God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

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.

OK. It's a date. What time shall we meet? Be punctual.

Fine. But explanations that result in verified predictions are evidenced. That is what science is attempting to do. That is what science has a long and distinguished history of doing. That is where the cosmological models that you find so offensive are derived from. Observation. Evidence. Prediction. Verification.Did we build the LHC because we want to test our current theories and modify them if necessary? Or did we build it to blindly ignore any results that don't fit with our current thinking?Goddidit as an answer is a pointless dead end that "explains" everything whilst providing understanding of nothing. It has failed every test so far put to it. Why do you think it will fare any better with regard to these questions?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Returning to my role as ICANT in disguise....From a cosmologists point of view is there any point even speculating as to what "caused" the "ball" to exist such that there are any "points" at all? Does this question take us into the realm of the esoteric (such as colliding branes or whatever) or is it scientifically worthless random guessing?This is where I think ICANT is trying to get to. Even if his obsession with T=10^-43 obscures this.

Exactly!!This is why ICANT (I think - whether he realises it or not) keeps coming back to this question. He ultimately wants to ask the question as to why there is "something" rather than "nothing". But if he takes this to it's inevitable and logical conclusion then the exact same question can (and will) be asked of his god, or "eternity" or whatever "something" it is that he is advocating as the ultimate answer to this inherently unaswerable question. So instead he bangs on (yes pun intended) about T=0 and in doing so has the rest of us running round in never-ending loops trying to explain aspects of modern physics to him. Aspects of science that he doesn't understand, doesn't want to understand and which have little to do with the question he actually wants to ask anyway.Whilst we may have a field day trying to explain the gravity of the situation to ICANT we are fundamentally forcing ourselves into contemplating this pointless question (yes - groan, groan and groan again)As far as I can see the only rational answer to any of this, as unsatisfying as it may be, is parsimony. We know that the universe exists. We know that somewhere down the chain of existence there has to be something that "just is". We have no evidence of anything further down the chain of existence than the universe itself. Thus the universe "just is". At least until we find evidence based reasons to conclude otherwise.I think that ICANT thinks that modern physics claims to have answered the question he is really asking. Namely - Why is there "something" rather than "nothing"? As long as he operates under that false impression and as long as we keep answering his T=0 questions at face value we are all destined to talk in circles.

Maybe. Or maybe not. I would suggest our ignorance about genuine "nothingness" is so complete that speculation is almost meaningless. Maybe the concept of "nothingness" is itself meaningless. Maybe the nature of "nothingness" is to tend to "somethingness? But if nothingness has tendancies then how is it genuine "nothingness"?As I am making quite apparent the whole thing very quickly becomes riddlesome nonsense. Who knows?But I am sure that no amount of Big Bang cosmology is going to satisfy whatever it is that lies at the heart of ICANTs "something from nothing", "uncaused cause" line of questioning.

The "circle" in question is on the surface of the sphere that is the entire universe. The circle surrounds the point that is T=0 and represents the part of the spehere that is unable to be described by current physics. Then I think you have yet again grasped the wrong end of that theistic cosmological stick you insist on carrying around with you.Outside the circle? Or outside the sphere? Do you understand the difference in the model being described here?I am not gonna get into this discussion with you any further. You either get it or you don't.

I am not saying that there is. I am simply saying that assumptions are inevitable because our ignorance is so ridiculously complete. For example: Does genuine absolute "nothingness" include the possibility of "something"?Or is even the existence of a possibility "something"?I don't know the answer. But I am not sure anyone else does either. What is genuine nothingness? Does it preclude all possibilities of "non-nothingness" too?It gets to the point where I don't even know what I mean.......

Thirded.That is my point. As much as I have a point that is.......

If a possibility "exists" is that "nothingness"? Or does the existence of the possibility itself mean that "something" exists?I'll leave it at that. Like I said I have no goddamn idea and I don't see how anyone else can either. "Nothingness" is very probably a meaningless human term for something we cannot really conceive.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ICANT if time itself began at T=0 how can there be a "before"?Can you define "before" in a sense that is independent of time existing?I am being sucked in again aren't I............

Ah yes. The OP.Let's completely ignore the complications of modern physics and assume that your reasoning is correct for the sake of argument.You seem to be implying that it would be impossible for something to begin to exist without cause? Yes? On what basis do you make that conclusion? Lack of observation? What alternative answer do you propose to this perceived problem? An answer that includes only phenomenon or attributes that have been observed? There is no such answer.It is turtles all the way down ICANT. Or it is selective and inconsistent reasoning to get the answer you want. Either way the argument of the OP falls flat under the weight of it's own assumptions.

ICANT what answer will satisfy you?You obviously don't like the answers we are giving you. So what answer is there that I could possibly give that would make you go "ah an honest and believable answer from one of these science advocates at long long last"Enlighten me.

ICANT I don't need your life story. I just want to know what answer it is that you think can be given from a physically evidenced science point of view that you will consider believable and honest.Am I right in assuming that you consider the answers that you have been given to date to be unbelievable and/or evasive/dishonest? You certainly don't seem satisfied with them. Otherwise you would not keep pursuing this with us.I am trying to get to the heart of your 2+ year point here. Beachballs, raisin cakes, 2D, 4D, T=10^-43 etc. etc. are all a distraction from what I believe you are really getting at. What is your underlying point in a nutshell?What science based physically evidenced answer could I give you that you would consider believable and honest?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is that what you think this is all about? Do you think modern physics claims to have solved the ontological question?Can you tell me what you think the ultimate question is here? Does it ultimately boil down to "Why is there something rather than nothing?"I want to get beyond your usual T=0 distractions and find out what your real issue is here ICANT. Help me do this.