Re: The Kalam Argument for the Existence of God

My response to Veritas48's video "The Kalam Argument for the Existence of God," which can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwKAsEe7ZHU


The URL for a mirror of VenomFangX's video "Proof God Is Real" is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W0Z88543yU


communitychannel's member page is located at:

http://www.youtube.com/communitychannel

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• religion
• atheist
• atheism
• agnostic
• Christianity
• Kalam
• cosmological
• infinity

[machinedean100]

They never said anything about an infinitesimal amount of time is pretty much no time. Also an infinite amount of time would also be like no time. That is there whole point there is no infinite amount of time. Only an amount of time. If time were infinite there would be no points a and b.

[mon2nika]

Life begun when man decided it begun. Infinity is a useless word that serves no one.

[Thistlesifter220]

Amazingly, even Albert Einstein (the most brilliant scientist of our time) laid the foundation of understanding that matter has not always existed, with his most famous "general theory of relativity." This well-accepted principle of physics was used to demonstrate mathematically that the universe had a beginning, and that all matter came into existence from outside the physical realm, outside the laws of physics.

From, Origins of the Universe by Dr. Jeff Fall

[Thistlesifter220]

"Radioactive materials have a known "half-life"—which means that within a known period of time, half of the radioactive element decays and disappears. If the universe has always existed, the radioactive elements would have decayed themselves totally out of existence."

From, Origins of the Universe by Dr. Jeff Fall

[rkyeun]

@drunkagnostic

There's nothing logically wrong with an infinite regress. The integers work very fine even without having any integer you can't subtract 1 from. But all infinite of those integers is each a finite distance from 0. And you never actually get to negative infinity, because it's not an integer.

[drunkagnostic]

@rkyeun Infinitely long ago never happened as a starting point you can put your pencil on, I agree. But this is no argument against an infinite regress of points before now, right?

[rkyeun]

Dear Veritas,

You have made the common mistake of trying to treat infinity like a number. You want to start at a point negative infinity and then say that zero would never happen. But infinity is not a place you can start. The number line doesn't have such a point for you to put your pencil on. What would the next "number" be? You have to start at zero, at now. You don't need to wait infinite time to get to now because it's now already. It's the infinitely long ago that never happened.

[SycorTheosPhilos]

@drunkagnostic There's one even prime within infinity? Hmm, well I'll be damned. :/ I stand corrected.

*I bow to you fine sir>* :)

[drunkagnostic]

@SycorTheosPhilos I can't remotely make out what you're trying to say. I didn't 'specify a certain # of anything "within" a period of infinity.' And you certainly can do so anyway; there's exactly one even prime 'within' the infinity of integers.

[SycorTheosPhilos]

@drunkagnostic It's not at all outrageous when considering the all or nothing results of infinity in function. There are no "in-betweens" of infinity. To even specify a certain # of anything "within" a period of infinity is a completely fallacious as a premise to the idea presented, unless we are somehow discussing multiple aspects of infinity. But even that in itself is ridiculous because then we would have to assume an infinite different forms of the infinite concept alone..let's not do that.