God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

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.

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.

Given that people who know more about the topic than I do and who can write about it much more clearly than I can have failed to make a dent in your skull, much less make you understand, I have no reason to believe I can do so, and shall not waste my time and effort trying.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi cavediver, I stay confused.Nothing is known about T=0T=0 = singularity which refers to the ultra-dense, ultra-hot state around T=0 (up to say T=10^-43 secs),But the singularity does not really exist as it is simply the artifact of inapplicable mathematics.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.Everything we see today and even that out there we can not see came from that ultra-dense, ultra-hot state.Hubble's constant says the universe is expanding in every direction at the same speed.I think I am on solid footing so far, but now I will mess up.If everything in the universe is expanding from that point that existed at that ultra-dense, ultra-hot state:Wouldn't that mean the universe is a sphere?Wouldn't that also mean that point would be the center of the universe?If that is the case I don't see how that beach ball has anything to do with representing the universe.I don't see how there can be a surface of the universe, when everything is the universe.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 did do very well up to the point that you said you might mess up. You know, I haven't thought of this but that makes sense to me too. I'll wait cavedivers comments on this one. This is harder to get a handle on.At T=near zero (near a point but as you note maybe not) the universe IS that point. All of it.At T=10^-43 the pea is the whole universe.But the universe isn't expanding away from anywhere like a centre. Spacetime (what the universe IS) is expanding.To "get" the beach ball analogy you have to pay attention when cavediver says:

quote:

---

There is no inside the ball, nor outside the ball.

---

It is the 2D surface of the ball which is analogous to 4D spacetime. Only the surface. Does that surface had a centre? No it doesn't. Remember there is no inside the universe is JUST the surface.

You're on trivial footing so far. This isn't trivial to cavediver or Son Goku because they understand what it means. To you they are magic beans. No. The Universe is not expanding from a point: Every point is expanding. There is no "that point": All points in the Universe are expanding in the same way. That is not the case so we are much relieved.The problem lies in you're insistence on viewing the beach ball as a 3D object in a 3D universe. It is not the beach ball per se, it is only the surface. A beach ball is used because its extremely thin wall relative to its great size make it easy to visualize as only a surface. There is not only not an outside, there is also not an inside. Toward or away from the center is not a dimension in the model. It doesn't exist.The problem is that a 3D volume in a 4D Universe does not have a center. As it is exceedingly difficult for 3D people who only recognize three dimensions of direction to imagine how a finite volume can be center-less. If we accept the 2D surface as an analog to our 3D and have our third dimension free as an analog to the fourth dimension, we can easily visualize how our finite 2D surface is center-less as we can loop the surface through our analog fourth dimension. There is not a "surface of the Universe". The 3D Universe that is familiar to us IS the surface of the unfamiliar 4D Universe.

---

10^-43 secondsImagine that you are at a funny car race and have really crappy seats where the good seats cut off your view to the start line. What you see is the cars bursting out from behind the bleachers already doing 30 mph. You also get to see it cross the finish line 3.879 seconds later going 318.406 mph. For the part of the race you saw you measured the acceleration as a constant 109.06 fps².

• At what time did the race become visible to you?
• Does that value have any significance to the race?
• Or is it just an artifact of your crappy seats?

10^-43 seconds is the time that the Universe came out from behind Plank's bleachers. It is trivial. Repeating it over and over will not deepen ones understanding of the Universe any more then will knowing the color of ones cat. Knowing why there is a 10^-43 second limit is not trivial.

---

And now I'll return to this. You seem to have ignored it first two times round. Do you accept or rebut this argument?Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi Ned, Why is there no inside?Nothing existed outside of the pea sized universe.Time, space, matter, energy, gravity everything was contained in that pea sized universe.This is one of my biggest problems.If I was to take a cake mix and mix it up ready to bake.
I then add a can of yeast to the dough.
I then add 2 cups of rasins to the mixture.
I take a sphere of glass and put the mixture in it and begin to bakeIt would not be long before the glass would break but the cake would keep getting bigger until it was done.The rasins would be at the same place they were in the beginning.But they would be much further apart.You could cut the cake open and you would have rasins all the way through the cake spaced at all different kinds of distances.Now if every Quark or the strings that make them up (if they exist) in that pea sized universe that was expanding expanded as Hubble's constant says in every direction the universe would be a sphere filled with all kinds of distances between things.Is there any direction that the Hubble Space Telescope can look in and not see 10 to 20 billion light years out into space?Is there any direction it could look and not see stars?I'm like Oni my head hurts I am going to go to sleep. Maybe when I wake up it will all be gone away.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."

Are you absolutly 100% sure there was no before?If so I would like to see your evidence to back up such an assertion.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."

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.

What if, 13.5 billion years ago, a universe existed but it consisted of nothing but absolutely empty space? Then the new universe started up and became what we now know.Then, ultimately, our universe expands and decays to become the newer huge volume of absolutely empty space.Then, maybe, repeat it all again...Moose

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 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.

Am I 100% sure of what, exactly: that the standard BB model has time beginning along with the Universe? Yeah, I am.My evidence would be that physicist would pretty much now what there own model says, and they say so. So yeah, I am.Is the BBT also an accurate description of the Universe? That I can't be so sure of. But I'm pinning the BBT's "No T<0." against "Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.", which you're defending. It's not a fair fight. The BBT is an extremely closely examined construct where careful observation and strict maths force certain conclusions. Cause Theory is a vague construct where 11 poorly defined words are lined up in a row. What, exactly, is meant by "begins to exist" and "cause for its existence"? The other words seem to be ok.Are you absolutly, 100% sure there was cause?

---

Referencing Message 262: Because that is what makes the model useful. It frees up that dimension so we can pretend it is a different dimension that is hard for us to imagine. It is a part of the model, not the Universe. The raisin cake is a different model. It is a 3D model used to explain how the galaxies move apart in three dimensions. In this model one is supposed to ignore the surface. Loop the surface of this model back upon itself in a fourth dimension and you've got it. If you find it difficult, as most folks do, to imagine looping in 4D try using a beach ball model where one dimension is freed up for use elsewhere by ignoring it.A sysnthesis of the analogous bits of the two models would be the goal. Mixing the real world parts that one is supposed to ignore is not useful. You're doing the latter. Get this out of your head too. Your minds eye is viewing the pea from the outside. The pea is measured from the Universe just as one measures the the 13.7 billion light year size from the Universe. One would not have noticed edges to the Universe half a pea away. The edges loop back into themselves in the fourth dimension. just as they do now. And because the universe is expanding faster then light travels across it one doesn't see the looping. No. The real Universe is viewed in 3D. It is the beach ball model that is viewed in 2D. Down.Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity.

---

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