The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

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

Got it?

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

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

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and finally..

The total amount of millenniums amounts to infinity..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bust Nak]

But the totality (set total) of all prior points leading to the present point is not only infinite, but each point would have to be traversed.

Right, what so difficult about that? Which point do you think can't be traversed?

And you are not going to arrive at any arbitrary point at any finite proper time, if you have to traverse an infinite set total to get there.

That's moot since I don't have to. Pick any two arbitrary points and you'll find that it takes a finite amount of time to get from one to the other.

By "fill up", I mean all of the space in the hole is to be filled...which is analogous to all of the prior days (which led up to today) to be "actualized", or..having come to past.

If that's what the analogy was suppose to represent then there is no "hole" instead you are standing on an infinite mount of sand.

Right, so the point is; you can't fill the hole because there is no bottom, just like you can never "fill the calendar with with X's", if you wanted to X off every day of the past on your calendar.

Or can I...?

Same thing I said above. If I can't "fill" a bottomless hole, then I also can't "fill" my calendar with X's, as I X off past days on an infinite time scale.

... Nah, that depends on if I am starting now, or if I have already been crossing the days off for eternity, having never begun.

If I am starting now, I will never be able to finish crossing off the whole calendar of the past.

On the other hand, have I had never begun, instead having always been crossing each day off for an eternity, then the whole of my calendar in the eternal past would have been crossed off.

Bro, if I can't fill the bottomless hole to the top (from the bottom up), then how can the bottomless past (no boundary, no beginning) reach the top (present moment) from the bottom up.

It can't. The very concept of bottom up of a bottomless hole/past is incoherent. But that's moot since we don't start from the bottom of a bottomless hole/past; we don't start at all, having always been doing it.

Regardless of whether or not the hole is actually being filled, the sand that is being shoveled is PRESENTLY falling, and the man shoveling the sand is also PRESENTLY shoveling.

Each of those actions represents CONSTANT, PRESENT change..which is analogous to the constant, present change of natural reality.

If that's the case the hole would represent the future, not the past.

And?

And the analogy doesn't work.

The point is, it will never be filled in his present state of shoveling, just like our present moment could never come to foundation-less past.

What do you mean come to a foundation-less past? Is there a typo?

Our present moment could have came FROM a foundation-less past.

So basically, you are saying that one can traverse infinity, in a finite amount of time...

Incorrect. I am not saying that at all. I am saying one does not need to traverse infinity to reach the present given the premise that there is an infinite past.

You are coming across as too disingenuous for me.

Don't blame me for your misunderstanding, I've looked to the end of the post, both of your attempts at "you are saying/claiming..." turned out to be not what I am saying at all.

I understand you have to stay true to your naturalist worldview, but it shouldn't come at the expense of logic/reasoning.

That's fine because naturalist worldview is perfectly logical.

And the more I talk to you, that appears to be the case.

Well, it would hardly surprise anyone to find out that what "appears to be the case" to you, isn't the case.

Naw, its worse than counter-intuitive, it is logically absurd, and this absurdity remains..regardless many "meh"s you'd like to give.

You say it's logically absurd, so tell me how many integers there are, then tell me how many even numbers there are.

Second, saying that there are "twice as many integers as even numbers" (whatever that means) is irrelevant, considering the fact that ultimately, they both have the same amount.

Sure, yet there are twice as many integers as even numbers, just as there are 60 minutes to an hour. These are hardly controversial claims.

if you had an infinite amount of $100 bills..and I had an infinite amount of pennies..technically, we have the same amount of money, despite the values of our currencies being different.

This is a clear absurdity that cannot happen in reality..and if you can't acknowledge this, then I can't help you, sir.

But I can help you! Lets see if I can help you understand how it's perfectly logical. First tell me how much money do I have, then tell me how much money you have.

On naturalism, the past doesn't have a boundary...

Incorrect. On naturalism, the past does have a boundary, re: big bang.

in the example, the pit doesn't have a boundary. Yet, you are claiming the pit is absurd, but the boundaryless past isn't?

Of course not. I have claimed no such thing. Instead I said the bottom of a bottomless pit is absurd. A bottomless, boundary-less pit is perfectly fine.

I never said anything about no "beginning of eternity".

Right, but that's probably what you had in mind when you said the present cannot be reached, because you failed to specify reach the present from what point.

My argument is independent of the physical world/universe. So any mention of an expanding universe (or whatever), is irrelevant.

Right, but my point was since your argument fails, so it's time to drop them and switch to science, something that is dependent on the physical world/universe, an expanding universe.

Are you granting this? Go ahead, make my day...

Sure, I can grant you that, if events such as water boiling counts as water ending and steam starting, as opposed to an continuous entity existing in different form.

Nonsense. It can't be eternal in time, no.

Well, it ISN'T eternal in time, whether it can be or not, depends on if you are talking about cosmology or metaphysically, abstract time can philosophically/logically be eternal.

I've already demonstrated why events in time cannot be past-eternal.

Well, tried to demonstrate anyway... Care to give it another go?

Dude, it is a space-time continuum. The universe is all STEM. You can't have matter without space..and you cant have changes in the matter/energy without time...it is the totality of the four which makes the universe...and you can't have either without the other...not naturally.

I thought you were focusing on the abstract concept of an eternal past, independent of the physical world/universe?

If you are going to appeal to the physical universe like I suggested, then I've already granted you that the past is finite - stretching to about 14 billion years.[/b]

[Divine Insight]

It's far more rational to acknowledge that simple systems can naturally evolve into more complex systems with no need to have any intentional designer behind them.

The only systems we know of that can achieve this, with an unambiguous origin, are creatively designed ones.

That's simply not true. It's no wonder your logic isn't making any sense. You are assuming premises that simply aren't true.

[William]

[Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

You overstep. There are all sorts of theories of origin of the universe and none which are simply true and thus can be shown against that which is contrary and 'simply not true'.

[Divine Insight]

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

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

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

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

I need to chime in on this one because currently mathematicians and our formal mathematics has this all wrong.

This is known as Zeno's Paradox. Zeno was simply arguing that if space is a continuum (i.d. infinitely divisible) then motion would be impossible.

Hi DI, thanks for the comment.

Yes, QM has some very counter-intuitive implications that are also pretty hard to deny in light of its incredible predictive power.

I'm hardly an expert, but the implication of QM seems to be that our world really has a "maximum" level of resolution, where objects occupy discreet "spaces" (like on a game board) on discreet "turns".

I am not entirely convinced of this on a metaphysical level, though (pragmatic/scientific, sure). It raises some strange problems, geometrically. For example, if you have two objects move perpendicular to one another by 1 planck length each, the growth of distance between the objects would be, by the Pythagorean Theorem, the square root of 2 planck lengths, which is not discreet.

As I understand things, QM would register this length as either 1 or 2 planck lengths, not something in between (perhaps because genuine perpendicular movement is impossible?- it's hard to wrap my head around that). As for which value returned, it would be probabilistic. But if that's the case, then I am not so sure how it solves Zeno's problem.

Actually the answer to this apparent problem has to do with Einstein's General Relativity.

The reason that you are instantly thinking that this would be a problem is no doubt due to thinking of the fabric of spacetime as being absolutely rigid (a Newtonian or Classical intuition of an absolute spacetime). And it certainly would be a problem within that context.

But you need to remember that not only is QM true, but so is GR. So this apparent problem of a violation of Pythagorean Theorem at the quantum level doesn't actually apply. Why? Because according to GR everything is relative and not absolute.

In other words, you are imagining that every quantum pixel of Planck length and Planck time must be absolutely rigid and non-malleable (a Newtonian or Classical picture of the world). In other words, you are assuming (and I suggest incorrectly) that a unit of Planck length or Planck time must be absolutely constant relative to every other unit of Planck length or Planck time. But this doesn't necessarily need to be true. In fact, I strongly suspect that it's not true, and GR actually suggests that this is indeed the case.

So the answer then is that the Pythagorean theorem both, holds true, and doesn't hold true at the quantum level.

How can it be both you might ask?

Well, the bottom line is that it's simply not possible to actually "measure" a Planck Length or Planck time in any absolute macro way. Therefore these quantum units of distance and time are not as "constant" relative to what we actually measure in the macro world as we had imagined them to be.

So because of this, different Planck lengths and Planck times are going to be different relative to each other under different macro situations. In other words, not all Planck lengths and Planck times are necessarily commensurable with each other under all macro circumstances. And this is actually what gives rise to the incommensurability of macro distances that the Pythagorean Theorem reveals.

You might think that this doesn't make a lot of sense because the Pythagorean Theorem can be deduced using "Pure Logic" and therefore cannot have anything at all to do with how any so-called Planck units might behave in an actual physical world.

But here's the answer to that riddle: The Pythagorean Theorem makes the incorrect assumption at the beginning that all units of length and time must be commensurable. In other words, the Pythagorean Theorem is based on the assumption that the underlying units of length and time are indeed Newtonian or Classical in nature. (i.e. they are non-malleable). Therefore the Pythagorean Theorem begins with this assumption. And so when the Pythagorean Theorem reveals that this is not the case (i.e. demonstrates that under certain circumstances length and time reveal a relative non-commensurable nature) this seems shocking! How could that be? Time and space are supposed to be absolute, and non-malleable! That was the premise! But now we see that they must be malleable and not absolute. Oh dear! What so ever shall we do?

Mathematicians are still in shock over this one to this very day.

But it's really not a problem at all. They simply made incorrect assumptions some 2500 years ago and haven't gotten over it since.

The answer was given to us by Albert Einstein in Special and General Relativity. Spacetime is simply not absolute, it's a relative fabric of 4 dimensions. This is the answer, yet it's still not fully appreciated today, especially by the mathematical community. In fact, the mathematical community is still treating irrational quantities as though they represent some sort of absolute quantitative value. Even today they don't yet understand the cause of irrational quantities. And this is because they aren't even aware that they had made a grave mistake some 2500 years ago.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

DI, bro...regardless of what you say about entropy, you will agree that, despite it (entropy), things are STILL happening, right?

Things HAVE happened...and things will continue to happen, in time, REGARDLESS OF entropy of any theories you have regarding the direction/arrow of time.

I am talking about the things that HAVE happened, and the things that will CONTINUE to happen...the totality (set amount) of those things cannot be an infinite "set".

And nothing that you've said negates this fact...that is why, as I stated before; philosophical arguments are independent of the physical state of the Universe.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I need to chime in on this one because currently mathematicians and our formal mathematics has this all wrong.

This is known as Zeno's Paradox. Zeno was simply arguing that if space is a continuum (i.d. infinitely divisible) then motion would be impossible.

Everyone saw Zeno's argument as being absurd because motion is clearly possible. And they also refused to give up the notion that space cannot be infinitely divisible.

However, they were all wrong and Zeno was indeed right. And physics has even discovered the truth of Zeno's argument in the quantum nature of reality.

Mathematicians still believe they have "solved" Zeno's paradox by having invented Calculus. But that's actually false. Calculus in no way resolves Zeno's paradox. All it does is pretend to resolve it by using a clever mathematical trick to arrive at the result you would get if you did indeed skip over infinitely many points.

And according to Quantum Mechanics, that's exactly how our world works. Our universe is not a continuum, it's a quantum universe.

So Zeno was right all along. Space is not a continuum and we don't pass through an infinite number of points. We actually make a quantum leap over points. The universe is discrete, and this is what Quantum Mechanic has revealed.

So let me get this straight; are you saying that we make this quantum leap (whatever that means) over an infinite amount of points? Yes or no?

But unfortunately or modern day mathematicians are all wrong. They didn't solve Zeno's paradox. All they did was figure out a trick to get the answer without having to consider an infinite number of points in between.

Think about it. To pass a Calculus course is there ever a time when you need to actually add up an infinite number of numbers? No of course not. If you had to do that you'd still be doing it! You'd never get to the answer.

Wow, you've just made my point for me and you don't even know it. LOL.

The reason you pass a Calculus course is because you have learned a quantum trick to jump to the answer without any need to add up an infinite number of numbers.

So Zeno was always right. And there is no "paradox". It would only be a paradox if motion was possible in a continuum. But our universe clearly isn't a continuum. So it's not a paradox that we can move within a quantum universe.

I ask again; are you saying that we make "quantum leaps" by successfully traversing infinity? Yes or no?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Then motion would be impossible.

Well, that's what Zeno was arguing.

So, let me get this straight..Zeno argued that motion is impossible, while living on a rotating Earth?

LOL!! SMH.

Don't conflate abstract math with the physical world. Your mind can skip from 1 to 2 arbitrarily, but when your body changes location can it skip all the space between?

Um, what are you talking about, sir? If I can skip all of the infinite points in between 1 and 2, by merely leaping over these points to arrive at 2..then I should be able to count all of the points in between 1 and 2, and STILL arrive at 2.

Either way, infinity is being traversed (theoretically)...but why am I allowed to do it in one case, and not the other.

Thus, the absurdity of infinity.

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

That would be the point of calling it a paradox.

"I am driving over to your house, to tell you to your FACE that motion is impossible".

LOL.

Depends how you define "eternal". If "eternal" means "for all time" and time is finite, then eternity is finite.

Are there any other definitions of "eternal". Do tell..

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

Um, finite time means it had a beginning.

I didn't say otherwise.

If time itself is finite, then all things are finite in time, and everything has a beginning whether you call it "God" or anything else.

I actually agree with you...but here is a newsflash; me agreeing to that point doesn't negate anything that I said in the argument.

[Divine Insight]

So let me get this straight; are you saying that we make this quantum leap (whatever that means) over an infinite amount of points? Yes or no?

Yes and no.

Yes we make a finite number of quantum leaps between points.

Yes we jump over an infinite number of "imaginary abstract points" that don't actually exists beyond the imagination of humans

And finally, no, we don't actually jump over an infinite number of actual physical points. That whole idea is nothing more than an imaginary abstraction.

Obviously your arguments are based on the premise that you can apply totally abstract mathematical ideas to physical space and time as though that should be accepted as Gospel Truth. But the real truth is that our abstract mathematics and our actual physical universe are two entirely different things.

In fact, if our universe had to obey our mathematical formalism it would instantly crash and burn. Our universe does not obey our made up rules of mathematics. To the contrary, our made up mathematical formalism crashes and burns when it tries to describe our universe in full.

You seem to be thinking that mathematics somehow represents "absolute truth". That's a very misguided notion right there.

But unfortunately or modern day mathematicians are all wrong. They didn't solve Zeno's paradox. All they did was figure out a trick to get the answer without having to consider an infinite number of points in between.

Think about it. To pass a Calculus course is there ever a time when you need to actually add up an infinite number of numbers? No of course not. If you had to do that you'd still be doing it! You'd never get to the answer.

Wow, you've just made my point for me and you don't even know it. LOL.

I can't imagine how. Unless you are going to demand that the universe is indeed an infinite continuum that cannot be reduced to quantum mechanics. But I think you'd quickly lose that debate.

The reason you pass a Calculus course is because you have learned a quantum trick to jump to the answer without any need to add up an infinite number of numbers.

So Zeno was always right. And there is no "paradox". It would only be a paradox if motion was possible in a continuum. But our universe clearly isn't a continuum. So it's not a paradox that we can move within a quantum universe.

I ask again; are you saying that we make "quantum leaps" by successfully traversing infinity? Yes or no?

We never successfully traverse any infinity. That's Zeno's whole point. In fact, Zeno is saying that if we had to traverse an infinity in order to move from point A to point B, then we could never move. Therefore there must NOT be an infinite number of points between A and B since we CAN move.

So Zeno is basically arguing against a continuous universe and arguing for a discrete quantum universe.

In a sense Zeno was actually among the very first quantum physicists. Zeno discovered the quantum nature of the universe using pure logical reasoning long before scientists confirmed that he was actually right.

Unfortunately Zeno has never been given proper credit for his amazing discovery and proof. In fact, Mathematicians are still under the erroneous and totally false belief that Zeno was actually wrong, when in fact Zeno was right.

And your arguments are based on the current wrong idea that the universe can still be considered today to be a continuum, when in fact we now know that we live in a quantum universe.

In fact, you are basically making the same argument that Zeno made, but without realizing what it actually means.

[Guy Threepwood]

It's far more rational to acknowledge that simple systems can naturally evolve into more complex systems with no need to have any intentional designer behind them.

The only systems we know of that can achieve this, with an unambiguous origin, are creatively designed ones.

That's simply not true. It's no wonder your logic isn't making any sense. You are assuming premises that simply aren't true.

Are you contesting that hierarchical digital information systems like the ones running this forum are not intelligently designed?

Or are you proposing that the hierarchical digital information systems operating life arose, in stark contrast, by a materialistic process that is currently scientifically verifiable?!? you would have to argue this with any scientist at the cutting edge of abiogenesis, it's a complete mystery. The only position a materialist can take here is that they are content to wait for a 'better explanation' than ID to come along one day. .. inadvertently conceding which explanation is currently best

That's not to say it is impossible, it simply does not enjoy the same standard of scientific verification as the former, it is pure philosophical speculation, no way around that..

[FarWanderer]

Don't conflate abstract math with the physical world. Your mind can skip from 1 to 2 arbitrarily, but when your body changes location can it skip all the space between?

Um, what are you talking about, sir? If I can skip all of the infinite points in between 1 and 2, by merely leaping over these points to arrive at 2..then I should be able to count all of the points in between 1 and 2, and STILL arrive at 2.

Now we're getting even more off course. Zeno's paradox has to do with movement in physical reality. Then you for some reason decided to compare it to abstract "movement" between numbers, as if the two things work the same way. And now you are comparing one abstract "movement" to another.

Either way, infinity is being traversed (theoretically)...but why am I allowed to do it in one case, and not the other.

If we are talking about the abstract versus the physical (as we ought to be), it's because you can "traverse" from 0 to 5 billion in your mind without any constraint, but if you want to travel 5 billion miles in one second then the laws of physics will have something to say about that.

Depends how you define "eternal". If "eternal" means "for all time" and time is finite, then eternity is finite.

Are there any other definitions of "eternal". Do tell..

You were the one insisting that "eternal" necessarily means infinite in time.

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

Um, finite time means it had a beginning.

I didn't say otherwise.

If time itself is finite, then all things are finite in time, and everything has a beginning whether you call it "God" or anything else.

I actually agree with you...but here is a newsflash; me agreeing to that point doesn't negate anything that I said in the argument.

So then God has a cause?