God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Thanks for the reply, cavediver.I'm going to take it all in and try to understand it; I'll ask more questions soon, once I figure out what it is I'm trying to ask. Thanks again- Oni

Hi cavediver, I have never got the beach ball bit.If the above mentioned beach ball was at T=10^-43 it would have been an ultra-dense, ultra-hot state (about 1 trillion degrees kevin) smaller than a pea in size self contained universe with nothing outside. Is that correct?At T=10^-43 the universe was expanding very rapidly.Many portray the expansion as a cone.Some portray the expansion as a tube.Now I like the beach ball.Was space expanding directionally?ORWas it expanding in all directions as determined by the Hubble constant today.If it was expanding in all directions the beach ball analogy with the ants crawling on the surface is a joke.In fact that is what you thought it was when I wanted to stand on the surface of the universe and look up to God's throne.I like the analogy of the cake with the rasins in it. You mix up the batter put in the rasins and stir until they are scattered through out the dough. You then bake as the dough rises the rasins get further apart as the space between them grows the rasins do not move but they get farther apart.Then if you cut the cake open there will be rasins all through the cake. All the way to the center and out to the other side.So why are we talking about the universe being represented by a beach ball? The only thing they could have in common is they are round. But most think the universe is all other kind of shapes. Unless I can pick a point in the center of the beach ball (which I can not do as I am on the outside of the beach ball) I can not even get close to the T=0 as it would be the center from which everything expanded. If expansion is as per Hubble's constant.I do realize that T=10^-43 contains T-0.Now is it a sphere or a circle like the one the Bible is accused of having around the earth?Now I am back to my earlier problem. Everything is contained in the very small ultra-dense, ultra-hot state. If we keep squeezing this little ultra-dense state can we ever squeeze it until it does not exist? Or would it be that we just don't have knowledge enough to begin to comphrend what it would be.If we could get it to the point it did not exist then it would have to begin to exist for our universe to exist.If we can't get it to the point it does not exist then it has been threre for infinity in some form. We are just clueless to what 'it' was.I like what Tesla's answer would be. It was existence.I notice you also inserted a possibility at this point, as you added a previous Big Crunch that could have happened to a previous universe that produced the ultra-dense state at T=10^-43. There is no outside of what exists at T=10^-43.Everything that exists is contained in the ultra-dense, ultra-hot state at T=10^-43.Back to the OP.If we could go back far enough that the ultra-dense state that exists at T=10^-43 did not exist It would have to begin to exist. The question is how would that be possible?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."

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.

Before I carry on with this, let me just ask something... Are you actually trying to correct me here?

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"Well... there is an infinite amount of nothing. The something that exists, assuming it is finite, is infinitely small in comparison. Assuming that "something" is possible, an arbitrary amount of it should end up existing.

Hi cavediver, Heaven forbid.Those are words you have spoke to me on several occasions.Son Goku mentioned it also.If you would like I will go find the messages and reference them for you.I just wanted you to know that I do listen.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."

Ok, I put a bit more thought into it. Sorry, I know it was quick but I have OCD and continue to think about it untill I get stressed over it. So string, or the others you mentioned, are trying to explain the "beach ball" itself. Cool. Ok, so some where between T=O and T=10-45? And these 'layers of paint' is the fabric of spacetime?*As a side question, theoretically, would there also have been a break in symmetry resulting from a string? So, if I'm understanding correctly, hypothetically, from any other point on the "beach ball" other BB could have happened? (crudely speakinig)- Oni

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.

Not necessarily. I am pretty sure our understanding of genuine "nothingness" is easily complete by understanding that its only quality is that it has no other qualities. How much can there be to know about something that isn't anything?It isn't like "nothing" turned into "something", somehow diminishing the nothing; there is nothing to diminish! ICAN'T's confusion stems from attempting to apply the learned rules of causality to something that we have no evidence to conclude follows causality (and some fairly convincing evidence it does not). ICAN'T is incapable of detecting the underlying assumptions behind his statements and so is forced to quote random authorities in the hope that his preconceived ideas will be validated.

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.......

Good, because I got lost in translation also. I personally think the whole notion of 'nothingness' is a meaningless concept. It's a human description of a non-definable aspect of reality, simply because we're aware of 'somthing' and are trying to force a description of what we think would be the opposite.My head hurts...- Oni

Exactly

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

In the absence of evidence to the contrary... evidently it does. Or at least it does not preclude it.Then again it is quite possible that "nothingness" and "somethingness" are completely unrelated to each other.