God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Hi cavediver, I give up.The universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is only 15 billion or so years.I truly have no concept of what eternity (forever) is if that be the case.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So the smallest point of this "fabric" is what string theory is trying to explain? And that point would be the break in symmetry from which the 3- forces emerged? (excluding gravity, for now)The quantum fields being supersymmetrical and the BB being the point in were symmetry broke to another state causing dimensions to expand?Am I understanding/saying it right? If I can put it in my words to better understand it, the point has no cause because it is a function of the "beach ball" to break symmetry?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

It depends on how you define "eternity". If you mean "for all time" and time is finite, then it just means for how long time was around. If you mean "infinite time" and time is finite... then I suppose "eternity" does not exist.

Now maybe you can get somewhere. The Universe has existed for all times; aka, forever. Forever started 13.7 billion years ago."Prior to that" is a contradiction because "prior" is a reference to time. There was no time.let us say we have an effect, when did the cause occur: before it or after it? If we are speaking about the creation of the Universe, which is synonymous with the creation of time, there was no before. That leaves two possibilities: the cause happened after the effect; or, the creation of the Universe was not an effect. If you don't mind my saying so, no, you're not trying to learn. You're trying to find pieces that you can wedge into a rigid framework. Many of the pieces are nothing but phrases that can be repeated as needed to shore up a belief; pieces an opponent might be hesitant to contradict because he's not arrogant enough to believe he has a functional understanding of what the phrase references; i.e., imaginary time. What are the implications of imaginary time, ICANT? I, myself, don't have a clue, but I know when someone is trading in magic beans.

​

And your being 70 has nothing to do with it. Over the course of the last year I have tutored over 30 of my peers (10-18, (take a guess how defensive an 18 y.o. is with a 14 y.o. tutor. (I have a 12 y.o. (girl cousin) English Composition tutor.)) in five different subjects. I see and battle exactly the same pattern of fixity with them that I see in you. finding the key to demolishing their framework is a reward in itself, but the true reasons I tutor is so that my own magic beans will be exposed when I find I can't explain how it fits into the argument on a more basic level.

​

Abandon your notions and start over.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

This statement does not make sense. No one speaks for the BBT... as the BBT doesn't speak, think, or communicate in any way. The BBT is a conceptualization our minds have created in an attempt to better understand the nature of transition from singularity to universe.Also, condescending statements typically are detrimental to one's argument. It is usually viewed in such a way so as to make one seem of "little intellectual substance". I really don't think that is what your intent is though, as I am sure you are an intelligent person. I really don't think you understood what cavediver wrote (and neither does cavediver) seeing as you wrote this. Yes, he did. What he was clearly saying though was "the universe has not always existed, at one point there was a singularity". If you took the time to do the research, and actually try and comprehend what he was saying, you would have known that though. They began to exist when the singularity expanded. Really? Did you serious think I meant everyone but me when I used the word "WE"? Yes, it did begin to exist, ONCE THE SINGULARITY EXPANDED. The universe has not always existed... at one point there was a singularity... NOT a universe...What you are saying is ludicrous...Have I always existed? No.Have the elements I am composed of always existed? No, but they sure have existed a heck of a lot longer than I have.Does this mean that because these elements have existed for millions of years longer than I have, that I have always existed in some form? No, of course not. Well, no matter. Your opinion is of no consequence to the true nature of things.

Dupe PostEdited by Michamus, : Dupe post... gotta love satellite internet

The bottom line here is that ICANT does not want to know how space and time emerged from a quantum field. He doesn't want to know about symmetry breaking, fundamental forces, vibrating strings or anything else.He wants to know what caused the "beach ball" to exist. If there is a precursor to "the beachball" of any sort then he wants to know what caused "that" to exist. If there is any precursor to the precursor of "the beachball" (e.g. laws that allowed the precursor to the beachball to exist) then he wants to know what caused those to exist. And so on.I don't want to ruin anyones fun here. In particular I don't want to stop Cavediver answering the sort of questions you are asking because I for one want to know the answers. But talking GR, QFT or anything else that simply leads to "but what caused that to exist" with ICANT is just going to lead to head banging frustration on your part and "why won't you just admit that you need a first cause" frustration on his. As far as he is concerned you are simply denying a role for God and no amount of physics is ever going to persuade him otherwise.

I couldn't agree more.I began to realize this about 15 posts ago, but I got caught up in trying to explain it, to understand it myself, that I lost track of his motive for asking the questions to begin with.Nor do I think I personally did a great job explaining it, I myself just trying to comprehend it, too. It's hard to translate my minimal understanding of it, especially when everything I try to describe gets misunderstood, and regurgitated even less clearly.We live to argue about it another day I guess, hopefully with a better grasp on it ourselves. - Oni

Question How long did Einstein believe the universe had existed prior to GR?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Dude we have all been there with ICANT. At my level of understanding I think there is a lot to be gained from trying to explain these things to others as best I can. It clarifies my own thinking and allows me to realise just how much of what I thought I knew I am actually still trying to grasp. My guess is that you are at a similar level of understanding (if anything I would say your posts suggest that you are a bit advanced of me) so I guess the same roughly applies to you. Also whether ICANT appreciates your efforts or not others will. It isn't wasted time. Even if it is wasted on ICANT.Anyway I thought your explanations to ICANT were pretty good. I enjoyed reading them. And your ongoing Q and A session with Cavediver is something I will be following.

Hi Straggler, The bottom line here is that there has not been one shread of scientific evidence presented concerning anything past T=10^-43.So why am I supposed to accept all the science fiction (that is what it is as far as I am concerned until there is evidence for it) that has been thrown about.Gees Einstien commited the biggest blunder of his life so he did not have to give up his static universe.You want me to present scientific evidence that God exists before you accept His existence.Why can't I demand the same from you all.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I doubt that! Forever is for all of time. I guess you need to define "eternity" without reference to "time" if you want to go down that route........

One more time for good measure. I asked this in my other post.Do you understand that T=10-45 is describing a size at a point in the universe's past? It's not giving you a moment in time, per se, it's describing the size of the universe using GR 13.7Bya.Smaller than T=10-45 (size) is understood by QM.I'll stop there, do you grasp that so far?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

And Einstein like all good scientists changed his theory when it disagreed with observation. Would you be willing to do the same? Well on what basis would you want me to accept "His" existence? And why would I not equally accept "her" or even "their" existence regarding all manner of other unevidenced entities? I don't hate your God ICANT. I just honestly and genuinely see no reason to believe in "Him" any more than "her" or "them". You can demand whatever you feel is necessary to convince you. You can accept explanations or not as is your indisputable personal right. But if you wilfully refuse, or are unable, to understand the answers you are given then that is your failing and nobody elses.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, I have defined eternity on several occasions.Eternity is one great big now. No beginning and no end.Time as you and I know it is just a speck in that Now.The God of Genesis 1:1 views all of Now at the same time.Hope to see you there.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."