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]

I don't know why you keep assuming ignorance when people disagree with you.

For the same reason you people (evolutionists) keep assuming ignorance of me whenever I disagree with evolution. Doesn't feel good, does it? BTW, don't take "for the same reason" literal. Take it as a linguistic device lol.

Second, if you think infinity can be traversed, you are more than ignorant (lacking knowledge), you are just flat out WRONG.

While you are here, can you answer some of my other questions?

Sure.

How many integers do you think there are?
How many even numbers do you think there are?

Answer to both: an infinite amount

Are there twice as many integers as there are even numbers?

No. Even numbers are also integers

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.

*Looks to see if the "equal" point of infinity was identified*. Nope. Moving along.

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. 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.

First off, this is a case of you either misunderstanding the analogy, or me not explaining it properly. Either way, it is a crying shame. But there is a fix..let me just clarify..that..

You are tasked with running in the OPPOSITE direction and traversing every single point that you previously ran THROUGH before you arrived at my location, and STOPPING once you've reached equal distance.

Do we have an understanding now? Are we clear?

Second, despite my clarification, your answer is STILL wrong. What do you mean, one step? If you've been running for eternity and stopped at a point, and you turned around and ran equal distance, where do you get the idea that "equal" distance is one step?

Simply nonsensical thinking.

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

Makes no sense whatsoever.

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.'"

Nonsense. Yesterday is not "equal distance" of all traversed days it took to get to today. Do you see that? ALL. ALL. ALL days. Not one day. Not two days. ALL days.

Now, if that wasn't explained to you then, it is explained to you now.

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?

Nope, but here is a challenge; I challenge anyone to make sense of what he (Bust Nak) is talking about...as it is complete and utter nonsense.

If anyone is up for the challenge and is successful, not only would I be shocked..but I will be impressed.

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.

Alright..I am gonna give you one more time, to adequately address my clarifications of the analogy. If you can't do that, then I have to simply stop talking to you.

I refuse to keep entertaining this complete and utter nonsense you are coming at me with.

[William]

[Replying to post 70 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

I am answering your question, which was;

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

Your analogy involves movement in an infinite setting, which you claim involves time.

I am saying that time is irrelevant in an infinite setting, regardless of movement.
In a finite setting, yes time is relevant to movement.

Moments still occur in an infinite setting but it would be insanely pointless to count them off.

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.

Well, before you say 'the same' we have to get on the same page, right? I am still trying to clarify exactly what your analogy is supposed to be exampling. Until that is established as understood and mutually agreed upon, we cannot even get into the juice of your argument about this or any other universe.

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.

Not in relation to the eternal and the infinite, see?

Imagine you were infinite. You never had a beginning and will never have an ending. You have simply always been.

Would you wonder what time it is? Would you measure time by the movement of things around you, or you are involved with?

If you did, it would have to be in the context of the finite, right? You would measure how long something took to start, complete and finish, right?

Lets say you are an infinite setting, and that is your fundamental nature.

You are consciousness and your consciousness is the infinite setting.

All things you create in that setting have a beginning.
Lets refer to these things you create as 'universes'.

Let say you create each one separate from the others except where you have decided to partly or fully merge two or more universes.

Lets say that there are an infinite number of such universes, most are created to be finite - to 'have a duration'.

You could 'measure time' in relation to these individual universes and the movement within each one shows you how time is unfolding - not in relation to your setting, but in relation to the individual universes, from each of their beginnings onward...to their ends.


In that way time can be measured within an infinite setting, in relation to the universes being observed as movement, but not in relation to the infinite setting itself.
So time would count as it were in relation to those things which are involved with time, having a beginning, a midway and an end point.

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

So your analogy has to do with the idea that this universe is eternal?

The idea of this universe being eternal is not that it continues on infinitely, but begins and eventually ends and then transforms into another universe.
The argument therefore is that the quantum potential somehow reacts, creates itself as a universe - goes through the motions - dissipates eventually and becomes inert quantum potential.

One best not conflate the quantum stuff AS being the universe. It is simply the potential. The universe is the [ongoing through time] materialization of form. Quantum potential is not form. It is formless. It is material without form.

Thus, the idea is that quantum is eternal...but not infinite.

It cannot be infinite because it continues an endless cycle of beginnings and ends, reinventing itself in that process once it comes to the end of what it can create (forms) with what it is and thus has available to work with, materially speaking.

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.

I think I understand the problem here. You seem to be conflating eternal with infinite.

Yes, the bottomless pit is eternal. That would represent the process of the quantum material for this universe, recreating a beginning, and an end cycle for all eternity.

The sides of the pit which are finite, represent the total quantum material available for that eternal universe recreation process, which is finite. The quantum materiall making up this universe is not infinite, but the recreation process of beginnings and ends can be eternal.

That in itself is not hard to grasp as far as concepts go. What isn't able to be easily explained is what started that process in the first place.

A claim that it [the process] has been going on eternally is harder to grasp.

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

If that is the premise, then something caused the universe to begin to exist.

Mannn, please.

I am not ignoring your obvious rudeness For_The_Kingdom. Rather, I am deciding not to allow it to distract from the argument at hand.

Ohhhh wowwww. Simply..wow.

I am so looking forward to your next exciting P3 conclusion part of your argument, as I really am interested in where you are going with all this re;

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Which apparently you haven't been noticing throughout this exchange, I have been agreeing with. My problem has been in trying to get clarification from you related to your sand-shovel-man analogy regarding this idea.

Intuition
1. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
2. Nothing cannot create something.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.

There is such a reality as no thing. I cannot say the same about nothing.

But anyways, hopefully some time soon you will dazzle us all with the grand P3 conclusion to your argument. Rhetorically sorry that I, William, have been obviously impatient in that department. Call it my way of prepping.

[Bust Nak]

For the same reason you people (evolutionists) keep assuming ignorance of me whenever I disagree with evolution.

That doesn't work because ignorance on evolution is not an assumption. On multiple occasions you made mistakes about the basics of what evolution says, in some of the occasions you even accepted that you were mistaken.

Second, if you think infinity can be traversed...

Assuming by "infinity can be traversed" you mean something like travelling from the beginning of eternity to the present, then no, I don't think that.

Answer to both: an infinite amount.

So far so good. Next question do you think that's absurd? If not then why did you say it's absurd that both of us can have an infinite amount of money, with me holding $100 bills, while you hold $1 bills?

No. Even numbers are also integers

What on Earth are you suggesting here? Somehow that means there are not twice as many integers as there are even numbers?! Are there more vehicles than buses, bearing in mind that buses are also vehicles?

*Looks to see if the "equal" point of infinity was identified*.

What does "the equal point of infinity" suppose to mean? You are thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

You are tasked with running in the OPPOSITE direction and traversing every single point that you previously ran THROUGH before you arrived at my location, and STOPPING once you've reached equal distance.

Do we have an understanding now? Are we clear?

No, it's decidedly unclear - equal distance to what exactly? You are thinking of equal to the distance from the beginning of eternity to the present, aren't you?

If you've been running for eternity and stopped at a point, and you turned around and ran equal distance, where do you get the idea that "equal" distance is one step?

You didn't specify equal distance to what, so I picked a distance: one step. One step is equal distance to one step, are you bold enough to suggest that one step is not equal distance to one step?

Nonsense. Yesterday is not "equal distance" of all traversed days it took to get to today.

What does "equal distance of all traversed days it took to get to today" even mean? Distance require two reference points: one is today, that much is clear; what is the other one? You are thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

Do you see that? ALL. ALL. ALL days.

Well, I did not, you said equal distance to where we are now, you said nothing about all days at all until you mentioned something about rewinding all preceding points. At which point I said there is such thing as a point in the time that preceding all points in an eternal past, and that you were thinking of "a beginning of eternity" which is as absurd as the bottom of a bottomless pit.

Now, if that wasn't explained to you then, it is explained to you now.

It's still not good since it's still not clear. Equal distance to what? What does "equal distance of all traversed days it took to get to today" mean? What is "the equal point of infinity?"

Nope, but here is a challenge; I challenge anyone to make sense of what he (Bust Nak) is talking about...as it is complete and utter nonsense.

If anyone is up for the challenge and is successful, not only would I be shocked..but I will be impressed.

If anyone feels like explain this to For_The_Kingdom, I suggest you try something like this: Forgetting physical constrains such as dying of old age for the moment, one can count from each and every single one of the infinitely many integers, to any one of the infinitely many integers. It can be easily proven that there is a final gap between any pairs of numbers, as such one can (in the metaphysical sense) be counting for an eternity having never begun counting, having counted ... -3, -2, -1 to arrive at zero, then carry on forever 1, 2, 3...

Alright..I am gonna give you one more time, to adequately address my clarifications of the analogy. If you can't do that, then I have to simply stop talking to you.

You say that like it hasn't already been addressed some two years ago, nothing has changed since then. As for stop talking, feel free to do that, you know I like having the final word.

I refuse to keep entertaining this complete and utter nonsense you are coming at me with.

Well I have so far entertained the complete and utter nonsense you have came up with, and it sounds to me you are ready to let me have the final word? I am going to paraphrase what I said two years ago:

Everything For_The_Kingdom has on offer in this debate can be boiled down to one "gotcha" question - "if the past is eternal then how do you get to here?" Get here from where, I asked, "somewhere equal distance" apparently. But equal distance to what? He wouldn't say because he knows he couldn't say "the beginning of eternity" even though that's exactly what he had in mind.

Without specifying equal distance to what, or get here from where, i.e without two reference points, his challenge is malformed and can have no answer. And some how he thinks a lack of an answer to a incoherent request is enough to carry his point.

[polonius]

If something exists, then something has always existed.

Otherwise, something came from nothing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Your analogy involves movement in an infinite setting, which you claim involves time.

I am saying that time is irrelevant in an infinite setting, regardless of movement.
In a finite setting, yes time is relevant to movement.

Moments still occur in an infinite setting but it would be insanely pointless to count them off.

Ok, the gist of what you are saying is "time is irrelevant in an infinite setting"...ok, that is the way you feel...but the truth value of the statement doesn't negate the conclusion of any the analogies.

The implication and conclusion is not fazed by you concluding that "time is irrelevant".

Well, before you say 'the same' we have to get on the same page, right? I am still trying to clarify exactly what your analogy is supposed to be exampling. Until that is established as understood and mutually agreed upon, we cannot even get into the juice of your argument about this or any other universe.

Bro, I told you what the analogy is supposed to be sampling. It is supposed to be sampling NATURAL reality (the universe), over its history.

Not in relation to the eternal and the infinite, see?

Imagine you were infinite. You never had a beginning and will never have an ending. You have simply always been.

Would you wonder what time it is? Would you measure time by the movement of things around you, or you are involved with?

If you did, it would have to be in the context of the finite, right? You would measure how long something took to start, complete and finish, right?

Well, first of all..as the analogy demonstrates, I don't believe one can be "infinite in time". That is the whole point of the analogy, demonstrating why this CAN NOT be the case.

Lets say you are an infinite setting, and that is your fundamental nature.

You are consciousness and your consciousness is the infinite setting.

All things you create in that setting have a beginning.
Lets refer to these things you create as 'universes'.

Let say you create each one separate from the others except where you have decided to partly or fully merge two or more universes.

Lets say that there are an infinite number of such universes, most are created to be finite - to 'have a duration'.

You could 'measure time' in relation to these individual universes and the movement within each one shows you how time is unfolding - not in relation to your setting, but in relation to the individual universes, from each of their beginnings onward...to their ends.

In that way time can be measured within an infinite setting, in relation to the universes being observed as movement, but not in relation to the infinite setting itself.
So time would count as it were in relation to those things which are involved with time, having a beginning, a midway and an end point.

I don't understand what you are implying...either way, the fact of the matter is simple; on naturalism, the universe never began to exist, and the past is eternal.

I've given two scenarios which demonstrate why this cannot be the case..and so far, I've seen nothing to undermine either analogy..so as far as I'm concerned, the conclusion of the analogy remains..

A beginning of all beginnings is necessary.

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

So your analogy has to do with the idea that this universe is eternal?

I am astonished that you are still asking me this question..*shrugs*

[For_The_Kingdom]

For the same reason you people (evolutionists) keep assuming ignorance of me whenever I disagree with evolution.

That doesn't work because ignorance on evolution is not an assumption. On multiple occasions you made mistakes about the basics of what evolution says, in some of the occasions you even accepted that you were mistaken.

It's not that I was necessarily "accepting" that I was mistaken. It was more of you splitting hairs, "evolution does not say that a bird evolved into a reptile...rather, it says that birds evolved into reptiles"

As if adding an "s" to the equation meant anything lol. After going back and forth with you on that, I just simply said; "You know what, ok..fine..I was wrong..Ok, lets just go with your definition; reptiles(s) evolved into bird(s)."

Guess what, macroevolution (reptiles to birds) is STILL false. LOL.

Second, if you think infinity can be traversed...

Assuming by "infinity can be traversed" you mean something like travelling from the beginning of eternity to the present, then no, I don't think that.

The "beginning" of eternity is a nonsensical concept. You do understand that, right?

Answer to both: an infinite amount.

So far so good. Next question do you think that's absurd? If not then why did you say it's absurd that both of us can have an infinite amount of money, with me holding $100 bills, while you hold $1 bills?

Do I think what is absurd? You just gave a nonsensical rendition of infinity above..so yes, I think that is absurd. I'm not so sure what that has to do with the money thing, though.

No. Even numbers are also integers

What on Earth are you suggesting here? Somehow that means there are not twice as many integers as there are even numbers?! Are there more vehicles than buses, bearing in mind that buses are also vehicles?

Bro, if even numbers are excluded from the integer listing, then you are only left with odd numbered integers..and since there should be one odder numbered integer for every even numbered integer, I can only draw the conclusion that no, there isn't twice as many integers as there are even numbers.

*Looks to see if the "equal" point of infinity was identified*.

What does "the equal point of infinity" suppose to mean? You are thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

*Sigh* SMH. No, I'm not.

You are tasked with running in the OPPOSITE direction and traversing every single point that you previously ran THROUGH before you arrived at my location, and STOPPING once you've reached equal distance.

Do we have an understanding now? Are we clear?

No, it's decidedly unclear - equal distance to what exactly? You are thinking of equal to the distance from the beginning of eternity to the present, aren't you?

No, I'm not. Why are you concluding this? Bro, you already know that you are caught up. No need in dilly dallying around lol.

If you've been running for eternity and stopped at a point, and you turned around and ran equal distance, where do you get the idea that "equal" distance is one step?

You didn't specify equal distance to what

Yes I did..I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING).

, so I picked a distance: one step. One step is equal distance to one step, are you bold enough to suggest that one step is not equal distance to one step?

LOL!! I gotta hand it to ya, Bust Nak. You are good at what you do. The answer is still wrong, and I don't reward a gazillion dollars for wrong answers.

Travel backwards equal distance from your current point, and I PROMISE you a gazillion dollars is waiting for you.

Nonsense. Yesterday is not "equal distance" of all traversed days it took to get to today.

What does "equal distance of all traversed days it took to get to today" even mean?

What does traversing an infinite amount of days to get to today even mean?

Distance require two reference points: one is today, that much is clear; what is the other one? You are thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

So let me get this clear; are you telling me that, theoretically speaking, I can't travel back in time to arrive at equal distance (days), because distance requires two reference points..and there is no beginning reference point on this past-eternal timeline.

Are we clear on that?

Do you see that? ALL. ALL. ALL days.

Well, I did not, you said equal distance to where we are now, you said nothing about all days at all until you mentioned something about rewinding all preceding points.

Well, all days/all points, doesn't really matter what measure of time you use because the same concept applies..with the same result as well; neither can be traversed on an infinite timeline.

At which point I said there is such thing as a point in the time that preceding all points in an eternal past, and that you were thinking of "a beginning of eternity" which is as absurd as the bottom of a bottomless pit.

You lost me there.

Now, if that wasn't explained to you then, it is explained to you now.

It's still not good since it's still not clear. Equal distance to what? What does "equal distance of all traversed days it took to get to today" mean? What is "the equal point of infinity?"

Bro, you are obviously caught lol. First of all, I find it hard to believe that you, the one person that is so bent on going back in time (previous threads) to directly quote me and always seeming to know exactly what I said..now all of a sudden, it is "equal distance to what?"...you ask this question when I clearly stated the answer..which is..again..

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".

Now, that is an exact paragraphed quote that I'm sure you caught the first time around, and it was clarified on my last post to you.

You know what is going on here lol.

You say that like it hasn't already been addressed some two years ago, nothing has changed since then. As for stop talking, feel free to do that, you know I like having the final word.

That's cool, because I am already putting a dub in the W column for me anyway. You've got nothing, only dilly dally. So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

[Bust Nak]

It's not that I was necessarily "accepting" that I was mistaken. It was more of you splitting hairs, "evolution does not say that a bird evolved into a reptile...rather, it says that birds evolved into reptiles"

As if adding an "s" to the equation meant anything lol.

And that right here, is one of many reasons why you keep getting charged with not understanding evolution. You have no idea how important the "s" is in the context of evolution.

The "beginning" of eternity is a nonsensical concept. You do understand that, right?

Of course, the question is, why would you keep hinting at it?

Do I think what is absurd? You just gave a nonsensical rendition of infinity above..so yes, I think that is absurd.

So what is the largest integer if infinity is absurd?

I'm not so sure what that has to do with the money thing, though.

You said it was absurd for both of us to have infinite amount of money with me holding infinitely many $100 bills while you hold $1 bills.

Bro, if even numbers are excluded from the integer listing...

But why would even numbers be excluded from the integer listing in the first place? Just so you can draw "the conclusion that no, there isn't twice as many integers as there are even numbers?!"

*Sigh* SMH. No, I'm not.

Then what do you mean by "the equal point of infinity?"

No, I'm not. Why are you concluding this?

Because a) you kept being coy about what "equal distance" is suppose to be equal to; b) you spoke of a day preceding all infinitely many days; and c) "the beginning" only "time" from which, the present cannot be reached, given an infinite past..

Yes I did..I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING).

That's not still clear enough, equal distance from my current point (where we are standind) TO WHICH OTHER POINT? You did have something in mind, right? If not then go with what I picked before, to "one step" away.

LOL!! I gotta hand it to ya, Bust Nak. You are good at what you do.

Thanks, but I couldn't do this without you, as Voltaire said, "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." Enemy is too strong a word though, God make my opponent ridiculous.

The answer is still wrong, and I don't reward a gazillion dollars for wrong answers.

Wrong how? One step is not one step away?

Travel backwards equal distance from your current point, and I PROMISE you a gazillion dollars is waiting for you.

So where is my money? We already saw what your promises are worth.

What does traversing an infinite amount of days to get to today even mean?

You tell me, sounds to me like you are saying starting from the beginning of eternity... I would instead say it would mean something like arriving at today, one day at a time for an eternity, without a beginning.

So let me get this clear; are you telling me that, theoretically speaking, I can't travel back in time to arrive at equal distance (days), because distance requires two reference points..and there is no beginning reference point on this past-eternal timeline.

Something like that, more accurately, I am telling you that, "travel back in time to arrive at equal distance (days)" is incoherent as a concept, because distance requires two reference points. I am also telling you that there is no beginning on a past-eternal timeline, as such "the beginning of eternity" cannot be a reference point.

Well, all days/all points, doesn't really matter what measure of time you use because the same concept applies..with the same result as well; neither can be traversed on an infinite timeline.

Are you talking about from the beginning of eternity again? I ask because there are no day/point that cannot be traversed on an infinite timeline.

You lost me there.

Think about what you are trying to challenge me with.

Bro, you are obviously caught lol. First of all, I find it hard to believe that you, the one person that is so bent on going back in time (previous threads) to directly quote me and always seeming to know exactly what I said..now all of a sudden, it is "equal distance to what?"...you ask this question when I clearly stated the answer..which is..again..

Stating it again and again doesn't help, because it still lacks two reference points every time you stated it. Go ahead, check the history and see for yourself, at no point did you give me two reference points.

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".

You know what is going on here lol.

Sure, I know exactly what is going on: you cannot afford to say EQUAL distance (heading east) from my current point (where we are standing) to which other point, because you cannot say "the beginning," nor can you pick out any other point. So you are left with this half completed sentence that make no sense..

I cannot give you an answer until there are two reference points, so there you are, refusing to state the other reference point, as if that could win you the debate.

That's cool, because I am already putting a dub in the W column for me anyway. You've got nothing, only dilly dally. So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

Sounds like you want to bail and still have the last word, it doesn't work like that.

[William]

[Replying to post 76 by For_The_Kingdom]

So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

Praise be!!

Finally we can get to the meat of this!

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 76 by For_The_Kingdom]

So as far as I'm concerned, I can begin my other thread.

Praise be!!

Finally we can get to the meat of this!

The problem is, FtK can't even get the dinner plate squared away. So far we have 2 threads where FtK can't even get past the first premise - not even the first sub premise of the first premise.

This argument, so far, is dead on arrival and FtK is busy declaring 'dubs'. LOL!!

It seems the only person being convinced of anything is FtK because none of the coherent rebuttals are getting answered. Lots of head shaking and claiming to not understand with the usual helping of denial.

IMHO, at best we'll see a piece of moldy cheese. i.e. nothing we haven't seen, and debunked, years ago.

[FarWanderer]

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...

And you were talking about from 1 to 2. This discussion has been about infinite divisions of finite values for several posts now.

but in the alleged actual, past-eternal universe...there is no 0 point to start anything.

In such a scenario theres no absolute zero to all things, but there are as many relative zeros as there are things that start.

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".

Great, you are catching up.

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.

P1: God, if extant, is finite in time.
P2: God, if extant, did not begin to exist.
C: Therefore, not everything finite in time necessarily began to exist.

Which means even if you are correct about the universe being finite in time, it does not prove P2 of the KCA.