The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The problems within

[bahman]

But anyone can say anything. However doing so never means that what one is saying has absolutely any truth at all in it. For example, one could say nothing to something is possible but this does not necessarily mean that nothing to something is possible at all.



To me, each and every problem is just a question posed for a solution. So, to me, there are absolutely no problems at all here, let alone less nor more so-called serious problems.


1. Once upon a time human beings were also sure that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, but look at how that ended up.

2. What do you mean by something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that that thing began to exist?

By this, I mean that the singularity (the beginning state of the universe) simply existed at the beginning without a need for any cause. This is an example of how things could start.

This is not an example of how things could start at all.

This is absolute nonsense.

1. The Universe has to have a beginning, before there could even be some so-called beginning state of the Universe.

2. If singularity was some so-called beginning state of the Universe, then who and/or what caused this state to begin, or are you just say that some so-called singularity, or beginning state of the Universe, existed eternally previously?

It is meaningless to talk about before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the starting point.

3. If yes, then this is just the Universe, Itself, in some particular previous eternal state.

Also, will you provide any examples of things that had a beginning but did not what you call begin to exist?

The universe.

So, now, to you, the Universe, which you claim was in some so-called 'beginning state' was actually eternally like this, either prior to before It began to exist or was just the eternal Universe, Itself.

No, I am not talking about the eternal universe. I am talking about a universe that has a beginning and that beginning was not caused.

Also, you "bahman" here are showing, once again, that the more you are questioned and challenged over your claims, in order for me to gain more clarity and a better understanding, you just end up appearing more puzzled and confused, well to me anyway.

Or maybe, you are the confused one who can not understand the simple model that I am describing.

[Age]

Not logically, it isn't.

What do you mean?

Nothing from something is the principle of explosion.
From falsehood anything follows.

The empty category (nothing, also known as the empty type, or simply falsehood) implies a non-empty category (something).

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.[
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. It is wrong to say what was before. So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

Distinction without a difference.

Did the universe exist 50 billion years ago? No.

But the Universe did exist 50 billion years ago, prior to when this is being written. Some just believe that It did not.

Does it exist now? Yes.

Just like It always is.

I can say that without blinking an eye because the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

you may well say that without an eye on that body being blinked, but what you say and claim here would still be absolutely False and Wrong.

+-13.8 billion years ago is when the universe began to exist.

Would you like to put forth the actual proof for this claim?

if no, then why not?

What would you have to fear here?

If you are referring to anything beyond that time-horizon you are NOT talking about the universe.

Really?

Are you absolutely and irrefutably sure of your statement and claim here?

[bahman]

Not logically, it isn't.

What do you mean?

What this means is that the saying and claim 'nothing to something' is not logically possible, or not a logical possibility.

As well as that saying and claim not being physical possible, nor a physical possibility.

Prove it.

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe.

Maybe so, but you are saying and claiming some Truly absurd, as well as some Truly nonsensical and illogical things here.

It is wrong to say what was before.

Why?

Because you have heard one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began, but when questioned and/or challenged over this belief of theirs they then said and claimed, 'It is wrong to say what was before?'

For those who come back with this reply, they sound the "priest/preacher" when questioned and/or challenged over who or what created God, when saying and claiming that God created Everything/the Universe.

Because the Big Bang is the beginning of time as well. It is meaningless to talk about a time before the beginning of time.

Saying and claiming, 'It is wrong to say and ask, 'What was before?' is just that person's way of trying to get out of explaining what they obviously do not fully understand, and thus cannot explain.

So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

This is about one of the stupidest questions that I have seen here for a while.

Obviously, if the Universe did not begin to exist, and just existed in some state for eternity prior to being in another state, then the Universe is eternal.

How much simpler and easier could this be to fully comprehend and understand?

Look I will say and claim this once again. The Universe is infinite, and eternal.

And, this cannot be refuted.

The eternal universe is false. We have been through this several times and I am not going to discuss again something easy to understand.

[Age]

By this, I mean that the singularity (the beginning state of the universe) simply existed at the beginning without a need for any cause. This is an example of how things could start.

This is not an example of how things could start at all.

This is absolute nonsense.

1. The Universe has to have a beginning, before there could even be some so-called beginning state of the Universe.

2. If singularity was some so-called beginning state of the Universe, then who and/or what caused this state to begin, or are you just say that some so-called singularity, or beginning state of the Universe, existed eternally previously?

It is meaningless to talk about before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the starting point.

It may well be meaningless to people who believe that the Universe began at and/or with the so-called 'big bang'.

But this is just solely because of their belief/s here, which will not let see and understand beyond a very limited perspective of things here.

3. If yes, then this is just the Universe, Itself, in some particular previous eternal state.

The universe.

So, now, to you, the Universe, which you claim was in some so-called 'beginning state' was actually eternally like this, either prior to before It began to exist or was just the eternal Universe, Itself.

No, I am not talking about the eternal universe. I am talking about a universe that has a beginning and that beginning was not caused.

So, how long was the Universe in the so-called and alleged 'beginning state' for, prior to when the Universe so-called 'began'?

your clarity here "bahman" will be very helpful for the readers here.

Also, you "bahman" here are showing, once again, that the more you are questioned and challenged over your claims, in order for me to gain more clarity and a better understanding, you just end up appearing more puzzled and confused, well to me anyway.

Or maybe, you are the confused one who can not understand the simple model that I am describing.

This may well be true. But our own words here are showing and revealing to the readers here what the real and actual Truth is, right?

Now, let me see if I have your own made up and so-called simple model here correct.

your model states that the Universe began, but was in a state of beginning, right?

If this is right, then will you inform the readers for how long the Universe was in this state for?

If no, then how well do you really know your own, made up, model here?

[bahman]

Not logically, it isn't.

What do you mean?

Nothing from something is the principle of explosion.
From falsehood anything follows.

The empty category (nothing, also known as the empty type, or simply falsehood) implies a non-empty category (something).

You are not arguing that nothing to something is impossible. Are you?

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. It is wrong to say what was before. So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

Distinction without a difference.

Did the universe exist 50 billion years ago? No.
Does it exist now? Yes.

I can say that without blinking an eye because the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

+-13.8 billion years ago is when the universe began to exist.

If you are referring to anything beyond that time-horizon you are NOT talking about the universe.

The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time as well. It is nonsense to talk about 50 billion years ago.

[Skepdick]

You are not arguing that nothing to something is impossible. Are you?

I am. It's logically impossible.

Admitting Nothing -> Something in your metaphysics amounts to rejecting non-contradiction.

It amounts to accepting the religion of Mathematics. The nihil. 0 -> 1.

The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time as well. It is nonsense to talk about 50 billion years ago.

Precisely. Because the universe began to exist. At time(0).

So... logically: Something-Timeless -> TIme(0)

[bahman]

This is not an example of how things could start at all.

This is absolute nonsense.

1. The Universe has to have a beginning, before there could even be some so-called beginning state of the Universe.

2. If singularity was some so-called beginning state of the Universe, then who and/or what caused this state to begin, or are you just say that some so-called singularity, or beginning state of the Universe, existed eternally previously?

It is meaningless to talk about before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the starting point.

It may well be meaningless to people who believe that the Universe began at and/or with the so-called 'big bang'.

But this is just solely because of their belief/s here, which will not let see and understand beyond a very limited perspective of things here.

Prove that the universe did not have a beginning.

3. If yes, then this is just the Universe, Itself, in some particular previous eternal state.


So, now, to you, the Universe, which you claim was in some so-called 'beginning state' was actually eternally like this, either prior to before It began to exist or was just the eternal Universe, Itself.

No, I am not talking about the eternal universe. I am talking about a universe that has a beginning and that beginning was not caused.

So, how long was the Universe in the so-called and alleged 'beginning state' for, prior to when the Universe so-called 'began'?

your clarity here "bahman" will be very helpful for the readers here.

This is an incoherent question. The universe existed at the Big Bang point. It is wrong to ask how long the universe was in that state. The Big Bang is a point in time. Time passes and as time passes the universe evolves.

Also, you "bahman" here are showing, once again, that the more you are questioned and challenged over your claims, in order for me to gain more clarity and a better understanding, you just end up appearing more puzzled and confused, well to me anyway.

Or maybe, you are the confused one who can not understand the simple model that I am describing.

This may well be true. But our own words here are showing and revealing to the readers here what the real and actual Truth is, right?

Now, let me see if I have your own made up and so-called simple model here correct.

your model states that the Universe began, but was in a state of beginning, right?

I am not saying that the universe began to exist. That is one alternative though. I am saying that the universe simply existed at the beginning. Do you have any argument against this?

If this is right, then will you inform the readers for how long the Universe was in this state for?

I already answered that.

[bahman]

You are not arguing that nothing to something is impossible. Are you?

I am. It's logically impossible.

Admitting Nothing -> Something in your metaphysics amounts to rejecting non-contradiction.

It amounts to accepting the religion of Mathematics. The nihil. 0 -> 1.

Could you please elaborate?

The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time as well. It is nonsense to talk about 50 billion years ago.

Precisely. Because the universe began to exist. At time(0).

So... logically: Something-Timeless -> TIme(0)

Another alternative, the universe existed at time zero.

[Age]

What do you mean?

What this means is that the saying and claim 'nothing to something' is not logically possible, or not a logical possibility.

As well as that saying and claim not being physical possible, nor a physical possibility.

Prove it.

So, what you are essentially telling me to do, for you, is to prove, to you, what is logically and physically impossible, right?

Either way, have you considered that it would be far easier to prove to anyone something that is claimed to actually happen and occur.

Now, you say and claim that 'nothing to something' is not just a possibility but is an actual actuality. So, are you able, or is it possible, for you, to prove to us how nothing to something could possibly happen and occur?

I will await your response here before I prove to the readers how it is logically and physically impossible for your claim that 'nothing to something' has occurred.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe.

Maybe so, but you are saying and claiming some Truly absurd, as well as some Truly nonsensical and illogical things here.

It is wrong to say what was before.

Why?

Because you have heard one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began, but when questioned and/or challenged over this belief of theirs they then said and claimed, 'It is wrong to say what was before?'

For those who come back with this reply, they sound the "priest/preacher" when questioned and/or challenged over who or what created God, when saying and claiming that God created Everything/the Universe.

Because the Big Bang is the beginning of time as well.

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

if yes, then irrefutable proof must exist. Therefore, if you still want to persist and claim that the Universe began, then where, exactly, is the irrefutable proof for this claim of yours here?

Now, if it is not an irrefutable Fact that the so-called 'big bang' is the beginning of not just the Universe, Itself, but of so-called 'time' as well, then why claim that those two things occurred?

It is meaningless to talk about a time before the beginning of time.

Again, only to a human being who believes, absolutely, that 'time' began at and with the beginning of the Universe.

Also, and let us not forget, that only a Truly CLOSED and thus Truly stupid person would talk about the Universe beginning. It is absolutely nonsensical and absurd to talk about 'that', which is not just physically impossible but also completely illogical and/or logically impossible.

Saying and claiming, 'It is wrong to say and ask, 'What was before?' is just that person's way of trying to get out of explaining what they obviously do not fully understand, and thus cannot explain.

So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

This is about one of the stupidest questions that I have seen here for a while.

Obviously, if the Universe did not begin to exist, and just existed in some state for eternity prior to being in another state, then the Universe is eternal.

How much simpler and easier could this be to fully comprehend and understand?

Look I will say and claim this once again. The Universe is infinite, and eternal.

And, this cannot be refuted.

The eternal universe is false.

Based on 'what', exactly?

We have been through this several times and I am not going to discuss again something easy to understand.

Once again, we have another one who runs away and hides when it is questioned and challenged over its current made up beliefs, of which it obviously has absolutely no evidence for, let alone having absolutely any proof for.

Trying to discuss this topic with this one would be like trying to have a discussion with one who believes, absolutely, that the sun revolves around the earth when you already know, for sure and irrefutably, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun.

While one is believing something to be true, then trying to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion with them is, really, just a Truly waste of 'time' and 'energy', as it said.

[Age]

What do you mean?

Nothing from something is the principle of explosion.
From falsehood anything follows.

The empty category (nothing, also known as the empty type, or simply falsehood) implies a non-empty category (something).

You are not arguing that nothing to something is impossible. Are you?

Why does it continually take you so long to just comprehend and understand what is said and written to you here "bahman"?

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. It is wrong to say what was before. So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

Distinction without a difference.

Did the universe exist 50 billion years ago? No.
Does it exist now? Yes.

I can say that without blinking an eye because the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

+-13.8 billion years ago is when the universe began to exist.

If you are referring to anything beyond that time-horizon you are NOT talking about the universe.

The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time as well. It is nonsense to talk about 50 billion years ago.

This one is showing and revealing a prime example of the 'religious person' back when this was being written.

That is; whatever one has chosen to follow and believe in, either in science or in a theology, then 'that' is their chosen religion, which they have faith and/or worship in, and so what is said or written in 'that literature' is then believed to be true, even when no actual proof actually even exists for it.

For example, in science 'the beginning' is claimed to be the 'big bang', while in theologies 'the beginning' is claimed to be 'God'. But not from any person nor any literature is any actual proof relied upon.

Presumptions and beliefs, based solely upon their faith in their chosen religious field of science or a theology, is what led these people, and not Facts and Proofs. Which explains exactly why they had been led so far afield and so far astray.

[Age]

It is meaningless to talk about before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the starting point.

It may well be meaningless to people who believe that the Universe began at and/or with the so-called 'big bang'.

But this is just solely because of their belief/s here, which will not let see and understand beyond a very limited perspective of things here.

Prove that the universe did not have a beginning.

The Fact that it is a physical, and a logical, impossibility is enough proof for some. However, for one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe did have a beginning, then there is no proof that the Universe did not have a beginning.

But for others who are OPEN here, even if singularity, that is; an infinite compression of matter, which is just all the matter in the Universe coming together and compressed together, as One, with all space removed from within it, then means that there is just one solitary piece of matter, with space around it, obviously, and 'obviously' because the singularity had to have expanded with what is generally called and referred to as 'the big bang', or what I would call here just 'a bang'.

Now, if what is existing is an infinite compressed, singular piece of matter and space, then this is just the shape and way of the Universe, at that moment. Now, how long that moment could have existed for is anyone's guess, but obviously this was the shape and/or state of the Universe, Itself. And, no matter what other ways, shapes, or states the Universe was in there always has to be both 'matter' and 'space' co-existing.

Now, if absolutely anyone would like to question and/or challenge me on this further, then please feel absolutely free to. The more I am questioned and/or challenged here, then the quicker the actual irrefutable Truth can be and will be revealed to others as well.

No, I am not talking about the eternal universe. I am talking about a universe that has a beginning and that beginning was not caused.

So, how long was the Universe in the so-called and alleged 'beginning state' for, prior to when the Universe so-called 'began'?

your clarity here "bahman" will be very helpful for the readers here.

This is an incoherent question. The universe existed at the Big Bang point.

So, you keep claiming. But do not forget that, to others, the Universe did not exist at the so-called 'big bang', but only after 'that bang'.

So, how and why do you claim that the Universe was already existing at the so-called 'big bang'?

It is wrong to ask how long the universe was in that state.

Only to one who does not fully understand what the actual Truth is here.

The Big Bang is a point in time.

Are you sure that this is what you were meant to say and write here?

Time passes and as time passes the universe evolves.

Do you purposely try to deflect here, or do you really not know you do it?

Also, do not forget we are talking about the alleged and claimed 'beginning of the Universe'.

Or maybe, you are the confused one who can not understand the simple model that I am describing.

This may well be true. But our own words here are showing and revealing to the readers here what the real and actual Truth is, right?

Now, let me see if I have your own made up and so-called simple model here correct.

your model states that the Universe began, but was in a state of beginning, right?

I am not saying that the universe began to exist.

Okay.

That is one alternative though.

That is one alternative to what, though?

How many Truths could there be here?

I am saying that the universe simply existed at the beginning.

So, to you, the Universe, Itself, was already existing, at the beginning of 'time' and of 'itself', right?

Do you have any argument against this?

Yes. But I do not need to share it because your own words are self-refuting, or just refuting themselves anyway.

Also, all arguments are not worth repeating if they are not sound and valid arguments.

Only sound and valid arguments are suffice here, well to me anyway.

If this is right, then will you inform the readers for how long the Universe was in this state for?

I already answered that.

Which was the simply existing Universe, at the so-called beginning, just existed, but for no duration at all right?

By the way you are looking and sounding more and more like the old "preacher/priest" here who is being questioned and challenged by the young kid, in regards to their beliefs and claims that God created the Universe/everything.

Soon you will be telling us that there are some things that we are not meant to know, that you have already answered, or that it is wrong or that is is meaningless to ask for clarity or for you to elaborate on and about things, of which you have no idea nor clue of.

[bahman]

What this means is that the saying and claim 'nothing to something' is not logically possible, or not a logical possibility.

As well as that saying and claim not being physical possible, nor a physical possibility.

Prove it.

So, what you are essentially telling me to do, for you, is to prove, to you, what is logically and physically impossible, right?

Either way, have you considered that it would be far easier to prove to anyone something that is claimed to actually happen and occur.

Now, you say and claim that 'nothing to something' is not just a possibility but is an actual actuality. So, are you able, or is it possible, for you, to prove to us how nothing to something could possibly happen and occur?

I will await your response here before I prove to the readers how it is logically and physically impossible for your claim that 'nothing to something' has occurred.

I cannot prove "nothing to something is possible". I cannot disprove it either. So to me, it is an open question. How about you?

Maybe so, but you are saying and claiming some Truly absurd, as well as some Truly nonsensical and illogical things here.


Why?

Because you have heard one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began, but when questioned and/or challenged over this belief of theirs they then said and claimed, 'It is wrong to say what was before?'

For those who come back with this reply, they sound the "priest/preacher" when questioned and/or challenged over who or what created God, when saying and claiming that God created Everything/the Universe.

Because the Big Bang is the beginning of time as well.

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

if yes, then irrefutable proof must exist. Therefore, if you still want to persist and claim that the Universe began, then where, exactly, is the irrefutable proof for this claim of yours here?

Now, if it is not an irrefutable Fact that the so-called 'big bang' is the beginning of not just the Universe, Itself, but of so-called 'time' as well, then why claim that those two things occurred?

The Big Bang cannot be before the beginning of time. The universe began to exist if the Big Bang was after the beginning of time. This is one scenario. The scenario that I am interested in is that the Big Bang lay at the beginning of time so the singularity simply exists.

It is meaningless to talk about a time before the beginning of time.

Again, only to a human being who believes, absolutely, that 'time' began at and with the beginning of the Universe.

Also, and let us not forget, that only a Truly CLOSED and thus Truly stupid person would talk about the Universe beginning. It is absolutely nonsensical and absurd to talk about 'that', which is not just physically impossible but also completely illogical and/or logically impossible.

I already discussed the scenario that I am interested in.

Saying and claiming, 'It is wrong to say and ask, 'What was before?' is just that person's way of trying to get out of explaining what they obviously do not fully understand, and thus cannot explain.


This is about one of the stupidest questions that I have seen here for a while.

Obviously, if the Universe did not begin to exist, and just existed in some state for eternity prior to being in another state, then the Universe is eternal.

How much simpler and easier could this be to fully comprehend and understand?

Look I will say and claim this once again. The Universe is infinite, and eternal.

And, this cannot be refuted.

The eternal universe is false.

Based on 'what', exactly?

We have been through this several times and I am not going to discuss again something easy to understand.

Once again, we have another one who runs away and hides when it is questioned and challenged over its current made up beliefs, of which it obviously has absolutely no evidence for, let alone having absolutely any proof for.

Trying to discuss this topic with this one would be like trying to have a discussion with one who believes, absolutely, that the sun revolves around the earth when you already know, for sure and irrefutably, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun.

While one is believing something to be true, then trying to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion with them is, really, just a Truly waste of 'time' and 'energy', as it said.

You believe in the eternal universe which is nonsense. I discussed it with you several times but you lack understanding.

[Age]

Prove it.

So, what you are essentially telling me to do, for you, is to prove, to you, what is logically and physically impossible, right?

Either way, have you considered that it would be far easier to prove to anyone something that is claimed to actually happen and occur.

Now, you say and claim that 'nothing to something' is not just a possibility but is an actual actuality. So, are you able, or is it possible, for you, to prove to us how nothing to something could possibly happen and occur?

I will await your response here before I prove to the readers how it is logically and physically impossible for your claim that 'nothing to something' has occurred.

I cannot prove "nothing to something is possible". I cannot disprove it either. So to me, it is an open question.

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.

How about you?

How about me what, exactly?

Because the Big Bang is the beginning of time as well.

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

if yes, then irrefutable proof must exist. Therefore, if you still want to persist and claim that the Universe began, then where, exactly, is the irrefutable proof for this claim of yours here?

Now, if it is not an irrefutable Fact that the so-called 'big bang' is the beginning of not just the Universe, Itself, but of so-called 'time' as well, then why claim that those two things occurred?

The Big Bang cannot be before the beginning of time. The universe began to exist if the Big Bang was after the beginning of time. This is one scenario. The scenario that I am interested in is that the Big Bang lay at the beginning of time so the singularity simply exists.

Once again, what can be clearly seen here is I just a Truly simple question, for clarification, but what I get is just another deflection.

It is meaningless to talk about a time before the beginning of time.

Again, only to a human being who believes, absolutely, that 'time' began at and with the beginning of the Universe.

Also, and let us not forget, that only a Truly CLOSED and thus Truly stupid person would talk about the Universe beginning. It is absolutely nonsensical and absurd to talk about 'that', which is not just physically impossible but also completely illogical and/or logically impossible.

I already discussed the scenario that I am interested in.

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.

The eternal universe is false.

Based on 'what', exactly?

We have been through this several times and I am not going to discuss again something easy to understand.

Once again, we have another one who runs away and hides when it is questioned and challenged over its current made up beliefs, of which it obviously has absolutely no evidence for, let alone having absolutely any proof for.

Trying to discuss this topic with this one would be like trying to have a discussion with one who believes, absolutely, that the sun revolves around the earth when you already know, for sure and irrefutably, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun.

While one is believing something to be true, then trying to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion with them is, really, just a Truly waste of 'time' and 'energy', as it said.

You believe in the eternal universe which is nonsense.

Once again and once more I do not believe such a thing.

you really do not listen do you "bahman"?

Or if you do, then you really cannot comprehend and understand what I am saying and pointing out here.

I discussed it with you several times but you lack understanding.

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.

[bahman]

It may well be meaningless to people who believe that the Universe began at and/or with the so-called 'big bang'.

But this is just solely because of their belief/s here, which will not let see and understand beyond a very limited perspective of things here.

Prove that the universe did not have a beginning.

The Fact that it is a physical, and a logical, impossibility is enough proof for some. However, for one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe did have a beginning, then there is no proof that the Universe did not have a beginning.

But for others who are OPEN here, even if singularity, that is; an infinite compression of matter, which is just all the matter in the Universe coming together and compressed together, as One, with all space removed from within it, then means that there is just one solitary piece of matter, with space around it, obviously, and 'obviously' because the singularity had to have expanded with what is generally called and referred to as 'the big bang', or what I would call here just 'a bang'.

Now, if what is existing is an infinite compressed, singular piece of matter and space, then this is just the shape and way of the Universe, at that moment. Now, how long that moment could have existed for is anyone's guess, but obviously this was the shape and/or state of the Universe, Itself. And, no matter what other ways, shapes, or states the Universe was in there always has to be both 'matter' and 'space' co-existing.

Now, if absolutely anyone would like to question and/or challenge me on this further, then please feel absolutely free to. The more I am questioned and/or challenged here, then the quicker the actual irrefutable Truth can be and will be revealed to others as well.

Your explanation of the Big Bang is wrong. We still do not have the quantum theory of gravity so we cannot describe the Big Bang but the points after. Moreover, I asked for proof that the universe did not have a beginning.

So, how long was the Universe in the so-called and alleged 'beginning state' for, prior to when the Universe so-called 'began'?

your clarity here "bahman" will be very helpful for the readers here.

This is an incoherent question. The universe existed at the Big Bang point.

So, you keep claiming. But do not forget that, to others, the Universe did not exist at the so-called 'big bang', but only after 'that bang'.

So, how and why do you claim that the Universe was already existing at the so-called 'big bang'?

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

It is wrong to ask how long the universe was in that state.

Only to one who does not fully understand what the actual Truth is here.

Your question is wrong.

The Big Bang is a point in time.

Are you sure that this is what you were meant to say and write here?

Yes.

Time passes and as time passes the universe evolves.

Do you purposely try to deflect here, or do you really not know you do it?

Also, do not forget we are talking about the alleged and claimed 'beginning of the Universe'.

No, I am trying hard to make you understand. But as usual, you are confused.

This may well be true. But our own words here are showing and revealing to the readers here what the real and actual Truth is, right?

Now, let me see if I have your own made up and so-called simple model here correct.

your model states that the Universe began, but was in a state of beginning, right?

I am not saying that the universe began to exist.

Okay.

That is one alternative though.

That is one alternative to what, though?

How many Truths could there be here?

I am saying that the universe simply existed at the beginning.

So, to you, the Universe, Itself, was already existing, at the beginning of 'time' and of 'itself', right?

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

Do you have any argument against this?

Yes. But I do not need to share it because your own words are self-refuting, or just refuting themselves anyway.

Also, all arguments are not worth repeating if they are not sound and valid arguments.

Only sound and valid arguments are suffice here, well to me anyway.

Where is your argument against it?

If this is right, then will you inform the readers for how long the Universe was in this state for?

I already answered that.

Which was the simply existing Universe, at the so-called beginning, just existed, but for no duration at all right?

Yes, for no duration.

[bahman]

So, what you are essentially telling me to do, for you, is to prove, to you, what is logically and physically impossible, right?

Either way, have you considered that it would be far easier to prove to anyone something that is claimed to actually happen and occur.

Now, you say and claim that 'nothing to something' is not just a possibility but is an actual actuality. So, are you able, or is it possible, for you, to prove to us how nothing to something could possibly happen and occur?

I will await your response here before I prove to the readers how it is logically and physically impossible for your claim that 'nothing to something' has occurred.

I cannot prove "nothing to something is possible". I cannot disprove it either. So to me, it is an open question.

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.

How about you?

How about me what, exactly?

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

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

if yes, then irrefutable proof must exist. Therefore, if you still want to persist and claim that the Universe began, then where, exactly, is the irrefutable proof for this claim of yours here?

Now, if it is not an irrefutable Fact that the so-called 'big bang' is the beginning of not just the Universe, Itself, but of so-called 'time' as well, then why claim that those two things occurred?

The Big Bang cannot be before the beginning of time. The universe began to exist if the Big Bang was after the beginning of time. This is one scenario. The scenario that I am interested in is that the Big Bang lay at the beginning of time so the singularity simply exists.

Once again, what can be clearly seen here is I just a Truly simple question, for clarification, but what I get is just another deflection.

Yes, to you who don't understand the argument.

Again, only to a human being who believes, absolutely, that 'time' began at and with the beginning of the Universe.

Also, and let us not forget, that only a Truly CLOSED and thus Truly stupid person would talk about the Universe beginning. It is absolutely nonsensical and absurd to talk about 'that', which is not just physically impossible but also completely illogical and/or logically impossible.

I already discussed the scenario that I am interested in.

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.

Based on 'what', exactly?


Once again, we have another one who runs away and hides when it is questioned and challenged over its current made up beliefs, of which it obviously has absolutely no evidence for, let alone having absolutely any proof for.

Trying to discuss this topic with this one would be like trying to have a discussion with one who believes, absolutely, that the sun revolves around the earth when you already know, for sure and irrefutably, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun.

While one is believing something to be true, then trying to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion with them is, really, just a Truly waste of 'time' and 'energy', as it said.

You believe in the eternal universe which is nonsense.

Once again and once more I do not believe such a thing.

you really do not listen do you "bahman"?

Or if you do, then you really cannot comprehend and understand what I am saying and pointing out here.

So you believe that the universe has a beginning? So you changed your mind?

I discussed it with you several times but you lack understanding.

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?