Kalam Cosmological argument

ok tryinjg not to get side tracked in what and what is not mater space time and chesse from the OPquoting , with text between *** being mine***
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
**** what ever begins to exist is part on a sequence .. absence /cause /action /effect /exisitance ..
2. The universe began to exist.
**** so it seems , at least in its present form ***2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
*** please show working ....are we limiting to the physical eg 012345678 please tell me where the numbers stop ? if a creator exists out side the universe how big is their realm ? how many option for the creator are there?? ***
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
*** well , yes now how long has the creator been around ???? ***
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.
*** only if you show 2.11 to be true in all cases . btw if 2.13 is true then the creator is limited , agreed ?***2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.
**again show why .. is not a infinity the sum of all its parts ..does infinity mean 1 , 2 and 2346.88 do not exsist ?***2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.***1++1+1+1+1+1+1+1.... how long have we got ?? pleasshow your working see above 2.2
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.***viewed from where ?? history is a lump , only when you use time as a direction is it successive .. NOT wishing to go off topic but we get into very muddy area here about if events are set or not , jnust making the point that given certain opinions time is just a direction and is optional .***
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.
*** self for filling statement3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.*** only by applying your limits to the happening , see how many other limits we can add in , ***

This sounds tantalizing. Could you amplify on this? or can you recommend books for general readers or links that might go into the current concepts of matter?lfen

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?

My point is only that the electrons and photons are not part of the virtual world created. Perhaps that virtual world has its own equivalent of photons and electrons, but that would be a function of the algorithm rather than the details of implementation.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

In our case, neither. We do require some physical substrate upon which to execute our algorithms, so there is an involement of electrons and photons in that substrate. But there is no requirement that an algorithm describes the regularities we find in this universe. As I said, they can be based upon whatever topos of mathematics you like... so far, only a subset of mathematics appears to be related to this universe (but there's an entire topic of discussion around that as well.)Back to that first point: although we construct the substrate from the physical means of this universe does not mean that the virtual world depends upon the nature of that physics. The whole point of an algorithm is that it is independent of the means of its execution. The virtual world has a set of elements and operations that are not affected in any way by the physical hardware... except when the hardware malfunctions or by direct intervention from the programmer.Edited by cavediver, : important "not" added

Well, I always recommend Brian Greene's book, not that I've read it. And Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell is good, but A Brief History of Time is better/deeper if you are willing to give it some thought.This post of mine is start: Message 200, and we can take that to a new thread if you are interested.

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?

I've got a fair idea of what can be done in software. A virtual world can be manipulated without leaving any traces in that world. It would be detectable at other levels as it was being done, and possibly detectable after the fact (depending on what is and is not logged).

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?

A trace in the virtual world, I assume you mean? It's a good and central question of course. If we say a valid world, W, obeys the constraint HW=0 where H is the operator that determines a valid world, then a trace-less miracle could be defined as a wholesale change of W to W', where HW'=0. However, that's not how we usually perceive miracles, as they are traceable: loaves and fishes weren't there, now they are. A traceless miracle would be "they were always there".Natural events such as Katrina or the tsunami are easy as any tinkering can be hidden within the chaotic dynamics. No one would ever know Similarly with perhaps influencing someone to do something. But something like loaves and fish, water to wine... that's more difficult becasue there are memories of the previous state (water, no food) to compare with the later state (wine, loaves and fish).

I don't see how your question can be answered. We can only hypothesise on what the relationship between God and our universe might be. So the only possible answer is "maybe".

quote:

---

An actual infinite cannot exist.

---

Yes, an actual infinite is something that extends to the physical world being that we are composed by, and ruled by the laws of the physical world. An infinite set of numbers is a concept, not an actuality. And Craig explains that a potential infinite exists but that an actual infinite in the known universe does not and could not. He's right. And to be sure, demonstrate how your numbers can go on to infinity. Lastly, there is not an infinite amount of anything because anything that can be added to or subtracted from cannot be infinite. You might argue that no one has been able to quantlify the stars, so they are concievably infinite. but even this breaks down because wehave seen star deaths. So, again, anything that can be added to or subtracted from cannot possibly be infinite.

quote:

---

An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.

---

Infinity. Neither beginning nor ending. That's why He referred to Himself as, I AM. Because He just, is. And if the Creator is infinite, then He must be outside or at least not contained within the boundaries of the physical universe. Energy/matter/space/time cannot contain Him.

quote:

---

Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

---

How so?

quote:

---

Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

---

Because again, numbers aren't physical components of the universe, they are human concepts. There is demonstrable evidence for anything in the universe being infinite and it even betrays logic philosophicaly because we couldn't add/subtract to the universe it was.

quote:

---

The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.

---

Yes, time is a direction of space. What are you asking?

quote:

---

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.

---

Agreed.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

This is what I find so puzzling about your position... I agree with the bold statement. But at the same time it means to me that the whole discussion is, and will always remain, completely meaningless.What purpose does it serve to postulate 'a' Creator, if you acknowledge at the same time that nothing more can be known about it? It is a complete waste of time that is going nowhere. It looks like nothing more than a sign of insecurity, to me.Now, I can live with it. I would say many scientists have this concept that there might well be 'something' at the origin of all and everything. Something that is, and will always be, out of their reach. But I bet they reserve that 'answer' not for the question that they are tackling right now, but always for the question lying behind that one. And that's how it should be. The trouble starts once you apply the Creator as answer to your current questions. That's when things come to a stand still. That's when the Middle Ages rear their ugly head.Annafan

I understand how you can take this position. But my argument doesn't extend to whether or not YHWH created the universe. My argument stems from recognizing the neccessity for something cognizant creating the universe. In other words, it gives more credence to the Intelligent Design theory. But listen, I meant what I said. I can't prove the existence of God. Even with a pile of evidence that might logically lead to us a Creator, at the end of the day, it is still required to have faith.To some faith seems like its lacking. But think of it another context. Most of us appeal to the authority of expert testimony, don't we? I mean, if we haven't done the experiments oursleves, then on some level we are taking their testimony on good faith. This is isn't blind faith. They are presenting logical evidence to support their theory. But it is still required of us, on some level, to exhibit faith. That's just the nature of it.To even further drive home the point, think of what love is. What is it? How do you capture something like that in mere words? Can anyone one of you prove to me that you love your parents or your wife or your kids? How could you? You could demonstrate something that we may be able to logically reconcile that you love your kids, but how are we to ever really know? Think about that deeply. Something like God and love can only be understood in the heart of the individual. That's why some of us can know that God exists, while others have no clue because it hasn't been made personal. And until faith is tried it can never have the chance to become personal.Did I get my point across?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I really don't see that necessity. To me it looks more like a ... desire. A desire of which I fail to recognise the satisfaction.The particular conclusion that there 'must be something cognizant at the origin' sounds terribly... limited to me. Ordinary. Seriously lacking in imagination and creativity. Not in any way deserving the label 'answer'. Not even deserving the role of temporary placeholder for questions we don't know the answer for, yet. It is... an empty box. Fashionably painted on the outside, maybe. But empty INside, and we KNOW it. Would you like to get such a box as Christmas present? I'm not that great at analogies, but all your reasoning about how there must be a beginning, how something can not come from nothing, and all that... It makes me think about that ant that walks and walks and walks and walks... It never falls off the edge or never sees an edge. And it writes down in its Bible that its world is of unlimited size, goes on forever. It can not be doubted, and questioning it is inconceivable. Then the camera zooms out, and shows the ant living on a - perfectly limited - sphere. A deeper level of knowledge it refused to consider, and refused to go after. Yet a conclusion that is beautiful in its elegance, and for that reason alone attractive and worthwhile. We can not research each and every claim seperately, obviously. But that does not mean that we can not, on some level, make rational decisions about those claims. Like, if related claims have proven that they "work" (yes, it can be that simple), or if the messenger has proven to consistently make claims that "worked", confidence is warranted without personally scrutinizing each and every detail.Confidence transitions into "faith" gradually, as experience and observation increasingly exposes things that DON'T work, or on the other hand doesn't expose anything pro or contra at all (indecisive). I appreciate that you tried so hard, but not really I think I understand "love" pretty well. There are very mundane explanations. You would use "analytical", "cold" explanations...I guess what it comes down to is that you have a problem with "unweaving the rainbow", while I would consider it a way to actually enrich the experience of watching it?I just don't like empty boxes, no matter how flashy they're painted on the outside