> The Kalam Cosmological argument isn't current scientific theory. It's a philosophical concept.

Of course it is. I didn't mention Kalam's cosmological argument and was not referring to it. I was talking about current scientific theory surrounding the theory of the Big Bang.

> The singularity contains all the mass in the universe in a one-dimensional space, therefore it has an inifinite density.

Current knowledge is insufficient to define with any certainly what the structure of the universe was at that point. In any case, for the universe to have eternal existence, it must have been static (potential energy). But what moved the universe into kinetic energy? How did it get in motion? Personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes (though not every personal cause is a first cause.) You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, "Who caused it?"

> What about RNA?

What about it? I presented DNA as my argument.

> My assertion was current scientific theory.

The Kalam Cosmological argument isn't current scientific theory. It's a philosophical concept.

> It's my understanding that energy has no density where there is no space or mass.

The singularity contains all the mass in the universe in a one-dimensional space, therefore it has an inifinite density.

> DNA

What about RNA?

> We both have unsubstantiated claims.

You asked me to give reasons as to why energy was not in existence before the Big Bang. My answer would be: because there's no evidence of it. It's a negative equation. You might ask me to give reasons as to why unicorns aren't in the world. All I have is: there's no evidence of them. But if you are making a positive claim, that energy existed before the Big Bang, you need to supply evidence to substantiate the probability of your assertion.

You argue that I also have unsubstantiated claims. My assertion was current scientific theory: the universe had a beginning, and before that beginning it was a non-dimensional singularity. That's what the math and retrogressing the expansion of the universe bears out.

> A point of infinite density.. or a singularity.

A density of what? It's my understanding that energy has no density where there is no space or mass.

> What kind of organizational data are you attributing to a creator and not humans?

DNA.

> I can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to substantiate your claim.

We both have unsubstantiated claims. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I don't think a creator is necessary for the universe to exist. Believing so would require one to assume that nothing existed at some point. I will continue to believe that there is some source of energy, whether it existed as the singularity or as a quantum potentiality until proven otherwise.

> What would you call something that has no material or functional existence?

A point of infinite density.. or a singularity.

> science can't give us one singe example of organizational data that doesn't come from previous organizational data or from an intelligent cause.

That's because we are humans, we are intelligent, and we order data. What kind of organizational data are you attributing to a creator and not humans?

> What do you mean by "it"?

Yes, I mean the universe, so we agree.

> but that's like saying you didn't exist at some point so you came from nothing, when in reality you are a result of matter from other individuals that existed before you.

It's not like this. In reality we are biological effects of a biological cause characterized by reproduction. The universe, by contrast, did not derive (according to current scientific knowledge) from a previously existing universe. Nor can we claim that the universe as we know it today resulted from energy already in existence. That has not been verified or substantiated.

> What reason would anyone have to believe that the energy wasn't existing at that point prior to the expansion?

I can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to substantiate your claim. It seems you have to assume energy existed to justify a bang, but your assumption is without support.

> You would have to not only assume that energy expanded from a point at which nothing existed beforehand (which doesn't logically make any sense) and then assume that something intelligent designed and created that energy without being able to explain how something could exist before the universe did or how it would have intelligence and where it "exists".

Something has to have existed before the Bang to be the causal mechanism. We are trying arrive at the most plausible explanation, given all of what we know and see.

> How is a dimensionless singularity "nothing"?

If it has no height, depth, width, spacial reality, material reality, or temporal reality, and the laws of physics and/or nature are not in operation, then nothing is an appropriate descriptor. What would you call something that has no material or functional existence?

> information data comes from other information data

There are different kinds of data. One I would call just random data. That certainly doesn't require an intelligent cause. Then there's ordered data: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2. Ordered data, like snowflakes for instance, doesn't necessarily require an intelligent cause. But then there's informational data. Random or ordered data that is processed, organized, structure or presented in a given context so as to make it useful. Random or ordered data are simply facts or figures, designs—bits of information, but not meaningful. When data are processed, interpreted, organized, structured, or presented so as to make them meaningful or useful, that's informational data. We can look at the history of temperature readings all over the world fo the past 100 years (that's random data). But if this data is organized and analyzed to find that global temperature is rising, then that is informational data.

Information theorist Hubert Lockey argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance.

The issue is, science can't give us one singe example of organizational data that doesn't come from previous organizational data or from an intelligent cause.

> I have no idea where you came up with the stat that "it is...almost unanimously believed by scientists that god doesn't exist."

I was being facetious by using similar wording as you, but I meant that the majority of scientists don't believe in religion. That would include the 18% that believe in a higher power. so 77% don't believe in gods as described by humans.

> By beginning, I mean that it didn't exist

What do you mean by "it"?

If you mean that the universe as we know it didn't exist at some point, then we agree.. but that's like saying you didn't exist at some point so you came from nothing, when in reality you are a result of matter from other individuals that existed before you. I'm simply claiming that the universe as we know it today resulted from energy already in existence.

> Technically speaking, scientists really don't know what all existed, if anything. there is certainly no evidence that energy existed. It may be speculated by some, but it's scholarly speculation.

The universe expanded from a certain point. What reason would anyone have to believe that the energy wasn't existing at that point prior to the expansion? You would have to not only assume that energy expanded from a point at which nothing existed beforehand (which doesn't logically make any sense) and then assume that something intelligent designed and created that energy without being able to explain how something could exist before the universe did or how it would have intelligence and where it "exists".

> If it was a dimensionless singularity, then it did come from nothing.

How is a dimensionless singularity "nothing"?

> Which one? I said four things here:

information data comes from other information data

> It is also almost unanimously believed by scientists that god doesn't exist.

This is untrue. According to a 2009 Pew Research poll, "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."

A 2011 survey taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and reported by David Masci in the Los Angeles Times, came up with similar results—that 51% do believe in God and 41% do not.

A 2015 global survey by the Rice University said, "While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case."

I have no idea where you came up with the stat that "it is...almost unanimously believed by scientists that god doesn't exist."

> I think by beginning, you mean a rapid expansion of energy into 3-dimensional space-time. That's just a transition of energy that science doesn't indicate was not in existence at any point.

By beginning, I mean that it didn't exist. Speculations are that before the Big Bang the "universe," at this point a misnomer, was a dimensionless singularity. The laws of physics didn't exist and were not in effect. Technically speaking, scientists really don't know what all existed, if anything. there is certainly no evidence that energy existed. It may be speculated by some, but it's scholarly speculation.

> Again, you're assuming that the energy from the big bang came from nothing.

Yes, because we don't know what was there, if anything. If it was a dimensionless singularity, then it did come from nothing.

> You're going to have to explain that one.

Which one? I said four things here:

- something must always have existed
- time can't exist without space
- no space existed before the Big Bang
- information data comes from other informational data

> It is almost unanimously believed by scientists.

It is also almost unanimously believed by scientists that god doesn't exist.

> the universe had a beginning.

I think by beginning, you mean a rapid expansion of energy into 3-dimensional space-time. That's just a transition of energy that science doesn't indicate was not in existence at any point.

> Since it had a beginning.

Again, you're assuming that the energy from the big bang came from nothing.

> So the first cause must have been something without a beginning—something that was not an "effect". It must eternal. Something must have always existed. So there must be an eternal first cause.

The energy that existed "before" the big bang was eternal since time can't exist without space. Since all matter was contained within a point, no space existed. Therefore the universe is eternal from the reference point of our temporal existence.

> We have also learned that informational data comes from other informational data.

You're going to have to explain that one.

It is almost unanimously believed by scientists that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory has been shown to be a more than credible explanation of the universe's origin, and it's virtually verified that the universe had a beginning. Since it had a beginning, it has to have had a causal mechanism—something that caused the bang. Science tells us that effects have causes. Kalam's cosmological argument tells us that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Both science and reasoning tells us that personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes. You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, "Who caused it?"

So the first cause must have been something without a beginning—something that was not an "effect". It must eternal. Something must have always existed. So there must be an eternal first cause.

We also have a timeless cause. If the past is infinite, we would have no present (Kalam's argument). Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the first cause must be timeless.

We also have a personal cause. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause. What puts a system in motion?

To bring space, time, and matter into existence requires a supreme display of power. The universe displays this kind of power.

We have also learned that informational data comes from other informational data. Science can show us no example of informational data arising from anything other than previous information.

We therefore have an eternal, timeless, personal, powerful, and informational first cause. That's why the universe requires a creator when God doesn't. The universe had a beginning and therefore needs a cause. God is eternal and therefore doesn't. God is self-sufficient (the universe is not), self-existent (the universe is not), and therefore necessary.

If you believe that a god didn't require a creator, then why does the universe require a creator?

Please answer with your own words and just use external sources to reference or expand upon them. I don't mind reading a little or watching a YouTube clip, but if you can't explain the idea behind the source you link then I won't bother responding.