The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The problems within

[bahman]

If it is, now, supposedly an open question, then why do you constantly persist that the premise, The Universe began to exist, is absolutely true and right?

Why do you believe, absolutely, that something is true, but which you now state and claim is not something that you could even prove true?

To me, there is not much that could be more of a Truly stupid and Truly foolish thing to do.

I didn't claim that it is true. I said it is one scenario.

So now you are claiming that actually the Universe may not have actually begun to exist at all.

I really wish you would just stick to one claim only here. Unless, of course, you inform us that your view has been altered and/or changed.

I didn't say that the universe does not exist.

How about me what, exactly?

Do you have any argument against or in favor of "nothing to something is possible"?

Have you not been listening to me here?

I have been, clearly, saying that the view that things can come from absolutely nothing is Truly absurd and illogical, and this is because it is not even logically possible for any thing to come from absolutely no thing. It is also physically impossible for any thing to come from no thing. So, to me, the scenario 'nothing to something' is not even a 'possibility', let alone an 'actuality'.

Where is your argument?

One sentence prior to this one, but anyway, so what?

What you appear to be only interested in talking about here is what you currently believe is true, but which you have absolutely no evidence for, let alone any actual proof for.

I am not arguing that it is true. I am saying that it is one scenario.

Finally, we are getting somewhere.

So, what you have been essentially doing here is just arguing for what 'might be the case scenarios'.

Well, just so you become aware, there are countless other scenarios people could so-call 'argue' for.

But as I continually point out here there is only One Truth, which, as I also inform, is backed up and supported by a sound and valid argument.

Which, by the way, are the ONLY arguments worth formulating, expressing, and sharing here.

Can you disprove or prove that nothing to something is possible or impossible?

But I have already proved it absolutely and irrefutably true, which no one could refute, but you cannot see and understand this, because your own presumptions and beliefs will not allow you to.

What did you prove?

Many things. What are you referring to exactly?

I have discussed it with you several times, but you are not comprehending and understanding.

Where is your argument that nothing to something is logically impossible?

[Age]

Your explanation of the Big Bang is wrong.

you can say and claim this, but being able to back up and support this is a whole other matter.

Are you able to back up and support your claim here?

If yes, then will you do it?

If no, then why not?

We still do not have the quantum theory of gravity so we cannot describe the Big Bang but the points after.

The actual reason you cannot describe the 'big bang' is because of the Truly absurd, illogical, and nonsensical claims made in regards to that 'one bang'.

As I said we still don't have the quantum theory of gravity so we cannot talk about the Big Bang but what comes after.

But your we is different from our we.

Do you comprehend and understand this?

If no, then we do have what you say and claim you do not have?

Is this understood, by you?

Moreover, I asked for proof that the universe did not have a beginning.

And, as i have already informed you, while one is believing something is true, then it is an impossibility for that one to see and recognize absolutely any proof, which counters or refutes what they are believing to be true.

How many times does this need to be re-repeated before it is comprehended and understood?

See, I can and will provide proof, which obviously some will see and understand, but you will not see and comprehend it.

Where is your proof? Why do you evade?

I have already presented some of it.

And, as I have already mentioned, you will not see and comprehend it.

Can you see and comprehend this?

The Big Bang is a term that defines the initial state of the universe.

So,

What did the big bang come from exactly?

How did the big bang form, exactly?

What created the big bang?

What set off the big bang, exactly?

What was the big bang made up of, exactly?

Answer these, then I will ask the rest, of which, by the way, the answers to I already know.

Big bang could simply exist at the beginning. So it does not come from anything else.

Once again, here we see, once more, another example of whilst one is believing something is true, then they are not open to see what is actually True.

Every time you claim that there was 'the beginning' you are not open to the fact that there might not have been 'a beginning' at all. And whilst you are not open, then you are not able to find and see what the actual Truth of things are, exactly.

Yes.

So, to you, 'time' was already existing at the big bang, right?

We are not sure about the structure of spacetime in the beginning since we still don't have the quantum theory of gravity.

Once again, your we is different than our, or my, we.

We are sure about the structure of so-called 'spacetime'.

We know, for sure, what 'the beginning' is, exactly, which by the way is absolutely nothing like what you imagine and believe it is.

As for you not having the so-called 'quantum theory of gravity', then okay. But for the rest of us that supposed thing was not needed to know what the actual Truth is.

It is wrong to say that the universe was existing at one point, the beginning.

So, you say and claim the Universe began, and, the Universe simply existed, at the beginning, but the Universe was not existing.

Because obviously if it is wrong for you to say the Universe 'was existing', then it must be right for you to the Universe 'was not existing'.

For surely, the Universe could neither be both nor not be neither, right?

Or, in that head is this actually a possibility?

No, I am saying that singularity just existed at the beginning.

'A beginning' with no duration, to you, correct?

Yes, for no duration.

So, to "bahman", the Universe simply existed for no duration at all.

The universe has existed since the beginning of time.

What does the word 'time' even mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

The singularity just existed at the beginning of time.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

If yes, then how do you know, for sure?

[Age]

I didn't claim that it is true. I said it is one scenario.

So now you are claiming that actually the Universe may not have actually begun to exist at all.

I really wish you would just stick to one claim only here. Unless, of course, you inform us that your view has been altered and/or changed.

I didn't say that the universe does not exist.

I never even implied that you said anything like this, let alone said you did.

you really do miss and misunderstand a lot of what I say and actually mean "bahman".

Do you have any argument against or in favor of "nothing to something is possible"?

Have you not been listening to me here?

I have been, clearly, saying that the view that things can come from absolutely nothing is Truly absurd and illogical, and this is because it is not even logically possible for any thing to come from absolutely no thing. It is also physically impossible for any thing to come from no thing. So, to me, the scenario 'nothing to something' is not even a 'possibility', let alone an 'actuality'.

Where is your argument?

Once again you have missed and/or misunderstood it.

I am not arguing that it is true. I am saying that it is one scenario.

Finally, we are getting somewhere.

So, what you have been essentially doing here is just arguing for what 'might be the case scenarios'.

Well, just so you become aware, there are countless other scenarios people could so-call 'argue' for.

But as I continually point out here there is only One Truth, which, as I also inform, is backed up and supported by a sound and valid argument.

Which, by the way, are the ONLY arguments worth formulating, expressing, and sharing here.

Can you disprove or prove that nothing to something is possible or impossible?

Yes.

What did you prove?

Many things. What are you referring to exactly?

I have discussed it with you several times, but you are not comprehending and understanding.

Where is your argument that nothing to something is logically impossible?

1. No clear, sound reason has been presented, so far, as to how nothing to something could even be a possibility, let alone an actuality.
2. It is not expected nothing to something could even be a possibility.
3. It is not able to be sensed how nothing to something is possible.
4. No rule of logic nor formal argument has been presented that has shown how nothing to something could even be a possibility.
Therefore, nothing to something is not logically possible, and thus logically impossible.

This, of course, only stands until someone produces a sound and valid argument of how nothing to something could even be a possibility.

And, even if such an argument comes to exist this in now way means nor infers that nothing to something actually did occur nor would even occur.