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 there are any misspellings, bad grammar, etc...my bad.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

How about a ring? if you follow the equator, where does it begin and where does it end?

i.e. can't something have a finite length, without having a beginning or end?

[Divine Insight]

If there are any misspellings, bad grammar, etc...my bad.

Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. Entropy) applies everywhere including prior to the existence of the universe.

In other words, you are insisting that there must always be an arrow of time, and that time constantly flows from an infinitely distant "past" to an infinitely distant "future".

So yes, if you make that assumption as your premise, then of course you are going to encounter logical contradictions.

So a better idea is to simply discard that premise as unlikely to be true.

It is far more likely that Entropy is a property of our physical universe and would not apply to conditions that may have existed before our universe began to "tick" away in its characteristic manner that we have come to call "Entropy".

So I've solved your problem already. Just give up on trying to premise that Entropy always holds true no matter what, and then the contradictions you current see will vanish and you will no longer have any need to be bothered by them anymore.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

How about a ring? if you follow the equator, where does it begin and where does it end?

i.e. can't something have a finite length, without having a beginning or end?

The problem with your idea is that you could mark the ring and then walk around it until you come back to the place where you had marked it and discover its finite nature that way.

In fact, it's even wrong mathematically to say that a ring has an infinite circumference. That would be like saying that at the equator the earth has an infinite circumference. We can demonstrate both mathematically, and physically, that this would be a false statement.

[wiploc]

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.

The universe is everything, all of existence. If gods exist, they are part of the universe.

If existence is finite, gods--if they exist at all--must be too.

If you're looking for an ultimate cause of everything, why would you arbitrarily stop when you think you've gotten to gods? Where did the gods come from is the obvious next question. There's no reason to "save all that talk."

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

What you've proven is that transfinite math isn't the same as finite math. You could have done the same trick with calculus or imaginary numbers or irrational numbers.

And that doesn't have anything to do with how things got started. You don't get to say, "I know a math trick so I get to declare how the universe began." That doesn't follow at all.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

How about a ring? if you follow the equator, where does it begin and where does it end?

i.e. can't something have a finite length, without having a beginning or end?

The problem with your idea is that you could mark the ring and then walk around it until you come back to the place where you had marked it and discover its finite nature that way.

In fact, it's even wrong mathematically to say that a ring has an infinite circumference. That would be like saying that at the equator the earth has an infinite circumference. We can demonstrate both mathematically, and physically, that this would be a false statement.

That's what I'm saying, something can be without a beginning or end, and still be finite

[For_The_Kingdom]

If there are any misspellings, bad grammar, etc...my bad.

Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. Entropy) applies everywhere including prior to the existence of the universe.

In other words, you are insisting that there must always be an arrow of time, and that time constantly flows from an infinitely distant "past" to an infinitely distant "future".

So yes, if you make that assumption as your premise, then of course you are going to encounter logical contradictions.

So a better idea is to simply discard that premise as unlikely to be true.

It is far more likely that Entropy is a property of our physical universe and would not apply to conditions that may have existed before our universe began to "tick" away in its characteristic manner that we have come to call "Entropy".

So I've solved your problem already. Just give up on trying to premise that Entropy always holds true no matter what, and then the contradictions you current see will vanish and you will no longer have any need to be bothered by them anymore.

Bro, my argument is completely independent of your view of time.. It is also independent of your view on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. It just isn't fazed by any of that stuff...and that is why the argument is so fire-proof.

I am talking about the EVENTS IN TIME...the total amount of events in time which led to the current events in time (today) cannot be infinite, which it would have to be if the past is eternal.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

The universe is everything, all of existence. If gods exist, they are part of the universe.

If existence is finite, gods--if they exist at all--must be too.

If you're looking for an ultimate cause of everything, why would you arbitrarily stop when you think you've gotten to gods? Where did the gods come from is the obvious next question. There's no reason to "save all that talk."

Irrelevant to any point that I made in the thread.

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

What you've proven is that transfinite math isn't the same as finite math.

Um, no. What I've proven is that when you apply infinity to real life scenarios, you get real life absurdities.

You could have done the same trick with calculus or imaginary numbers or irrational numbers.

What trick?

And that doesn't have anything to do with how things got started. You don't get to say, "I know a math trick so I get to declare how the universe began." That doesn't follow at all.

Bro, you didn't address anything in the argument at all, and neither did DI. You guys are just talking, that's it. Its all good, though..because it only goes to show just how powerful the argument is.

You can say nothing, because you've got nothing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 3 by Guy Threepwood]

Irrelevant to the argument.