God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Not necessarily. I am pretty sure our understanding of genuine "nothingness" is easily complete by understanding that its only quality is that it has no other qualities. How much can there be to know about something that isn't anything?It isn't like "nothing" turned into "something", somehow diminishing the nothing; there is nothing to diminish! ICAN'T's confusion stems from attempting to apply the learned rules of causality to something that we have no evidence to conclude follows causality (and some fairly convincing evidence it does not). ICAN'T is incapable of detecting the underlying assumptions behind his statements and so is forced to quote random authorities in the hope that his preconceived ideas will be validated.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary... evidently it does. Or at least it does not preclude it.Then again it is quite possible that "nothingness" and "somethingness" are completely unrelated to each other.

The current prevailing theory is that space *and* time began together in the Big Bang event. There is doubtless very complicated math to back that up, that I don't understand in the slightest. If there was no time then defining something based on time makes no sense.On the other hand, you appear to be following the traditional fall back argument: "You cannot 100% disprove the possibility that my bald-faced imaginings are possible, so I can continue to parrot them as though they were worthwhile!" I cannot say I am surprised.

If that is the reason, then he must similarly conclude that it is impossible for something to begin to exist *with* a cause. Neither have been observed.

You are confusing building things with "making" things. For an analogy, you are confusing finger-painting with making paint. Or perhaps being an interior designer who rearranges furniture and such into a "new" room.You may have bought a fork for a house, but have you ever made a fork? That was made from metal, lets say Iron. The iron was made from electron, protons, and neutrons through other processes. It keeps on going back in a similar manner.You have never observed anything actually being made, simply rearranged.

Does it really surprise you that a 10 year old with approximately zero scientific knowledge (judging from your current performance) reading a fictional book of myth written by primitive humans 2000+ years behind current knowledge, ends up coming to a "gut" conclusion that is incorrect? Does it surprise you that people consider you dumber than a fence post for hanging on to this concept for no particular reason? You are comparing apples to oranges. There has always been a cause for everything you have come into contact with, but you have never seen *anything* created! Only rearranged.

...as a POST!It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which religiously minded people can take their insanity. The above is a gem of an example: "It says "In the beginning" but I *know* God is eternal, so it must not have had a beginning!"

YES! Yes, if you do not know the answer to a question, you should tell them "I don't know!" What do you do instead? Make stuff up? Do you think that is a *good* thing??Jesus Christ, your ethics are unfathomable. It is any surprise that you are consistently wrong when this is your regular mode of operation? Did you ever think that when you went to seminary that *everyone* was doing the same thing?Its like you threw a bunch of blind people into a room and had them fumbling around, but each one being unwilling to admit that they are blind. Being blind, they easily fool each other...

Even without any advanced knowledge of the theory, I am going to say "Almost certainly." Any point of reference. Every point of reference. No. "T" refers to time, not a spatial location. The fact that this has escaped you to this point in the exchange should be an indication that you lack the background to support such a debate. For the purposes of some models, yes. More precisely, the universe is universe-shaped. For the purposes of some models, yes. More precisely, the universe is universe-shaped. For the purposes of some models, yes. More precisely, the universe is universe-shaped. No. You still don't understand the concept at all.

You still do not have any reason to make this assumption. You have never observed anything being created from nothing by a cause, so you have no reason to assume it happens that way.Why do you refuse to address this point?Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

(Sigh) If only it were shouting that put you on the same level... Do you see the implicit "Then"?"IF the universe began to exist (THEN) it had a cause for its existence."I am not challenging the IF, I am challenging the THEN. I have *told* you this. On what basis do you make the assumption that things which begin to exist require causes?Will you address it this time? What are we at, number 5? And what if the materials don't exist? Give me a reason why it is illogical.Oh, and mountains produce themselves. Planets too. Stars, etc... certainly there are plenty of things that can produce themselves if all the materials exist. Beaches for example... do you think cave men spent the first parts of their development making vast quantities of sand? I almost seemed like you were going somewhere with this, but it sort of stalled out where you explain where the concepts are somewhat related to each other.