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]

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.

If it didn't happen at all, what difference does an "s" make? None.

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?

I think it is time for the "last word"..seriously..since not only am I NOT hinting at it, but my entire case is actually against it.

So, why am I being accused of 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?

That is a loaded question and I won't waste any time on it..besides this sentence, of course.

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.

Actually, I said pennies..but same concept applies..same absurdity.

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

But why would even numbers are excluded from the integer listing? 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?"

I'm not sure what your question has to do with what you quoted me as saying. *shrugs*.

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

Because you keep being coy about what "equal distance" is suppose to be equal.

Dilly dallying.

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.

The other point would be the point at which you stopped, once you reached the equal distance.

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.

Well, what do we have here; welcome to theism. God answered your prayer(s), therefore, God exists.

*thumbsup*.

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?

LOL!!!! Like I said, you are good at what you do. I will give you that much. It is like thieves..some people are just so good at stealing, that you are almost tempted to give them props.

Like, "Even though you are/were wrong, it was pretty darn good how you pulled it off".

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

So where is my money?

Where is my watching you traverse an infinite number of points?

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.

Dude, I already said that..

"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."

I am glad that you agree with me. But see, you just messed up...because if you can't go back equal distance in the past, then you also can't move forward equal distance to the future.

In fact, it would be impossible to arrive at any arbitrary point on the timeline. Now, here is where you will do more dilly dallying and dancing around and such.

Please, don't.

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.

Right, because there is no such thing as the beginning or end of eternity.

No argument from me there.

You lost me there.

Think about what you are trying to challenge me with.

I thought about it..now what?

Stating it again and again doesn't help, because it still lacks two reference points.

Again, you are caught up in quite the dilemma, because if I had a time machine, what would stop me from going back in time the equal amount of days and stopping at a day...I mean after all, if I had previously traversed those days anyway, I should be able to go back and stop at a previously traverse day.

And if you admit that this is impossible, then you also have to admit that it wouldn't be possible to arrive at today, at ALL...we can only arrive at today, ONLY if there is a beginning point of reference (a beginning point).

Therefore, time had a beginning. No way out of it, brethren.

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 afford to pick out any other point.

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.

I am refusing to state a reference point, because there IS NO REFERENCE POINT...and that is the point!!! (no pun intended).

This is a clear, demonstrably absurdity..which is why naturalism ultimately fails.

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

Well, you already said that God answered your prayers..so at least 50% of my job is done, as you are already at theism...now, I just have to get you to Christian theism.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

And what point was I making when talking about 1 to 2?

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.

And these "things that start" are all the product of this absolute beginning. Obviously, the absolute beginning would have to come first.

Great, you are catching up.

I am the one that set you straight on "Eternity"...yet, I am the one that is catching up?

Hmm.

P1: God, if extant, is finite in time.

God is "in" time..but God isn't "finite" in time. You do understand the difference, don't you?

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.

Please define "finite" in time.

[FarWanderer]

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

And what point was I making when talking about 1 to 2?

All I know is that it's not relevant, unless you are involving time and space in the counting from one to two.

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.

And these "things that start" are all the product of this absolute beginning. Obviously, the absolute beginning would have to come first.

This is just plain begging the question.

Great, you are catching up.

I am the one that set you straight on "Eternity"...yet, I am the one that is catching up?

Hmm.

I said "eternal" had multiple meanings and you questioned me on it. Now you are "setting me strait" on how it has multiple meanings.

P1: God, if extant, is finite in time.

God is "in" time..but God isn't "finite" in time. You do understand the difference, don't you?

The only way for a thing to be in time but not be finite in time is if time itself is infinite.

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.

Please define "finite" in time.

Bounded or limited in time.

[Bust Nak]

If it didn't happen at all, what difference does an "s" make?

Even if evolution didn't happen at all, the 's' would still makes the difference between understanding evolution and being ignorant about it.

I think it is time for the "last word"..seriously..since not only am I NOT hinting at it, but my entire case is actually against it.

So, why am I being accused of hinting at it?

You never explicitly stated "equal distance" to the distance between the beginning of eternity and the today; having never stated one reference is today, while the other one is the beginning of eternity; or anything along these line. In fact you explicitly denied it when I asked if that's what you had in mind, that's why you are accused of hinting at it.

That is a loaded question and I won't waste any time on it..besides this sentence, of course.

Loaded, sure, but not by me. You were the one who said infinity is absurd.

Actually, I said pennies..but same concept applies..same absurdity.

There you go loading the question for me: if having infinite amount of money in pennies is absurd, what is the maximum amount of money possible?

I'm not sure what your question has to do with what you quoted me as saying. *shrugs*.

You spoke of "the equal point of infinity" I am asking you what you meant by that.

You also stated there are not twice as many even numbers as there are integers "if even numbers are excluded from the integer listing..." I am asking you why you would exclude even numbers from integers.

Dilly dallying.

Still no answer from you. Why is that?

The other point would be the point at which you stopped, once you reached the equal distance.

Equal distance to what? You are still thinking of the "beginning of eternity," aren't you?

Well, what do we have here; welcome to theism. God answered your prayer(s), therefore, God exists.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

Like, "Even though you are/were wrong, it was pretty darn good how you pulled it off".

But you still have yet pointed out how it's wrong.

Where is my watching you traverse an infinite number of points?

Where you are standing, obviously. Recall if you will, your own analogy: I have been running West on an infinite road for an eternity, having never begun, I was just running, forever. Then I see you along side of the road where you stopped me for a challenge. That's where, or weren't you paying attention to all the points I was traversing?

So where is my money?

Dude, I already said that...

Well, something like that anyway. What you are missing is that while it is impossible to "stop" somewhere that does not exist, it's perfectly possible to stop anywhere along the infinite road. You just need to pick a place to stop. Go on pick one.

if you can't go back equal distance in the past...

But I can though, pick a distance. Go on pick one.

No argument from me there.

And yet there you were, hinting with at me to go back to the beginning of eternity.

I thought about it..now what?

Now think about it some more because you don't appear to have understood the flaw with your challenge. If infinite time is too difficult a concept, try something simpler like with counting numbers:

Imagine you've been counting DOWN for ETERNITY. You've never began to count, and you've never stopped counting...you've just been counting, forever...

Imagine that as you approach zero, counting "...2, 1, 0" where I stop you and ask to count UP through all the numbers you've counted already, where would you stop?

Nowhere, you would never stop. That's the whole point of infinity. There is no counting TO INIFINITY.

Does the fact that you cannot count TO INFINITY mean there has to be a maximum number you can count TO? Does the fact that you cannot have counted FROM INFINITY imply there has to be a maximum number you must have counted FROM? Does that mean there is a finite amount of integers?

And if you are bold enough to say yes to these questions, then tell me what that maximum number is.

Again, you are caught up in quite the dilemma, because if I had a time machine, what would stop me from going back in time the equal amount of days and stopping at a day...

Nothing, and that's what I've been telling you all along - I CAN go back equal distance in the past despite your claim to the contrary, all I want from you is to tell me equal distance to what. You are still thinking of equal to "the distance between today and the beginning of eternity," aren't you?

I mean after all, if I had previously traversed those days anyway, I should be able to go back and stop at a previously traverse day.

Exactly. I am able to go back and stop at every singly one of the infinitely many previously traverse day. Which day would you like me to stop at, bearing in mind there is no such thing as "a day prior to ALL. ALL. ALL days" given an infinite past?

And if you admit that this is impossible...

What the hell is going on? YOU were the one who said it is impossible. I have been telling you it's possible.

we can only arrive at today, ONLY if there is a beginning point of reference (a beginning point).

So pick one. Any one you like. And if you don't feel like picking one, use the one I picked - one step away. But somehow you think that's "wrong" but never told me why. How about one month then?

I am refusing to state a reference point, because there IS NO REFERENCE POINT...and that is the point!!! (no pun intended).

But there are, literally infinitely many reference points for you to pick from. You can choose one step away as I have suggested; and if you don't like that, choose one day away, one month away, one year away, or any other date you care to pick. Any time you like except "the beginning of eternity," because there is no such thing as the beginning of eternity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 83 by FarWanderer]

Nothing that you've said negates anything that I said.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Even if evolution didn't happen at all, the 's' would still makes the difference between understanding evolution and being ignorant about it.

Right, just like saying/implying that infinity can be traversed, makes a difference between understanding the absurdity as it relates to infinity, and being ignorant about it.

You never explicitly stated "equal distance" to the distance between the beginning of eternity and the today; having never stated one reference is today, while the other one is the beginning of eternity; or anything along these line. In fact you explicitly denied it when I asked if that's what you had in mind, that's why you are accused of hinting at it.

I never said anything about the "beginning of eternity", though. So to start that off as a premise of what I said, is a straw man.

That is a loaded question and I won't waste any time on it..besides this sentence, of course.

Loaded, sure, but not by me. You were the one who said infinity is absurd.

Said it, meant it, demonstrated it.

Actually, I said pennies..but same concept applies..same absurdity.

There you go loading the question for me: if having infinite amount of money in pennies is absurd, what is the maximum amount of money possible?

I don't recall asking you a question in this regard..

I'm not sure what your question has to do with what you quoted me as saying. *shrugs*.

You spoke of "the equal point of infinity" I am asking you what you meant by that.

And I told you what I meant by that.

You also stated there are not twice as many even numbers as there are integers "if even numbers are excluded from the integer listing..." I am asking you why you would exclude even numbers from integers.

That question is irrelevant, considering even if even numbers are including in the set, the total amount of integers in the set is infinity...and if you exclude even numbers from the set, the total is still infinity.

That is what is so absurd about it, infinity-infinity = infinity. Clear absurdity.

The other point would be the point at which you stopped, once you reached the equal distance.

Equal distance to what? You are still thinking of the "beginning of eternity," aren't you?

I've already explained what I meant by equal distance.

Well, what do we have here; welcome to theism. God answered your prayer(s), therefore, God exists.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

Well..lol.

Like, "Even though you are/were wrong, it was pretty darn good how you pulled it off".

But you still have yet pointed out how it's wrong.

Trust me, you know you've got nothing.

Where is my watching you traverse an infinite number of points?

Where you are standing, obviously. Recall if you will, your own analogy: I have been running West on an infinite road for an eternity, having never begun, I was just running, forever.

Which is analogous to events in time..having never begun...existing (the timeline), forever. Yeah. Go on..

Then I see you along side of the road where you stopped me for a challenge. That's where, or weren't you paying attention to all the points I was traversing?

So where is my money?

Hmm, I seemed to have missed the part where you turned back around with the task of running equal distance East that you ran West..and stopping at the equal point of reference.

Hmm.

Dude, I already said that...

Well, something like that anyway. What you are missing is that while it is impossible to "stop" somewhere that does not exist, it's perfectly possible to stop anywhere along the infinite road. You just need to pick a place to stop. Go on pick one.

Right, so you admit that it is impossible to go back equal distance..the problem is, you SHOULD be able to go back, because you've already TRAVERSED the points anyway.

Those are previously traversed points. They should still be there..and if you admit that they are not there, then how were you able to traverse the points in the first place, to arrive at my location at all?

Makes no sense.

if you can't go back equal distance in the past...

But I can though, pick a distance. Go on pick one.

You are telling me to pick a distance, yet when I pick a distance (equal distance the opposite direction), you then admit that it is impossible to go back to that point.

SMH.

No argument from me there.

And yet there you were, hinting with at me to go back to the beginning of eternity.

Oh, I see what is going on here. When I say "go back", I am saying that only to drive home the point that you CAN'T GO BACK. I am not implying that there is an actual point to go back to.

The fact of the matter is, you CAN'T go back. And if you can't go backwards, you can't go forward.

Naturalism is dead, my friend.

I thought about it..now what?

Now think about it some more because you don't appear to have understood the flaw with your challenge. If infinite time is too difficult a concept, try something simpler like with counting numbers:

Excuse me, sir...but you are moving on as if you've adequately addressed the logical flaws which plague your worldview. You haven't. If we've traversed an infinite amount of days to arrive at "today", and I have a time machine and I want to traverse an equal "infinite" amount of days to arrive at a specific day (whatever day of equal distance), what day would I stop at?

It is a simple question, a question that should be able to be answered, if an infinite amount of days was actually traversed.

It is the same concept of the prior analogy...now lets see if you will dilly dally around this one, too.

Imagine you've been counting DOWN for ETERNITY. You've never began to count, and you've never stopped counting...you've just been counting, forever...

Imagine that as you approach zero, counting "...2, 1, 0" where I stop you and ask to count UP through all the numbers you've counted already, where would you stop?

Nowhere, you would never stop. That's the whole point of infinity. There is no counting TO INIFINITY.

Dude, no one is arguing against that..so your analogy is irrelevant, since we are in agreement there. What you need to be explaining is how, on a beginningless chain of events, can any specific point be "reached" (or come to past) on an infinite timescale..since that is what YOUR worldview implies...not mines.

Does the fact that you cannot count TO INFINITY mean there has to be a maximum number you can count TO? Does the fact that you cannot have counted FROM INFINITY imply there has to be a maximum number you must have counted FROM? Does that mean there is a finite amount of integers?

And if you are bold enough to say yes to these questions, then tell me what that maximum number is.

I am not sure I understand the question, but it is irrelevant, based on the fact that it doesn't negate anything I said nor does it get you out of the "bottomless" hole you are in on your worldview.

Again, you are caught up in quite the dilemma, because if I had a time machine, what would stop me from going back in time the equal amount of days and stopping at a day...

Nothing, and that's what I've been telling you all along - I CAN go back equal distance in the past despite your claim to the contrary, all I want from you is to tell me equal distance to what. You are still thinking of equal to "the distance between today and the beginning of eternity," aren't you?

Nonsense. If I've ARRIVED at today...after having JUST traversed an INFINITE amount of days to arrive at TODAY...I should be able (if I had a time machine)..to GO BACK IN TIME, the EQUAL amount of days in the past, that I PREVIOUSLY traversed to arrive at today.

Now, I don't know what you are talking about with these red herring tactics and smoke screen analogies...but until you can adequately address the obvious problem with your worldview...then there is simply nothing left to talk about.

I mean, it is quite simple. In the "infinite road" analogy...all you are being asked to do is simply run the opposite direction and stopping at a point that you ALREADY traversed.

That is just basic, simple stuff here. Either you can do it, or you can't do it...and as it turns out, it can't be done.

Conclusion: An initial, beginning point is absolutely necessary..and dilly dallying won't help you here.

I mean after all, if I had previously traversed those days anyway, I should be able to go back and stop at a previously traverse day.

Exactly. I am able to go back and stop at every singly one of the infinitely many previously traverse day. Which day would you like me to stop at

I've already answered this.

, bearing in mind there is no such thing as "a day prior to ALL. ALL. ALL days" given an infinite past?

Why not? Why isn't there a day? If you had a time machine..why isn't there a day prior? Just more and more absurd as we go along.

And if you admit that this is impossible...

What the hell is going on? YOU were the one who said it is impossible. I have been telling you it's possible.

Wait a minute, above you just SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP SOMEWHERE THAT DOES NOT EXIST. That is what YOU said...and you also stated in an earlier post that you can't reach equal distance without two reference points...and in the analogy, there AREN'T TWO REFERENCE POINTS..so the conclusion is; IT CAN'T BE REACHED.

It is IMPOSSIBLE, that is the whole point.

we can only arrive at today, ONLY if there is a beginning point of reference (a beginning point).

So pick one. Any one you like. And if you don't feel like picking one, use the one I picked - one step away. But somehow you think that's "wrong" but never told me why. How about one month then?

Why would I pick a beginning point of reference, if my analogy is analogous with a beginningless timeline (on naturalism).

That would defeat the purpose of my critique, wouldn't it?

I am refusing to state a reference point, because there IS NO REFERENCE POINT...and that is the point!!! (no pun intended).

But there are, literally infinitely many reference points for you to pick from. You can choose one step away as I have suggested; and if you don't like that, choose one day away, one month away, one year away, or any other date you care to pick. Any time you like except "the beginning of eternity," because there is no such thing as the beginning of eternity.

You say there are many reference points...fine..and I am picking the "reference" POINT of equal distance. So now what? Which point is that?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Well yeah because all you've done is special pleading and question-begging.

You say God is infinite, while you argue that the universe must be finite because infinitity is impossible. This is a special pleading, clear as day.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Well yeah because all you've done is special pleading and question-begging.

You say God is infinite, while you argue that the universe must be finite because infinitity is impossible. This is a special pleading, clear as day.

First of all, I don't recall saying that God is infinite. That is the problem, you people are so hell bent on denying the existence of God, that you bring God up even when the conversation has nothing to do with him.

We are talking about the UNIVERSE right now, not God. The naturalistic worldview is absurd in light of the irrefutable case that I've laid out..so instead of worrying about God, worry about the absurdity of your worldview.

Otherwise...straw man.

[Bust Nak]

Right, just like saying/implying that infinity can be traversed, makes a difference between understanding the absurdity as it relates to infinity, and being ignorant about it.

Right, because the guy who a) brings up "infinity-infinity = infinity," or b) thinks there aren't more integers than even numbers, isn't the one ignorant about infinity?

I never said anything about the "beginning of eternity", though.

Hence the accusation of "hinting at it" instead of "saying it."

So to start that off as a premise of what I said, is a straw man.

It's not though, you spoke of a day prior to all days, remember? That's the "beginning of eternity."

Said it, meant it, demonstrated it.

So answer the follow up question: what is the largest integer, as you said, meant and demonstrated infinity is absurd?

I don't recall asking you a question in this regard..

Doesn't matter if you recall asking me or not. I am asking you right now what is the highest possible amount of money one can have, if infinite money is, as you claimed, an absurdity?

And I told you what I meant by that.

Not directly though, you only implied that it is a point that is "equal distance." Equal to what? Equal distance to my current point, but from where?

That question is irrelevant, considering even if even numbers are including in the set, the total amount of integers in the set is infinity...and if you exclude even numbers from the set, the total is still infinity.

But that still doesn't tell me why you would think there aren't more integers than even numbers.

That is what is so absurd about it, infinity-infinity = infinity. Clear absurdity.

Right, so by all means discard the notion that "infinity-infinity = infinity." Why would you suggest such a thing in the first place? Why on Earth would you want to remove even numbers from the integer list? Perhaps more important, why would you think this helps support your claim that infinity is absurd? Does 10/0 being absurd, imply 0 is absurd?

I've already explained what I meant by equal distance.

Your "explanation" isn't fit for purpose, since you never picked another reference point. Equal distance to what? Equal to the distance I travelled to get here, you say? Get here from where though? You are thinking of from "where I started running" aren't you? You were thinking equal distance "from the beginning of eternity to today," aren't you?

Well..lol.

I'll take that as an yes.

Trust me...

No thank you. I cannot trust someone who think there aren't more integers than even numbers; nor can I trust someone who promised me money but doesn't pay up.

Which is analogous to events in time..having never begun...existing (the timeline), forever. Yeah. Go on..

Yes, I know, so where is my money?

Hmm, I seemed to have missed the part where you turned back around with the task of running equal distance East that you ran West..and stopping at the equal point of reference.

Well, I am reminding you of that now, give me my money.

Right, so you admit that it is impossible to go back equal distance..

Equal distance to what though? One step? That is quite possible. I am standing there, one step away right now, demanding my money, remember?

the problem is, you SHOULD be able to go back, because you've already TRAVERSED the points anyway.

Those are previously traversed points. They should still be there..

Sure, they are still there, so I should be able to go back; I can and I have, it's not a problem, so give me my money.

and if you admit that they are not there...

Well I am not admitting that, so that's moot. The points are right there, I am standing on one even as we speak.

You are telling me to pick a distance, yet when I pick a distance (equal distance the opposite direction,) you then admit that it is impossible to go back to that point.

That's not a distance, meaning it's does not specify a point, and that's why it's incoherent. It's hardly worth noting that it's impossible to go back to a non-existent point.

Oh, I see what is going on here. When I say "go back", I am saying that only to drive home the point that you CAN'T GO BACK. I am not implying that there is an actual point to go back to.

But I can go back, there are gazillion of actual points to go back to. One step back, one day ago, you name it, I can get there. The only thing left must be this "beginning of eternity," that I cannot get back to, because it is incoherent and hence non-existent.

Excuse me, sir...but you are moving on as if you've adequately addressed the logical flaws which plague your worldview.

That's because I have adequately addressed the so called "logical flaws which plague my worldview."

A summary to the main point is provided here for your convenience: The only reason why there is no answer to your challenge is because it is incoherent, in failing to specify two reference points, as "a day equal to the distance between today and a day prior to all days" is just a long winded way of referring to the non-existent "beginning of eternity."

The flaw lies solely within the challenge and not with "my worldview." Pick another reference point (such as "one step away") and the challenge can be trivially met. You refuse to pick two points not because there aren't two to pick from, but because you know how easy a coherent from of the challenge can be answered.

If we've traversed an infinite amount of days to arrive at "today", and I have a time machine and I want to traverse an equal "infinite" amount of days to arrive at a specific day (whatever day of equal distance), what day would I stop at?

You tell me, what does "equal infinite amount of days to arrive at a specific day (whatever day of equal distance)" even mean? You are thinking of the beginning of eternity, aren't you?

It is a simple question, a question that should be able to be answered, if an infinite amount of days was actually traversed.

Incorrect. It is a incoherent question because there is no such thing as this "specific day" as you called it, i.e. "the beginning of eternity" I was speaking of. As such there can have no answer. The logical flaws you spoke of lies in your question, not with "my worldview."

Dude, no one is arguing against that..so your analogy is irrelevant, since we are in agreement there.

I know, I am tying to get you to think about your own argument, beginning in agreement is a great start.

What you need to be explaining is how, on a beginningless chain of events, can any specific point be "reached" (or come to past) on an infinite timescale..since that is what YOUR worldview implies...not mines.

Sure, I have explained exactly how: on a beginning-less chain of events, each and every single specific point be "reached" (or come to past) on an infinite timescale one step at a time, one minute at a time, one hour at a time, because there is a final gap between each pairs of points. Name a specific point and I can tell you exactly what settings you need to enter into your time machine.

What you kept hinting at on the other hand, this "beginning of eternity," is NOT what "my worldview" implies - an eternity has no beginning.

I am not sure I understand the question...

What's so difficult about my questions? I am asking you, is there a finite amount of integers or not?

If you say yes, the follow up challenge is for you to name the largest number.

If you say no, then what exactly is stopping you from connecting "counting infinitely many integers" with "traversing infinitely many days?"

Nonsense. If I've ARRIVED at today...after having JUST traversed an INFINITE amount of days to arrive at TODAY...I should be able (if I had a time machine)..to GO BACK IN TIME, the EQUAL amount of days in the past, that I PREVIOUSLY traversed to arrive at today.

"Previously traversed to arrive at today" you say, but arrive at today FROM which day?

I have previously traversed from yesterday to arrive at today, so is the amount of days 1 then? I have also previously traversed from last week to arrive at today, so is the amount of days 7? I have also previously traversed from last year to arrive at today, so perhaps the amount of days is 365? Is this sinking in yet? You haven't picked two reference point, as such your challenge is malformed.

Perhaps more importantly, instead of a lack of reference points to pick from, this demonstrates that there are infinitely many reference points.

I mean, it is quite simple. In the "infinite road" analogy...all you are being asked to do is simply run the opposite direction and stopping at a point that you ALREADY traversed.

That much is simple, EVERY SINGLE point that I have ALREADY traversed, I can get back to. That's why you owe me one gazillion and one trillion dollars.

The point that you keep missing is that "a day prior to ALL days," AKA "equal distance" from some unstated beginning, AKA the "beginning of eternity" is not a point I have traversed, because such a thing does not exist. Pointing out that I cannot get to a non-existent point, and hence could not have came from a non-existent point, doesn't not help you one bit. Since it does not imply that I cannot stop at a point that I have ALREADY traversed. I can and now you owe me money.

That is just basic, simple stuff here. Either you can do it, or you can't do it...

And I can, so give me my money.

I've already answered this.

Well, tired and fail anyway.

Why not? Why isn't there a day? If you had a time machine..why isn't there a day prior? Just more and more absurd as we go along.

Think about what you are saying here... If you had a time machine.. there IS always a day prior, and that's exactly why there isn't a day prior to ALL days. That's why I keep telling you, there is no such thing as the beginning of eternity, you say you agree and yet there you are, still asking about that absurdity.

If that is too much for you, I point once again at simple numbers, try and answer these questions yourself: Why isn't there a largest number given an infinite number line? If you have a number... why isn't there a number exactly 1 higher than that?

Wait a minute, above you just SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP SOMEWHERE THAT DOES NOT EXIST. That is what YOU said...

Sure, but that wasn't what I was responding to. Recall if you will, you said it should be POSSIBLE to go back and stopping at a point that I ALREADY traversed; then you went on to claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE. And I am telling you, no, that is very much POSSIBLE, I can indeed stop at any previously traverse day.

You do understand that while it's impossible to stop at a non-existent place, that wouldn't stop me from stopping at every single existent place, right? You seem to be under the impression that the two concepts are somehow linked.

and you also stated in an earlier post that you can't reach equal distance without two reference points...and in the analogy, there AREN'T TWO REFERENCE POINTS..so the conclusion is; IT CAN'T BE REACHED.

So pick TWO REFERENCE POINTS.

Why would I pick a beginning point of reference, if my analogy is analogous with a beginningless timeline (on naturalism).

That would defeat the purpose of my critique, wouldn't it?

Exactly, and that's the point, your critique is trivial to defeat, as simple as picking another reference point - that's why you wouldn't pick one. So I picked a step away for you, now hand over the cash.

You say there are many reference points...fine..and I am picking the "reference" POINT of equal distance. So now what? Which point is that?

Imagine a magician asking you to "pick a card, any card" and you say, "the 96th one... now what? Which card is that?" Now you pick again, what you picked is not a card at all, there are only 52 cards.

Or more appropriately, a mathematician is asking you to "pick a number, any number," and you say "infinity-infinity... now what? What number is that?" Now you pick again, as "infinity-infinity" isn't a number at all, it is undefined.

Or in this actual case, "So now what? Which point is that?" now you pick again, as "a POINT of equal distance" is not a reference point at all, it's non-existent, the "beginning of eternity," even if you put it in capital letters.

[benchwarmer]

You say there are many reference points...fine..and I am picking the "reference" POINT of equal distance. So now what? Which point is that?

LOL, you were asked a simple question and you are clearly tap dancing to avoid it. When you say "the 'reference' point of equal distance" you are not answering the question with anything coherent. Equal distance to what? Maybe you don't understand what reference point means? It's like me asking you what 4 minus the reference point of equal distance is. You can't answer it because it's a nonsensical question.

All I see is you made a challenge, it was met, and now you are going around in circles pretending you don't understand.

The options I see are:

1) You don't understand what 'distance' means. It requires two reference points.
2) You don't understand what a 'reference point' is. You have to actually pick something or it's undefined.
3) You know exactly what's going on, but don't want to admit you were wrong. Rather than admit the error and perhaps restate the problem, you are doubling down and going around in circles.