Before Big Bang God or Singularity

ok. so all your math and science is useless against the singularity.but you have determined the singularity is there.now, use logic of reality.reality: singularity WAS.singularity would have to be energy. (all energy in a timeless state from whence all things came)start asking what that means exactly.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it does describe perhaps the beginning of a galaxy.what i see him saying is the big bang model has flaws, but evolution in the universe is evident.but if you follow all evolution to an eventual source, there still comes the first event, and the first event comes from the first "thing".eventually, no matter how many times you say what you don't know, the what we do know is going to be understood.T=0 is a true coordinate. and at those coordinates is something that can not be explored by science and math, that became laws from the first cause of whatever was at T=0.but after T=0 comes the events, so the events happened from whatever was at T=0.at these coordinates existed then: a timeless energy, OR the universe in a timeless state with no evolution before.which means: a timeless universe with never having evolved, and then evolving = direction.either and any way you view the "something" at T=0, intelligence is true by necessity.at T=0, there was a timeless energy, is law.now: you will want to dispute T=0.because of the before, and evident evolution, T=0 is inevitable.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

all I've seen stated by science is "we only know that T=0 is a place or location for a cause, nothing more"but there is a refusal to examine whats at that place because all laws of science become useless. math included.the better question would be: at T=0, was whatever there destroyed upon T=.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001i believe: no. because if you take a rock from a foundation, everything on top crumbles.i view T=0 as energy, the most basic truth, because "something" was there, and everything that i real is either energy ina conserved sense (matter) or energy in its free sense (lightning, light, sound,fields, etc)so at T=0 is timeless energy. and what more could be said of that stated truth?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

T=0 inevitablewhats there? something.chances of a singular something spawning all there is in its complexity by chance?do the math.directed: 100%
chance: same chance as a man in a desert sand storm trying to hit a hole in one with a golf ball and a putting club, and the "hole" is a three in hole on the back side of the moon.so what is the truth?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

correct. but who has answered me: what is at the north pole?from what came the first cause?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

observation:T=0 inevitable.what is the point after? the first cause of the universe.from whence came this first cause?lets observe.at T=0 all the energy that the universe came from existed with no time. nothing before, and it just was.how can i say that? we are, the universe is.so what is at T=0? what is at the north pole? all science and math becomes irrelevant is the argument, so science say's: no one can say.but observe science: before anything can be said about anything, a question, the "right" questions, must be asked.so what is the right question in how to pursue T=0?was something there?yes.definitely?yes.why?all is.ok. so T=0= something.energy?yes.how, why?dunno how, but it must be, because outside of energy nothing is real.so at T=0 : timeless energy.ok next question, what kind of energy?dunno..complex for sure, all that is came form it, and it existed timeless, and just was, with nothing before.is it ordered or chaotic?dunno, could be either.intelligent, or not?if chaotic, intelligent by necessity, because it would need direction to become what is.if ordered, and singluar and timeless, it is intelligent definitely, because how could it maintain order without it, in a timeless state?are these observations absolute?yes.why? how? on what basis?by all observation of what is now, there can be no other conclusion.can anything else be said definitely?yes.what?if a singluar intelligent timeless energy begot all that is from itself, existing and just "was" with nothing before, the action of the first cause is only possible by faith.debate?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

as long as there is something else for the simple mindless algorithm to interact with.if nothing else to interact with, it could not become more complex. due to the complexity of the scale and size of the universe and its diversity biologically, a single timeless energy to beget everything from itself with no other interactions, is far from "simple".

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i see. so what your saying is, your current T=0, may not be "true" T=0. so your still trying to decide the first cause from T=0.but T=0 is still inevitable. and you cannot say the "universe is a lot to interact with" for whatever is at T=0.because there is no "universe" as we know it at those coords.universe: uni (one)at the core of "universe", in its initial timeless state, there is only a singularity. and whatever reaction or action from the "single" was not an interaction with anything else. (when there is "literally, nothing else but that one thing)Edited by tesla, : added a point.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

all the laws of science become useless at this point. your guess is to far stretched. if there is a universe "like we have never seen before" at true T=0, time is still irrelevant. which means an unchanged form that always was. your math is only deciding location, not what is at the location. we here, are trying to scrutinize the "what" at the "where". if a model doesn't show a singularity, it is blindness by choice. something must be there, for anything to be here. and if you throw all that is into reverse, that is what you'll find in the end. of course. with no time, there are no two things for time to be measured from. so timeless = single. and had to, for anything to come from it. which would mean direction. which would mean intelligence.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

at the singularity, all laws of science and math break down.your trying to solve a mathematical equation with zero understood variables. including lack of time.even with the 4 realities your wishing to observe, you may be looking at a cause after T=0, or a complexity of what was at T=0.but at true T=0, there is no before. whatever was, was timeless. with no points of observation.singular for that reason.everyone just keeps skipping the reality of the issue. including you modulous. i like you. your smart. think about it please?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : spelling etc.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

then please do tell me, what is AT the north pole?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

last post i made before these you never followed up.this argument has been a revolving door to nowhere. evading questions is not answering them.saying "no one knows" isn't an attempt to answer them.at one point, discussing the singularity it was described by science as "singular energy". then when i asked some hard questions, people put on the "dumb" face and said it doesn't say that.what is the truth modulous? what can or cannot be said of the singularity, as it MUST be, because we are, and T=0 is inevitable?what IS at the north pole, as opposed to what might be?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i like your honesty. but lets explore honestly, the possibilities and the implications past the numbers. it is inevitable. mathematically, and realistically, for any other conclusion. before that's do stop at one thing. and truly singular means timeless.reality modulus, is that something cannot come form absolutely nothing, regardless of appearance. you don't dispute that.so lets try to ask some questions about what that means of the mathematical time-point (T=0).no pressure, lets just see what happens when we try to determine the "what" at the "where".would you then answer for me?can we say absolutely, that at the coordinates of all that is being singular, that the something at T=0 would have to be "energy"?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

T=0 is inevitable. period.so what is at T=0.not with you will any debate be found, because you have admitted "i don't know, and its impossible to know"but it is possible to See SOME things. you can determine as i have said:at T=0 is energy.at T=0 is a timeless state, which means singular energy that is unchanged from its form over an indeterminable time period. but nothing before.and we know it begot the universe and all of the universe was established by the cause's from it.we can determine by the singular state that ordered or chaotic, a singluar evolvment from something previously unchanged , by the scope of what was formed, was intelligent. since there was nothing else for it to interact with but itself.and we can say definitely that an action from a singular energy that "just was" ( only by itself) is an act of faith.i don't see how you cannot see that. its like a sophist's argument, that when you show them the truth they act like there blind as bats.what other conclusion is possible?at T=0 is energy. T=0 is inevitable.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

net energy of zero, would be the same thing as saying there was "nothing". that invites the potential to believe you might not exist. thats mental illness. do not believe it.there is no T=0:all math, and all logic and all observation of the evolution of all things including the galaxies, show that T=0 is inevitable. (because things have evolved, what was the original state?the original state is found by asking "before that". which never ends until you reach a singluar existence, that nothing was before, that was timeless. but was energy, because , if no energy, nothing would be.it is the truth of reality. you are, and only are, because of what the first cause came from. period.this thread is examining exactly what could be possible or not possibly said of that which was before the first cause.you are willing to accept that it could be "zero energy" but not willing to accept it was energy, that was timeless, intelligent, and created all that is by its own faith?which is easier to believe?can you accept this truth of the singularity with intelligence as a "possibility"?Edited by tesla, : typo.Edited by tesla, : structure.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides