Yes, I think you’re right. However, I would like to request for more clarity. @Corvus and @180Proof have said the same thing.
Then you don’t understand the mathematics of infinity, because that’s not true.
So what? The fact we have trouble reaching a point doesn’t mean the point cannot exist.
This isn’t a problem under B theory of time.
This is a false dichotomy. There are other options than God. Like, what if time goes infinitely into the past but the universe repeats? This means there is an infinite past, but reaching any moment takes a finite number of steps. For example, a list like {1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3…}, there is an infinite amount of objects in the list; however, you only need a finite amount of steps to reach every object.
This contains the hidden assumption that becoming the present is an actual process that takes place. I am not a presentist, but most believe that the present is the only thing that exists and the present is different at different times. There is no process of becoming the present that adds events like that.
The now is a point in time. 
Time consists of \infty nows.
We experience these \infty nows in a sequence, describable by the set {0, 1, 2, …}. This is change in time. 
In this case, it seems good idea to inspect on how the definition is coherent for the argument. Just saying they are synonyms doesn’t add anything to the argument.
In what sense God is Creator?
A creator brings things into existence. God brought the universe into existence (so some say). This is the definition of a creator and God is that being. In short Creator = God. Are you confused about this?
Do you have evidence for the claim? Or are you blindly accepting the claim? Proof needs evidence.
Definitions and synonyms are not evidence.
A definition is not proof-apt. I don’t need to show that a housefly is an insect that has 6 legs, 2 wings and appears in one’s life at odd times or that a bottle is a piece of glassware for holding liquids.
Anyway, I’ve already posted on the Kalam.
If you are going to accept any definitions as evidence for proof, then what is the point for proving anything?
Do we not need to inspect even the definitions are making sense once we are to prove something?
God as creator is not any definition.
What seems to be problematic about God as the creator(universe)?
There is no proof or general acceptance God created the universe. Many folks believe the BigBang created the universe. And some folks don’t even believe in God. There are many other religions their God has nothing to do with the universe.
If you are talking about the OT God, then ok it says God created the world. But at least you need to explain why and how that claim makes sense, if you are participating in the argument.
Just saying God is synonym to Creator is not an argument.
1 Like
The Kalam infers a creator(universe). Creator(umiverse) = God.
Mok argues that the Creator(universe) = The Creator = SimMaster(Sim) and that Sim = Universe.
You should take the matter up with MoK
Proof is a process even some definitions must be analysed if problematic or unclear. I am not suggesting to prove every definition in the universe.
If we observe the universe under the scientific eyes, it is not something that could have been created by Person. Hence the universe could not have had been created. Agree or disagree?
The issue he raises — and one that I agree with (despite my other objections) — is that there are issues with an infinite past. If the past is infinite then the set is the below, where 0 is the present time, the negative integers are past times, and the positive integers are future times.
{ …, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, … }
If time progresses from one step to another, then the universe having reached 0 is like someone having counted to 0.
There is an essential difference between infinite sets and someone having counted each member of an infinite set. The former is mathematically sound but the latter isn’t something that maths alone can justify: it’s a supertask, and there are legitimate objections to supertasks being completed; e.g. the notion that our immortal subject never started to count, but does nonetheless happen to be counting in order each integer (and has finished counting the negative integers) is logically suspect, and appeals to infinite sets with finite sums are red herrings (especially when our concern is with a supertask with no starting point, as in this case).
Yes, there are an infinite nows in any given duration and we pass through all of them. Counting infinity is definitely a big issue. Jains believe time is nitya (beginningless, endless); some scientists seem to endorse this view and they don’t look cuckoo at all.
Also the claim in the previous post “God is Being” is unclear.
There are different forms of Being, and the mode of existence in Being.
The concept of Being must be investigated, and clarified before claiming God is Being.
1 Like