The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The problems within

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Well, if The Big Bang is the start of the material, the cause is immaterial.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Time then cause is timeless.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Space then the cause is spaceless.
If the cause of The Big Bang exists then it exists - synonymous with being.

So.... a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being.

I know you don't like the word "God" but...

The critical point is the condition and qualification.
Whatever is a scientific fact it is grounded upon a human-based scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK has the condition there is no 100% certainty, thus given that, it is possible the Big Bang could be caused by something else but that is with say a negligible possibility.
As it is,
it is scientific fact [rather speculation] that the scientific-universe began with a scientific-cause as conditioned and qualified to the scientific FSK.

The scientific FSK has no basis to speculate further based on speculations without further evidence.

As such, to speculate further based on a scientific-FSK speculation to a non-scientific speculation, e.g. a theological FSK is a big leap via equivocation.

[Age]

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For one reason because my question alone here counters and refutes your Truly Wrong and False belief here.

The Big Bang is a point in time.

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

Yes.

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

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.

How could you make someone else understand what you, "yourself", do not yet comprehend and understand?

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.

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?

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?

What is it?

And where is your argument for it?

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.

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

What do you think of my counterargument?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

From the scientific perspective conditioned and qualified upon the science-cosmology FSK, there is nothing wrong with the argument.

P1 is an acceptable scientific assumption, i.e. all empirical effects has a cause.
In P2, the universe began to exist from the Big Bang as verified, inferred and justified scientifically.
Therefore the universe has a scientific-FSK-cause, i.e. the Big Bang.

There are no better scientific theories to counter the Big Bang Theory.
The scientific FSK is the most credible, true, factual and objective at present.

Your counter above is merely crude reasoning based on semantics alone. It should belong to the 'Recyle Bin'.

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Do you know that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe?

I personally don't know.
However, the scientific-cosmological FSK knows as justified within its human-based FSK.
It is scientific fact [rather speculation] that the scientific-universe began with a scientific-cause as conditioned and qualified to the scientific-FSK.
Note the imperative qualification 'scientific'.
Do you dispute this as qualified to the scientific-cosmological FSK?

The scientific-FSK is the most credible and objective at present, there is no other better FSK on this matter. Agree?

Btw, do you realize, at present you are claiming based merely on one person's [yours] first person experience [which is highly subjective] to support your claim. You [alone] don't have any credibility at all.

[Age]

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.

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.

How about you?

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'.

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.

It is like you believe that if you have made 'an argument', then there is absolutely nothing in the Universe that could counter nor refute 'your argument'.

Is this correct?

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.

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.

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?

Are you some kind of absolute idiot?

1. I have no mind, and if I did here, then it would not have changed.

2. If you just stopped presuming things, and just started gaining clarity, first, then you would stop making these truly absurd and stupid claims.

3. To me the Universe, still, did not begin. So, why did you jump to such a Truly stupid conclusion here?

4. you have, once again, just proved absolutely true that you really do not listen to what I am actually saying and meaning 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.

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.

[Age]

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Well, if The Big Bang is the start of the material, the cause is immaterial.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Time then cause is timeless.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Space then the cause is spaceless.
If the cause of The Big Bang exists then it exists - synonymous with being.

So.... a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being.

I know you don't like the word "God" but...

The critical point is the condition and qualification.
Whatever is a scientific fact it is grounded upon a human-based scientific FSK.

And human-based scientific frameworks of system and knowledge have been known to be faulty, wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect countless times already. So, to try to claim that whatever is a 'scientific fact', or all 'scientific facts', are actually irrefutable facts, forevermore, would be a Truly stupid and idiotic thing to do, or be a Truly stupid and idiotic thing to even try to fight or argue for.

The scientific FSK has the condition there is no 100% certainty, thus given that, it is possible the Big Bang could be caused by something else but that is with say a negligible possibility.
As it is,
it is scientific fact [rather speculation] that the scientific-universe began with a scientific-cause as conditioned and qualified to the scientific FSK.

Here we have another prime example of how these people, back then, would say just about anything when trying to back up and support their current beliefs.

The scientific FSK has no basis to speculate further based on speculations without further evidence.

Once again, another example of saying just about anything, even when what is being said is just utter rubbish.

As such, to speculate further based on a scientific-FSK speculation to a non-scientific speculation, e.g. a theological FSK is a big leap via equivocation.

And once again we here see the same.

[Age]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

From the scientific perspective conditioned and qualified upon the science-cosmology FSK, there is nothing wrong with the argument.

P1 is an acceptable scientific assumption, i.e. all empirical effects has a cause.
In P2, the universe began to exist from the Big Bang as verified, inferred and justified scientifically.
Therefore the universe has a scientific-FSK-cause, i.e. the Big Bang.

There are no better scientific theories to counter the Big Bang Theory.
The scientific FSK is the most credible, true, factual and objective at present.

Your counter above is merely crude reasoning based on semantics alone. It should belong to the 'Recyle Bin'.

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Do you know that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe?

I personally don't know.
However, the scientific-cosmological FSK knows as justified within its human-based FSK.

That the Universe began with a 'bang' is absolutely speculation, based on absolutely no proof at all.

The old presumption that the Universe must of began, because of some observation, is exactly the same as the old presumption that the sun revolves around the earth, because of some observation, was.

Both presumptions were absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. However, as can be clearly seen here, when a population believes that they already know what the truth is, then it can be a very 'long slog', as some might say, just trying to get them to look at, and see, what the actual Truth is, exactly.

No actual existing proof exists for how hard it really was to get those people, back then, to see and realize that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around, but now here is actual existing proof of just how hard it was to just get these people, back in the days when this was being written, to just consider the idea that actually the Universe did not begin.

It is scientific fact [rather speculation] that the scientific-universe began with a scientific-cause as conditioned and qualified to the scientific-FSK.
Note the imperative qualification 'scientific'.
Do you dispute this as qualified to the scientific-cosmological FSK?

But it is not a fact, nor a so-called scientific fact, that the Universe began with a cause, conditioned and qualified by absolutely any thing.

The scientific-FSK is the most credible and objective at present, there is no other better FSK on this matter.

False.

Agree?

No.

Btw, do you realize, at present you are claiming based merely on one person's [yours] first person experience [which is highly subjective] to support your claim. You [alone] don't have any credibility at all.

Do you, "veritas aequitas", alone have any credibility at all?

[Skepdick]

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Well, if The Big Bang is the start of the material, the cause is immaterial.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Time then cause is timeless.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Space then the cause is spaceless.
If the cause of The Big Bang exists then it exists - synonymous with being.

So.... a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being.

I know you don't like the word "God" but...

The critical point is the condition and qualification.
Whatever is a scientific fact it is grounded upon a human-based scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK has the condition there is no 100% certainty, thus given that, it is possible the Big Bang could be caused by something else but that is with say a negligible possibility.
As it is,
it is scientific fact [rather speculation] that the scientific-universe began with a scientific-cause as conditioned and qualified to the scientific FSK.

The scientific FSK has no basis to speculate further based on speculations without further evidence.

As such, to speculate further based on a scientific-FSK speculation to a non-scientific speculation, e.g. a theological FSK is a big leap via equivocation.

It's like you refuse to grasp the point.

if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific. Can you reason or... ?

Another way to think about this: there are people who keep being lost in the model-construction. The scientific universe. People lost in the process of writing the story.

And there are people who understand who the story-writers are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's like you refuse to grasp the point.

if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific. Can you reason or... ?

Another way to think about this: there are people who keep being lost in the model-construction. The scientific universe. People lost in the process of writing the story.

And there are people who understand who the story-writers are.

"if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific cause. Can you reason or... ?"

Can you see the issue of apples vs oranges? or oil and water?
This will lead to a fallacy of equivocation.

Since, the scientific FSK is the most credible at present, a non-scientific cause from a non-scientific-FSK [in this case not named] cannot [not likely] be more credible.
The creationists can jump in here to insist upon their creationist-FSK to assert there is a non-scientific cause.

If there is non-scientific FSK that is more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK, what is it?

[Skepdick]

"if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific cause. Can you reason or... ?"

Can you see the issue of apples vs oranges? or oil and water?
This will lead to a fallacy of equivocation.

Since, the scientific FSK is the most credible at present, a non-scientific cause from a non-scientific-FSK [in this case not named] cannot [not likely] be more credible.
The creationists can jump in here to insist upon their creationist-FSK to assert there is a non-scientific cause.

If there is non-scientific FSK that is more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK, what is it?

I don't care what you call it... Reason. Logic. Inference to best explanation. New and Improved Science (version 2).

If the scientific universe had a beginning then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific.
This is because "the scientific" begins precisely at the point-in-time we call "the beginning". And so any phenomenon beyond this temporal horizon is non-scientific. By definition.

Do you have a problem with this conclusion? Why? This has nothing to do with "credibility" or any other qualities. Either the conclusion is true or it isn't.

[Age]

It's like you refuse to grasp the point.

if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific. Can you reason or... ?

Another way to think about this: there are people who keep being lost in the model-construction. The scientific universe. People lost in the process of writing the story.

And there are people who understand who the story-writers are.

"if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific cause. Can you reason or... ?"

Can you see the issue of apples vs oranges? or oil and water?
This will lead to a fallacy of equivocation.

Since, the scientific FSK is the most credible at present, a non-scientific cause from a non-scientific-FSK [in this case not named] cannot [not likely] be more credible.

But the so-called 'scientific framework of systems and knowledge' is not the most credible in every aspect of life.

After all a lot of the so-called 'scientific framework of system and knowledge' is done on and with 'money in sight/thought', and done by human beings who are greedy, selfish, and/or unreliable.

The creationists can jump in here to insist upon their creationist-FSK to assert there is a non-scientific cause.

Are you even yet aware the so-called 'scientific conclusion' that the whole Universe, Itself, started off with or by a 'big bang' is just as absurd, and if not, then more so, then the 'theological claim' that some thing outside of the Universe created the whole Universe.

All of 'your' so-called 'framework of systems and knowledge' here is biased, one-sided, and based upon False and Wrong previous conclusions, preconceptions, and/or beliefs.

you have all been leap-frogging, or just jumping, from one False or Wrong conclusion to another. Without ever stopping to consider whether the previous conclusions have actually been proved irrefutably True and Correct or not.

If there is non-scientific FSK that is more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK, what is it?

Is the so-called 'scientific framework of systems and knowledge' absolutely credible and objective?

If no, then why use it or even why would one rely on it?

How to find, see, obtain, understand, and know the actual irrefutable Truth is by far much more simpler and easier than any of these other made up and claimed frameworks of systems and knowledge.

[Age]

"if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific cause. Can you reason or... ?"

Can you see the issue of apples vs oranges? or oil and water?
This will lead to a fallacy of equivocation.

Since, the scientific FSK is the most credible at present, a non-scientific cause from a non-scientific-FSK [in this case not named] cannot [not likely] be more credible.
The creationists can jump in here to insist upon their creationist-FSK to assert there is a non-scientific cause.

If there is non-scientific FSK that is more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK, what is it?

I don't care what you call it... Reason. Logic. Inference to best explanation. New and Improved Science (version 2).

If the scientific universe had a beginning then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific.
This is because "the scientific" begins precisely at the point-in-time we call "the beginning". And so any phenomenon beyond this temporal horizon is non-scientific. By definition.

Let us not forget that what is called 'the beginning', and/or 'the end', exists only in and because of the a very limited, or very limiting, brain.

Let us also not forget that the limited, and limiting, brain keeps getting expanded as human beings keep evolving and improving on the technological gadgets, which allow them to keep observing and thus seeing and understanding further and further afield.

Do you have a problem with this conclusion? Why? This has nothing to do with "credibility" or any other qualities.

Either the conclusion is true or it isn't.

Correct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific cause. Can you reason or... ?"

Can you see the issue of apples vs oranges? or oil and water?
This will lead to a fallacy of equivocation.

Since, the scientific FSK is the most credible at present, a non-scientific cause from a non-scientific-FSK [in this case not named] cannot [not likely] be more credible.
The creationists can jump in here to insist upon their creationist-FSK to assert there is a non-scientific cause.

If there is non-scientific FSK that is more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK, what is it?

I don't care what you call it... Reason. Logic. Inference to best explanation. New and Improved Science (version 2).

If the scientific universe had a beginning then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific.
This is because "the scientific" begins precisely at the point-in-time we call "the beginning". And so any phenomenon beyond this temporal horizon is non-scientific. By definition.

Do you have a problem with this conclusion? Why? This has nothing to do with "credibility" or any other qualities. Either the conclusion is true or it isn't.

Are you familiar with the 'bloody' battles between the empiricists [experience is king] and the rationalists [reason is king]?
As Kant had shown, neither can be king, they can only be foot-soldiers.
What is needed is to condition and qualify reality within a Framework and System of Realization or Knowledge.

New and Improved Science (version 2)?? where and who is practicing it other than the present human-based scientific FSK which rely on reason, logic [abduction, induction], inference plus various conditions.

[Skepdick]

Are you familiar with the 'bloody' battles between the empiricists [experience is king] and the rationalists [reason is king]?
As Kant had shown, neither can be king, they can only be foot-soldiers.
What is needed is to condition and qualify reality within a Framework and System of Realization or Knowledge.

New and Improved Science (version 2)?? where and who is practicing it other than the present human-based scientific FSK which rely on reason, logic [abduction, induction], inference plus various conditions.

Literally every theoretical scientist practices it.

Imagination is more important than knowledge...

[Age]

"if the scientific universe began then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific cause. Can you reason or... ?"

Can you see the issue of apples vs oranges? or oil and water?
This will lead to a fallacy of equivocation.

Since, the scientific FSK is the most credible at present, a non-scientific cause from a non-scientific-FSK [in this case not named] cannot [not likely] be more credible.
The creationists can jump in here to insist upon their creationist-FSK to assert there is a non-scientific cause.

If there is non-scientific FSK that is more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK, what is it?

I don't care what you call it... Reason. Logic. Inference to best explanation. New and Improved Science (version 2).

If the scientific universe had a beginning then the cause of the scientific universe is non-scientific.
This is because "the scientific" begins precisely at the point-in-time we call "the beginning". And so any phenomenon beyond this temporal horizon is non-scientific. By definition.

Do you have a problem with this conclusion? Why? This has nothing to do with "credibility" or any other qualities. Either the conclusion is true or it isn't.

Are you familiar with the 'bloody' battles between the empiricists [experience is king] and the rationalists [reason is king]?
As Kant had shown, neither can be king, they can only be foot-soldiers.
What is needed is to condition and qualify reality within a Framework and System of Realization or Knowledge.

Which comes from experience AND rational thinking, sometimes.

New and Improved Science (version 2)?? where and who is practicing it other than the present human-based scientific FSK which rely on reason, logic [abduction, induction], inference plus various conditions.

[bahman]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Okay.


That is one alternative to what, though?

How many Truths could there be here?


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.

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.

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

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. The singularity just existed at the beginning of time.