where did the energy that was in this singularity come from? if you do not know then you do not know the origins of space time and matter, all you did here is convert the energy to a singularity and claimed this is its scientific origins when reality is you do not know where the energy contained in the singularity came from, which is why you are stupid for arguing with me for 2 pages when at the end you just end up with the conclusion I came up with and that is no one knows.
I am unsure why you seem so enraged by the bigbang theory, It's like you think that if science can't answer your ridiculous questions then that automatically means GOD did it. It's called the God of the gaps fallacy . Religious Nutters assume that if science can't answer there most pressing concerns then that is evidence for GOD, an absurd proposition at best. It is simply a variant of the 'argument from ignorance fallacy'.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
In other words you realise the impossibility of providing evidence for GOD, so you shift the burden to others and say disprove it, and we end up back at the flying spaghetti monster again. I claim flying spaghetti monster exists, you can't disprove it, and yet a believer in GOD would consider this proposition absurd even though it is the same proposition he offers when claiming GOD exists.
Your argument is the equivalent of someone from a time where everyone believed the world was flat because when you went to the beach you could see a horizon that looked like an edge and that if someone was to swim in that direction they would be sure to fall off. At that time, due to their being insufficient investigation into the matter, that argument would have sufficed to appeal to other flat world believers. Just because a matter has not recieved enough investigation to uncover the truth of the matter, doesn't mean that you can fill the gap with whatever story you like and call it truth.
It's like watching a magic act and remaining ignorant of how the magician saws a woman in half and telling yourself an act of magic just happened or he did indeed saw a woman in half. Some people when the truth is withheld from them can't stand the not knowing, so they make up stories to appease themselves and make sense of the event, never mind that what they tell themselves is in all probability false. The limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true.
