of a person that was running for an infinitely long time?

There is none! That's the point, yet you kept referred to this point "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that I reached when I met you (east.)" That is the non-existent beginning point I am accusing you of referring to.

Bruh, that is the point!!! Equal distance...the distance that you traveled to reach me is infinite...it is an infinite "set"....if you cant traverse the same amount of points going the opposite direction and arrive at a SPECIFIC point of equal distance relative to where you stopped to get to me..you never really got to me in the first place.

This specific point doesn't exist, so kindly stop referring to it. That's why your question/challenge doesn't make sense.

You said that there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today (according to you, it could happen)...so that would mean that if you went back in time (day by day) and traversed the SAME AMOUNT of infinite days into the past that you traversed to get to the present, what day of the past would you end up at??

There is no such day! It doesn't exist in an infinite regression! That's the non-existent beginning that I accused you of referring to in your scenario. Guilty as charged.

It is impossible to give a day when, no matter what day you give, there would have STILL been an INFINITE amount of days prior to even that day.

It is impossible to give a day because there is no beginning to an infinite regression. That's not a problem any more than not being able to name the creator of God is a problem to Christianity.

If you can't reach an equal amount of days relative to today going backwards in time, then how could you ever get to today...because the same thing will apply if we use the same concept when talking about future days.

By going one day at a time, the same way we get to Monday from the previous Friday.

So for example...if there was an infinite amount of days which lead to today (as you claim there could be)...if you were to travel to the future an EQUAL AMOUNT OF INFINITE DAYS relative to today what day would you stop at in the future??

You will never stop, because there is no end in an infinite future. That's the point of having no boundary points.

Same problem. The only way you can arrive at any given point is for there to be a beginning....a past-boundary.

Incorrect. You can arrive at every given point is form every other point in an infinite regression. This is the same misconception that lead you to these weird points you are trying to make.

Ok, so apply that same line of reasoning to the "running man" scenario...turn back around and travel equal distance that it took you to get to me in the middle of the road.

That instruction doesn't make sense, where is this "equal distance that it took me to get to you" point? You can't tell me where that is, can you?

Right, which would mirror you starting from me (in the road), and going back equal distance. And it would also mirror you starting from today, and going back an equal amount of days into the past (or future).

That' still just one specific point - where you are in the road, where is the other point?

You still don't understand what is going on here. This one specific point where I am standing represents TODAY!!!!

That's one specific point, where is the OTHER specific point?!?!?! How am I supposed to tell you what the distance is, if you don't get me two points to measure? Talk about not understanding...

Let me try a different approach.

Imagine there was a road that was infinitely long in both directions...

<----------------------------------West East---------------------------------->

Now imagine I am running down this road, running West to East for eternity.

Imagine that as I am running, I see you standing in the middle of the road. Once I reach you, you tell me to stop and run the opposite direction (west). So far so good?

Once I've ran 1 mile, I am at point A on that road, I would have reach a distance of 1 mile (west,) which is the equal distance that it took me from point A to get to you.
I keep running for another 1 mile, to point B on that road, I would have reach a distance of 2 mile (west,) which is the equal distance that it took me from point B to get to you.
I keep running for another 1 mile, to point C on that road, I would have reach a distance of 3 mile (west,) which is the equal distance that it took me from point C to get to you.

Every point west on that road is the equal distance that it took me from that point to get to you.

Indeed, as soon as I take my first step after being challenged by you, I would have reach a distance of 1 metre (west,) with is the equal distance I travelled from 1 metre away to where I met you.

Now hand over the one trillion dollars you owe me.

In the scenario, you arrived at me after having just traversed an infinite amount of steps, days, years, whatever.

In reality, we arrived at today having just traversed an infinite amount of days, years, whatever.

BUZZ, again, this "traversed an infinite amount of days" is a strawman.

Do you not see the equivalency? How can the challenge be any less malformed than your view that it could actually happen?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that I think it could happend, is false. Your challenge is malformed, there is no reason to think it could actually happen.

The only starting point in the scenario is when you stopped after reaching me, and beginning to start running again the opposite direction after having just traversed an infinite number of steps to arrive at a specific step.

That's the problem right there. There is only one point, I need two point to measure from, that's why it is malformed. Give me two points.

But the scenario BEGAN with you running for an infinitely long time. The scenario could have been for you to not stop at all when you got to me...you could have simply turned back around after you reached me without stopping, all while still running...therefore, there wouldn't be a starting point, would there? Yet the same problem would exist.

And yet you want me to somehow measure the distance between you and this non-existent starting point, that you acknowledge wouldn't be there.

Ok, I see the quote...but where is the lie?

The fact is you were referring to a beginning, and yet your claim that "in the running scenario, there was no starting point to the running."

For the record, I didn't call it a lie. I would only accuse you of contradicting yourself over the course of a few paragraphs.

From (me), to the equivalent point the opposite direction that you TRAVERSED to get to me. Those are the two points.

Sounds very much like a non-existent beginning, doesn't it?

If you came from an infinite distance to arrive at a specific point, you should be able to go back the opposite direct you came and arrive at specific point of equivalent distance.

What's this about coming from an infinite distance? I never implied, let alone proposed such a thing. Did I or did I not repeatedly tell you, and I quote, "one can arrive at today from an infinite amount of days, only because there is finite amount of days between today and every single one of those infinite amount of days.

Or, "an infinite amount of days can lead to today"...that is what you said, right? The difference is, I said what I said to POINT out the absurdity...you said what you said because you don't realize the logical incoherency in making such a statement.

Incorrect, the difference is "an infinite amount of days can lead to today" is not logical absurd at all.

So, you admit that an infinite amount of steps wouldn't lead you to the money, you believe that an infinite amount of days can lead us to today?

No, you are still getting "an finite amount of steps that can lead to the money" and "travelling an infinite amount of steps to get to the money" mixed up. I am saying the former, not the latter.

I can't take an infinite amount of steps down a road to getting to a trillion dollars. But I can take a finite amount of steps one a road with infinite steps to get from any point to get to a trillion dollars. The distinction is very important, and is the source of your confusion.

That isn't the point...but again, you admit that an infinite amount of steps wouldn't lead you to the money, you believe that an infinite amount of days can lead us to today?

Incorrect. I am saying that an infinite amount of steps can lead me to the money, just as an infinite amount of days can lead us to today. There just isn't an infinite amount of steps between me and the money, nor is there an infinite amount of days between me as the running man and you in the road. What I did admit is that I cannot take an infinite amount of step to get to the money.

Right, but the universes' existence couldn't have been a product of an infinitely long chain of cause/effect relations.

If you can't take an infinite amount of steps to get to the trillion dollars, how could a past-eternal chain of events ever get to the point of a universe existing?

By taking one step at a time obviously. Again, I point to the number line. There are infinitely many integers, and yet each one of them is finite - I can count from any number to any number in a finite number of steps.

God himself is subjected to laws of logic...which would mean that God himself cannot walk an infinite amount steps and collect the trillion dollars. It is logically impossible. That point is key, because you think that multiplying prior causes somehow negates the problem, when it doesn't...not only doesn't it negate the problem, but it IS the problem.

That doesn't address what I was saying - even if I was to grant you your presupposition, that a creator of this universe exists and the creator is the Christian God, said god need not be the first cause. The general point being, stop saying it must be this and that, if you can't prove it deductively.

Bro, we are talking about the necessity of a First Cause. There had to be one cause which initiated all other causes. There has to be a beginning of all beginnings.

The point was, you can't even get to a God conclusion having been granted a finite past, I am saying even if there was a first cause, it need not be God.

To not have a First Cause is to fall right back to the problem of infinite regression, and all of those scenarios which demonstrate the absurdity of infinite regression will be right back in play.

Not so fast, you have yet to demonstrate any absurdity of infinite regression. What absurdities that have appeared in your posts, are the results of your introduction misconception, and you can't pin that on infinite regression.

Thats the point, the God Hypothesis has more explanatory value than all other alternatives and if you think otherwise, then simply present the alternatives and we will see.

I'd rather focus on infinite regression here. We can talk about what science say elsewhere.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If you want to call it a physical reality, I have no objection. I said it was different natural rules to ours, that's why I choose to call it a meta-universe. I am perfectly happy to use terms you are more comfortable with.

That is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that you are implying that physical reality can be used to explain the origins of physical reality...and you calling it a "meta-physical" reality doesn't negate such circular reasoning.

Incorrect, I explicitly denied such a thing. Recall if you will, I stated "an infinite amount of days to be traversed from, as opposed to traversing an infinite amount of days."

They both mean the same, and are both equally absurd...and if you think otherwise, give an analogy at which both concepts are described.

I challenge you to present a quote.

I would if I felt like it.

Correct, I ask that question as an example of a loaded question, to illustrate my point that an inability to answer such questions is not a detriment to a viewpoint.

And I said that any loaded question that I asked is a reflection of the irrational concept that I am describing.

They were question begging arguments that only works if one presumes a finite universe.

Um, no, the arguments shows the absurdity which would exist if one presumes an infinite universe.

Why yes, we do have such records. In a book titled "Physics."

Ok, well...give the syllogism(s) that I asked for, that you are appealing to.

I was accusing you of a strawman argument.

Oh, you were making false accusations, I understand now.

Infinite regression obviously. i.e. The existence of an infinite number of days that lead up to today.

Fine, so if you were to go back in time and traverse the same amount of days going backwards in time that is the equivalent to the amount of days that you traversed to get to "today", and placed a natural number on all of those prior days as you went back in time, what number would be the equivalent day?

As opposed to traversing an infinite number of days from the beginning to today. The latter is clearly absurd.

Both are absurd...and if you think otherwise, then simply answer the question above. You didn't have ANY problem answering the scenario of you walking 20 yards forward and backwards on the football field.

So you shouldn't have any problems answering the above question.

I've already explained. That would be when you introduced the non-existent boundary, as well as the suggestion of some sort of traversal of an infinite amount of days, when my contention explicitly denied such things.

Nonsense. That would be when I asked you to turn back around and travel equal distance going backwards that you traveled going forward...you should be able to answer that question just like you answered the "football" question.

That much is fine until you start asking about some weird non-existent point.

What non-existence point? If the equivalent point that you were asked to give me is non-existent (if that is what you are talking about)...if it is so obvious that such a point is non-existent, then it should be just as obvious that the present point (me standing/today) would also be non-existence.

And if you think otherwise...then simply give me the equivalent amount of days in the past.

Consider the following question, "The Bible says God is eternal, but who created God?" Is the question any better for acknowledging God is supposed to be eternal?

If God is eternal (meaning he never began to exist), then it is simply foolish to ask about God's creator.

I fail to see what that has to do with you not being able to answer a simple question, if your view of reality is actually true.

That's what you are doing. "There is no beginning in an infinite regression, but how can you get from the beginning to the present?" The question is still malformed.

Who said you can get from the beginning to the present in an infinite regression? I didn't.

Straw man / Red Herring.

That much is fine until you start introducing the weird beginning stuff and the traversing infinity stuff.

I never said anything about a beginning of an infinite regression. You are lying.

And please tell the audience why there is something wrong for me to talk about traversing infinity, when, if time had no beginning, an infinite amount of days would be traversed in order for us to arrive at "today".

That would be the point where I was somehow supposed to "equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me (east)." Such a thing makes no sense given the I had been running for eternity.

Wait a minute, so are you saying that it would make no sense for you to have been running for eternity and suddenly stop at any given point on the road? LOL.

To hammer the point home:

A: "The Bible says God is eternal, but who created God?"
B: "The question is loaded and doesn't reflect Christianity, your question refers to a non-eternal God."
A: "My scenario states clearly that God is eternal. Where is this non-eternal God that you CLAIM I said in regards to a loaded question???"
B: "That would be where you asked about a non-existent creator of God."

Red Herrings.

Or you don't even understand what your own scenario is saying. I am pretty sure it is that.

Yeah, accuse me of not understanding my own scenario to cover up the fact that you are unable to adequately answer the questions related to the scenario, which does an excellent job of exposing your logically absurd views on reality.

Much better. You say my attempts to respond is inadequate, the stuff about how I can get to today is still being debate, so I'll let that slide.

LOL. You don't have any choice but to let it slide. What can you possibly do? Give an adequate, well thought-out response to a logically impossible scenario? No.

The choice is not yours, sir.

But you also challenged me to put a number to today and prior days. I respond with "0 for today, and -1 for yesterday." I noticed you don't have anything to add to what I said. I take it you found it adequate?

LOL. I said apply a natural number to ALL of the days prior to today (all days of the past), in numerical order...and once you reach the equivalent amount of days as you count to the past (that we've traversed to get to "today"), you will arrive at a specific day of the past...and I want you to simply tell me what numbered day would that be.

You didn't do that...so no, I don't find it adequate. I mean, geez...you had no problems answering the "football stadium" thingy...now, you've got nothing to say?

At least nothing adequate.

Yep, I do know full well that this would mean that there was no beginning. Which I is why I objected strongly to this non-existent beginning, and accusing you of a strawman.

There doesn't have to be a beginning, that is irrelevant. All you are doing is simply going back in time and stopping once you reached equivalent distance going backwards that you TRAVERSED going forward.

And what is funny about all of this is; these are the SAME days that you passed to get to "today"...you are just simply re-tracing your footsteps and stopping at equal distance LOL.

What is so difficult about it? LOL. Either you can do it, or you can't. If you can, let me know...if you can't, then simply grant my point, realize that there had to be a beginning to time...and we can move on to other things.

Some non-existent boundary point, this beginning that can't be there in an infinite chain.

Was there a beginning to you running in the scenario? So what is the beginning?

Not good enough. Explain why you see them as red herrings.

Because I spend more time addressing your obvious distractions from the central issue than I do on the actual issues. Those are red herrings...distractions, diversions, smoke screens...all to take away from the fact that you are being check-mated....a lot.

Then prove it is logically absurd. Present a syllogism if you will.

No syllogism needed...all I have to do is repeat my task to you;

Apply a natural number to ALL of the days prior to today (all days of the past), in numerical order...and once you reach the equivalent amount of days as you count to the past (that we've traversed to get to "today"), you will arrive at a specific day of the past...and I want you to simply tell me what numbered day would that be.

Now, if the amount of days which lead to today is infinite, then there should be a clear and definite answer for you to give me.

If there is something that you don't understand about it, let me know, and I will clarify. But that question needs to be answered, though...you know, just like how you answered the "football" question...I expect the same thing here.

You say that like it's a problem. I have never suggested one would be able to traverse an infinite number of days.

Still contradicting yourself.

No, I am not under that impression at all. It is a fantasy of your own creation. You were informed of this on multiple occasion: I can arrived at Monday after having traversed an finite amount of days with no beginning. Quit with the strawman.

One contradiction after the other.

Incorrect. An infinite amount of days to be traversed from

is a different contention to "having traversed an infinite amount of days."

Bro, what the hell are you talking about??? You sit there and make this distinction as if one of those contentions is absurd and the other is just perfectly logical, when they both mean the same thing in the sense that to believe one is to imply the other.

If the past is eternal, then there were an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS TO BE TRAVERSED FROM...and since we arrived at today from an eternal past, we've traversed an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS.

The fact that we traversed an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS to get to today would mean that there was an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS TO BE TRAVERSED FROM.

I am trying to be as respectful as I can...but I really feel as if I am responding to complete and utter nonsense.

Again, either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you don't see the logical flaws in what you say...or maybe a little bit of both, but now it is quite sickening.

So now, what it all comes down to is simple; Either you can answer the questions above, or you can't. Plain and simple. This I will promise; if you are unable to answer the questions in your next post...I am done with this convo with you...and I mean it, this time.