God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

For standard Big Bang cosmology, I couldn't have put it better myself.

No, string theory is trying to explain all of it, from the smallest point, to the entire space-time. The symmetry would be broken a little way out from the point.If there was no symmetry breaking, there would just be the ball - symmetry breaking results in the separate fields delaminating from the ball itself, and forming the 'layers of paint'. No - the lack of cause has nothing to do with symmetry. The point is just one part of the whole ball. It has no more cause than any other point on the ball.

The one question which we will always ask is "why is there something rather than nothing?" - this is the fundemental question. If I were God, I would still be asking this question Sure, we may well explain our 4d Universe from the perspective of string/M-theory, loop quantum gravity, etc, but it still leaves the above question.

Before I carry on with this, let me just ask something... Are you actually trying to correct me here?

Exactly

Ok, but you're confusing what I'm talking about at different times. I flip between looking at a 3d slice of the Universe, and the whole of 4d space-time.And you are confusing your circles and spheres, as others have mentioned. Outside the T=10^-43secs circle is everything to the future, and inside the circle in everything between T=0 and T=10^-43. There is no inside the ball, nor outside the ball. It is the surface of the ball that represents everything, with time flowing forwards from the BB, T=0 point, to the Big Crunch, T=end, on the opposite side of the ball.

I would take exception to this, as there is no such thing - the fields are still all there, in a state of unification or otherewise - but essentially you are describing the scenario behind chaotic/eternal inflation and other similar ideas. So yes, this is certainly seriously considered as possible.

Once again, you are mixing up certainty in what a model says, and certainty that the model in question is the one precisely followed by the Universe.We only ever have certainty in the former, for this is trivial. That said, plenty of people get confused over the models, so that certainty may well be misplaced.However, there are certain facts that we do about the Universe that I will state with certainty (even though I might consider them less certain in my musings, but that is often beyond the scope of discussions here)

ICANT, what is the point of asking questions and having people spend time trying to answer them if you are simply going to insert your own ideas into the conversation as "obvious" facts, when they are unfounded and largely incorrect?The question "what is time?" has many answers, depending on the context, and we have a hell of better idea of the nature of the various times now than we did 120 years ago. If you are simply going to parrot idiocies such as "we have no idea what time is", as other cranks and know-it-alls often state that "we have no idea what gravity is", then participating in this subject is useless and a waste of everyone's time.

Oh great, just when like a complete twat I think you're actually going to engage in some sensible conversation, you devolve into your usual idiot self.Th reason that there are several answers is because there are several different concepts that utilise the word "time". Yeah, and they knew fuck-all about time. Yeah, and Aristotle knew fuck-all about time. Yeah, and Newton knew little about time and space compared to what we know now. Yeah, and Kant knew fuck-all about time and space. Yes, we do. And so what? Does that fact mean that higher level concepts are utter unknowns. Does this mean we also do not understand the nature of atoms? molecules? rocks? monkeys? It has nothing to do with "agreeing". There are many ideas. They are all works in progress. Not all will be right. So? This is how science works and how it has always works.

quote:

---

"Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
  —David Gross

---

Yes, David and I used to talk about this fifteen years ago. So what? That doesn't mean we don;t understand space-time. It means we don't yet have any firm ideas of what underlies space-time.Your problem is that you read a statement like David's, and you think "ha ha, they haven't got a fucking clue - and so my idea is probably right"The problem is straight from your own mouth - you had an idea, and you are convinced it is right. And the only way you will accept anything different is if a complete answer with proof is provided. Well, I'm sorry, that is not how it works. I would say that both you and Smooth Operator have unbelievable arrogance to think the way you do, but to be honest, I think it simply comes from being too stupid to realise otherwise. Which I guess is more forgivable.

Yep, and once again I think that's the way you are going to stay. I keep getting tempted back to answer your questions, and explain our understanding of space-time. But each time it devolves into you telling us how it is via your quote-mines, your mis-understandings, and your certainty that you are right and we are all wrong. I was just about to explain your confusion, when you came back with that "no-one understands time" idiocy. With that attitude, once again, I am outta here.Over two years you have completely failed to understand what has been shown you. We have tried to explain the various analogies, and what each represents, but you insist on interpreting everything through the way you think things work, and you are doomed to failure. Others here have picked up an immense knowledge through both what I and Son Goku have written, and what they have read from other sources. It's fantastic to see how much has been learnt. In the same time, you have not. It is not because you are intellectually challenged. It is not because you are seventy (my grandfather is ninety and is my gardener.) It is because you are exceptionally stubborn and you are inextricably wedded to your own ideas.

True, though each model does represent the global geometry/topology of the Universe. But until you can appreciate what the model is showing, there is no point asking which model is likely to be correct. That is why I like the sphere - almost certainly incorrect given our current picture of dark energy - but it is the easiest to visualise, and if you can understand it, you can understand any of them.Unfortunately, ICANT is still asking what's inside the sphere, so with this level of incomprehension, asking which model is most likely is utterly pointless.

Well, you've just put that far better than I could ever manage. You're grandfather would be rather proud I guess I should add a few comments about the other "quotes" that ICANT has unearthed:

quote:

---

Tom Parisi says: once upon a time, there was no time or space

---

Stupid statement for hopefully obvious reasons. Tom Parisi? "Tom Parisi, NIU Office of Public Affairs" Hmmm...

quote:

---

Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan: The Big Bang theory states that the Universe began when primordial mass exploded.

---

Similarly stupid - Dr. van der Pluijm, Professor of Geology and of the Environment

quote:

---

Janna Levin, DAMTP: The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something.

---

Written in a pop-sci layman book, but even so, she needs her ass kicking for such sloppy text.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.