Problems with both Creationism and Evolution

Quite not. "The universe," defined as "all that exists," and "always," defined as "the set of all extant time values," clearly validate the statement "the universe has always existed." You appear to be using uncommon or overly simplified definitions for your terms. Which evidence is that? Methinks you're failing to keep up with the rapidly advancing cosmological scientific knowledge lest you you would not make such statements. Consider for a moment that space-time seems to be continuous: Do you realize how many moments in time there are on an interval between any two non-simultaneous space-time coordinates? Do you know how many points are there on a continuous line in geometry? Infinitely many. The consequences of General Relativity -- probably the best supported and most useful theory in physics -- reduce space-time to basically a tensor field, or an abstraction of the relation between objects. Moments in time have no real temporal duration.Now, I realize that the next best supported theory in physics -- Quantum Mechanics -- places limits on the observability of space-time continuity. It is important to realize that this is inherent in our mechanisms for observation, and not necessarily a property of objective reality. Indeed, the wave equation, which is now regarded as the most complete description of quantum states, is also continuous which gives us good reason to believe that space-time is in fact continuous below the limits of observability (i.e. the Planck scale).Blessings,::

My apologies for my sloppy language. I concur that what you've said above is true. My point was that the Planck length and the uncertainty principle have established that there is a lower bound to observable space-time metrics, and these are aspects of quantum theory. IIRC, there were some recent deep space observations which returned images that were surpisingly smooth when they had expected them to be grainy as a result of the "bumpiness" of the quantum-scale universe. I'm struggling to recall the details. If I can find the article, I'll provide a link. Basically it reduced the smallest measureable space-time metric to beneath the Planck length indicating that space-time is continuous below where we previously thought it was discrete. I think not. You're speaking of the quantified nature of objects in the universe, whereas I'm speaking of the continuous nature of the manifold in which those objects are observed.Blessings,::

False. Hawking's "no boundary condition" model posits a universe that is finite in extent yet which has no boundary. Basically it is closed in on itself like four-dimensional sphere. Also false, or at least not necessarily true. There may be extant portions of the universe for which time values are meaningless. But the second premise of the Kalaam argument is false. The universe did not begin to exist. This particular patch of space-time which we presently observe may have begun to be observed at the big bang, but it is impossible for all that exists (the universe) to have a beginning since defining a beginning for it requires an observation of a state of absolute nothingness. Aboslute nothingness doesn't exist by definition and therefore cannot be observed.Blessings,::