I submit that either there was something other that must have acted upon it. You could argue that it was another super dense particle colliding but that would contradict the argument that it contained all matter. If you argue that the big bang didn't happen you have to explain background radiation and the expansion of the universe.

I say it was something outside the confines of reality, something other than what we could possibly comprehend since it is beyond matter itself.

Well, how could it be everything? I’m honestly not the most informed on this topic, but we discovered the Big Bang as we examined the effects of the expanding universe. It has to be expanding within something for this to make sense. There has to be something external, and also material, for this to make sense. The only way an a thing can be acted upon is through the force of another existing thing. It seems like a bit of a cop out to just assume god because we don’t know the explanation yet

but again I’m not the most knowledgeable on physics, so feel free to correct me

Im no expert but The leading theory of the big bang is that everything existed as a single point. Not just matter, but the dimensions themselves, including time. When the big bang occurred, all matter violently exploded and expanded from a central point and time was the resulting measure of expansion. This expansion was observed as what we now call "background radiation."

we can measure the rate of expansion and from there calculate when the big bang took place

Do you know about Lawrence Krauss

We see something called the observable universe,

shit I was mid thought

nah

Oh I thought you were done, please continue

We exist in what is known as the observable universe. An interesting thing is that as things such as galaxies drift farther and farther away, they eventually pass through a boundary called the event horizon. They still exist but are outside our possible field of view. For all intents and purposes, they no longer exist because we would never be able to travel faster than the expansion of the universe to ever reach them. all of this culminates in the final thought that since the universe is expanding, and we can see things expanding beyond our scope of view, we know that the expansion must have originated from somewhere. However if the expansion theory is true, then we could theoretically pinpoint the exact location of the initial expansion.

I support milfism

Pinpointing the exact point of expansion is a very interesting thought, however of what relevance does this have to our discussion of a creator entity

I've heard about the anti-matter/matter theory before. It supposes that matter and antimatter pop in and out of existence all the time and cancel eachother out, resulting in a net gain of 0. However, if that were true, then Matter should not exist. Proponents of this theory claim that there is somewhat of an asymmetry between matter and antimatter

I was answering the Krauss question

Oh alright

The importance of finding the exact pinpoint is irrelevant

But

The implication of all matter and time coming from a single point begs the question, "What caused reality?:

The particle in question was all things, both time and space.

It was everything, it had no reason to explode as it did

It essentially was inert since nothing could exist outside of it and thus, nothing else existed outside of it to act upon it.

Well we can’t say with any degree of accuracy until we are certain of the exact properties of whatever could have been outside of it. My problem with claiming an immaterial creator was this first cause is that the immaterial/unnatural can’t be defined.

Its only characteristic is that it lacks characteristics

and is contrary to everything we know

It is in contrast to everything we *currently* know *empirically*.

If we are capable of analyzing it then it is material. Observation is how we acquire knowledge

I fully support scientists and the pursuit of understanding the universe, I just see the current scientific understanding of the universe much like the medical understanding of Humorism.

It's wrong, but ideas from the incorrect assumption could lead to better advancements.

We just don't have the tools required to observe a God empirically yet.

The lack of proof is not proof of lack of existence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence*

Yes, but the default assumption is that a theory is incorrect. I’m also not willing to wait around for proof that I doubt will ever come

and again, how do you expect to prove the existence of an immaterial being when we can only observe the material. We can see things because light essentially bounces off of things and back into our eyes

Yes, but for a time we couldn't see air either, yet we still felt the wind.

Exactly, we observed its effects and went from there. If the “immaterial” can affect the material, it is necessarily able to do so because it exists as a physical entity subject to the laws of physics

thus making it material

but I’m a bit bored of this so I’ll end off by saying that agnostic atheism is the most reasonable position with our current info

I've got shit to do myself l8r.

good talk 😁