Do to really believe a snake talked?!

[Edwardo Piet]

You can't dismiss the point by saying "just." If existence existed eternally in the form of a singularity, there's no reason for it to one day expand.

The reason to believe that it expanded is the evidence that it did.

Existence has always existed, and the universe is expanding.

[Cyberman]

Unless the singularity was unstable.

An eternally existing singularity is obviously stable.

We don't know that it was eternally existing. We don't even know how long such a structure can exist. You're making assumptions about the initial conditions that nobody can claim to make with any degree of safety and running the same risks of defining your conclusion into existence as we've seen elsewhere on these boards.

[Minimalist]

You're making assumptions about the initial conditions that nobody can claim to make with any degree of safety and running the same risks of defining your conclusion into existence as we've seen elsewhere on these boards.

So rather than say "I don't know" theists say "goddidit."

Apparently, they mean the same thing.

[John V]

The reason to believe that it expanded is the evidence that it did.

No Shit, Sherlock.

Existence has always existed,

Your sophistry notwithstanding, the evidence and logic suggest otherwise.

[Cyberman]

So rather than say "I don't know" theists say "goddidit."

Apparently, they mean the same thing.

Exactly. They start off by saying "we don't know" then without drawing breath, go on to say "therefore we know". it's all downhill from there.

[John V]

We don't know that it was eternally existing.

I know.

We don't even know how long such a structure can exist.

I agree.

You're making assumptions about the initial conditions that nobody can claim to make with any degree of safety

I'm not making assumptions and arguing a single scenario, I'm considering alternative scenarios, as I agree that we don't know.

[Cyberman]

Fair enough, but then you can't safely postulate that the singularity was eternal and/or stable. Just because nobody can (yet) lay claim to knowledge of the initial conditions and how they pertain to what followed, doesn't mean that everything goes and every opinion is equally as valid as every other.

[Edwardo Piet]

Existence has always existed,

Your sophistry notwithstanding, the evidence and logic suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry but the tautological logic actually dictates the opposite.

It dictates that existence is never non-existent, and it is always existent. Just as bachelors are never married, and they are always unmarried. Something is always something and it is never nothing.

Unless you completely redefine the meaning of "non-existence" or "nothing" to mean something other than the complete absence of "existence" or "something". But that would be like redefining "bachelor" so that it can include some people who are actually married... But in that case I have to then ask: "What are you talking about?".

As for your accusation of my "sophistry", that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[John V]

Fair enough, but then you can't safely postulate that the singularity was eternal and/or stable.

That the singularity was eternal is one of the possible alternatives being considered. It follows by definition that something which eternally existed in one form was stable.

Just because nobody can (yet) lay claim to knowledge of the initial conditions and how they pertain to what followed, doesn't mean that everything goes and every opinion is equally as valid as every other.

I agree, but that seems to be the view of some of my opponents.

[Cyberman]

Anyone particular in mind? Maybe I missed it but as far as I can see your 'opponents' seem to be taking the scientific line as dictated by the available evidence.