Now and before.

[Brian37]

This a very serious post. I don't intend to joke in it; didn't I also use double meanings.
Let's begin:

Having a start, we must have a point before that start. Let's imagine the two points: 

1-Start
2-Pre start

If taken with the same context, with the same meaning dictionary, the pre start, or 2, can always be the start within a different universe, resulting in an infinite vacuum.

But an instance of logic would suggest, that once we cross the "start" borders backwardly, the context of now will have no meaning; it will cease to exist.

The start point was suggested to be named "The Big Bang" in our universe, nobody knows anything about point 2; or "Pre start". If meanings can't even exist in that void; void itself lost its meaning before point 1; how does point 2 can even exist ?

We will never solve it. We will forever be locked tight in our context of "now"; the context that began with point 1.
Only God is the way out of this dogma of lost meaning.

What means what, when what itself loses the colors that makes it a what; when would not work since light itself is not; darkness is also not; nothing is; but everything is not.

Before point 1; nothing would mean. Context doesn't exist. How could particles be?

The laws of physics breaks down at this point, so the explanation will be beyond us. We didn't evolve with this experience. 
It is not true to say that there was nothing and then something. The term "nothing" postulates space, since all terms relating to a reality assume spacial coordinates. I can't claim to know the true explanation of the universe, but based on what is accepted here, the universe wasn't preceded by anything. 
To say God is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing is to assume a specific relationship between existence, causality, and nothing. This is to assume a lot. 
God is actually a rather terrible explanation for the origins of the big bang, space, and time, as shown by the the principle of ignorance. An explanation such as a mind will have cognitive features, which means that a predictable pattern should be able to be deduced from such an event. This would be part of a teleological based event. However, the big bang lacks these predictable cognitive features, it is lacked in its initial conditions. You cannot overcome the random nature of this event. Physical theory breaks down at the big bang singularity. 
Also, this concept of God has ontological inconsistencies.

Atlas, nor Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists ect ect ect, nobody sees that their arguments ARE NOT different. When the believer, (insert religion here), cant win by directly peddling the holy writings or holy person they follow, they try to debunk science to point to their holy writing/person. When they cant get away with that they try to claim that science matches their holy writing/person. Every religion worldwide has pockets of humans who resort to these tactics. 

My deity is real.
My book says.
My holy writings say.
My holy person says.
My club debunks science.
My club has made scientific discoveries.

There is not one religion in the world who does not have members who make these attempts. Not one.

Funny how no religion in the world can destroy the claims of the others with objectivity and peer review. Arguing a religion is nothing more than apology, an attempt to convince oneself of that to which one has no impartial evidence. Atlas despite all his efforts, has the same problem that GC and CL has, that a Hindu and Buddhist have. Sure you can all accept parts of science, but none of you want to face that science itself has never propped up any religion, because it is a neutral tool, not an apology.

Scientific method does not point to Allah, or Yahweh or Jesus or Vishnu or Apollo. Most humans don't want to face this fact.

---

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

Name six.

Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy.

I see your Isaac Newton and raise you a Stephen Hawking.

This is the shit Atlas a Muslim, and GC a Christian and even like I said in  prior posts, even Hindus and Buddhists don't want to face. They all point to their histories and individuals who make scientific discoveries. Ask Atlas and he also will point to his book and say it matches science and point to Muslims whom made scientific discoveries.

Newton got physics right sure, but that does not make the Christian god real. Newton also postulated alchemy for a while and that was absolute garbage. Arabs invented algebra so does that make Allah real if Atlas points to that? By this logic the Greek gods are the real gods because the ancient Greeks were the first to coin and use the word "atom". Funny how neither the Christian or Muslim actually believe that the use of the word "atom" back then meant they knew what an electron or proton or neutron were. Fact is when the Greeks coined that word it was simply a word saying "imagine the smallest thing you cant divide". 

The ancient Egyptians thought the sun was controlled by a deity, they could point to a real sun, but that does not mean because they were master engineers in their building and pretty artwork they knew back then what the chemical makeup of the sun was. Newton advancing some things and being right about some things does not make the God of Jesus the one true god, anymore than the Quran talking about the stars means they knew anything about modern science. 

Spend enough time debating Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus, you will find plenty in every religion that claim science is their unique discovery and points to their club.