The fact of the matter is, that according to the standard big bang model, literally nothing existed from a physical standpoint before the singularity.
"The term Big Bang, however, is often used (even in a scientific context) in a broader sense, as synonymous with the birth and origin of the Universe as a whole. In other words, this term is used also to indicate the single event from which everything (including space and time themselves) directly originated, emerging from an initial singular state, i.e., a state characterized by infinitely high values of energy, density and temperature.
This second interpretation is certainly suggestive, and even scientifically motivated within the standard cosmological model. Nonetheless, it has been challenged by recent developments in theoretical physics that took place at the end of the twentieth century." from
The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory (
Astronomer's Universe; Springer, 2008).
I hate to appeal to a single authority here (even one published in a scientific monograph series published by the single most important academic press in the sciences in the entire world), but I also don't want to unnecessarily complicate things for you.
That is about as far as you can go back with science. Science stops at the singularity.
It doesn't. First, there is work about what was "before" the big bang, and second, physics break down after the big bang. Either way, your conception of "time" doesn't appear until even after the big bang. Same with space.
Since you can no longer use scientific reasoning, what can you use? You have to use metaphysics, and that is what naturalists are afraid to use, because it will become clear that they are stepping into a realm of reality that makes them uncomfortable, and that is the supernatural realm.
Clearly, we aren't reading much of the same metaphysical literature.
You are digging the hole much deeper, you've just admitted that the laws of physics and all spacetime didn't exist at some point, so how did it go from not existing, to now existing??
Current physics suggests that your understanding of time, space, and existence is flawed.
It had to come from somewhere
But God didn't? And if God need not come from somewhere, why need the universe?
So the hole has just gotten deeper for you.
Not really. If God exists, wonderful. I'm just interested in knowing things, not dogma.
Will it ever move?? No, it won't.
So whose to say that the "singularity" behaves like the rock? Or that it isn't "transcendent" (whatever that entails)?
with the help of some transcendent entity.
Ok. The singularity was a transcendent entity. Metaphysical problem solved.
"how come it didn't alter it yesterday, or tomorrow, why only 13.7 billion years ago"
Because all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death.
So the problem is still not solved.
I guess it's turtles, all the way down.
It makes absolutely no since for a singularity to exist from past eternity and then to all of a sudden expand for no apparent reason without there be any precausal conditions.
There are nolocal correlations instantaneously and which are space-like seperated (and can be so to an arbitrary degree). What's the "precausal condition" for these?
These are things that don't happen in reality. All effects have causes and things just dont happen "just because".
Ergo, you have no free will.
Second, all of these things couldn't happen if the physical laws were not fine tuned
So what you are saying is that were it not for the fact that the universe is the way it is, we wouldn't be here. But we are here, which means it is that way. And if it weren't, we wouldn't be.
if each of these things were to strong or to weak, life would not be permissible on this universe
And you know this because...?
Really? Are you a biologists? Are you a physicists? Are you a cosmologist? Are you a mathematician?
Yes, yes, no, and yes. My field involves biology, physics, and mathematics. Cosmology (like many things) I research because I am interested.
If not then you are clearly the pot calling the kettle black.
Not really. Because the issue isn't what I have degrees in, but what I study and the extent to which I am familiar with particular topics. Likewise for you.
So once again, an uphill battle for the naturalist.
But even were you correct, it would not be a battle for the pantheist. Or the Wiccan. Or the Muslim. Or any number of others whose understanding of creation and existence differs from yours yet is not naturalism.
I really don't understand why you keep saying we didn't have space or time after the universe began to exist.
There are a lot of really, really, awful books out there on cosmology for the general audience. However, as far as simpflication without distortion goes, you might try Brian Greene.
So what are you talking about here?
The fact that spacetime requires a particular structure and that this didn't exist even after the big bang.
Sure. Or no. But if you want to say how likely something is, you need to know the probability space.