Existence

What is the cause of atomic decay? And that beginning is the expansion of space-time. Anything about what "caused" that beginning is baseless speculation.I'ld even argue that it can't have a cause like we understand causality to be... Causality requires the dimension of time.A cause happens and an effect follows. It's sequential.
Proposing a "cause" in that sense for the big bang is non-sensical in a way, since the time dimension was not existant at that point.It's like proposing that there is something "north" of the north pole. It doesn't make any sense to me. Again, you assume existance as we know it. You assert that if the universe always existed that it always existed in its present form.
This is false. Big bang theory even makes it false.Physics break down at planck time. Our models (including causality) do not apply there. Yes. And they don't claim that the universe always existed in its present form. So your point is invalid. Ok. But how is that usefull or meaningfull? Yes. And that only proves that.... the universe and we exist. It doesn't prove anything about why it exists, how it exists, when it started existing,...

At least he has an appropriate nick name

I started typing a reply and then encountered a very weird contradiction in your post. On the one hand you say: and then you say It just doesn't add up.It seems like you are trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.The result of this is that I have NO CLUE what your position is.

You are again contradicting yourself.If the universe always existed in some form, then you do not need a mechanism to get to existance from non-existance. Since non-existance in that context doesn't exist.
Since the universe always existed in some form.You can't have your cake and eat it to.

But you stated that you believe that the universe always existed in some form. Therefor it wouldn't need to "begin" to exist.Get your thoughts straight before spewing contradictory assertions.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

---

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" - Dr Gregory House

What you said in message 16 was Stop being so contradictory. If it always existed, it doesn't need a beginning. There's really nothing more I can tell you. Your "explanation" is inherently contradicting. Either the universe always existed or it didn't. You clearly stated that you believe it did.Yet, you continue to argue about some magical mechanism of how it began. It just doesn't add up. This is the third time I've made this clear to you. I'ld appreciate it if you could finnaly clear that up instead of restating the same contradicting stuff.I want to hear from you either a retraction of the statement that you believe the universe always existed in some form
OR
the acknowledgement that a universe that has always existed in some form doesn't need a mechanism to begin to exist.I'm not saying I would agree with you afterwards. I'm just trying to get you to form a coherent opinion on the matter. This discussion is completely pointless if you can't manage to propose an idea that is at least internally consistent. Then why are you yapping about the universe "beginning to exist"?
It either always existed or it didn't.PS: the universe CONTAINS matter, it is not made of matter.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.