I will prove to you that God exists

[Paleophyte]

@Paleophyte Wrote:

It's hilarious that you're asking Google to make your arguments for you AND you're too lazy or dumb to strip the code from your post.

Its anal of you to worry about it.

No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

You're more anal retentive than I thought. I've never claimed I support multiverse theory. 

The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself?

thank you for making my argument for me? Really not sure what you're trying to achieve with this. Let me simplify for you:

See? This ^^^ is what I meant. He's totally rubbish with those quote tags. It might as well be Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Step 1: Start with some very simple rules, aka fundamental forces.

We start with the big bang.

When I say "start" I'm talking about a logical progression, not a temporal one. If you don't have fundamental forces then you don't get a Big Bang. You need raisins to make raisin bread.

Whatever caused the big bang was outside of spacetime and our laws of physics. 

So speculating about a "cause" "outside" of spacetime and our laws of physics is pretty pointless yes? Like asking what time it was before time began? Or where things were before there was space? Causes are events and describing events requires space and time.

Trigger warning I coped this from AI. 

Literally translated, "I'm quoting a parrot and know so little about what I'm talking about that you don't need me. The parrot knows this shit better than I do." But thanks for the warning that it's the parrot doing the talking.

The singularity at the heart of the Big Bang theory...

Dear parrot, please explain to Drew that the singularity is a theoretical artifact similar to a divide by zero error and likely doesn't have any application to the real world.

Even though something like this appears to be what would happen if we rolled the universe back about 13.8 billion years ago. Still infinite density, infinite gravity? If that's not supernatural I don't what would be.

So are you measuring gravity and density or ectoplasm and the number of angels you can fit on the head of a pin? Hint, even this theoretical artifact is being described in natural terms. You're wrong about being wrong.

In order to make a time-line for all the events...

And he's off into the weeds.  

The first emergence was matter over antimatter.

OK, so you clearly have no clue what emergence is. Go look it up and get back to us.

You're living in a fantasy world where somehow matter is compressed infinitely, a little baking a little shaking and out comes a universe with all the laws of physics and properties to cause life to exist minus any plan or intent to do so. 

There's nothing miraculous about your inability to understand the argument.

By the way how is it we haven't been able to create life? We already have all the ingredients. It was the result of a few simple rules right?

We're handicapped by not using apparatus smaller than 97 billion light-years across with a run-time of less than 13.8 billion years. What part of simple begets complex did you miss? All of it?