Kalam - For Jac.

[Silvertusk]

Interesting paper here Jac

http://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -kalam.pdf

But it seems there are two problems with what you are trying to say here.

On the matter of the transversing the infinite you are making the fallacy of composition where you assert that because one can tranverse a part of the infinte time line then that applies to the whole. Like saying individual parts of the elephant are light - so the whole animal must be light. You also say that any one person can start at any point to reach the present - this is true. But there is still the matter of an infinite amount of time and events will have needed to pass before that person can start transversing the finite time. If this is the case - why didn't the perons start the day before, or the day before that - infact you will never reach the point where you see the person starting to transverse his finite timeline.

Also you do not need to change the layout of the argument - WLC clearly says that the premises only need to be more plausable than their negation to hold true - so the universe began to exist is currently more plausable than its negation - so no need to change it.

Silvertusk.