The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[ReinyDays]

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.

Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...

Define SLOT ...

 

[james bond]

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.

Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...

Define SLOT ...

Haha. You don't know SLOT? Maybe you should just post in R&E.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.

Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...

Define SLOT ...

Haha. You don't know SLOT? Maybe you should just post in R&E.

No...YOU don't know SLOT. Clearly.

 

[james bond]

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.

Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...

Define SLOT ...

Haha. You don't know SLOT? Maybe you should just post in R&E.

No...YOU don't know SLOT. Clearly.

I do, but that's not the point. The point is infinity is not possible in nature or else show us the math and science behind it. I'm not the one who made the claim.

 

[james bond]

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.

Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...

Define SLOT ...

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

 

[ReinyDays]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

 

[james bond]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

 

[james bond]

typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it

That's not what a Nature editorial said.

"Ignoring the creationist threat will not make it go away. 1

The subheading said, Creationists seize on any perceived gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary processes. But scientists can and should fight back, says Russell Garwood. vary, and modern science is now based on 2

Last month, this journal [Nature] published a fossil study that described a new species of large tyrannosauroid dinosaur covered in feathers. A week later, the US state of Tennessee passed a creationist bill that encourages teachers to discuss the “weaknesses” of evolution. The first event provided fodder for a shrewd and calculated creationist machine; the second was its latest victory. As a palaeontologist, I believe the way that scientists and journals present research in my field can help to feed anti-evolution disinformation. Because we tend to stress novelty and play up scientific disagreement, and like to shift paradigms and break moulds, we offer our critics ammunition. As the events in Tennessee show, the fight against evolution comes with significant consequences. 3

In my field, uncertainty is everywhere. 4"

1 - Russell Garwood , Nature, 17 May 2012, “Reach out to defend evolution”, page 281, Reach out to defend evolution
2- ibid
3- ibid
4 - ibid

Even Nature feels the heat of creation and creation science.

ETA: "Fifty studies were reviewed of opinions on teaching origins. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools.

About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite."

Teaching Creation and Evolution in Schools

Fifty studies on teaching origins found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools.

answersingenesis.org

" There is no reason that Creationism should not discussed in the public schools because evolution is being taught and after 125 years, it remains a theory. Additionally, evidence against the theory of evolution should be allowed to be discussed. There should be freedom to speak about the lack of fossil evidence like all of the missing links that should show transitional fossils evolving from one species into another. The only evidence that the theory of evolution has right now are sketches, drawings, and computer images that show purported transitions of one species evolving into another, different species. The fossil evidence has never supported this theory and students have every right to know all of the facts."

Teaching Creation and Evolution in Schools

Fifty studies on teaching origins found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools.

answersingenesis.org

 

[harmonica]

hahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around

God has provided an answer for you. He and the creationists have the last word and lol

Evidence will never overcome obstinance.

and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
we have the last LAUGH

 

[james bond]

hahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around

God has provided an answer for you. He and the creationists have the last word and lol

Evidence will never overcome obstinance.

and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
we have the last LAUGH

We have natural selection and the evidence for creation even more than the evidence for evolution.

Thus, it's your obstinance that cannot be overcome haha.

 

[Hollie]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

 

[Hollie]

hahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around

God has provided an answer for you. He and the creationists have the last word and lol

Evidence will never overcome obstinance.

and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
we have the last LAUGH

We have natural selection and the evidence for creation even more than the evidence for evolution.

Thus, it's your obstinance that cannot be overcome haha.

There is no evidence for magical / supernatural creation. That's probably why creationers never manage to provide any.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

I was kind enough to carefully explain all of that to him before. Being the dick he is, he is just getting his jollies making you dance for him.

 

[Hollie]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

I was kind enough to carefully explain all of that to him before. Being the dick he is, he is just getting his jollies making you dance for him.

He’s low maintenance. I cut and pasted a previous response to address his “singularity” comment.

 

[james bond]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true. It's not. How do I know? It violates the laws of physics. You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.

 

[james bond]

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.

Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...

Define SLOT ...

Uniqueness isn't part of your tangent, but you can continue to believe in your lies; I don't want to argue semantics.

Again, you have been exposed as a wrong way-er.

 

[Hollie]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true. It's not. How do I know? It violates the laws of physics. You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.

I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.

Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.

 

[james bond]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true. It's not. How do I know? It violates the laws of physics. You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.

I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.

Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.

Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.

What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.

 

[Hollie]

I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE. The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line. While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters. Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.

Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon direction ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...

I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT. Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?

I asked for you to prove your claim and it was wrong. We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it. For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity. It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true. It's not. How do I know? It violates the laws of physics. You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.

I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.

Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.

Singularity doesn't befuddle me. I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er. Atheists are usually wrong.

What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.

Who’s we? Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.

 

[justinacolmena]

Aristotle said ...

Aristotle argued ...

I can't argue with people who believe in a potential Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher. To him if God said, "Let there be light," then that was Zeus, the ancient Greek God of lightning. The ancient Greeks had different ideas of how the world came into being than the ancient Jews did.

Call it "mythology" if you will, rather than the "word of God," if you prefer the Jewish story to the Greek story, but the truth stops at a certain place in the Jewish Bible:

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 12:2-3 - King James Version

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

www.biblegateway.com

PSALMS 49:8 KJV (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

Psalms 49:8 KJV: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org