The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

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

Got it?

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

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

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and finally..

The total amount of millenniums amounts to infinity..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

The fact that you are even asking this question is a clear testament that you really don't have a clue what is going on..and you need not be telling me that the analogy don't work based on this ignorance.

However, I am here to help you, with another analogy that you already fell victim to..about a year ago..

This analogy was laid out in my first thread of P2, which got shuffled to the "Random Ramblings" forum (its all good, tho).

The analogy is as follows..

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.

Now, to answer your question; "Which point do you think can't be traversed", the answer is: I don't think ANY point can be traversed on an infinite time scale, for the same reasons laid out in the analogy.

Just take any arbitrary point on the infinite/eternal timeline, lets call this point X (of course)..this point can represent any moment, hour, year, event, etc..in our universes' history.

Now..X was reached, ONLY after traversing prior points, right?

Now, you have an infinitely long timeline in both directions (past and future), with point X as the placeholder. Now here is the task; from the position of point X, either fast forward...or REWIND all preceding OR forward points, and STOP at the specific point where you will reach EQUAL distance relative to point X (placeholder).

Do you understand?

Now, the question is; what point would you stop at, once you've reached this "equal" distance.

Tell me. This is another dead-end for naturalism.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

But the points (any arbitrary event in our universes' history) is not "imaginary, abstract points". They actually happened, and each point had to be traversed, in time.

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.

Right, we DON'T jump over them...we have to traverse every...single...point. Every single event, every single second (hour, day, month, year, etc)...we would have had to traverse EVERY SINGLE one of them in order to arrive at the present moment...which is demonstrably impossible on an infinite timescale.

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.

Bro, we are talking about infinity..and isn't that what naturalists claim that natural reality is, infinite??

That is the reality of the situation, if the physical world was truly past eternal, you get absurd results..don't blame me, blame the absurd position lol.

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.

I will have to disagree with you there, based on the argument from design, which shows how our universe is fine-tuned with mathematical precision, and such precision is best explained by intelligence, rather than chaos/disorder.

That, my friend, is where the reallll conversation involving entropy will come in to play. But that is a debate for another day.

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

That is just complete and utterly false. Mathematical truths ARE absolute truths, and these truths are necessary truths on earth, and even in HEAVEN.

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.

Bro, quantum mechanics doesn't scare me.

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.

Sooo, Zeno agrees with ME, that we can't traverse infinity. We agree to that point..sooo, why are we having this conversation, again?

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.

I had my own way of concluding that infinity cannot be traversed, and I did this WITHOUT help from Zeno. So please explain to me, based on that fact, how Zeno realized what it "actually means", and I don't.

[William]

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

Is that what this is about?

This universe cannot have always existed?

btw did you miss post # 45 or are we all good on that?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

My paradox also had to do with movement in a physical reality (simulated)...and my paradox actually reflects the REALITY of a past-eternal universe, unlike Zeno's.

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.

But that doesn't reflect reality...you just said it...from 0 to 5 billion...but in the alleged actual, past-eternal universe...there is no 0 point to start anything.

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

It does..but it can also mean "timelessness" (or, atemporal). As it relates to the universe, it means "infinite in time"..but as it relates to God, it means "timelessness".

So then God has a cause?

My bad, I read that wrong. Of course I DON'T believe that God had/has a cause, despite my agreeing with you that all things are finite in time (things that began to exist).

I will explain this more in the threads that follow.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Is that what this is about?

This universe cannot have always existed?

Bingo, amigo.

btw did you miss post # 45 or are we all good on that?

Naw..we ain't good at all

Actually, we are good on some things..

Okay so you are trying to create an analogy in which time does not exist, everything in the analogy, while being different aspects, is still all the same timeless thing.

How is anything in the analogy timeless, when there is constant change (shoveling, sand falling)?

The man is the shovel is the sand is the hole is the abyss because all these are equally timeless, eternal, infinite.

Well, they are all equally eternal/infinite...but neither are "timeless", as they can't be, with all of the motion/movement going on.

The present is really all that is, and the movement is not itself representative of time, because there is no time.

How can you move continually without time?

The confusing thing is the entrance to the hole and the bottomless pit...why are these part of the analogy?

The entrance to the hole is arbitrary, as it has no significance besides allowing the man to partake in the paradox with the shoveling.

The bottomless pit is analogous to a beginningless past.

Is it because of the sand and the shovel? What is the man attempting to do?

Also, where does the sand come from?

With all due respect, Will..but those questions are irrelevant. One need not know where the stuff came from or what the man was doing in order to "solve" the paradox or understand the implication of the analogy.

Obviously it is just there and is infinite, but then I have to wonder as to the existence of the man, because the man is not the sand so how can the man and the sand and the shovel coexist in the same space?

You can ask these same questions about the universe, which is said to be past-eternal/infinite.

Even that the space has to be infinite, it also has to be full of sand. One could argue that it cannot ever be full because *infinity* but it must be full if there is an infinite supply of sand.

True, infinite sand equals infinite space...or, we can imagine that the man can magically allow sand to manifest from the thin air...therefore, infinite space is negated.

But either way, that only adds to the absurdity, doesn't it?

Even if one took the man and shovel out of the analogy, there is still the problem of the hole in which the sand falls into...the existence of the hole tends toward showing that the sand is not infinite, because there is a hole in which it drops into...and the hole is also infinite, so we have a problem.

How can both the infinitely empty hole and the infinite quantity of sand co-exist without cancelling each other out as far as the idea of infinity goes?

If you change the scenario so that it can "make sense", then you would have to do the same thing to make the alleged past-eternal universe make sense. The bottomless hole needs to exist as long as the alleged past-eternal universe is beginningless.

Each acts as boundary for the other.

And boundary = 'not infinite'.

Actually - upon reflection, it may be that we cannot have one without the other, because alone these are not infinite.

Exactly!! You can't have one without the other..you can't have matter (sand) without space..otherwise, where would you put it?

And you can't have matter and space without time, otherwise; when would you put it?

Space-time continuum. All space, time, energy, and matter HAD to have arrived simultaneously. No other way around it.

One cannot have an infinity of sand without a hole in which the sand can fall through into an infinity of space, thus the two systems would actually be just one system which is infinite. Two aspects of one system.

EXACTLY!!!! Although I disagree with the "infinite" part, only if you are talking beyond the analogy but with respect to natural reality, in general. But if you are talking strictly about the analogy..you've hit the nail right on the head.

Mad props.

[Divine Insight]

But the points (any arbitrary event in our universes' history) is not "imaginary, abstract points". They actually happened, and each point had to be traversed, in time.

Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

You're living in the past. Your arguments require that the universe is a continuum. So your arguments don't apply to the universe in which we live.

I see no point in continuing with this discussion when you refuse to acknowledge our modern understanding of the world in which we live.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by For_The_Kingdom]

How is anything in the analogy timeless, when there is constant change (shoveling, sand falling)?

Because movement in an infinite setting wouldn't involve time. = 'Timelessness'.

Time is measurable through movement in our universe because it is not an infinite universe, or perhaps more to the point, because that which does the measuring is not inhabiting infinite forms.

The man is the shovel is the sand is the hole is the abyss because all these are equally timeless, eternal, infinite.

Well, they are all equally eternal/infinite...but neither are "timeless", as they can't be, with all of the motion/movement going on.

But as pointed out, your analogy has them as infinite, so therefore the movement doesn't signify time in the sense that we measure it.

How can you move continually without time?

In an infinite setting? Time is irrelevant. Movement happens without time. Movement isn't restricted to time. Otherwise one would have to say that all things are simply frozen in a moment of time in an infinite setting, including thought and creativity.

If you were in a body which didn't decay, in this universe, and this universe was infinite and eternal, would you not be able to move, think or create things? What if the universe wasn't eternal or infinite, but your form was? Would you still be unable to move or create or think etc?

The entrance to the hole is arbitrary, as it has no significance besides allowing the man to partake in the paradox with the shoveling.

Well then that is very significant, because without the hole, the sand cannot move.

The bottomless pit is analogous to a beginningless past.

The hole is analogous to a beginning, without doubt.

The bottomless pit itself is not infinite as it has boarders (the walls which allow it to be a pit) so it is only infinite in one particular direction - a linear one.

With all due respect, Will..but those questions are irrelevant. One need not know where the stuff came from or what the man was doing in order to "solve" the paradox or understand the implication of the analogy.

On the contrary. The analogy has to be correct in the first place - as a premise - otherwise faulty 'solutions' can be drawn from incorrect/unclear premise.
Also, I go by the name 'William' as in "I Am as I Will".

You can ask these same questions about the universe, which is said to be past-eternal/infinite.

That depends upon the analogy, and it is the analogy I am questioning.

If you change the scenario so that it can "make sense", then you would have to do the same thing to make the alleged past-eternal universe make sense. The bottomless hole needs to exist as long as the alleged past-eternal universe is beginningless.

I must have missed the part where the analogy you created was to argue against the idea of this universe being eternal. I was under the impression you created the analogy in order to somehow prove the existence of an eternal universe which had no beginning...

Each acts as boundary for the other.

And boundary = 'not infinite'.

Actually - upon reflection, it may be that we cannot have one without the other, because alone these are not infinite.

Exactly!! You can't have one without the other..you can't have matter (sand) without space..otherwise, where would you put it?

You are aware that space is made of matter...apparently not...

Essentially this means that there is mainly matter in this universe. So in answering your question 'Where would you put it' we can only conclude that space = the universe and is contained within a container, perhaps in that the container is infinite...but certainly it is currently bigger than the observable universe.

Whatever contains the universe isn't observable.

You are thinking that space is different from matter, and so matter is 'put' into space.

The universe is one thing.

In that, whatever is containing the whole expanding universe could be regarded as your 'space', but it is an unknown space outside of the universe...but could explain the reasons for virtual particles as in 'where these continuous particles which perpetually instantly come and go from and to'... they serve to stabilize the nature of this universe.
If that were the case, then the non-virtual matter that is observed could be regarded as the 'matter' and the infinite container as the 'space' and thus time/space is not the same thing but two different things. Time is that which is attached to the movement of the matter and space is the container that the matter is unfolding within. Time and matter of this universe are non-infinite and space is infinite and timeless and the container for the matter for the duration of its time.
Thinking about it, I would have to say that one would have to include the idea of this universe's time/space as one thing and the infinite container of that, as another thing and the virtual particles as possible evidence of those two spaces interacting with each other...the finite interacting with the infinite...

And you can't have matter and space without time, otherwise; when would you put it?

'When' is only relevant from inside a finite setting. There is no 'when' in relation to some 'time' if - for example - the universe was created from/within an infinite eternal setting.

From our perspective within the universe, the age of the universe appears to be roughly 14 billion years, which of course is literally no time at all in relation to the idea of infinity.

Space-time continuum. All space, time, energy, and matter HAD to have arrived simultaneously. No other way around it.

Which your sand shoveling-man analogy does not portray. To align with your above statement, the whole amount of sand would have to have been dumped through the hole, instantly and also cannot have been an infinite amount of sand in relation to the observable universe, unless of course that which is not observed goes on infinitely, which might be possible if not for the beginning event plus entropy.

One cannot have an infinity of sand without a hole in which the sand can fall through into an infinity of space, thus the two systems would actually be just one system which is infinite. Two aspects of one system.

EXACTLY!!!! Although I disagree with the "infinite" part, only if you are talking beyond the analogy but with respect to natural reality, in general.

Wherein your analogy is this 'natural reality' you refer to?
Also - since your analogy is dealing with the idea of infinity, (which is what I was understanding you were attempting to use it for) there is no 'beyond' infinity.

Simply put, all things finite have to exist in an infinite field or container.

What I was saying is that the sand, shovel and man do not have to be part of the analogy...they can be removed from it because they confuse things unnecessarily.

All that is required is an infinite setting (the container) which has within it, every thing which exists, even multi universes, or an infinite number of universes.

Whereas your hole connection between your bottomless pit and the infinite it is connected to, gives the appearance of being attached to the outside of the infinite setting. It cannot be outside infinity. It can only be contained within infinity. It does not have to be infinite itself to exist within the infinite, but cannot exist outside the infinite.

Are we getting any nearer to being on the same page here?

Why our universe might exist on a knife-edge | Gian Giudice

[Bust Nak]

The fact that you are even asking this question is a clear testament that you really don't have a clue what is going on..and you need not be telling me that the analogy don't work based on this ignorance.

I don't know why you keep assuming ignorance when people disagree with you. While you are here, can you answer some of my other questions?

How many integers do you think there are?
How many even numbers do you think there are?
Are there twice as many integers as there are even numbers?

However, I am here to help you, with another analogy that you already fell victim to..about a year ago..

You know, I remember now that you mentioned it, you said there was money for me back then too, but still haven't paid up after all this time. I would really love to get that sort help, I could do with some free cash. Thanks for the reminder, I went and hunted down that tread by the way, because I am vindictive like that, last time you offered one trillion dollars. Doesn't seem like much has been added to your reasoning since that time almost two years ago.

Infinite road: Imagine a east/west road...infinitely long in both directions... 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??

One step away. At that point, the distance there (heading East) from my current point (where we are standing) would be exactly one step; which happens to be EQUAL to the distance I have to travel to get there - one step. I am now taking that one step...

I am now EQUAL distance (heading east) from my previous point (where we were standing,) I am ready to collect my gazillion dollars. Incidentally, one step is within grabbing distance of you, should you decide you want to back out of paying.

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...

But I can reach a point one step away:

How far are we apart? One step.
How many steps did I take to get from where we were standing to where I am now? One.
Is one step equal distance to one step? Yes.
And finally, as an aside, does the above changes depending on whether the road is infinitely long or have a definite start and finish? No.

so if you can't reach an equal distance relative to the current point going backwards (east)...

Well I can, and now you owe me money. Pay up.

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.

Technically 0, as 0 is exactly 0 step away from my current position, but that's no fun, so I would rather make a show of taking that one step, perhaps in slow motion while humming "Chariots of fire," before asking for my money.

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?

1 or 2 or any other number I would care to pick. Each and every single numbered day would qualify as "a day in that past of which we traversed to arrive at 'today.'"

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?

Sure. And if I've been walking for an eternity on an infinite football field and I reached the 0 yard line where you tasked me to walk in the opposite direction (from the direction I was travelling) of EQUAL distance from the 0 yard line... for 1 gazillion dollars, where could I collect my money?

I could collect anywhere I like!! See how stupid that challenge is?

You can travel equal distance from any point, ONLY if there is another point of reference (beginning point).

Sure, and one reference point is where you stopped me in the road and offered me free cash (beginning point,) the other is any arbitrary point one cares to choose. I choose 1 step away.

If you never began in the first place, it is impossible to "stop" equal distance of something with no original point of reference.

Right, so pick some reference points, any two would do. I'll even let you choose for your next attempt with an analogy.

If you can't move "equal" distance going backwards...

But I can, so pay up.

Now, to answer your question; "Which point do you think can't be traversed", the answer is: I don't think ANY point can be traversed on an infinite time scale, for the same reasons laid out in the analogy.

Well they weren't logical reasons, so do you still think there are ANY point that can't be traversed on an infinite time scale?

Just take any arbitrary point on the infinite/eternal timeline, lets call this point X (of course)..this point can represent any moment, hour, year, event, etc..in our universes' history.

Now..X was reached, ONLY after traversing prior points, right?

So far so good...

Now, you have an infinitely long timeline in both directions (past and future), with point X as the placeholder. Now here is the task; from the position of point X, either fast forward...or REWIND all preceding OR forward points, and STOP at the specific point where you will reach EQUAL distance relative to point X (placeholder).

Do you understand?

Well no, what's this about all preceding OR forward points? A point EQUAL distance relative to point X (placeholder), wouldn't cover all preceding OR forward points. Your challenge is therefore incoherent. This is the kind of misconception I was referring to in my earlier post as "bottom of a bottomless pit" or the "beginning of eternity," now we can add the "end of eternity" to the list.

It's no good challenging me to go back in time to some "beginning of eternity," because there is no such thing as the beginning of eternity; as such of course I cannot go back to the beginning of eternity, and I didn't come from there in the first place.

There are however plenty of points that are EQUAL distance relative to point X (placeholder,) would you like to ask that instead? Try a coherent challenge and you will see how trivial it can be answered.

[For_The_Kingdom]

But the points (any arbitrary event in our universes' history) is not "imaginary, abstract points". They actually happened, and each point had to be traversed, in time.

Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

You're living in the past. Your arguments require that the universe is a continuum. So your arguments don't apply to the universe in which we live.

I see no point in continuing with this discussion when you refuse to acknowledge our modern understanding of the world in which we live.

I already told you, quantum mechanics doesn't scare me. Naturalists like to portray quantum mechanics as this special "thing" that is allowed to defy logic and reason.

2+2 is 4, regardless of any physical or spiritual reality..and necessary truths (like mathematical) truths doesn't stop being true just because people like you say the magic words of "quantum mechanics".

Now, as I keep stressing..the bottom line is; things are happening in this universe. Events are constantly coming to past..and if the universe is eternal, these "events" have been going on for eternity, in time.

As long as this is the case, then my argument applies...and it applies REGARDLESS of whatever reality that you decide we are in; whether it be on Earth, Heaven, or wherever.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Because movement in an infinite setting wouldn't involve time. = 'Timelessness'.

Time is measurable through movement in our universe because it is not an infinite universe, or perhaps more to the point, because that which does the measuring is not inhabiting infinite forms.

What? Bro, there is no such thing as motion without time. Geez, I was just giving you props on your understanding..now you are proving me wrong.

If an object is moving, it is moving at a speed (X)..and what is speed?..it is distance over time.

So what you are talking about, I don't know.

But as pointed out, your analogy has them as infinite, so therefore the movement doesn't signify time in the sense that we measure it.

And if the universe (STEM) is past eternal, what does that say about the universe? Again, everything you say about the analogy as a critique, I can say the same about the actual physical universe.

Yet, here we are, living in the universe. SMH.

How can you move continually without time?

In an infinite setting? Time is irrelevant. Movement happens without time. Movement isn't restricted to time. Otherwise one would have to say that all things are simply frozen in a moment of time in an infinite setting, including thought and creativity.

So, for every movement, can't the question be asked "How long did it take to move"? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is yes. And as long as the question can be asked, the time element is there..and will always be there.

If you were in a body which didn't decay, in this universe, and this universe was infinite and eternal, would you not be able to move, think or create things? What if the universe wasn't eternal or infinite, but your form was? Would you still be unable to move or create or think etc?

I don't understand the question.

The entrance to the hole is arbitrary, as it has no significance besides allowing the man to partake in the paradox with the shoveling.

Well then that is very significant, because without the hole, the sand cannot move.

That is irrelevant to the GIVEN analogy and the implications from the analogy...as it parallels an alleged past-eternal universe, in time.

The bottomless pit is analogous to a beginningless past.

The hole is analogous to a beginning, without doubt.

Not an absolute beginning.

The bottomless pit itself is not infinite as it has boarders (the walls which allow it to be a pit) so it is only infinite in one particular direction - a linear one.

Bro, again..you are talking complete irrelevance right now. The is BOTTOMLESS, ok? The fact that there is "walls which allow it to be a pit" is completely IRRELEVANT to the fact that it has..no...bottom.

Point blank, period.

With all due respect, Will..but those questions are irrelevant. One need not know where the stuff came from or what the man was doing in order to "solve" the paradox or understand the implication of the analogy.

On the contrary. The analogy has to be correct in the first place - as a premise - otherwise faulty 'solutions' can be drawn from incorrect/unclear premise.

The idea/notion of a past-eternal universe has to be "correct in the first place". Everything the alleged past-eternal universe has, so does the analogy. You can't critique the analogy while also not critiquing the universe

Also, I go by the name 'William' as in "I Am as I Will".

Mannn, please.

If you change the scenario so that it can "make sense", then you would have to do the same thing to make the alleged past-eternal universe make sense. The bottomless hole needs to exist as long as the alleged past-eternal universe is beginningless.

I must have missed the part where the analogy you created was to argue against the idea of this universe being eternal.

Umm..reading comprehension. The premise is "The universe began to exist". What did you think was going on with that?

I was under the impression you created the analogy in order to somehow prove the existence of an eternal universe which had no beginning...

Ohhhh wowwww. Simply..wow.