Does God Exist?

[Newtonian]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

The magic theory is so absurd that the first possibility is much more logical.

I'll go with God.

Certainly true. The origin of our universe is taught by some to have come from nothing and without a cause - some scientists have blind faith in this teaching.

The simple truth is that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2) nor did it violate the principle of cause and effect.

The Divine Name Jehovah (YHWH) contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" which, in a causative sense, is defined as "He causes to be."

Thus the Bible settles the question as to whether there were an infinite past cause and effects or whether there was a first cause.

Jehovah is the First Cause.

Thankfully, God is love (1 John 4:8).

 

[Newtonian]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

The magic theory is so absurd that the first possibility is much more logical.

I'll go with God.

There’s no reason to think the universe was created from nothing. As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on a book of fables we know are flawed, that uses a distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition seems to project a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods,

Nobody is saying that we should not pursue Science.

Maybe one of these days we will figure out why and how everything that is exist.

However, we are not there yet. Not by a long shot.

By the way, Science as we know nowadays tells us that the Laws of Physics are such that the universe could not have created itself out of nothing.

True - science does tell us that.

However, scientists generally do not attempt to explain how the laws and properties of our universe came to exist:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

Thankfully, most of those laws (perhaps all) do have authority on the earth for scientists to study them and have the joy of discovery.

 

[Blues Man]

So you don't know if any of the bible is actually the word of the god you worship but you worship the god in the bible.

I believe the Bible was inspired by God and written by man. I worship God. The Bible is fascinating, contains so much wisdom, and truth, and has been a tremendous guide in my life. The contents in the Bible (not to mention the Catholic Church) dropped me straight into the lap of God (so-to-speak). God Is. He exists.

Does it matter to me that I cannot fully understand all the Bible correctly? Not at all. The Bible is not all about me, it is about the experiences other have had with God. God in our midst, which is of top interest to me. God has greatly impacted my life, and it is good to read how He is/has been there in the lives of others.

I worship God. Period. And if you think I see God (or the Bible) the same way you do, think again.

So the bible is fiction that you just happen to think is truth.

And I don't see any god or gods because as sure as you are they they exist, I am sure they don't.

 

[Blues Man]

The question is if the bible is fiction why isn't the god in the bible fiction?

Easy answer. The Bible is a collection of books. Law. Plays. History. Song. Biography. Letters.

There is a play about Abraham Lincoln. There is a play about God. Does being in a play mean not existing?

I can dig up Lincols.

The question is if the bible is fiction why isn't the god in the bible fiction?

Easy answer. The Bible is a collection of books. Law. Plays. History. Song. Biography. Letters.

There is a play about Abraham Lincoln. There is a play about God. Does being in a play mean not existing?

I can see a photo of Lincoln, I can dig up his bones.

MAybe you should worship Abe at least there is actual proof he existed

 

[james bond]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

I just wanted to point out that the atheist scientists have made their own false story of what God did in making light (eletromagnitic spectrum) on the first day. The EMS provides all the energy this planet and universe would ever need as we cannot create nor destroy energy in this world. Moreover, he provided a way for humans to produce matter. The atheist scientists tried to do the same things with quantum mechanics or their science that can do anything. That isn't true as we are finding out. They do not explain an origin. All they explain is how something with infinite density (matter) and infinite temperature (energy) or close to infinte (the atheists have changed their story) cause a huge expansion. This is totally ridiculous as it cannot happen. God explained everything in a few words while the atheists get caught up in their fabrication.

 

[Newtonian]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

The magic theory is so absurd that the first possibility is much more logical.

I'll go with God.

There’s no reason to think the universe was created from nothing. As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on a book of fables we know are flawed, that uses a distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition seems to project a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods,

Well, you started out good - I agree with your first paragraph. Have you attempted to do the math showing how much energy was involved in the creation/formation of our universe?

The formula is simple enough: E=Mc^2. The amount of energy of even just a few atoms is incredible - as released by nuclear fusion in our sun for example. Many scientists believe, with good reasons, that energy preceded matter in the origin of our universe.

For starters, Eddington calculated that our observable universe has a mass (M in E=Mc^2) of about 10^79 amu (atomic mass units). "c" is the speed of light - incredibly fast. I have not done the calculation - but it involves 10^79 times 186,000. The problem in this calculation is to get the units to correspond - I'll leave that for others to calculate. Suffice it to say that the initial amount of energy at the origin our universe is much greater than the energy in our universe today - way much greater!

Isaiah 40:22,26 indicates that the existence of stars involves God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). This is scientifically accurate - and some of these plural forms of energy are invisible (God is also invisible). Verse 22 refers to God stretching out the universe like a fine gauze. Computer simulations of our universe involve a gauze-like appearance - scientists even use the terms "threads" and "filaments."

The fine tuned expansion rate of our universe that has allowed stars and life as we know it to exist involves plural forms of energy. Gravity and dark energy (both invisible) are involved.

In fact, were it not for supernovae the only elements in our universe would have been Hydrogen and Lithium - we actually owe our existence to stars - but simply forming elements like carbon and oxygen are very far from the complex and intelligent creation of life itself on the earth.

 

[alang1216]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

I just wanted to point out that the atheist scientists have made their own false story of what God did in making light (eletromagnitic spectrum) on the first day. The EMS provides all the energy this planet and universe would ever need as we cannot create nor destroy energy in this world. Moreover, he provided a way for humans to produce matter. The atheist scientists tried to do the same things with quantum mechanics or their science that can do anything. That isn't true as we are finding out. They do not explain an origin. All they explain is how something with infinite density (matter) and infinite temperature (energy) or close to infinte (the atheists have changed their story) cause a huge expansion. This is totally ridiculous as it cannot happen. God explained everything in a few words while the atheists get caught up in their fabrication.

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

 

[Hollie]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

The magic theory is so absurd that the first possibility is much more logical.

I'll go with God.

There’s no reason to think the universe was created from nothing. As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on a book of fables we know are flawed, that uses a distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition seems to project a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods,

Nobody is saying that we should not pursue Science.

Maybe one of these days we will figure out why and how everything that is exist.

However, we are not there yet. Not by a long shot.

By the way, Science as we know nowadays tells us that the Laws of Physics are such that the universe could not have created itself out of nothing.

I don't see a reason to presume the universe was created out of nothing. I'm not sure why anyone would accept that.

 

[Hollie]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

The magic theory is so absurd that the first possibility is much more logical.

I'll go with God.

There’s no reason to think the universe was created from nothing. As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on a book of fables we know are flawed, that uses a distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition seems to project a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods,

Well, you started out good - I agree with your first paragraph. Have you attempted to do the math showing how much energy was involved in the creation/formation of our universe?

The formula is simple enough: E=Mc^2. The amount of energy of even just a few atoms is incredible - as released by nuclear fusion in our sun for example. Many scientists believe, with good reasons, that energy preceded matter in the origin of our universe.

For starters, Eddington calculated that our observable universe has a mass (M in E=Mc^2) of about 10^79 amu (atomic mass units). "c" is the speed of light - incredibly fast. I have not done the calculation - but it involves 10^79 times 186,000. The problem in this calculation is to get the units to correspond - I'll leave that for others to calculate. Suffice it to say that the initial amount of energy at the origin our universe is much greater than the energy in our universe today - way much greater!

Isaiah 40:22,26 indicates that the existence of stars involves God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). This is scientifically accurate - and some of these plural forms of energy are invisible (God is also invisible). Verse 22 refers to God stretching out the universe like a fine gauze. Computer simulations of our universe involve a gauze-like appearance - scientists even use the terms "threads" and "filaments."

The fine tuned expansion rate of our universe that has allowed stars and life as we know it to exist involves plural forms of energy. Gravity and dark energy (both invisible) are involved.

In fact, were it not for supernovae the only elements in our universe would have been Hydrogen and Lithium - we actually owe our existence to stars - but simply forming elements like carbon and oxygen are very far from the complex and intelligent creation of life itself on the earth.

I think you directed your response at the wrong person. I didn't offer any math in my post.

There is no "fine tuning" evident in the universe. "Fine tuning" is more often than not a religious claim. And yes, others have cut and pasted canned "quotes" about "fine tuning" but the universe and our part of it shows no such thing.

 

[Hollie]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

The magic theory is so absurd that the first possibility is much more logical.

I'll go with God.

There’s no reason to think the universe was created from nothing. As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on a book of fables we know are flawed, that uses a distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition seems to project a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods,

Well, you started out good - I agree with your first paragraph. Have you attempted to do the math showing how much energy was involved in the creation/formation of our universe?

The formula is simple enough: E=Mc^2. The amount of energy of even just a few atoms is incredible - as released by nuclear fusion in our sun for example. Many scientists believe, with good reasons, that energy preceded matter in the origin of our universe.

For starters, Eddington calculated that our observable universe has a mass (M in E=Mc^2) of about 10^79 amu (atomic mass units). "c" is the speed of light - incredibly fast. I have not done the calculation - but it involves 10^79 times 186,000. The problem in this calculation is to get the units to correspond - I'll leave that for others to calculate. Suffice it to say that the initial amount of energy at the origin our universe is much greater than the energy in our universe today - way much greater!

Isaiah 40:22,26 indicates that the existence of stars involves God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). This is scientifically accurate - and some of these plural forms of energy are invisible (God is also invisible). Verse 22 refers to God stretching out the universe like a fine gauze. Computer simulations of our universe involve a gauze-like appearance - scientists even use the terms "threads" and "filaments."

The fine tuned expansion rate of our universe that has allowed stars and life as we know it to exist involves plural forms of energy. Gravity and dark energy (both invisible) are involved.

In fact, were it not for supernovae the only elements in our universe would have been Hydrogen and Lithium - we actually owe our existence to stars - but simply forming elements like carbon and oxygen are very far from the complex and intelligent creation of life itself on the earth.

Where in the Bibles do we get a description of nuclear energy?

Where in the Bibles do we get a description of red shift and the age of the universe?

 

[Flash]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

 

[Meriweather]

So the bible is fiction that you just happen to think is truth.

Not what I said or what I believe. However, I have the impression that is your take--that the Bible is fiction that people of faith happen to think is true. And that is farther from what I said as the East is from the West.

If you (and others) want to think the Bible is merely fiction and fables, I am here to listen, and I will certainly not talk you out of your your perception. However, nor will you change my perception, mostly because I have done too much in depth study for so long (and yes, including from those who state the Bible is fiction and fable) to go back to those views. The Bible needs and deserves long, in depth study--not just a casual read-through with the belief that is all that is needed to make up one's mind. That is my take. That and about $4 will get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks. (They may even let you have the coffee without my opinion! )

 

[Meriweather]

MAybe you should worship Abe at least there is actual proof he existed

I think not. I do admire him, particularly because of a couple of statements he made: When asked if he though God was on the side of the Union, he responded that he thought it best if the Union was on God's side. He also remarked that most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.

I have no need to view Lincoln's bones. Besides, I would choose God's eternal love over dry bones any day of the week--not to mention twice on Sundays.

 

[alang1216]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

Who is saying that the universe created itself out of nothing? We can trace everything in our universe back to the BB. It's like we're in room with the door closed. Just because we don't know what's on the other side of the door doesn't mean we should assume there is nothing out there. IMHO.

 

[Meriweather]

That's terrible. My ex-wife isn't a believer. I doubt there was much religion on her side of the family but a token god of nature or good fortune to pray to. It could be more like tossing coins in a fountain for luck. They would make a donation to a church if they were having a fund raiser, but did not attend any services.

I made a mistake in marrying her and it may have been God's punishment for not marrying the one he picked for me. However, I wasn't Christian at the time either. Religious, but not Christian. At least I think the one before my ex-wife that I let get away was the one in hindsight. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20 haha.

However, I became a born again Christian in 2012 and then began studying the Bible. It was too confusing, so I skipped the morality and social issues controversies and went to the science parts. Those were easier to understand and figure out. I could compare it with my evolution website from UC Berkeley. My daughter is going to UCLA and majoring in biology and all sorts of atheist science. We've talked before about my beliefs and she doesn't understand. Yet, I do know that she has some kind of belief in God or a universal God. I'm not as sure about my son. He may be more with the same thinking as my ex-wif about God. However, he's older so was exposed to more of my religion while we were married.

I was exposed to atheism and atheist science at UC Berkeley where the father and son geologist team of Luis and Walter Alvarez are prominent. In science, one is definitely exposed to atheist science there. Even the science news there is heavily in favor of evolution.

It was this year that God pointed me in a different direction. He said to talk with the believers more instead of the non-believers. As for my daughter and son, it would have to come via what I do and my attitudes towards Christianity. My daughter will be exposed to heavy evolution with her choice of major, so we'll just have to discuss that when the time comes after graduation.

Perhaps the reason being married to an atheist is that my Catholic grandmother was also married to an atheist. Loved my grandpa, and from my grandmother I knew what to expect going into a marriage where we would have to manage different yokes (as the saying goes). In other words, I knew what I was getting into. Do I recommend people of faith marrying an atheist (and vice versa)? I would say the person of faith misses out on many blessings being yoked to a non-believer. However, if one truly loves the person, and that person truly loves you, and you work hard, and you keep God in the marriage, you will never regret the choice. Still, think long and hard--twice or three times. (So should they.)

As for your daughter: One does NOT have to make a choice between God and evolution, and I hope no one ever makes her feel she must. I have no problem at all with the theory of evolution, of an old Earth creation, and a local, not a global flood. Loving God and loving others does not depend on one's thoughts on geology and evolution.

 

[Ringel05]

The better question is: What benefit is in a belief in God?

The benefit is believing in Jesus as our Savior means you're not an atheist. That means you'll receive not only short-term happiness, but long-term joy. Otherwise, you end up as an unhappy negative person like our OP.

Belief can also mean that you are an easy mark for fake holy men with all too earthly agendas. It's apparently like walking a minefield to have faith and be appropirately skeptical of con-men with God in their mouths and the devil in their hearts.

Belief, say in the power of the dollar bill can open one up to being an easy mark for any con-man. It's like walking a minefield.......

 

[Newtonian]

To me there are only two possibilities for the existence that we all know.

The first possibility is that there is some intelligent design to this universe.

The only other alternative is that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

I just wanted to point out that the atheist scientists have made their own false story of what God did in making light (eletromagnitic spectrum) on the first day. The EMS provides all the energy this planet and universe would ever need as we cannot create nor destroy energy in this world. Moreover, he provided a way for humans to produce matter. The atheist scientists tried to do the same things with quantum mechanics or their science that can do anything. That isn't true as we are finding out. They do not explain an origin. All they explain is how something with infinite density (matter) and infinite temperature (energy) or close to infinte (the atheists have changed their story) cause a huge expansion. This is totally ridiculous as it cannot happen. God explained everything in a few words while the atheists get caught up in their fabrication.

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

True. And Romans 1:20 invites us to study "the things made" which ends up being all branches of scientific study.

 

[Newtonian]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions if one ignores the width of the tentcloth which is not specified in the Divine direction of its construction. Only two dimensions of these tentcloths are specified - another hint I think.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

It's just my theory of course. But I do think God might have fine tuned a collision of two 2-d branes to release an immense amount of energy at a singularity.

Of course, that fine tuning involves all the laws and properties of our universe, not simply a big bang!

Another problem with popular scientific theories is the belief that time began at the origin of our universe - not all scientists agree with this btw - as in modern day models of the Oscillating theory - which are wrong btw.

Indeed, our universe specific space-time did begin at the origin of our universe.

However, cause and effect cannot proceed without time. I call the time in which cause and effect proceeded at the origin of our universe: 'primordial time.' Otherwise why is the Divine Name a verb in the Hebrew imperfect state = action in progress not yet complete? All verbs require action and all action requires time!

We do not know if primordial time always existed - that is another subject! But it may have since Jehovah is God's name, and Jehovah always existed. Or.... (for another post).

 

[Hollie]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

 

[Flash]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.

Nobody can tell us:

What was here before the BB?

Where did the energy for BB come from?

What initiated the BB?

The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.