Kalam Cosmological argument

nemesis_juggernaut This premise needs a sufficient definiton of what constitutes existence.
How do we define existence without referal to the world we live in and are trying to establish the beginning of existence to? Since this would constitute circular arguement we are left with a conundrum. Same as above. We cannot speak of beginnings until we establish what constitutes a lack of universe for which a beginning can be considered to have esatblished itself. How are you able to establish this as correct? What are the upper bound of the finite then? Do we have any means to establish the veracity of the negative here? This makes no sense since the simple equivalent statement of this phrase is "time has no beginning". What grounds do you have to establish this? Any statement based on non-established premises is invalid as a conclusion. This is hardly a profound statement since any amount of succesive addition is finite unless the iteration of succesive addition is first established as infinite. If it is so established then, of course, it is not impossible. What the author does not seem to appreciate here is not whether infinity is impossible or not but whether it is actually a property of the universe. This is a reiteration of the very same proposal as we found in 2.11,2.12 and 2.13 This is not a valid conclusion based on the given premises

nwr I disagree.The virtual world they create are not seperate from them since these creations {programs} obey the same rules of order that the creator {computer scientist} does{otherwise gibberish would be effective as a computer program}. Now I can agree to the embedding of a computer scientist within the realm of his/her creation,{in the sense that the software is modeled as an approximation of the world of the creator} however I cannot see the possibility of a software creator that is seperate from that creation.That is unless you can present a virtual world that runs without a program to at least begin the virtual world.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

cavediver I do not say you cannot. I say you cannot do it without
using the physical means of our world to produce this new world. In other words your software is not seperate from the real world of electrons and photons of light. You need use this world to produce the new one.The virtual world is not seperate but dependant upon the rules governing this one.Now if you were to create a world that follows new rules of a physical nature and that world occupied a reality wherein those new rules operated then you would have a case. I do not see this as the situation though.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

nwr Ok.But with out the program in place to begin with the virtual world cannot begin. If we pull the plug on the power supply to the game does it have an independant existence or does its existence depend upon the reality of our world of elctrons and photons of light?Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

cavediver I wish to compare this statement with the original point by nwr that I first raised objections on. Now I am trying to grasp how you guys seperate the physical involvement of elctrons and photons by the process of thinking from the virtual worlds in nwr's case and the algorithms of your point.Are these algorithms something seperately existing or are they an artificial model we use to describe the regularities we find in this universe?

cavediverSince nwr is keeping up with our conversation I will kill 2 birds with one stone so to speak and relate our discussion back to the point concerning a creator.Since we have surmised that our efforts at producing a virtual world {we playing the role of God} require a use of the "real world" can it then be said that we can influence the way the virtual world plays out without leaving a trace or does it stand to reason that a trace of some sort must be left in order for us {or God} to effect change?

PaulKNow to the crux of the matter. Can we consider the same notion to be applicable to our actual world of forces and mass interactions? In other words can God execute an action within the world without utilizing that world forces and leaving a trace of the action?What ,also does this say about the nature of realm God must inhabit in order to accomplish such?

cavediver Just a quick question here, is it necessary for a human to observe the "collapse of the wave function" or would any recording device do?

cavediver That is too bad since I would not mind the mystical somehow working its way out of the fabric and into view.
Now comes the further question of importance in my view. Since QM describes reality and the collapse of the wave function requires an observer that you say can be other than human, can we now say that the device that records the collapse now has, in fact, collapsed the wave function before we look at the device to see what it has recorded?