The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hello, folks

Lets get right to it. First off, throughout this thread, I predict we will be using the word "universe" a lot. In this argument and throughout this thread, when I say "universe", I mean its true, literal definition; everything that physically exists.."the Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

By universe, I mean all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). I will be using STEM/universe interchangeably throughout this thread.

Now, after having (in my opinion) provided good, positive reasons why P1 is logically, intuitively, necessarily true...and I now move to P2..

P2 The universe began to exist

I will prove why we have good, philosophical (logical) reasons as to why the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

To begin my case, I will use a thought analogy (a simple one, for now)..

Imagine a universe at which literally nothing existed, besides space and darkness. No physical matter exists, no god exist...literally...NOTHING exists

Now imagine that this "nothingness" has been "nothing" for eons..forever...past eternity.

Capeesh?

Now, from these circumstances, is there the potentiality for something to exist? If P1 is true, then the answer to the question is obviously no. There isn't the remotest potentiality for something to exist under these circumstances.

Now, based on the truth value of this^, it follows that since we know that things DO exist (STEM), then, it follows that these things which DO exist couldn't have come "from" a state of nothingness.

So, what does this mean? It means that mere existence (the state of existing) is logically, positively, absolutely NECESSARY.

Existence is necessary...SOMETHING has to have always existed. Something..

Why? Because if existence can't come from non-existence, then it follows that things that "begins" to exist can only come from prior existence (which goes back to P1).

So again, something has to have ALWAYS existed...something out there is eternal...as existence, itself, is logically necessary.

Now, there are at least two candidates that can fit this "I am eternal" bill..

1. The universe (Stem): "I am the universe, and I am eternal"
2. Something outside the universe (God): "I am God, and I am eternal"

Those are the ONLY two games in town..if someone can think of a third option (or more) I'd be glad to hear it. However, I think you will be hard pressed to find any other candidate that doesn't fall under 1 or 2.

As you can see, both 1 and 2 are making statements...the problem is; one of them are lying, and one is telling the truth.

This thread is all about me proving why one is lying (the universe), and the other one is telling the truth (God). It is common knowledge that most monotheistic religions believe that God is eternal. Unbelievers/naturalists often ask "If God can be eternal, then why can't the universe be eternal".

Answer: It is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be eternal. Literally, logically, IMPOSSIBLE.

And I can/will prove this, right now..

So why is it impossible for the universe to be eternal?

Answer: because infinite regression is logically absurd. Think about it; the universe is all STEM. Well, STEM is constantly undergoing stages of change (in time).

Wait a minute, before we go any further, lets define our terms. I mentioned that infinite regression is logically absurd, but what is infinity? There are two types of infinity that are recognized by scholars...

1. Potential infinity: potential infinite is a group of numbers or group of “things� that continues without terminating, going on or repeating itself over and over again with no recognizable ending point.

An example of potential infinity is, if I asked you to count from 1 to infinity...you would count and count, but you would never "reach" the end, as there will always be one number ahead of the others.

2. Actual infinity: actual infinite involves never-ending sets or “things� within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically “completed� but consists of an infinite number of members.

An example of an actual infinity would be if you told me you had a "set total" of all natural numbers at your house. This, however, is impossible, because you cannot have a "set total" of infinity, as it cannot be "possessed".

http://sites.middlebury.edu/fyse1229pis ... -infinite/

Let me emphasize: an actual infinity is logically impossible. You can't have an infinite amount (a set total) of anything. You can't have an infinite amount of baseball cards, marbles, cars, money, etc.

However, you can have a potential infinite amount of something (marbles, baseball cards, cars, etc).

Now, the bolder point is this; when I say it is logically impossible to have an infinite amount of something, this logical applies to even God himself...as it is impossible for even GOD to have an infinite amount of something.

And if God can't do it, then no one can do it.

Now, back to the universes' "I am eternal" statement. This is a lie. Why? Because, when the universe makes such a statement, there are certain implications that arise as a result.

Universe: "I am eternal" <----what are the implications of this statement..

Think about it: an eternal universe would mean that the totality of all changes in the universes' history would equate to INFINITY..now as we all know; "history" implies time...and the argument is that "time" itself cannot be past eternal (infinite).

However, there are some people on here (and academia) who would prefer that we get bogged down with technical conversations regarding the "nature" of time and such.

I choose not to get bogged down, so, instead of using "time" as the protagonist of the argument against infinite time...I will instead use "events in time" as the protagonist.

That way, my argument isn't dependent upon your particular theory of time. The point is, there COULD NOT have been an INFINITE number of changes (events) which lead up to the current change (present day change) of events. This rule of thumb applies, regardless of which theory of time suits your fancy.

Now, moving along. The argument is simple; every day, there are a sequence of events which leads to the present sequence of events. If the past is eternal, there would have to be an infinite amount of past events which lead to the current event (today).

But this is impossible, because one cannot traverse infinity to arrive at any specific "event".

Again, the logic is simple; today is 9-10-18. We've arrived at today, from a sequence of events from "yesterday". Now, if the past is eternal, the amount of days which preceded "today" is infinite. But how can you traverse an infinite amount of "yesterdays" to arrive at today?

Arriving at today, after coming from an infinite amount of "yesterdays" would mean that you've successfully traversed an infinite amount of "days" to arrive at this current day.

But this could never happen, because infinity cannot be traversed!! So it can't happen.

Consider the following analogy..oh, btw, Bust Nak fell victim to these analogies..as I have two analogies that helps drives home this point..

Infinite road: Imagine a east/west road...infinitely long in both directions..and imagine. Now imagine, if you've been running WEST on this road for ETERNITY. You've never "began" to run, and you've never "stopped" running...you've just been running, forever.

Capeesh?

Now, imagine...as you are running, you see me standing along the side of the road at a distance, and when you reach me, I stop you..and I say "Bro, turn around, and run the OPPOSITE direction (east), and once you reach EQUAL distance (heading east) from your current point (where we are standing), there will be a gazillion dollars waiting for you".

Upon hearing this, you turn around and begin to run east, the direction that you've just come from.

Now the gazillion dollar question is: At what point will you stop at this so called "equal distance" to collect your gazillion dollars??

Now, the issue here is rather simple; first off, there is no equal distance to infinity, so you can't reach an "equal distance" here...so if you can't reach an equal distance relative to the current point going backwards (east), then there is no possible way you could have ever reached me (or any arbitrary point) on the road, moving west. It is impossible. To say otherwise, is to say that infinity can be traversed, and if you think this to be the case...then I challenge you to place a natural number for every step you take on this road, and tell me what number will be placed on the magic number of your last step to reach the money.

We can apply this same concept to the universe. If there were an infinite amount of "days" which led to today..and we placed a natural number on every single day which led up to today..and our goal is to travel back in time to arrive a the single "day" in the past, of which we traversed to arrive at "today"...what day would this be? And what number?

It is impossible. We can only arrive at a specific "day" (today), if we've traversed only a FINITE amount of days.

To show how this works..if you are on the 0 yard line on a football field and walked 10 yards, and stopped...and you were tasked to walk the opposite direction (from where you arrived at the 10), of EQUAL distance...where would you stop?

You would stop at the 0!! See how that works? You can travel equal distance from any point, ONLY if there is another point of reference (beginning point). If you never began in the first place, it is impossible to "stop" equal distance of something with no original point of reference.

If you can't move "equal" distance going backwards, you can't reach ANY distance moving forward...which is why, the very FACT that we've arrived at today, is because of only a finite amount of prior days which, of course, preceded it.

BTW, Bust Nak was a victim of this analogy. Poor kid ain't been the same sense lol.

But wait, there is more..see part 2

[For_The_Kingdom]

If there are any misspellings, bad grammar, etc...my bad.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

Also please avoid making negative comments about others.