The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[james bond]

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.

Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...

Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...

A lie is still a lie not dependent upon who screamed, "liar" first.

Anyway, using the fallacy of authoritarianism does not make Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems valid. It's been shown that "accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative Λ are invalid because they are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant."

Care to try again?

Do you have a citation for that quote? ... or did you make it up all on your own? ...

You should also learn what the "fallacy of authoritarianism" is ... I'm relying on actual physicists in matter concerning physics ... internationally recognized experts in the field at hand ...

You call me a liar to direct attention away from your own lies ...

Point to the error ... or you admit there is no error ...

As usual you will not answer my question when called on your Penrose-Hawking singularity. You should be able to explain in nutshell and flash if you knew and thought it was true. Instead I get more questions upon my creditability.

You can't just use authoritarianism to say Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem is true. You have to show how it is true.

 

[james bond]

Who has no logic you Always Wrong NUMB NUTS?
There is NO god in evidence and certainly not yours.
This is the SCIENCE section where EVIDENCE is required.

Yet, your side has not explanation for start of space and time, how the cell developed, how anything infinite can exist in the natural world when it would violate the laws of physics, how the energy needed for the universe came to be, how humans (intelligent beings who can make choices) came into existence, why there are mountains coming up from the depths of our oceans around the world, and more. Stop lying and using the lies of evolution to explain what is NOT science and technology. You are a colossal boob.

 

[ReinyDays]

As usual you will not answer my question when called on your Penrose-Hawking singularity. You should be able to explain in nutshell and flash if you knew and thought it was true. Instead I get more questions upon my creditability.

You can't just use authoritarianism to say Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem is true. You have to show how it is true.

Still waiting for the citation for your quote ...

I'm not going to take the time to explain to you 4 years of university classes ... it would take me a year to explain high school algebra ... not going to waste my time ... I've given you my reference, not my fault you don't understand it ...

 

[james bond]

As usual you will not answer my question when called on your Penrose-Hawking singularity. You should be able to explain in nutshell and flash if you knew and thought it was true. Instead I get more questions upon my creditability.

You can't just use authoritarianism to say Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem is true. You have to show how it is true.

Still waiting for the citation for your quote ...

I'm not going to take the time to explain to you 4 years of university classes ... it would take me a year to explain high school algebra ... not going to waste my time ... I've given you my reference, not my fault you don't understand it ...

And I'm still waiting for your explanation.

Hm... what degree do you have? Anyway, I'll just shrug and pass it off as you not being able to present an argument besides wikipedia for the Penrose-Hawking theorems which were shown to be invalid.

High school algebra is about finding the unknown. It involves putting real life variables and making equations from them and solving it. There, that wasn't too hard.

Instead, I think I've made my counter-argument that the Penrose-Hawking singularities cannot be expected because the theorems are based on false foundations of Einstein's field equations to which you have no counter.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.

Haha. Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.

those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.

We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).

Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.

Evolution is a lie. Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis. The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time. There can be no singularity. Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed. For a long time, the sun was believed to rotate around the earth. It was logical, it matched observations, and there was no reason to believe any other explanation was possible. It was also wrong. Unknown doesn't equal God, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[alang1216]

the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis

What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?

 

[BULLDOG]

the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis

What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?

The swan neck experiment proved that microorganisms on dust particles caused beef broth to go bad, but didn't prove anything else. One example of his experiment is still in tact and on display in the Medical Science display case at the George Marshall Medical Museum.
Pasteur's Swan Neck Flask — Worcester Medical Museums.

 

[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.

We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).

To the contrary, "mind numbing indoctrination" is evolution, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, liberalism, and more since the 1850s. People were swayed by Satan into atheistic science and religion and choosing to go the hell thinking that is scientific. It really is wrong and more of the stupid choice, but that's how mind numbing indoctrination works.

What's mind numbing to me is how the libs were easily swayed and now believe they know everything dealing with science when they have no evidence and no backing by the scientific method. They were fooled by natural selection which God created, but Satan used to fool the evolutionists.

That's obviously false. When you use the term "we", I have to take that to mean you and the fundamentalist ministries. As you know, your fundie ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed papers. Your use of the term "we" simply means that you and the fundie ministries take the bible as a literal rendering of history. There is no science in the Bible. To suggest that the planet is flat, 6,000 years old and biblical tales and fables are true is nonsense.

 

[james bond]

the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis

What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?

The swan neck experiment proved that microorganisms on dust particles caused beef broth to go bad, but didn't prove anything else. One example of his experiment is still in tact and on display in the Medical Science display case at the George Marshall Medical Museum.
Pasteur's Swan Neck Flask — Worcester Medical Museums.
View attachment 473908

It disproved spontaneous generation; Today spontaneous generation has become abiogenesis.

How Did Pasteur Finally Disprove Spontaneous Generation?

Louis Pasteur finally disproved spontaneous generation through an experiment where beef broth was sterilized through boiling in two flasks, one that was exposed to air and another that was protected from it. The one that was exposed to contaminants clouded, showing microbial growth, while the...

www.reference.com

The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.

Haha. Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.

those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.

We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).

Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.

Evolution is a lie. Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis. The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time. There can be no singularity. Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed. For a long time, the sun was believed to rotate around the earth. It was logical, it matched observations, and there was no reason to believe any other explanation was possible. It was also wrong. Unknown doesn't equal God, no matter how much you want it to.

Where is the KCA logically flawed. Do you know what it states? It has nothing to do with the wrong belief of the sun rotating around the Earth.

 

[ReinyDays]

... the theorems are based on false foundations of Einstein's field equations to which you have no counter.

Okay Bubba ...

 

[BULLDOG]

the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis

What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?

The swan neck experiment proved that microorganisms on dust particles caused beef broth to go bad, but didn't prove anything else. One example of his experiment is still in tact and on display in the Medical Science display case at the George Marshall Medical Museum.
Pasteur's Swan Neck Flask — Worcester Medical Museums.
View attachment 473908

It disproved spontaneous generation; Today spontaneous generation has become abiogenesis.

How Did Pasteur Finally Disprove Spontaneous Generation?

Louis Pasteur finally disproved spontaneous generation through an experiment where beef broth was sterilized through boiling in two flasks, one that was exposed to air and another that was protected from it. The one that was exposed to contaminants clouded, showing microbial growth, while the...

www.reference.com

The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.

Haha. Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.

those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.

We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).

Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.

Evolution is a lie. Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis. The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time. There can be no singularity. Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed. For a long time, the sun was believed to rotate around the earth. It was logical, it matched observations, and there was no reason to believe any other explanation was possible. It was also wrong. Unknown doesn't equal God, no matter how much you want it to.

Where is the KCA logically flawed. Do you know what it states? It has nothing to do with the wrong belief of the sun rotating around the Earth.

Basically, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause that made it exist. Since the cosmos exists something had to cause it, and that cause can only be God. If you can't see the flaw there, I'm not going to waste my time trying to show it to you.

 

[justinacolmena]

Basically, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause that made it exist. Since the cosmos exists something had to cause it, and that cause can only be God. If you can't see the flaw there, I'm not going to waste my time trying to show it to you.

If you count anything concrete (or discrete) such as pebbles or coins -- every natural number is one more than the number that comes before it, but zero is not a natural number, and there cannot be a negative number of any tangible thing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Basically, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause that made it exist. Since the cosmos exists something had to cause it, and that cause can only be God. If you can't see the flaw there, I'm not going to waste my time trying to show it to you.

If you count anything concrete (or discrete) such as pebbles or coins -- every natural number is one more than the number that comes before it, but zero is not a natural number, and there cannot be a negative number of any tangible thing.

Yes. That all sounds logical and reasonable, and it is as easy to accept as the sun revolving around the earth, at least until we learned different. I'll admit your line of reasoning might be exactly right, but it's a little too soon to assume it is the only acceptable theory. Even if it does turn out to be right, there is nothing to say that a god is what put everything in motion.

 

[justinacolmena]

Yes. That all sounds logical and reasonable, and it is as easy to accept as the sun revolving around the earth, at least until we learned different. I'll admit your line of reasoning might be exactly right, but it's a little too soon to assume it is the only acceptable theory. Even if it does turn out to be right, there is nothing to say that a god is what put everything in motion.

You've got to be so full of shit about it.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.

Critical Physical Constants
​

Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value 246.2 GeV
Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark 2.4, 4.8, 104 MeV
Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum) .511, .32 eV
Electromagnetism Coupling Constant .00729
Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant .1187
Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10to the -3 eV) to the 4th [Precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120]
Scalar Amplitude Fluctuation Q 2 x 10 to the -5
Baryon, Dark Matter Mass Per Photon .57 eV, 3 eV
Entropy of the Universe 4 x 10 to the 81 J/K
Gravitational Constant Precise to within 1 part in 10 to the 60
[Only 10 to the 20 seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe]

If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” – Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physicist, Cambridge University



The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. – Psalm 19:1-2
This knowledge pouring forth from the heavens for millennia has been intensely studied by mankind since at least
Ptolemy (367 B.C. to 283 B.C.) and continues to be intensely studied by scientists around the world.

"Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still." - Carl Sagan
___________________________________
According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.

Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, Social Forces. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)

 

[Hollie]

The fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.

Critical Physical Constants
​

Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value 246.2 GeV
Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark 2.4, 4.8, 104 MeV
Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum) .511, .32 eV
Electromagnetism Coupling Constant .00729
Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant .1187
Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10to the -3 eV) to the 4th [Precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120]
Scalar Amplitude Fluctuation Q 2 x 10 to the -5
Baryon, Dark Matter Mass Per Photon .57 eV, 3 eV
Entropy of the Universe 4 x 10 to the 81 J/K
Gravitational Constant Precise to within 1 part in 10 to the 60
[Only 10 to the 20 seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe]

If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” – Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physicist, Cambridge University



The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. – Psalm 19:1-2
This knowledge pouring forth from the heavens for millennia has been intensely studied by mankind since at least
Ptolemy (367 B.C. to 283 B.C.) and continues to be intensely studied by scientists around the world.

"Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still." - Carl Sagan
___________________________________
According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.

Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, Social Forces. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
― Stephen Hawking



Be brave. Be free from philosophies, prophets and holy lies. Go deep into your feelings and explore the mystery of your body, mind and soul. You will find the truth.”
― Amit Ray, Meditation: Insights and Inspirations



I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


What do we really want from religion? Palliatives? Therapy? Comfort? Do we want reassuring fables or an understanding of our actual circumstances? Dismay that the Universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish. You might think that grown-ups would be ashamed to put such thoughts into print. The fashionable way of doing this is not to blame the Universe -- which seems truly pointless -- but rather to blame the means by which we know the Universe, namely science.”
― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

 

[Wuwei]

The fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.

Critical Physical Constants
​

Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value 246.2 GeV
Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark 2.4, 4.8, 104 MeV
Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum) .511, .32 eV
Electromagnetism Coupling Constant .00729
Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant .1187
Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10to the -3 eV) to the 4th [Precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120]
Scalar Amplitude Fluctuation Q 2 x 10 to the -5
Baryon, Dark Matter Mass Per Photon .57 eV, 3 eV
Entropy of the Universe 4 x 10 to the 81 J/K
Gravitational Constant Precise to within 1 part in 10 to the 60
[Only 10 to the 20 seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe]

If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” – Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physicist, Cambridge University



The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. – Psalm 19:1-2
This knowledge pouring forth from the heavens for millennia has been intensely studied by mankind since at least
Ptolemy (367 B.C. to 283 B.C.) and continues to be intensely studied by scientists around the world.

"Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still." - Carl Sagan
___________________________________
According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.

Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, Social Forces. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)

The posting of physical constants has been done in many places, along with the realization that there is a remarkable balance in the mathematics that underlies everything from galaxies down to DNA and fundamental particles – quarks and leptons, etc. This is truly amazing. So, lets define a word for the entity behind all of this: God. We can also call this entity the “cause”.

Then what?

Shall we say the obvious: God exists (by definition? ) Are we supposed to pray and worship it? And believe that the entity listens to prayers and micromanages our lives? Those facets simply do not follow from the “definition” of God.

I find the argument that “God made everything” rather vacuous in that it doesn't lend anything to our understanding of the nature of the universe. It only puts a label on things that are currently unresolved, such as the nature of the big bang and abiogenesis. There is no clue that we should join a church or whatever.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

Prove that the universe had a beginning.

It doesn't need to have a beginning.

The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.

Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Prove that the universe had a beginning.
It doesn't need to have a beginning.
The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.

The unmitigated gall of your pretentious insouciance is deeply offensive and unintelligent.

Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.

A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does. How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Prove that the universe had a beginning.
It doesn't need to have a beginning.
The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.

The unmitigated gall of your pretentious insouciance is deeply offensive and unintelligent.

Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.

A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does. How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?

Then, conversation over.

Bye.