How scientific is to assume that the center of everything and where the universe comes from, the big bang, the singularity point is God, but what exist beyond god and the space where our universe is expanding is chaos and entrophy?

>>16709149 (OP)
Not at all. You need to describe which God is and by what mechanism he exists and operates for this to even be a valid proposition in science.

>>16709154
I defined it more in a philosophical sense that he's the reason there's a fine tuning in the physical variables and he's a fundamental force that grants organic beings the spark of being alive.

beyong that I admit I am just doing philosophy.

UMMM AKSHUALLY
>*snorts phlegm*
>*pushes up glasses*
THE BIG BONGO COSMOLOGICAL MODEL AND ITS MODERN VARIANT ΛCDM DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE MATERIAL OF THE UNIVERSE OR GUARANTEE ANY SORT OF SINGULARITY OR THEOLOGY.
IT MERELY-
>*uses inhaler*
-REMARKS THAT IF WE SEE STUFF TODAY MOVING OUTWARDS AND EXPANDING AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN TIME THEN MAYBE GOING BACKWARD IN TIME WE WOULD SEE ALL MATTER MOVE INWARD AND COMPRESS.

SO YOU SEE THE BIG BANG DOES NOT EXPLAIN TIME AT ZERO OR BEFORE OR HOW TO EVEN APPLY THOSE CONCEPTS AND EVERYTHING WAS THE CENTER BACK THEN, AHEM, EVERYTHING!!
>*pops zit in your direction*
HAW HAW, MUSTVE BEEN A ""SINGULARITY""
HASTA LA VISTA, NERRRD
>*rides off on moped*

>>16709158
>I defined it more in a philosophical sense
So it's not scientific.
Any further questions?

>>16709160
science is a branch of philosophy.

>>16709161
Not the branch you're evoking.

Not including the 'GOD' part if the question you're asking is "what is before the big bang' the last I checked was that what they know is the there is mass based on the HIGGS Boson particle. This was like 5 years ago so there must be more about it by now.

Best people to ask are Cambridge or Harvard professors or people working at NASA and CERN to get a definitive answer.

>>16709149 (OP)
Protip: "singularity" is code for "we dunno lol". An infinitely dense, infinitesimally small point is just what appears to happen mathematically, but reality tends to have strong opinions against allowing infinities to exist. For example. GR predicts those infinitely dense points inside black holes, but they clearly do not behave like that. Throw more mass into a black hole and you get a bigger black hole, complete with more gravity and a larger Schwarzschild radius, which contradicts the infinite density thing since you'd need to have an infinity bigger than another.

>>16709158
>there's a fine tuning in the physical variables
Is there though? we dont have enough physical knowledge to affirm it; if there are multiple universes, then its simply a matter that in the ones without "fine tuning" there would be no observers to see it; there are also theories that say that the dimensionless constants of the universe (like the sommerfield constant) are defined by geometry, like pi or e, so they simply couldnt have other values; also, even with "fine tuning" 99.9999999999% of the observable universe is sterile to life and, as far we know, for most of its existence 100% of it was lifeless

>but that's all hypothetical!
yes, and so is the existence of god

>>16709566
the antrophic argument still hasn't been debunked yet.

Bump

>>16709565
Low IQ post. Black holes may not have point singularies, but that's not because of "bigger" infinities. Both 5/0 and 50/0 are infinity and neither is denser than the other, they only differ by mass, not density.