The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[o2bwise]

I Is Confused!

I Is Confused!

Hi Evangelion,

Say, by the way, I quoted a couple posts of yours that endeavored to shoot down the Saul/Mithraism contention. I placed them in another forum. If you'd like to know where, just let me know. (I did credit you, of course!)

OK, I asked you about a proof that was not axiomatic and you wrote:

Doctrinal interpretations are a fine example.

Correct me if I am wrong, but...

I believe you are implying:

1) Doctrinal interpretation is not axiomatic.

2) Doctrinal interpretation is a fine example of proving the existence of God.

How so?

God Bless...

Tony

 

[Evangelion]

Allow me to explain.

Allow me to explain.

Hi Tony.

You wrote:

I quoted a couple posts of yours that endeavored to shoot down the Saul/Mithraism contention. I placed them in another forum. If you'd like to know where, just let me know. (I did credit you, of course!)

Thanks, I'm flattered! Yes, please send me the URL of that forum, via the T.O.L. "Private Message" system. I might start posting there myself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but...

I believe you are implying:

1) Doctrinal interpretation is not axiomatic.

Exactly. That is precisely why it is referred to as an interpretation. Sure, everyone wants to claim that their doctrine is the only correct one - that's perfectly understandable. But the very fact that there are so many interpretations, merely proves that they are founded upon evidence, rather than axiomatic proof.

Can you see what I'm saying here?

2) Doctrinal interpretation is a fine example of proving the existence of God.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

If anything, I'm saying the exact opposite.

 

[mattbballman]

WOW!! It seems like your real ticked at something.
Your posts are filled with unecessary SARCASM.
So, if you want to be a jerk, I"ll be jerk.

::snore::snore::snore:: - oh are you talking? Sorry.

WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? I THOUGHT WE WERE HAVING AN INTELLIGENT conversation, but if you want to start acting like that then, because of you, this is gonna turn ugly.

Why don't you see it? We are talking about a god that you Christians claim exists within this universe. Why wouldn't he be subject to those laws as every other thing within the universe is subject? If he exists outside this universe then he's irrelevant to anything within this universe.

FIRST, We christians don't claim God exists WITHIN the unverse so I have no idea where the heck that idea came from.
-He would be subject to those laws if He was within the universe, but he's not. LET ME EXPLAIN.
Even though you probably won't read it.

READ THIS!!!!!!!! I stated that this cause, from the NATURE of the case, must be:
UNCAUSED: Because the universe is finite and you can't have an infinite regress of causes.
TIMELESS: in the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.
CHANGLESS: An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
IMMATERIAL: Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.
SPACELESS: Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.
The Creator is ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL: He brought the universe into being out of nothing.
The Creator is ENORMOUSLY INTELLIGENT:The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

Let me say it again ok . . . listening. . .ok here I go . . . ready . . .
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

Yes I'm familiar with the cop out. You claim everything needs a cause except God. It's nice when you have a theory where you can just make up the rules as you go along.

I'm beginning to sort of see that YOUR cop out is always of accusing me of copping out.

This is NOT a cop out. AND I'M not making up any rules, following rules.

Did you read why God doesn't need a cause, or did you read that little part in my post and say, "OH MY GOSH, He said it alread, God doesn't need a cause! I won't finish reading WHY He has a cause, and I'll make fun of mattbballman of copping out. . . . ok good idea, here I go . . ."
STUPID STUPID

Because of what I've alread said, if the cause of the universe truely is:
UNCAUSED: Because the universe is finite and you can't have an infinite regress of causes.
TIMELESS: in the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.
CHANGLESS: An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
IMMATERIAL: Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.
SPACELESS: Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.

Then this is where the buck stops. You don't ask for a cause for the FIRST, see that word, FIRST CAUSE why because it must be from being the cause of space, time, and matter:
UNCAUSED: Because the universe is finite and you can't have an infinite regress of causes.
TIMELESS: in the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.
CHANGLESS: An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
IMMATERIAL: Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.
SPACELESS: Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.

Why not?

Alright, we know what contingent means, and NECESSARY is the opposite namely, "noncontigent." The meaning of these terms are derived from their relationship to what is dependent on them. And these meanings are twofold: First, ther terms NECESSARY and INFINITE are negative.
Necessary means "non-contingent". Infinite means "not finite". We know what these limitations mean from experience, and, by contrast, we know that God doesn't have any of them. A negative term doesn't denote a negative attibute. It is not the affirmation of nothing; rather, it's the negation of all CONTINGENCY and LIMITATION in the FIRST CAUSE. The positive content of what God is derives from the causal principle. He is ACTUALITY because he causes all actuality. He is BEING because He is the cause of all being.

As Cause of all being his being can't be caused. As the Ground of all contigent being, he must be Necessary (noncontingent) being.

Wow, fantastic doublespeak! Have you been taking lessons from Maelstrom? Nothing you just said makes one bit of sense.

Look above at what I just posted.
1st sentence your sarcastic.
2nd. You insult me
3rd. You say that I make so sense as sarcastically as you possibly can.

incredable

Oh, how clever of him. Then he is irrelevent to anything in our universe. BTW, do you have any evidence of this trancendent god? Nevermind. I already know the answer.

This wouldn't be irrelevent because without God there would be no universe, I'm begging the question of God's existence, I'm showing that God would still be relevent to the universe if he wasn't in the universe, but transcendant to it.

Remember: Everything in the universe changes.
By being the cause of the unverse the cause mustbe
CHANGLESS:An infinite temporal regress of changes
cannot exist.

Yes and you start by begging the question that God did not begin to exist yet you show no evidence of such a thing.

Because it's self-evident.
Let me reduce "whatever begins to exist has a cause" to "every effect has a cause" samething different words.

In this form the principle of causality is analytically SELF-EVIDENT, since by EFFECT is meant what is caused and by a CAUSE is meant what pruduces the effect. Hence, the predicate is reducible to the subject. It is like saying, "Every triangle has 3 sides."

All contingent beings need a cause, for a contingent being is something that exists but that might, under other circumstances, not exist. Since it has the poosiblility not to exist, it doesn't account for its own existence. In itelf, there is no reason why it exists. Once it was nonbeing, but nonbeing can't cause anything. Being can only be caused by being. Only something can produce something.

You are simply defining God as you choose to define him. How do you know he never began to exist?

No I'm not, from the nature of the case, this cause being the cause of all space, time, and matter this cause must be:
UNCAUSED: Because the universe is finite and you can't have an infinite regress of causes.
TIMELESS: in the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.
CHANGLESS: An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
IMMATERIAL: Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.
SPACELESS: Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.
The Creator is ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL: He brought the universe into being out of nothing.
The Creator is ENORMOUSLY INTELLIGENT:The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

It's not what any atheist has ever claimed about God. See the problem with your logic yet?

No, point it out and I'll deal with it.

 

[mattbballman]

Matt,

Just a general question. Why are you so intent in trying to prove the existence of God? There are so many things to discuss.

If we accept that God exists: What is the nature of this God (i.e., is God personal, etc.)? Does God act in the world? If God does act in the world, how? That is, how does non-material interact with material? In what sense is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Maybe we can move on.

Ross

I just want to take this arguement far enought disprove athiesm. Personal or non-personal it would still disprove atheism.

-My motive isn't really to prove God's existence, but take what I think is a valid argument, the KCA as far as it goes until it fails.

When it fails and I see that the atheist has disproven it, I'll move on.

But until I see that, I'm going to defend it.

As far as nature goes, I put forth the requirement of a cause that caused space, time, and matter in a previous post, here they are again:
UNCAUSED: Because the universe is finite and you can't have an infinite regress of causes.
TIMELESS: in the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.
CHANGLESS: An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
IMMATERIAL: Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.
SPACELESS: Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.
The Creator is ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL: He brought the universe into being out of nothing.
The Creator is ENORMOUSLY INTELLIGENT:The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

I don't really think the we should move if we have VALID arguement for God's existence, but if it's proven INVALID I'll move on.

 

[mattbballman]

Evangelion:

One question:"You jump from the concept of "necessary causation" to "necessarily uncaused being" with absolutely no justification for either one."

Can you point out where I did this and explain what you mean by it.

Thanx alot . . .

 

[Zarathustra]

Matt I apologize for the sarcasm, but you keep repeating the same thing over and over again without ever proving your premises to be true.

You need to first prove the existance of a creator who is outside of time. That's where you need to start. You can not just create him in your mind for the sake of your argument. So I'll wait for you to prove this creator to be true.

 

[Evangelion]

Sure thing.

Sure thing.

Mattballman, you wrote:

One question:"You jump from the concept of "necessary causation" to "necessarily uncaused being" with absolutely no justification for either one."

Can you point out where I did this and explain what you mean by it.

No worries.

I was referring to the three premises on which your entire argument is based:

Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2:The universe began to exist.
Premise 3:Therefore the universe has a cause.

Well...

• Even if we accept Premise 1 (for the sake of the argument), we don't have any need for a Creator, much less God Himself.
• Even if we accept Premise 2 (for the sake of the argument), we don't have any need for a Creator, much less God Himself.
• Even if we accept Premise 3 (for the sake of the argument), we don't have any need for a Creator, much less God Himself.

In fact, I could use those three premises to "prove" that the universe is self-caused - and it would make a lot more sense, too!

Your options, therefore, are somewhat limited:

• Apply Occam's Razor and you will see that your three premises necessarily add up to an argument for a self-caused universe.
  Unfortunately, this eliminates the necessity of God's existence, which is precisely what you're attempting to prove.
  
• Follow the example of Leibniz by dropping Premise 1 and arguing for the necessary existence of the universe.
  Unfortunately, all this does is to remove the word "God" from your original argument and replace it with the word "universe."

Either way, you've (a) lost your original argument, and (b) sent yourself right back to the beginning again.

 

[mattbballman]

Yea, I'm sorry too.

The reason this creater has to be timeless is because it created time.

Let me restate what I said in my last post to you:
The Creator is changeless. An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
The Creator is immaterial. Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.
The Creator is timeless. In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.
The Creator is spaceless. Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless

You see whatever is IN the universe is changing and IN time.
But since it created all time, space, and matter at the big bang the CHANGLESSNESS, IMMATERIALNESS, TIMELESSNESS, AND SPACELESSNESS apply to this cause.

Therefore God must be OUTSIDE or must TRANSCENDANT space and time, becasue He's the cause of it.

Tell me if this helped .. .

 

[mattbballman]

Re: Sure thing.

Re: Sure thing.

Mattballman, you wrote:

In fact, I could use those three premises to "prove" that the universe is self-caused - and it would make a lot more sense, too!

I don't really see how anything that is self-caused can make any sense because that fact that self-causation introduces to us a contradiction.

For something to create itself, remember now the SOMETHING(the universe) does not exist, now it's called upon to create itself. Well how can it create itself, if IT itself doesn't exist.
It would have to BE before it IS.
That is it must BE and NOT BE at the same time and in the same relationship which clearly voilates the law of noncontradiction.

So if you hold to self-causation and apply that to the universe in light of the big bang theory you must believe that the . . . universe came from nothing and by nothing. But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

[*]Follow the example of Leibniz by dropping Premise 1 and arguing for the necessary existence of the universe.
Unfortunately, all this does is to remove the word "God" from your original argument and replace it with the word "universe."
[/list]

But the universes FINITENESS has been established through SCIENTIFIC and PHILOSOPHICAL evedences.

Scientific:
-Big Bang Theory
1. Second Law of Thermodynamics
2. The Expansion of the Galaxies
3. The Background radiation Echo

Pholosophical:
-The impossibility of there existing an ACTUAL infinite
-The impossibility of traversing an ACTUAL infinite even if it did exist.

So, through these evidences, the universe is to have a beginning.
If it had a beginning then it had a beginner which is God.
It couldn't have began itself since we see the contradictory nature of self-causation.

Thanx for you comments . . .

 

[juliod]

The Creator is changeless.
The Creator is immaterial.
The Creator is timeless.
The Creator is spaceless.

You do realize, don't you, that these are the key attributes of things that don't exist?

Why believe in such a thing, if it has these properties, and gives no other evidence of it's existance?

DanZ

 

[o2bwise]

Hi juliod,

Three things for me:

1) Damascus Road experiences.

2) I think love is the most important thing. I don't think that can be proven to exist either.

3) The complexity of beings like ourselves. I just don't see evolution as plausible. I do believe there is ample evidence of intelligent design and thus an intelligent Designer.

I appreciate that the above do not qualify for you.

 

[mattbballman]

You do realize, don't you, that these are the key attributes of things that don't exist?

Why believe in such a thing, if it has these properties, and gives no other evidence of it's existance?

DanZ

What I'm saying is if:
1. The universe had a beginning and
2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause and
3. The universe is the collection of all space, time, and matter then
4. Then the cause of that space, time, and matter has got to be independent of space, time, and matter so
5. The attributes of this cause and from the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe. Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were timelessly present, then the effect would be timelessly present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions.

Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.

So I don't think that if these premises are true namely:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist
Then there is a cause of the universe and when I describe the attribtes of this cause and giving you the attributes of a cause that has to exist or there would be no universe.

 

[juliod]

You might as well give up this line of argument. Even a lot of theists don't like it. As for me, it appeals not at all. It depends on too many things that I am not willing to concede. And even accepting them for the sake of argument doesn't really lead to a good case.

I mean, you are going all the way back to the begining of the universe to make your case. Isn't "god" supposed to be a little more proximate than that?

DanZ

 

[mattbballman]

You might as well give up this line of argument. Even a lot of theists don't like it. As for me, it appeals not at all. It depends on too many things that I am not willing to concede. And even accepting them for the sake of argument doesn't really lead to a good case.

I mean, you are going all the way back to the begining of the universe to make your case. Isn't "god" supposed to be a little more proximate than that?

DanZ

1.why aren't you willing to concede and
2.which premises aren't you condeding
3.if you don't mind, point you the places where it
doesn't make a good case and
4.What's wrong with going to the beginning of the
universe and
5.what do you mean by "proximate."

 

[juliod]

1.why aren't you willing to concede and 2.which premises aren't you condeding

1) That the universe began to exist.

Consider this statement: "There was no time in which the universe did not exist."

2) That everything must have a cause.

It seems a reasonable statement, but if you are going to use it to prove god, you should have some formal proof that it is true.

3.if you don't mind, point you the places where it doesn't make a good case and

Everywhere. I don't think anyone realy likes that argument.

4.What's wrong with going to the beginning of the universe and

It's the god-of-the-gaps argument. God can only exist in those places where human inquiry has not reached. Imagine that sometime we come up with a good theory of the universe [P]prior[/B] to the big bang. You'll have to back-up your argument, and start talking about the cause-of-the-cause of the big bang.

5.what do you mean by "proximate."

"Close." Most theists believe there is proof of god available much closer and more immediate than 15 billion years ago. What can I see, touch, or experience that is evidence for god? That is what an atheist wants to know.

DanZ

 

[Jaltus]

The only way to know God by experience is to experience God, but if an atheist did experience God, they would write it off as another occurance that must have a naturalistic cause.

Asking to experience something that is invisible and immaterial is like asking to pay $5 for a ride to the moon: you know it is not going to happen.

By the way, people who are asking mattbballman to prove that there is a creator, or an uncaused cause, that is the point of the argument. It seems like you are arguing against the conclusion without arguing against the premises first. Of course, I may be misreading that.

 

[Zarathustra]

The only way to know God by experience is to experience God, but if an atheist did experience God, they would write it off as another occurance that must have a naturalistic cause.

What makes something non-naturalistic? If a god did exist, wouldn't it be natural? What makes a god supernatural?

 

[mattbballman]

1) That the universe began to exist.

Consider this statement: "There was no time in which the universe did not exist."

2) That everything must have a cause.

It seems a reasonable statement, but if you are going to use it to prove god, you should have some formal proof that it is true.

1. Look, this is just a word game. To say it has always existed in time on that view means that at every time in the past that there is, the universe has existed. Granted; but it hasn't always existed in the sense that time is infinite in the past. There was definitely a beginning, and the universe came into existence out of nothing. And that cries out for an explanation, an explanation in a being that is uncaused, transcends time and space, and brought the universe into being.

2. Remember, though, I didn't say EVERYTHING NEEDS A CAUSE, or else God would need a cause.
I said everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.

It's rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And to me that surely is evident when you think about it. If there is absolutely nothing—no space, no time, no energy, no matter—then something cannot just come out of nothing. At least, it seems to me that the premise is far more plausible than its opposite.

Everywhere. I don't think anyone realy likes that argument.

But do you think it's enough to disprove an arguement just by saying nobody likes it.

I mean, what would you think of me if, after ever arguement you posted I said, "Oh, but I don't really like that."

It's the god-of-the-gaps argument. God can only exist in those places where human inquiry has not reached. Imagine that sometime we come up with a good theory of the universe [P]prior to the big bang. You'll have to back-up your argument, and start talking about the cause-of-the-cause of the big bang. [/B]

The Big Bang provides empirical confirmation of that philosophical conclusion already reached. But I must say I find it rather hypocritical when you use FOR EXAMPLE the theory of biological evolution to try to trash the design argument and Christian belief in a Designer and a Creator, but then the minute that science begins to confirm the Christian hypothesis through the Big Bang theory, all of a sudden we hear these grave intonations about how uncertain the model is, how we cannot trust its predictions for the future, and so forth. If you do that then that's simply talking out of both sides of your mouth. The fact is that on your view, the atheist must reject the Big Bang theory, which is the paradigm model of modern cosmology, in order to sustain his atheism. Now if you are an atheist, I think that ought to shake you up. That should make you very, very sober, I think, about what your world view is committing you to. By contrast, the Christian view, which predicted the origin of the universe long before it was ever discovered empirically, makes sense out of the origin of the universe and explains why it exists -- none of this hocus-pocus about something coming into being out of nothing without a cause.

"Close." Most theists believe there is proof of god available much closer and more immediate than 15 billion years ago. What can I see, touch, or experience that is evidence for god? That is what an atheist wants to know.
DanZ

Unfortunatley what most believe doesn't necessarily make truth, it might make you feel better but that's not where the evidence points.

The fact that you can see, touch, and experience things in the universe call you to raise questions like: Where the universe came from? Why everything exists instead of just nothing at all? Well, typically, atheists have said that the universe is just eternal, and that's all.

But Big Bang cosmology invalidates that by empirically judging the finite nature of the things we see, touch, and experience and giving a reason for why these things exist in the first place. And the universe being all space, time, and matter this cause must be an uncaused changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

 

[Jaltus]

What makes something non-naturalistic? If a god did exist, wouldn't it be natural? What makes a god supernatural?

Something non-naturalistic is something that cannot be described by natural causes, such as someone dying and coming back a month later, or a person who could actually fly, or the Cub's winning the World Series, you know, things that cannot really happen.

Ok, maybe the Cubs could win the series, but I doubt it.

God is supernatural because He is above nature. Think of it this way, whatever created nature (assuming it is created or at least not self-caused for the sake of this argument) is something that cannot be contained by nature, and thus "supernatural," in at least one sense.

 

[Evangelion]

Simple.

Simple.

Thus far, it is obvious that you have been unable to prove the necessity of an uncaused being - much less God Himself.

For me, that's the key issue here.

You wrote:

I don't really see how anything that is self-caused can make any sense because that fact that self-causation introduces to us a contradiction.

For something to create itself, remember now the SOMETHING(the universe) does not exist, now it's called upon to create itself. Well how can it create itself, if IT itself doesn't exist. It would have to BE before it IS. That is it must BE and NOT BE at the same time and in the same relationship which clearly voilates the law of noncontradiction.

So if you hold to self-causation and apply that to the universe in light of the big bang theory you must believe that the . . . universe came from nothing and by nothing. But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

You have forgotten that this argument relies on the assumption of Premise 1 - and you not yet established that Premise 1 is valid. It is certainly not self-evident, nor can it be deduced from any self-evident proposition. This means that we have no reason to believe that it is true.

Ultimately, therefore, you are merely assuming Premise 1 to be true - which in turn, means that your argument is founded on an unproven premise. That is precisely why the version of the First Cause argument that you have presented here, is (a) not axiomatic (although this was clearly your original intention), and (b) self-refuting.

But the universes FINITENESS has been established through SCIENTIFIC and PHILOSOPHICAL evedences.

*Snip*

No, what has been established is that the current arrangement of the universe is finite. You have made the classic mistake of confusing the origins of structure with the origins of matter. This is a problem that your argument fails to address.

If you dig around a little, you will find that some of the more sophisticated cosmological arguments (such as those employed by Hawking and Davies) begin with the existence of something, which in the case of Hawking is "space-time." In fact, a strong argument can be made for the idea that it is impossible for nothing to exist, and that from that which existed, came the universe we know today.

Modern science also supports the idea that matter can be self creating. The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles.

For another perspective, try looking at the "rubber band" cosmological model, which makes particular reference to the constant expansion of the universe - and yes, it is now obvious that the universe is expanding.

Under this model, the universe began with a Big Bang, and will eventually collapse with a Big Crunch, in which all matter is compressed into a lone singularity. Fortunately, the very forces responsible for the Crunch will ultimately result in a new Bang... and so the cycle repeats itself.

At the end of the day, you have to realise that the Big Bang singularity is the simplest possible thing; it has zero spatial dimensions (it is pointlike), zero temporal dimensions (it is instantaneous) and is governed by zero laws.

Once again, Occam's Razor supports the atheist cosmological model.




PS. This will have to be my final post, because I am going on holiday tonight. I shall be driving to Adelaide - a distance of 2800 kilometres - and I won't have Internet access for the entire duration of my stay, which is roughly three weeks.