I see you take the rationalist position – the poverty of which is well established. All it can do is take you from premises to conclusions, which gets you nowhere without first accepting those premises on faith. And that is when the premises are actually stated, when too often they are neither stated nor even understood by the person making the argument.
Reason has an important role, but the source of understanding reality is not it. Its role is called rationalization and if not misused this is important for consistently extending what we know to new situations before we have evidence one way or another.
We are Christians on this forum and the Bible teaches faith more than reason. But we are also scientists so ignorance of the evidence is no more acceptable than ignorance of what is in the Bible.
Like I said, we are Christians – not Gnostics. It is Jesus who saves. And we are largely evangelicals (which are protestants) – so the salvation we believe in is by Grace alone, which means all we can do is have faith, with Christ as our only mediator, scripture as our only authority, all for the glory of God alone. That is our gospel. Salvation by knowledge is the gospel of the Gnostics.
Well… I am a physicist not an historian, but I doubt that you are either of these. And physics is not my only field of study. …so sorry but I know enough of the actual history to see what you are pushing isn’t even close to the historical reality.
This is incoherent nonsense. It is science and the scientists who accepted and taught Big Bang cosmology for the last century and many religiologs who have rejected it.
…citing your own writings to support your claims? Wow!
…and published on the social science research network? Hmmm…
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not perform formal peer review on the papers posted on its platform; it functions as a preprint server where researchers can share early versions of their work before full peer-reviewed publication in a journal
…more importantly there is no information about an academic institution behind this publication.
Yes, the scientific community has accepted this idea of a singularity at the beginning for some time. But physicists also have considerable experience of singularities like this representing a failure of known physics at such points. So the conclusion that this represents an actual physical singularity is not completely warranted. This is just a fact regarding what is accepted by the physics community. Personally, as a theist, I have no problem with this being an actual singularity (in time and space) and find it more than sufficient that science is simply unable to measure anything before it.
Yes QM and in fact quantum field theory in the Standard model is confirmed by every experiment. But no that is certainly not the only premise for your claim for the simple fact that this is not a conclusion of QM in any way whatsoever. Therefore, theological additions like yours logically have other premises.
The academic meaning of metaphysics is the philosophical study of the nature of reality.