The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

"Is their a limit on how small something can be until it ceases to exist ?" If it has a size then it exists. "On what basis do you make this claim ?" The "big crunch" theory, in which gravitational forces stop the expansion of the universe, then reverse it into a contraction, until the universe eventually collapses in on itself. Though speculative, it's one of the many theories that attempt to predict the outcome of the universe. "Why can't the universe be a potential infinite ?" It can, indeed, be a potential infinite, provided that it continues to exist, another of the theoretical outcomes. It can't be an actual infinite, though, one that has no beginning, and no end, because the scientific community has concluded that it had a beginning. "Pro seeks to refute my argument on the basis that their is no fundamental actual existence of time but rather that time is just a product of the mind and is just as real as the flying spaghetti monster is, as Pro says "Time is a concept and measurement invented by humans" I think con may be misunderstanding my meaning, perhaps I should have left out the word "concept". I'm not implying that time is a figment of our imagination, as is the flying spaghetti monster. Time is, indeed, real and does exist, as a system of measure. It is just as real as our systems of measuring length, weight, etc. Just as those systems of measure were worked out by humans, so was the system of time and, as such, did not always exist. We could take all measurement of time, and all words that relate to our measurement of time, out of our language, and the universe would continue to exist. For that reason, I don't think we can make the logical jump, from the measurement of time not existing, to that causing the universe not to exist, as con implies. "But even if this is the case, this refutes Pros own arguments. If there is no real time, then there is no real past, and if there is no real past then there was never a point in the real past where the universe did not exist." This isn't my argument. My attempt to refute your argument is, more accurately, framed this way. 1) Time exists as a system of measure. 2) That system of measure was invented by humans and, as such, could not have always existed. 3) "The past" is a descriptive term, assigned retroactively, that we use to describe anything prior to the present. 4) The only constraint, on the word "past", is that it be prior to the present. It has no beginning point unless we assign it one in our conversation, i.e. the past 500 years. This makes "the past" potentially infinite in how far back it can go. 5) The physical actions that time measures could not have been present until the universe began, thus time could not have existed prior to the beginning of the universe. 6) Not having a set beginning point, and being merely a descriptive term, "the past" can include the instant just prior to the beginning of the universe. 7) Therefore, the attempt to refute the KCA, based on the time/past comparison, fails in it's logic because there can be a past where the universe, thus time, didn't exist. I hope this clarifies some issues. I look forward to round 3.