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.

[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.

Dude, you asked this question in post #90, yet the question was answered in post #76. Bust Nak asked the same question; "equal distance to what"?

And my answer to that was clearly..

I CLEARLY stated that the distance would be EQUAL DISTANCE FROM YOUR CURRENT POINT (WHERE WE ARE STANDING"

And as explained ad nauseum, this is not an answer that makes sense. Equal distance from where to where?

Point 1: where I'm standing
Point 2: some equal distance (to something you haven't defined) from where I am now.

Give us some example numbers. i.e. actual values. You are making no sense.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You are speaking nonsense, as usual. The fact that it is "undefined" doesn't stop me from giving away any amount that I choose, if I had an infinite amount. Either I have the amount, or I don't.

If I do, then I can freely give away however many members of the set that I choose, and just because you label it undefined does not negate that point.

That much is fine though, I didn't say nor implied that you couldn't give away any amount that you choose, given that you had an infinite amount. By all means give away however many members of the set that you choose.

The fact that infinity-infinity is undefined does however stop you from saying infinity-infinity equal infinity. Well, I guess you can still say it, but you'd be incorrect.

You claiming it is "undefined" does not negate the fact that if you subtract infinity from the infinite set, you are still left with infinity.

Second, this is a clear double standard (taxi cab fallacy)..because the fact that infinity is "undefined"...

That is not a fact at all, infinity is not undefined. Read carefully: I said infinity-infinity is undefined. That's a very different claim to "infinity is undefined." Your attempt at a counter argument is starting off on the wrong premise. Care to give this part another go in light of this?

Read carefully, if you have an infinite amount of red balls, mixed with an infinite amount of black balls...and you gave away all of the black balls..you've subtracted an infinite amount from the set...yet, you are still left with an infinite amount in the set.

That, is the absurdity.

I don't care what you call "undefined" here...the fact of the matter is, infinity-infinity = infinity.

Sure, you have an infinite amount of red balls, but the amount of black balls you have is undefined, so you are still wrong: infinity-infinity still does not equal infinity.

LOL Oh, I see; you will rather contradict yourself than just simply admit that you were wrong and don't understand infinity? Gotcha.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Point 2: some equal distance (to something you haven't defined) from where I am now.

Give us some example numbers. i.e. actual values. You are making no sense.

I can't give you an actual number, any more than you can give me the discrete number to the numbered day of today.

I will give you the "actual values" in the analogy, once you give me the "actual values" in reality.

You can't give it to me, and I can't give it to you, thus; naturalism is absurd.

[For_The_Kingdom]

What??????

"Only leaves"???

WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU EXCLUDING EVEN NUMBERS??? He didn't say "non-even integers" or "other integers".

He's asking if there are twice as many even numbers as there are even and odd numbers in total.

Why on Earth would you think he meant anything else.

Well, let me put it to you this way, Far; it doesn't matter. Lets grant that "there are twice as many even numbers as there are integers"..lets go ahead and grant that so we can stop with the red herrings..

Even if we grant that, that does NOTHING to negate ANYTHING that I've said. My case is simply not effected by the truth value of whatever point you/him are trying to make.

So lets grant it; now, back to my case...

They aren't "contradictory". It depends on the infinity in question.

Take whatever infinity you want..

Claiming that different results makes it absurd is like claiming "up" is absurd because it's not always the same direction.

If infinity were absurd, a statement like "infinity > 1" couldn't be said to make any sense. The word has some kind of meaning, obviously.

No one is saying it doesn't have meaning. My point is; it is just a concept. An "actual" infinity is only conceptual. It doesn't actually exist in reality..otherwise, you get those same kind of absurdities, which is not possible.

You can make arguments about traversing infinity in time or space being impossible, but that's entirely different from saying the concept itself is absurd.

That's the point, if the concept wasn't absurd, then it WOULD possible. I described (in both analogies) how it is impossible for the concept to be manifested in reality..

The sand would never reach the top of the bottomless hole as the man is currently shoveling (the past will never reach the present moment that we are currently in)..and you can travel equal distance in the past from the current present moment.

That is why a beginning of time is necessary...and unavoidable. And we all know the implications of an absolute beginning of time, don't we?

[FarWanderer]

No one is saying it doesn't have meaning. My point is; it is just a concept. An "actual" infinity is only conceptual. It doesn't actually exist in reality..otherwise, you get those same kind of absurdities, which is not possible.

But they aren't absurdities. Even your own example isn't absurd. If you have an infinite number of marbles and you give an infinite number away, then the number left is undefined. You could perhaps call an "undefined" math result to be absurd. But that's not your example: you actually contrive a scenario in which the answer is not undefined. And you do this by defining out different kinds of marbles and specifying what you are doing by marble kind.

In other words, your example of a situation in which "infinity-infinity=infinity" is clearly not absurd, because in the example you laid out it is actually true.

Problems arise only when you say infinity=infinity when we are talking about different infinities. For example, if you consider infinity(all marbles)=infinity(red marbles) to be the same thing then you would be in errror.

You can make arguments about traversing infinity in time or space being impossible, but that's entirely different from saying the concept itself is absurd.

That's the point, if the concept wasn't absurd, then it WOULD possible. I described (in both analogies) how it is impossible for the concept to be manifested in reality..

The sand would never reach the top of the bottomless hole as the man is currently shoveling (the past will never reach the present moment that we are currently in)

Like I said in the very first post I made in this thread, I don't see why there's supposed to be a distinction between the "sand" and the "hole".

If the "sand" defines the "hole" then there's no problem; there's no undefined infinity-infinity because there is no math operation being applied in the first place.

..and you can travel equal distance in the past from the current present moment.

In a universe with no absolute beginning in time there is no "temporal distance" that defines the whole past. The absurdity from which you base your objection comes from your own assumption that there would have to be.

And we all know the implications of an absolute beginning of time, don't we?

No. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics say quite resoundingly that we don't.

[benchwarmer]

Point 2: some equal distance (to something you haven't defined) from where I am now.

Give us some example numbers. i.e. actual values. You are making no sense.

I can't give you an actual number, any more than you can give me the discrete number to the numbered day of today.

I will give you the "actual values" in the analogy, once you give me the "actual values" in reality.

You can't give it to me, and I can't give it to you, thus; naturalism is absurd.

? LOL!!!!

You want a discrete number for today? It's 1 day from yesterday. Distance of 1. QED

How about 09/21/2018. 21 days from the start of September. 9 months from the start of the year. 2018 years from the point in time we started using the current year numbering system.

So, you again are refusing to define what you mean by 'equal distance'.

If I step 1 step away from you, we are both 1 step away from each other which is an equal distance. I'm here, you are 1 step away, we are each 1 step from each other. QED.

Now, what the heck do you mean when you are talking about an equal distance? An equal distance FROM what TO what. If you won't actually define the FROM and TO parameters you are not defining a distance, you are just putting out an undefined term. It's like if I asked how old you are and you said "Equal number of years". Absurd and pointless.

If you want to make logical arguments, you have to be willing to define all your terms. Failure to do say lays the argument to waste even if it might be a good argument (which is hard to tell when you won't define everything).

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

My understanding is that there is an infinity type of infinities, and mathmaticaly they are dealt with in different ways . They even have cool names for the different kinds of infinity, to keep them orginized. The names relate to size or other descriptive factors.
Pi may go on forever but it's not a very big number and even with its infinite component is useful and plays well with the other numbers.
All types of infinity are used in mathematics and the sciences by believers and non believers with the same results
So problem one is the op is using the word in an inconsistent way and follows that path in his rebutals.

Using your infinite hole=sand concept as the basis for a meaningful example of infinitey could be done with a minor change.
Still got the endless whole and the sand and the poor guy with his sand scooper but add another person with a bigger scooper. If they work at the same speed the guy with the bigger shovel is doing more work in a measurable way even though they will never reach their goal of filling the hole.

[otseng]

You are speaking nonsense, as usual.

You and your worldview is simply caught up in a lot of mess.

Moderator Final Warning

Please just debate the topic without resorting to personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

You claiming it is "undefined" does not negate the fact that if you subtract infinity from the infinite set, you are still left with infinity.

I think you'll find that the fact that infinity-infinity is undefined does indeed negate your claim that infinity-infinite = infinity.

Read carefully, if you have an infinite amount of red balls, mixed with an infinite amount of black balls...and you gave away all of the black balls..you've subtracted an infinite amount from the set...yet, you are still left with an infinite amount in the set.

So you started with an infinite amount of red balls, took no red balls away and you are left with exactly the same amount of red balls as you had before. What's so absurd with that?

Also note the difference between giving away all the black balls and giving away an infinite amount of black balls.

The fact of the matter is, infinity-infinity not infinity.

LOL Oh, I see; you will rather contradict yourself than just simply admit that you were wrong and don't understand infinity? Gotcha.

Where is the contradiction? It lies solely with your conjecture that infinity-infinity = infinity.

[Goose]

Hinted? I thought I was being clear. Infinity"infinity is undefined because anything else leads to absurdities.

Exactamundo! Infinity can lead to absurdities. Thank you.

Had F_T_K have said infinity-infinity is in itself an absurdity, I would have agreed with him. He didn't though, he insisted that it is equal to infinity, and it is the fact that it is infinity minus infinity is equal to infinity that makes it an absurdity.

What makes the absurdity is that we can mathematically arrive at the answer infinity by subtracting infinity from infinity and we can also arrive negative infinity, and zero by subtracting infinity from infinity. Heres a short video showing how it can happen.



And thats why infinity minus infinity is considered indeterminate (or undefined) because we dont know which answer is correct, they all are. But because mathematicians declare it as indeterminate doesnt, at all, negate the mathematical fact that infinity minus infinity can equal infinity. In other words the following statement is not wrong.

Infinity " infinity = infinity

It can be shown mathematically.

Worse still, he insists that infinity itself is an absurdity.

Well thats not as outlandish a claim as you seem to be implying. Indeed, you said above that, Infinity"infinity is undefined because anything else leads to absurdities. So how can you then go on to take issue with the claim that infinity is absurd?

The concept of infinity produces numerous paradoxes such as Hilberts Grand Hotel paradox, Zenos paradox, various mathematical paradoxes (see above), etc.

Further, when we import the idea of infinite quantities into the actual material world we just dont observe it. For example, you asked earlier in post 96, when discussing the idea of an infinite amount of money, If the potential is not absurd, then how can actualization be absurd?

But I would ask, how can you actualize in the real material world an infinite amount of money without running into absurdities like the possibility of filling the observable universe with dollar bills?

That much is fine though, as they are not not absurd. The problem is jumping form these analogies to the conclusion that infinity-infinity=infinity.

You are missing the point of the arguments. The intuitional arguments and mathematics show that infinity-infinity can equal infinity. Thereby creating the paradox.

It stopped short of doing that though, instead it showed that if you run with your intuition you would end up with answers such as infinity.

We must be reading different articles then. It quite clearly showed with a mathematical argument how infinity-infinity=infinity.

The article begun with the caveat that infinity is not a number but the author would treat it incorrectly as one to facilitate discussion; and ends on a warning to be careful when dealing with infinity.

And?