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]

If you define the past by events, then yes there would be an infinite number of events. However, I do not see how this might make sense of a "point" representing an infinite number of events past.

Ok, so lets take this slow...hypothetically, if the past is eternal..would not the totality of today, and ALL days prior to today (24 hour periods=day), wouldn't this "set" of days have a grand amount which equals infinity?

Yes or no?

An infinite past is made up of "points in time, infinitely long ago".

No. An infinite past is made up of points, each a finite amount of time ago, but extending infinitely.

Dude, you just said "an infinite past"...and I said "infinitely long ago".

They mean the same thing..yet, for some strange reason, you disagreed with what I said.

They do not mean the same thing. On a graph, an infinite past is an unbounded region of (time)<(now), whereas at best "infinitely long ago" just gets an arrow pointing towards the past.

Splitting hairs. An arrow pointing to an infinite past is an arrow pointing to past eternity. You can use infinite past and past eternity interchangeably.

I said "in integers". Not "they are integers".

If I had simply said "zero" then you would have likely thought I failed in my reading comprehension to notice that you said "natural numbers" and proceeded to give me a meaningless lecture under false pretenses. I specified that I was speaking in terms of integers precisely to avoid that. And it happened anyway. Go figure.

Well first off, your answer of zero was/is incorrect anyway, if you are using it in the context of "the number placed on today would be 0"...so we need not look beyond your incorrect answer by focusing on whatever point you were trying to make about integers and natural numbers..points of which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant in light of ANYTHING that is going on here.

Second, if the past is eternal (as it would have to be on naturalism), nothing is stopping a person (me) from assigning a natural number to every day which led to 9-26-18, and putting the days in numerical order.

Nothing is prohibiting me from doing so, OTHER than the fact that it is impossible to do..it can't be done, which is why you nor anyone else can do it.

Well, by golly, that would be the point. It is merely your assumption that the universe is obligated to make countable its number of days past.

What the universe is obligated to is irrelevant as to whether or not I can make "countable numbers of days past".

Of course I understand the implications. When I say your argument is circular then I am saying your premises and conclusions imply each other.

If the number of days past are countable, then the universe has a beginning.

True proposition

If the universe has a beginning, then the number of days past are countable.

Another true proposition

Is the circularity apparent yet?

It is apparent that the above propositions are true and you've helped me make my case.

Or perhaps your argument could be formulated as follows:

P1) The number of days past are countable
P2) The number of days past are not countable if the universe is past time-infinite
C) Therefore the universe is not past time-infinite

You keep yelling P2, but I (and presumably benchwarmer and Bust Nak) don't have a problem with P2. The disagreement is with P1, for which you have offered nothing in terms of supporting argument.

I did, and that is where all of the equal distance to the left or right (past/future) comes from. If I was able to reach any given point on the timeline, then I should be able to move, either forward or backwards and arrive at a point of equal distance (relative to current point).

But I can't do it, because in order to arrive at equal distance, you need two points..but there is NO two points of equal distance on an infinite timeline.

So it is just because of the mere FACT that we've successfully managed to arrived at the present day..it is because of this fact ALONE that we can conclude that time had a beginning.

Now, if you think otherwise, you are implying that we've successfully traversed an infinite amount of points, and here we are at today. You are implying that infinity can be traversed, which is logically absurd.

You just say that "the universe has a beginning because the universe has a beginning", over and over again, just rewording it in various ways.

1. Our universe cannot exist without time
2. Time had a beginning
3. Therefore, our universe had a beginning

Wow, I like this syllogism even better than that of the KCA.

It's not a replacement, but a supplement. The conclusion of the above argument is P2 of the KCA, not the conclusion of the KCA.

Irrelevant. What you just said has no barren on the truth value of the above syllogism.

[FarWanderer]

If you define the past by events, then yes there would be an infinite number of events. However, I do not see how this might make sense of a "point" representing an infinite number of events past.

Ok, so lets take this slow...hypothetically, if the past is eternal..would not the totality of today, and ALL days prior to today (24 hour periods=day), wouldn't this "set" of days have a grand amount which equals infinity?

Yes or no?

I'll go with "yes", with some reservations about "totaling" to infinity.

At any rate, I haven't any idea how you can get to there being a "point" representing an infinite number.

An infinite past is made up of "points in time, infinitely long ago".

No. An infinite past is made up of points, each a finite amount of time ago, but extending infinitely.

Dude, you just said "an infinite past"...and I said "infinitely long ago".

They mean the same thing..yet, for some strange reason, you disagreed with what I said.

They do not mean the same thing. On a graph, an infinite past is an unbounded region of (time)<(now), whereas at best "infinitely long ago" just gets an arrow pointing towards the past.

Splitting hairs. An arrow pointing to an infinite past is an arrow pointing to past eternity. You can use infinite past and past eternity interchangeably.

I don't disagree, but how does "past eternity" get us to "a point infinitely long ago"?

Second, if the past is eternal (as it would have to be on naturalism), nothing is stopping a person (me) from assigning a natural number to every day which led to 9-26-18, and putting the days in numerical order.

Nothing is prohibiting me from doing so, OTHER than the fact that it is impossible to do..it can't be done, which is why you nor anyone else can do it.

Well, by golly, that would be the point. It is merely your assumption that the universe is obligated to make countable its number of days past.

What the universe is obligated to is irrelevant as to whether or not I can make "countable numbers of days past".

And whether you can [strike]make [/strike] assume countable the number of days past is relevant to nothing at all.

Of course I understand the implications. When I say your argument is circular then I am saying your premises and conclusions imply each other.

If the number of days past are countable, then the universe has a beginning.

True proposition

If the universe has a beginning, then the number of days past are countable.

Another true proposition

Is the circularity apparent yet?

It is apparent that the above propositions are true and you've helped me make my case.

At what point should I start believing that you are just playing dumb?

Prove my suspicions wrong. Tell me how I just helped you make your case.

Or perhaps your argument could be formulated as follows:

P1) The number of days past are countable
P2) The number of days past are not countable if the universe is past time-infinite
C) Therefore the universe is not past time-infinite

You keep yelling P2, but I (and presumably benchwarmer and Bust Nak) don't have a problem with P2. The disagreement is with P1, for which you have offered nothing in terms of supporting argument.

I did, and that is where all of the equal distance to the left or right (past/future) comes from. If I was able to reach any given point on the timeline, then I should be able to move, either forward or backwards and arrive at a point of equal distance (relative to current point). But I can't do it, because in order to arrive at equal distance, you need two points..but there is NO two points of equal distance on an infinite timeline.

You can't establish a "distance" without two points in the first place. There is no distance for any such points to be equal to.

The only way your statement makes any sense is if the "distance" you are talking about is between the "present point in time" and the "beginning point in time". Therefore I conclude your logic is circular. Either that or nonsensical.

So it is just because of the mere FACT that we've successfully managed to arrived at the present day..it is because of this fact ALONE that we can conclude that time had a beginning.

Now, if you think otherwise, you are implying that we've successfully traversed an infinite amount of points, and here we are at today. You are implying that infinity can be traversed, which is logically absurd.

This conversation can't advance without you answering the question "Equal distance to what"?

You just say that "the universe has a beginning because the universe has a beginning", over and over again, just rewording it in various ways.

1. Our universe cannot exist without time
2. Time had a beginning
3. Therefore, our universe had a beginning

Wow, I like this syllogism even better than that of the KCA.

It's not a replacement, but a supplement. The conclusion of the above argument is P2 of the KCA, not the conclusion of the KCA.

Irrelevant. What you just said has no barren on the truth value of the above syllogism.

Not everything I say is meant to contradict you. But if we are to talk about "irrelevance", the syllogism itself is "irrelevant". We have been arguing your P2 this whole time, so what's the point of adding the P1?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes, but these were not 'days'.

You are splitting hairs..I am only using "day" as a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time. I can care less about the rotation of the earth.

And now you are assuming an infinite timeline?

Only for arguments sake.

Your question is such a mess it's hard to tell what you are after.

Red herring brewing.

This is undefined unless you are willing to define the earliest day. Will you do that? Then your answer is simple math. If you are not willing, then the answer is simply undefined.

Dilly dallying. On naturalism, each day was preceded by an earlier day..if you have problem finding the "earliest" day, then you should have a problem finding a "present" day (on an infinite timeline).

Your question seems to change every time clarification is requested.

Only to you.

True story: Yesterday, I asked a coworker to walk the distance from the desk, to the wall..and to count his steps. He proceeded to count his steps as he walked to the wall.

I then asked him to walk the opposite direction he came, and when he get to the point of equal distance, he stopped. He proceeded to walk in his same, normal pace back towards the desk...and there was a total of 12 steps, both directions.

He seemed to understand what I asked him to do, without asking ONE question for clarification.

Hmm.

Tell us what the earliest 'day' is and we can tell you what number to assign to today. Other wise it's simply undefined and pointless.

Dude, obviously there is no earliest day. If there is no earliest day, there can be no present day.

This seems to be common practice for you. You are asked for clarification and refuse to give it. Perhaps it's because you can't? If you can, why don't you simply do that? Are you testing for clairvoyance or something? I can't read minds.

Again, my coworker didn't need any clarification..probably because the task is self-explanatory to any common sensical human being who doesn't have a worldview to protect.

If you don't know what "equal distance" in the opposite direction of your forward traversed point..then I can't help you.

Yet this is not what you said earlier. You just kept saying "equal distance". Now you appear to be folding and supplying the 'something' we are talking about in relation to the phrase 'equal distance'. You would have saved countless posts and back and forth misunderstanding if you would simply define your questions more carefully. [/quote]

I've been saying the same thing over and over again.

There was nothing hard about because I clearly defined what I was talking about in complete contrast to what you were doing. Now that it's clear what you were talking about your response is insult?

Do you think we are asking you questions just because it's fun? Most of use are trying to communicate with understanding.

Well, now that you supposedly "understand"..please spare me the jibber jabber and address my point.

Note the example you give. Did you just say "equal amount" or did you qualify it? You are proving my point. Insulting me after finally drawing out what you really mean hardly seems appropriate. You should be celebrating we are on the same page.

Do you or do you NOT know what "equal" means?

I've noticed a pattern when you do this. I now take this to mean you understand exactly what I said and have no rebuttal.

When I don't understand something, I ask questions...and what is a "?", besides a question.

[benchwarmer]

Yes, but these were not 'days'.

You are splitting hairs..I am only using "day" as a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time. I can care less about the rotation of the earth.

What I was doing was being precise. The fact that you have to keep updating your question proves the point.

This is undefined unless you are willing to define the earliest day. Will you do that? Then your answer is simple math. If you are not willing, then the answer is simply undefined.

Dilly dallying. On naturalism, each day was preceded by an earlier day..if you have problem finding the "earliest" day, then you should have a problem finding a "present" day (on an infinite timeline).

Now I really have no clue what you are trying to say. I already gave you the earliest 'day' for the earth. You didn't like that. The earliest 'day' for the universe we live in was approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Are you trying to suggest those who only go by what can be shown to actually exist can't put a date on today based on the 13.8 billion year age of the universe?

The real issue is, we don't know what happened before our universe started expanding. Rather than guess and claim it to be true as many theists are known for doing, naturalists simply answer "I don't know". IF (notice the word 'if') the energy that currently makes up our universe came from somewhere else and is just continually changing state then that would mean the energy didn't just pop out of nothing or magically exude from some god concept.

Look, even if it was a god that popped the current universe into existence, that god concept would have had to decide at some point to do this action. Most theists claim their god concept is eternal so we are right back at the same problem. Which natural number do you assign to the 'day' your god decided to pop the universe into existence? Wait, you can't do that can you because you've already shot yourself in the foot by claiming we can't give a number to the day in question if we are dealing in an infinite timeline (which your god would be). Oops.

So there are a couple issues here:

1) The KCA is assuming our universe is the beginning of ALL energy. Simply acknowledging our current universe had a beginning doesn't prove anything in relation to there being an invisible god concept.

2) If the KCA were somehow shown to be valid (which it's not) it would simply move the exact same problem onto the god you are trying to prove exists. It supposedly lives in an infinite timeline thus would never be able to get to the day of poofing the universe into existence - by your very own logic.

3) If point 2 were ignored, then one would have to explain how the god concept began and the circle begins again.

In short, this whole exercise is simply word games based on guessing and trying to use that to prove a god concept is responsible. Yet as soon as one might do that, they are left having just disproved their own god at the same time. The only savior is special pleading.

Your question seems to change every time clarification is requested.

Only to you.

True story: Yesterday, I asked a coworker to walk the distance from the desk, to the wall..and to count his steps. He proceeded to count his steps as he walked to the wall.

I then asked him to walk the opposite direction he came, and when he get to the point of equal distance, he stopped. He proceeded to walk in his same, normal pace back towards the desk...and there was a total of 12 steps, both directions.

He seemed to understand what I asked him to do, without asking ONE question for clarification.

Hmm.

Hmm indeed. Clearly you are either not relating the story exactly as it happened or your colleague guessed at what you meant.

I quote "I then asked him to walk the opposite direction he came". Really? That's all you told him? Either you have some grammar errors in the rest of that sentence or you failed to give him and/or us the needed information. If you simply asked me to turn around and walk the opposite direction I would ask you how far you want me to walk and why. If we are in a confined space like an office and I have no choice but to stop where I started or walk into a cubicle or a wall this whole exercise is pointless.

Did you perhaps actually ask him to turn around and walk the equal distance he just walked? Or perhaps you just said "walk the equal distance" and since he just finished walking assumed you meant "walk the equal distance to what I just did"?

Either way, your example is pointless. We are in a debate environment and precision in language is required or people just start guessing at your meaning. Just because someone may have guessed correctly does not excuse you from clarifying your message. If your colleague had asked "equal to what"? Would you have just stared at him and laughed?

I work in an environment where many people don't speak English as a first language so if someone asked me to "walk the equal distance" with no context or reference points I would be asking for clarifications and assuming a language barrier. I wouldn't be judging them, just trying to get to the exact meaning.

Do you or do you NOT know what "equal" means?

I know exactly what it means. Do you understand that in English you have to provide some context with that word so people know that you are talking about? Equal TO WHAT?

Hey FtK, push your spacebar an equal number of times. Let me know what natural number you arrive at when you stop.

This is the type of nonsensical use of the word 'equal' you have been using and why you are getting all the push back.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'll go with "yes", with some reservations about "totaling" to infinity.

Well, lets talk about those reservations, then. The totality of today, along with all of the days prior to today; what would you call this amount/set of days?

At any rate, I haven't any idea how you can get to there being a "point" representing an infinite number.

I don't understand the question. Please clarify.

I don't disagree, but how does "past eternity" get us to "a point infinitely long ago"?

Dude, that is kinda my point (no pun intended); the fact that there IS no point.

And whether you can [strike]make [/strike] assume countable the number of days past is relevant to nothing at all.

?

At what point should I start believing that you are just playing dumb?

Prove my suspicions wrong. Tell me how I just helped you make your case.

Well, "make my case" was a bad choice of words..it was more like "you made a bunch of true propositions that I agree with".

That is more like it.

You can't establish a "distance" without two points in the first place. There is no distance for any such points to be equal to. The only way your statement makes any sense is if the "distance" you are talking about is between the "present point in time" and the "beginning point in time". Therefore I conclude your logic is circular. Either that or nonsensical.

Dude, again, that is my point. If you can't "establish" a distance, then you can't "go" or "traverse" a distance. But on naturalism, the past is eternal, as there is no beginning point..so how in the heck are we traversing any distances?

Now, if we are sitting here agreeing to this; what is the problem? What is your beef?

If we both agree that the whole "distance" thing without two points is absurd, then I assume that we would both agree that such an absurd concept cannot reflect natural reality...and if it can't reflect natural reality, then a beginning point is necessary, and if a beginning point is necessary, then a beginning to time is necessary...and if a beginning of time is necessary, then a timeless cause is necessary.

I don't see how you can agree to the former, but disagree with the latter.

So it is just because of the mere FACT that we've successfully managed to arrived at the present day..it is because of this fact ALONE that we can conclude that time had a beginning.

Now, if you think otherwise, you are implying that we've successfully traversed an infinite amount of points, and here we are at today. You are implying that infinity can be traversed, which is logically absurd.

This conversation can't advance without you answering the question "Equal distance to what"?

Ok, I see what is going on here, so let me clarify. Any time I mention the "equal distance" thing..I am not alleging that there is in fact an equal distance. I am merely implying that, if the past is eternal (which it would have to be, on naturalism), then there should ultimately be a point of equal distance..but, there ISN'T a point of equal distance, therefore, the past cannot be eternal and a beginning of time is necessary.

So, the syllogism would go a lil something like this..

1. If the past is eternal, there should be a point of equal distance from the present moment in both directions (past or future) (infinite in both directions).

2. There isn't a point of equal distance from the present moment in both directions (past or future).

3. Therefore, the past is not eternal.

Just as simple as that.

Not everything I say is meant to contradict you. But if we are to talk about "irrelevance", the syllogism itself is "irrelevant". We have been arguing your P2 this whole time, so what's the point of adding the P1?

Well, you can certainly think that it is irrelevant..but the way I look at it, it is just one more avenue which leads to the inevitable conclusion...you know, the conclusion that ultimately gets us to the "G" word.

[Bust Nak]

And by misuse you mean something like not following the rules (i.e. infinity-infinity is indeterminate) which have been put in place to avoid running into absurdities (i.e. infinity-infinity=infinity)?

Yes, so follow the rules.

You dont think those rules actually eliminate the existence of the absurdities themselves though, do you?

Yes, of course I do.

But as long as you agree infinity-infinity=infinity leads to absurdities thats all I need. Youve virtually conceded the point that infinity can entail absurdities.

In the same sense you have virtually conceded the point equality can entail absurdities.

In fact, every time you declared infinity-infinity is undefined you reaffirm the existence of these absurdities.

I readily affirm that there would be absurdities if you don't follow the rules. That there are such rules means there are no absurdities.

Patently false. I appealed to mathematics to show that infinity-infinity can equal infinity.

Nah, an appeal to mathematics would require one to follow the rules, including the one that says infinity-infinity is undefined. The absolute best you can do while actually appealed to mathematics to show the limit to certain equations that takes the form infinity-infinity, does equal infinity.

All you are doing here is repeating yourself. You just keep telling me "Infinity-infinity is undefined." As though that settles the matter.

Well, I did say it was the end of story. Infinity-infinity is undefined, nothing you can bring to the table can challenge that. It's hardly surprising that I would repeat Infinity-infinity is undefined as it settles the matter.

But that doesnt make the absurdities non-existent.

Yes that does absurdities non-existent; or more accurately, said absurdities never existed in the first place, since there are rules in mathematics that prevent their existence.

Ill tell you what though. The next time... just put down as the answer Infinity-infinity is undefined or You cant do that! or There is no answer! or something along those lines. See if you get your answer marked as correct.

You wont. But go ahead and do it anyway.

Nah, I will pass. Instead I would give the answer "infinity." Someone in position to mark my answer would already know that "infinity-infinity is undefined" and "one can't do that!" and there is "no answer to infinity-infinity."

What article are you reading? The article in question doesnt even use the term undefined.

Right, but that's what it has shown - by treating infinity as a number he got multiple answers for infinity-infinity, demonstrating why infinity-infinity is undefined, and why it's a bad idea to treat infinity as a number.

Patently false assertion. It was mathematical the whole time.

Nah, she broke the rule, "no infinity-infinity=infinity."

Its not like she switched from math to conjugating a verb in French half way through. If you mean her math was incorrect then go ahead and show me where it was.

I told you exactly where, where she wrote "infinity-infinity=infinity." I challenged the author on that by the way, while not the explicit affirmation that I was hoping for, she said "of course its in terms of limits. it cant be mean another way, cause infinity is not a number."

Of course we can. And when we do, we find contradictions and absurdities.

Contradictions and absurdities cannot exist. If you did something that lead to Contradictions and absurdities that means you've done something wrong.

The example of the trivial limit L3 in section 2. Its an infinity-infinity form and the answer is infinity. But go ahead and show where he went wrong in the math.

It was perfectly fine though, it just doesn't mean infinity-infinity=infinity.

What about the examples of the trivial limit L1 and L2 in section 2 which also both take the indeterminate form infinity-infinity and are shown to be equal to 0 and 3 respectively? Are those wrong too?

No, they are not wrong, as neither of them would imply infinity-infinity=0 or infinity-infinity=3.

Heres another one. Go to example 11.

Further examples are not necessary, the ones you provided do not allow one to conclude that infinity-infinity is equal to anything, what good are more examples?

Right. Because by avoiding it, they avoid the absurdities. They cant eliminate the existence of the absurdity. They can only use tricks to try to get a meaningful answer.

If they can be avoided, then the absurdities don't exist. Think of your Zeno's paradox example, are you going to tell me the invention of calculus has not eliminated the absurdity of Achilles reaching and then passing the tortoise?

Im not sure what you mean by circumvent infinity-infinity to get an answer. But they do use tricks to ascertain some kind of meaningful answer from the indeterminate form infinity-infinity. Sometimes the answer is infinity.

But that still doesn't mean infinity-infinity=infinity. Again, nothing you say or point out can change that.

Noted. Now how do you know that it was deliberate?

Because it would have been easier to convey the message to lay people as the youtuber has done.

And what does what they dont say prove? As though there is some special meaning behind not explicitly stating infinity-infinity=infinity. Not to mention you are knocking down a strawman anyway. No where have I argued that infinity-infinity=infinity in some kind of determined sense.

You have indirectly argued that every time you say infinity-infinity can equal infinity. You are saying in some specific but not all cases, infinity-infinity is deterministically equal to infinity. That's a big no no.

Ive maintained from the start that infinity-infinity can equal infinity; that it depends; that it is one of numerous possible answers. Hence, the absurdity.

You are doing it again! Infinity-infinity cannot, never ever, equal to anything.

Mathematicians, when they encounter the indeterminate form infinity-infinity, while evaluating limits, dont just walk away and say, Its undefined. Next question. Each indeterminate case needs to be worked through using the tricks to find the limit. Sometimes the answer is infinity. It just depends.

And even in those cases, you cannot say infinity-infinity=infinity.

The author didnt say This is not correct of course..." in relation to the math. Nice try.

If the premise is incorrect, nothing that follows is valid.

Oh and by the way, I guess this means everything that was in that article is incorrect then since as youve argued in post 138, It literally tells you the argument is starting with an incorrect premise. Therefore, the article must be incorrect when the article goes on to show how infinity + infinity = infinity.

Well the reasoning is wrong, the conclusion, not necessarily so.

Argued by pure assertion. Tell me where the math was incorrect in the example she used: limit of (3n " n) = infinity-infinity = infinity.

Even more explicitly: while limit of (3n " n) = infinity, and limit of (3n " n) takes the form of infinity-infinity, infinity-infinity still does not equal infinity.

But they illustrated the same point, just using different examples, as the girl in the video.

Right, they do that without stating or implying that infinity-infinity=infinity. That's why they are fine.

That when evaluating limits the indeterminate form infinity " infinity can yield different answers. In the three examples from section 2 in this link, where the indeterminate form infinity-infinity is found, the answers are equal to 1, 3, and infinity respectively.

That's fine too, they are following the rules of mathematics.

Thats just simply wrong.

What in that article has contradicted anything I said?

You mean the guy who apparently attributed his theory to a revelation from God? You mean his intuition is correct?

Yes, that's the guy. Cantor is indeed the man.

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that the conceptual realm of mathematics can show infinity actually exists in the real world?

No, I am saying even if one cannot make sense of concepts such as infinity, we can still just follow the rules mathematics.

Setting aside the circularity here I didnt ask for close. I asked you to show me where infinity has been shown to exist in the real material world. Look, we both know it doesnt. I just want to see you say it.

Fine: there is no confirm cases of actual infinity in the material world, but I would again point out current cosmology is pointing towards an infinite universe.

Sure the rooms are countable (they are countably infinite). The problem is what happens when an uncountably infinite amount of guests show up looking for rooms?

They won't fit, what's the problem here?

Setting that aside, the initial paradox is that the hotel is full, every room is occupied with a guest. Yet it can accommodate an infinite amount of new guests, even though its supposed to be full with no rooms available. That is the paradox.

That just mean the intuition that a full hotel always implies there are no rooms available is wrong. Like I said counter intuitive as opposed to absurd (in the logical sense.)

You dont think such a hotel really exists do you?

No, but it can (in the metaphysically sense) exist.

What do you mean by bait and switch?

...The question was originally given in context to the observable universe. You switched and answered in the context of the universe.

And that's the point, let me clarify: I can 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, by appealing to the possibility of there being infinite space in the whole (not just observable) universe - I can fit infinitely many real material dollar bills in the real material space of an infinite universe and still have plenty of room left in the observable universe. Some infinities are larger than others.

As I am not suggesting that there is infinite space in the observable universe, I do not hold the burden to provide evidence for such a thing. You were asking me the same question again, the same answer applies - Not if there is infinite space in the universe.

Of course it's mathematic. Its just math you dont like because it leads to absurdities.

If it leads to absurdities then it is not mathematic. Theres nothing absurd about infinity.

It doesnt say the math is incorrect.

Okay, but it does mean that anywhere where infinity is used as a number is incorrect.

But thats just a rule put in place to avoid the absurdities. The absurdities themselves dont become non-existent simply because a rule to avoid them has been issued.

Yes, they do become non-existent. Or rather, they are never existent in the first place because there are rules in place to prevent them from actualizing.

Ill quote the whole paragraph...

When they say, this is not correct of course... they are referring to treating infinity like a number (which it isnt, its just an idea) where there isnt any number larger than it. They arent saying the math and everything to follow is wrong. I mean what would be the point of the article then?

The point is to show why mathematicians say infinity-infinity is undefined.

What do you mean here? By definition infinity is without limit or boundary. How can we then think of infinity as a limit? Or do you mean we can say the limit is infinity if we mean there is no limit?

Yep, that's it.

[Bust Nak]

Dude, that is kinda my point (no pun intended); the fact that there IS no point.

So why are you asking about it as if there IS such a point?!

If you can't "establish" a distance, then you can't "go" or "traverse" a distance. But on naturalism, the past is eternal, as there is no beginning point..so how in the heck are we traversing any distances?

By going between any arbitrary pair of points (where neither point is "the beginning point" of eternity,) obviously. That's why we keep giving you "zero" or "one" and some other number as answers to the various iterations of your challenge - any number would work, they all work.

If we both agree that the whole "distance" thing without two points is absurd, then I assume that we would both agree that such an absurd concept cannot reflect natural reality...and if it can't reflect natural reality, then a beginning point is necessary

That does not follow. You can still have two points without appealing to some sort of beginning point of eternity.

Any time I mention the "equal distance" thing..I am not alleging that there is in fact an equal distance. I am merely implying that, if the past is eternal (which it would have to be, on naturalism), then there should ultimately be a point of equal distance..

And that's where you keep going wrong, there cannot be a point of "equal distance" if there isn't in fact an equal distance. The should not ultimately be such a point.

1. If the past is eternal, there should be a point of equal distance from the present moment in both directions (past or future) (infinite in both directions).

This premise is false, because "equal distance" is undefined. Just as simple as that.

[For_The_Kingdom]

What I was doing was being precise. The fact that you have to keep updating your question proves the point.

It was unnecessary, but ok.

Now I really have no clue what you are trying to say. I already gave you the earliest 'day' for the earth. You didn't like that.

I didn't like it because "time" existed before the manifestation of the earth..but you seem to be stuck on this "earth" stuff...so I specified that I am talking about the mere concept of 24 hour periods of time, with/without the earth.

Now, what part of that you don't understand, I don't know.

The earliest 'day' for the universe we live in was approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

Right, but on naturalism, time OBVIOUSLY existed prior to 13.8 billion years ago, so this one specific event in time that you are referring to shouldn't even be a consideration relating to ANYTHING.

Are you trying to suggest those who only go by what can be shown to actually exist can't put a date on today based on the 13.8 billion year age of the universe?

Um, no..it would be hard for me to suggest that..since the "date" is known; as you said..13.8 billion years ago.

The real issue is, we don't know what happened before our universe started expanding.

What happened "before" our universe started expanding is irrelevant...just as long as time existed prior to our universe expanding. THAT is what the real issue is.

Second, now you have even more logical problems..if the past is eternal, then why did our universe begin to expand ONLY 13.8 years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later?

If the "conditions" for the universe to expand had existed for an infinite time, then why would it expand a "finite" time ago?

Makes no sense.

Rather than guess and claim it to be true as many theists are known for doing, naturalists simply answer "I don't know".

"I don't know" just won't cut it here. It is called "critical thinking". If you do some critical thinking, assessing both alternatives (naturalism, supernaturalism), you draw the obvious conclusion: An uncaused cause is necessary.

It is my opinion (for what its worth), that no one can examine the evidences from both sides, and conclude that they "don't know" thereafter.

IF (notice the word 'if') the energy that currently makes up our universe came from somewhere else

And where would this energy have come from?

and is just continually changing state then that would mean the energy didn't just pop out of nothing or magically exude from some god concept.

Ok, so again; tell me where would this energy have "come from" if it didn't pop out of nothing or magically come from God.

Where?

Look, even if it was a god that popped the current universe into existence, that god concept would have had to decide at some point to do this action. Most theists claim their god concept is eternal so we are right back at the same problem.

Why do you conclude that we are right back at the same problem? What, do you think that Christian apologists don't have an answer to this dilemma? If that is what you think; think again

Which natural number do you assign to the 'day' your god decided to pop the universe into existence? Wait, you can't do that can you because you've already shot yourself in the foot by claiming we can't give a number to the day in question if we are dealing in an infinite timeline (which your god would be). Oops.

Wait a minute; first of all..are you acknowledging that you understand the "past eternal" dilemma as it relates to the universe? Sounds to me like you understand it, which is why you offer the challenge to me on the flip side with God.

Now obviously, I wouldn't dare beg the question by claiming that God can pull the stunt off, but not the universe...so, the question is; how is God able to pull it off, but not the universe?

Answer; God doesn't pull it off...instead, he is able to wiggle out of the problem altogether. But that is a conversation for another thread, which we will get to at a later time.

So there are a couple issues here:

1) The KCA is assuming our universe is the beginning of ALL energy. Simply acknowledging our current universe had a beginning doesn't prove anything in relation to there being an invisible god concept.

Well, in my other KCA thread, I explained that by "universe", I am talking about ALL PHYSICAL REALITY..which would include our universe, and any other natural reality out there, PERIOD.

2) If the KCA were somehow shown to be valid (which it's not) it would simply move the exact same problem onto the god you are trying to prove exists. It supposedly lives in an infinite timeline thus would never be able to get to the day of poofing the universe into existence - by your very own logic.

This is self refuting, because the same dilemma can't be used for both options (the only TWO options, at that). Obviously, one side of the coin will prevail, while the other fails. They both can't be false, and they both can't be true...so one has to be necessarily true, while the other one necessarily false.

So in other words, no..the same problem doesn't apply to God.

3) If point 2 were ignored, then one would have to explain how the god concept began and the circle begins again.

But we need not do all of that.

In short, this whole exercise is simply word games based on guessing and trying to use that to prove a god concept is responsible. Yet as soon as one might do that, they are left having just disproved their own god at the same time. The only savior is special pleading.

But it ain't, though.

Hmm indeed. Clearly you are either not relating the story exactly as it happened or your colleague guessed at what you meant.

I quote "I then asked him to walk the opposite direction he came". Really? That's all you told him? Either you have some grammar errors in the rest of that sentence or you failed to give him and/or us the needed information. If you simply asked me to turn around and walk the opposite direction I would ask you how far you want me to walk and why. If we are in a confined space like an office and I have no choice but to stop where I started or walk into a cubicle or a wall this whole exercise is pointless. Did you perhaps actually ask him to turn around and walk the equal distance he just walked? Or perhaps you just said "walk the equal distance" and since he just finished walking assumed you meant "walk the equal distance to what I just did"?

Really??? Hmm, well, in post # 131, I stated to YOU..

If you are at the 0 yard line on a football field, and I asked you to walk forward 20 yards, and stop. And once you stopped at the 20 yard line, I ask you to walk the opposite direction of the 20 yard line, and stop once you reach equal distance...at what yard line would you stop?

That is an exact quote, isn't it? Yes, it sure is. Go check it out. You got EVERYTHING in the analogy that he got, yet he did what I asked him to do with no extra questionnaires involved.

Either way, your example is pointless. We are in a debate environment and precision in language is required or people just start guessing at your meaning. Just because someone may have guessed correctly does not excuse you from clarifying your message. If your colleague had asked "equal to what"? Would you have just stared at him and laughed?

Dude, if say "turn around and walk EQUAL DISTANCE the OPPOSITE direction that you've JUST WALKED FORWARD".

The question would be "What is the distance that I walked forward"..I told him to count his steps, so he knew that if he walked 12 steps forwards, then equal distance the opposite direction would be 12 STEPS BACKWARDS!!!

The task was self explanatory!! He didn't need to ask any questions, nor was I worried that he would ask "from what" because I figured he was bright enough to know from what, based on what he was told.

I work in an environment where many people don't speak English as a first language so if someone asked me to "walk the equal distance" with no context or reference points I would be asking for clarifications and assuming a language barrier. I wouldn't be judging them, just trying to get to the exact meaning.

Oh, your point would be valid if it wasn't based on the false premise that there was no context. There was context, as the record shows.

I know exactly what it means. Do you understand that in English you have to provide some context with that word so people know that you are talking about? Equal TO WHAT?

Hey FtK, push your spacebar an equal number of times. Let me know what natural number you arrive at when you stop.

That is an inaccurate depiction of what is going on here. A more accurate depiction would be if you tasked me with; Hey, Ftk, at 12:00, I want you to push your spacebar 8 times...and at 1:00, I want you to push your spacebar the equal amount of times that you pushed it at 12:00."

Since I know that "equal" means "the same"...I know that if, at 12:00, I pushed my spacebar 8 times...that "equal the amount" of 8 would be....8.

This is basic, elementary stuff here.

This is the type of nonsensical use of the word 'equal' you have been using and why you are getting all the push back.

If you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell ya *shrugs*.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 165 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi FtK, if you would, please tell me if you consider this an accurate characterization of your position.

P1) There exists a point in time "X" that, together with the present point in time, defines the past.
P2) If the universe is past-eternal, no such point in time "X" would exist.
C) Therefore, the universe is not past-eternal.