God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

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.

When, precisely, did the Universe not exist? When was there "nothing?"Be specific.

Hi Rahvin,I thought you wasn't talking to me. It might help if you knew what the conversation was all about.But let me answer your question anyway.In Genesis 1:1 I am told "In the beginning created God the heaven and the earth"Since there could be no beginning to God's eternal now the universe and earth has always existed. In some form.You can check my posts for over 2 years you will not find where I have ever said the universe had a beginning.You will find where I quoted several modern day scientist as saying the universe had a beginning.You will find where I have argued that if the universe had a beginning that it had to begin in and from 'an absence of any thing', or had to have a cause.So I am not arguing that proposition #2 is true.I have argued in this thread 'IF' the universe began to exist it had a cause for it's existence.You have told me the universe "just is", well I believe that and you don't. You believe it just is for 13.7 billion years.I believe the infinite universe JUST IS.In Message 277 I said: I had not mentioned the universe and was not talking about the universe.I said 'some thing'.OP proposition #1 says: "1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence"That is what I was discussing.Can you show me 'some thing' ('any thing') that began to exist that did not have a reason for its existence?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."

Hi Straggler, No and I didn't expect you to have evidence. It is not available at the present and probably never will be.Just like you asking for evidence of God's existence. It does not exist today in the form you require. So I can not satisfy your demand for such evidence. I know why there is something rather than nothing but nobody is interested in the answer. So why bother.Now if you are asking what is my purpose here at EvC. I stated in the beginning I was here to learn. Nobody believes that but I don't care. I don't think I have asked any questions here that some young person has not asked me in the past.If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.Well that is an answer they don't want to hear from pastor because he is supposed to know everything. Believe me I have tried it. I don't believe T=0 exists.In 4 or 5 years the preceived T=0 is going to move about 500 billion years. Then what?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."

Hi cavediver,I guess you not going to answer this post but that is ok I am going to answer yours anyway. Probably.But am I confused about the following 6 statements?

quote:

---

1. Nothing is known about T=0

​

2. T=0 = singularity which refers to the ultra-dense, ultra-hot state around T=0 (up to say T=10^-43 secs),

​

3. But the singularity does not really exist as it is simply the artifact of inapplicable mathematics.

​

4. T=10^-43 secs The complete universe existed and was about the size of a pea, was expanding, and was 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees. (roughly) (1 quintillion degrees) temperature provided by Son Goku.

​

5. Everything we see today and even that out there we can not see came from that ultra-dense, ultra-hot state.

​

6. Hubble's constant says the universe is expanding in every direction at the same speed.

---

Did I get any of them wrong?If all those are true according to the Standard Big Bang Theory I have some questions for you.The universe is expanding in every direction at the same speed in relation to what? Would that be T=0?Is the universe cone shaped as presented by some? Yes/NoIs the universe tube shaped as presented by some? Yes/NoIs the universe a sphere? Yes/NoHas T=0 moved? Yes/NoIf T=0 is stationary and all the space between all the quarks (and their strings if they exist) are expanding, wouldn't that mean the universe is a sphere filled with objects at all different distances which are continuing to expand? Yes/NoI don't expect an answer but I asked anyway.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."

...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.

Hi ICANT,I appreciate the effort you're making to understand current views regarding the birth of the universe, but you're again causing considerable frustration. Unless you can figure out how to give other participants the impression that you're working constructively with them to reach a common understanding, I'm going to again have to request that your withdraw from a Big Bang thread (which I know wasn't exactly the original topic here, but it's close enough unless someone expresses a strong interest in re-engaging the Kalam Cosmological Argument).AbE: To everyone else: Moderation's position regarding ICANT's participation here is in no way an excuse for your own Forum Guidelines violations. Keep your discussion focused on the topic and consistent with the Forum Guidelines.Edited by Admin, : Add AbE para.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Evidence of what? A cause? A cause that existed "before" time? After all these years please tell me that you at least see why this might be a problem. OK. Do you think that there is evidence that T=10^-43 exists? How about T=1s? Is the answer you have in mind physically evidenced? Even remotely? Is there any reason even to infer it based on known physical evidence? That is why "nobody is interested" as you put it. It is nothing personal. To you. Or to your God.If we can cite evidence for theories that include T=10^-43 seconds then T=0 is an obvious logical extrapoloation. Whether you believe in T=0 or not do you at least see why others might? Erm yeah. Isn't that the honest and truthful answer?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi ICANTThe Universe does not have a 3D shape such as a cone or a tube or a sphere. The representations one sees of the Universe are limited to 2D, and seen from the outside, the 3^rd. As 1D of the 2D will usually represent time rather then distance it cannot be describing a shape as you know it. One is not meant to infer that the shape of the model is the shape of the Universe. If you see a pie chart of products sold by Taco Bell would you take from it that tacos are fat, round backed triangles and burritos are thin, round backed triangles?

---

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

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 that's the way I've been saying it since I was 10 when I read Peter Pollywog Cosmic Explorer and I'm too set in my ways to change it now. Am I wrong to say we can't fit a raisin cake into a beach ball the size of a pea in 10^-43 seconds?Were I to modify the statement to "One is not meant to infer that the shape of the model is the simple, 3D shape of the Universe." would that make it less . I'm not sure how to phrase it exactly . Ok! I understand . or think I understand that the maths can describe a shape; i.e., r² + r_o² - 2r_or sinθ sinθ_o cos(φ-φ_o) = R² describes a 3D sphere, but when you are talking about global geometry/topology of the Universe not all three dimensions of the representation are necessarily spatial. So if I limit my statement to the three spatial, or simple, dimensions do I remove the possibility of it being interpreted to mean more then is meant? Or am I babbling?

---

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

Hi Straggler, I don't remember saying anything about "before" time.I was trying to discuss the OP which says:"1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence2... The universe began to exist.3... Therefore the universe had a cause to exist."#1 does not say anything about time nor does it say anything about the universe.It says 'anything'..If I ordered all the material for a house to go on my property according to a blueprint I had drawn and had it delivered to my property:Would I have a house on my property?How long would I have to wait for the materials to assemble themselves into a house on my property?Would it be necessary for 'some one' or 'some thing' to assemble the materials according to the blueprint for my house to exist?If it would be required that carpenters, masons, plumbers, electricians and painters assemble and finish my house for me to be able to go into my house cook supper, take a bath and go to bed that would mean my house had a cause for its existence.Thus affirming my house began to exist having a cause for its existence.#2 states "The universe began to exist". some have denied this but I put forth that:Einstein believed the universe had a beginning because GR predicted the universe was expanding which Hubble proved.Steven Hawking said:

quote:

---

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

​

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

---

SourceNow I will add a few more comments:Tom Parisi says:

quote:

---

Once upon a time, there was no time or space. Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago. Out of this eventat a temperature of nearly a trillion degrees cubedthe building blocks of nature formed. They gathered and spun out matter, energy, space and time, and eventually stars, planets, galaxies, and life itself. From its first instant, the universe has been in a constant state of expansion, cooling, and evolution. Since Albert Einstein's 1915 Theory of Relativity spawned the Big-Bang theory, scientists have pieced together the puzzle of the universe quite nicely.

---

SourceCalTech

quote:

---

As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other.

---

SourceStuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

quote:

---

The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything. No other model can predict as much as the Big Bang model can.

---

SourceDr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan

quote:

---

The Big Bang theory states that the Universe began when primordial mass exploded.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: SourceChris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. SourceUniversity of Illinois

quote:

---

Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950.

---

SourceLouis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
What is the universe made of? This age-old question is still the subject of heated discussion in particle-physics circles. A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 14 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event. Most of the (apparently) stable particles that we now see around us -- photons, electrons, quarks, and several species of neutrinos making up all of the visible universe -- were created at this time. In addition to these, it is now known that several additional species of quarks and electron-like "leptons," as well as other particles ("gauge bosons") that serve as the force carriers of physics, existed in equilibrium for the first fraction of a microsecond after the beginning. These particles, which then decayed away, are briefly produced again in high-energy experiments. SourceJanna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University

quote:

---

The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something.

---

SourceAll these and there are many more who agree that the universe had a beginning.'IF' the universe began to exist it had a cause for its existence.'IF' the universe did not begin to exist then it did not have a cause for its existence.Did the universe begin to exist?ORIs the universe infinite?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."

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.