Kalam Cosmological argument

To say that the creator is seperate from the creation is not feasible, for if the creator were seperate from creation then creator cannot influence the creation. You cannot have a creator outside of creation also influence creation, for it is a self contradictory expression. To be able to influence something, a cause must be part of a system which it is in.Much like if I were to look at a spring mass system inside of a glass box. Since i cannot physically influence the spring mass system, i cannot enact any change in it.However, if i were able to influence a change in the spring mass system, what could occur is that I impart an energy into the spring mass system however a corresponding energy change occurs within myself.Same goes for the creator if the creator were to influence the universe, a successive energy change were to occur in the creator equivalent to the energy change he imparted into the universe. Thus a creator is not 'changeless' in fact by the very 'action' or 'cause' he starts he would 'change'.

I would agree you can create a rule system you like, that has no obvious relation to the rule system you obey. But i'm not sure that is what the problem is. You will have to still have a connection to this rule system, no matter how direct or indirect it is, which follows that you will have at least one solitary connection to the rule system you created. The new rule system you generated can not live in isolation of you if you had created it, because in some way or another you must be able to input your rule system. I agree the world can be tinkered with by the programmer and not vice versa however, the programmer in tinkering with his virtual world draws upon the resources that are connected to the virtual world.Consider it this way you have World A, programmer B, Virtual World C.World A gives rise to programmer B and programmer B interacts with world A and vice versa. Now Programmer B creates Virtual World C however in creating Virtual World C, Programmer B interacts with World A (drawing energy or whatever) that give rise to Virtual World C.=> is influences, <=> influences both waysBasically A<=>B and B =>C But simulatanoues to B=>C, A<=>B must occur which translates resources in A into resources of C, where B acts a conduit for resources present in A into resources present in C. Thus this calls for a in/direct interaction between all three pieces, meaning there must be at least one common rule between B and C and A and B, but there does not necessairly need to be a common rule between C and A so A<=>B and B=>C but A<=>C does not necessairly occur.

I would disagree with part of this statement. Lets say that yes the guy is connected to the virtual world via the computer however, lets say the scientist is operating in a blind situation, where they can code, but no mechanism is present to generate a feedback loop. So that you can have feedback going into the system but none coming out because there is no need to maintain such a system. Thus the scientist can be blindly coding the virtual world, without regard to feedback mechanism.

I've taken a course in linear algebra...so that might encompass what you are trying to talk about.So yes I think I am fine with what you are saying. If what you mean that after setup that both world A('real') and B('virtual') are seperated. And B no longer affects A and vice versa.I think what i am getting at in the context of 'the act of creating' this virtual world prior to seperation between both worlds, the creator has to adopt some form of ability to engage with world B, before a seperation from both world A and B can commence. Basically the creator acts as a interface between world A and world B.

So what discludes God from having the same kind of limitations that a normal human would have in creating a 'virtual world'?

I'm talking more about the necesssity interacting within the rule world. For that to happen, what is the difference between GOD and our world vs a programmar and his virtual world?In both cases do not GOD and the programmar need to be able to interact within their respective 'worlds'? And in both cases for any interactions to occur GOD must necessairly cause a change in his state or where his surroundings are located, and that the programmar to instigate a change in his virtual world must take input from our world to place into the 'virtual world'.Input being anything from energy, food, whatever...

No you are right in saying that.But what i am saying is that when the creator either programmar or GOD does the tinkering, it converts some form of energy set from their reality into a possiblity in the virtual(programmer) or our reality(GOD).I.e. programmar codes, but he changes his energy state through his expending energy to generate the code and converts energy from our world into the virtual world embodiement of energy. I'm not sure how it would work GOD though but possibly something analgous?

Wel one of the premises that NJ started with is that GOD is seperate from our world... So in critiquing the Kalam stuff, does our current discussion demonstrate that the premiss of being 'seperate' and unchanging hold?

I'm not sure if you entirely grasped it, but you have helped extend what I am trying to get at.Taking it from the programmer level. We have the programmer he exists in our dimension or whatever. For him to generate code to create the virtual world, the programmar must expend energy formulating the rules and premises the virtual world must need, and then he codes those rules and premesis into the virtual world. Thus the programmar is acting as a conduit and changing energy 'calories, joules' into, i guess, (your definition) of information. (i'd ask you to clarify that one). So maybe what i'm trying to express is that there is a energy expenditure made by the programmer, and some information that is then put into the virtual world.thus follows:
programmer calories/joules our universe ideas/rules-> interpretive conversion of ideas/rules into programing language -> information/rules/premises of virtual worldFor GOD i think it would be much the same kind of thing. Except the GOD part would have differnt form of 'energy' for GOD's physical/incorporeal/whatever realm.The thing is that this flow necessitates an energy change/expenditure in the person of the GOD/Programmer. Programmer its calories, GOD its whatever. So the Kalam arguement of an unchanging Designer, is a faulty one.

Would you honestly stop misreading what is being said. Nwr has not claimed a beginning at all. And from my reading of his post a singularity does not mean there was 'nothing' at all. You are saying that a singularity means 'nothing' was there. In fact he points out that To my understanding is that at the virtual zero/"beginning" (that is not really a beginning) the math just becomes to complicated and theres a problem that arises (it could be a 'nothing' but at the same time it could be a 'something' that was the purpose of the quote from Nwr) as the math gets closer and closer to the virtual time zero. So it now becomes flawed to say that there was a 'beginning' to the universe because there could or there could not have been one.(also you may want to see my posts in the thread pointing out the difficulties with the premiss of an specifically changeless, spaceless, timeless, and immaterial changeless for one reason, and i'll call spaceless, timeless and immaterial the second reason all summed up as 'seperated' from our universe)