What is your favorite proof for God?

[MindOverMatter2]

In any case, we can describe an infinitely large reality, infinitely large in several senses of the word. So is larger than that?

There is no such thing as an infinitely “large” reality, simply because it is meaningless to speak of an infinitely large quantity. A quantity has a definite number. An infinite doesn’t.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well you got that right: I misused an equation and got a singularity. Is there a singularity there? Does physics break down? No, I just misused an equation.

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space.

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is.

Well good thing that there is no reason to expect that we should explain the universe from an infinitely dense point.

I wouldn’t expect science to explain it.

In fact, that suggestion doesn’t even make sense.

We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

 

[greylorn]

I was merely trying to emphasize that it was “invented by men”, and that science is about learning how the universe works through experimentation. To the extent that the experimentation matches reality at any given time is the extent to which its findings are true.

Right, it cannot be verified in the universe, whether it is a closed or an open system. At least, not without a device capable of measuring the total energy of the universe, if there is such a quantity.

Actually I didn’t make it up, I found it in an article that I read mainly because of its relevance to this thread. I would not place any credibility in its claims (they claimed to be able to make it rain with a black box and that perpetual motion machines were possible), but I was presenting alternate views on the issue. They brought up the (valid) idea that there are different forms of energy (work, heat, etc.) and that the law in question relies on the ability to exchange one form for another at a particular rate based on units of measurement.

I don’t think it matters much whether energy can be created/destroyed or not as far as the topic at hand is concerned. God still created the universe (possibly including massive amounts of energy). This does not contradict physics in any way, it cannot. If it did, physics (once learning about it) would have to change to accomodate the new data.

Andy,
You are very young, right? The best I can suggest is that you do not attempt to discuss physics until you’ve studied it. The errors in your post are so egregious that it is clear to me that you are not qualified to understand their corrections.

This can be corrected by obtaining a B.S. degree in physics from a serious university. This will require four or more years of difficult, but rewarding study. Until then, I suggest that you find a better source for information than crackpot websites.

Finally. Since you do not understand any physics, it is my opinion that you are not qualified to determine its relationship to theology.

There’s nothing wrong with pushing your knowledge, but that’s not what you are doing. You are simply promoting various opinions, derived from others. Not interesting. I advise you to obtain some knowledge of your own and use it to create opinions of your own. Get back to me when you’ve done that. I don’t even think that you should be reading my books until then.

Good luck, and my best personal regards.

 

[sinnerdexter]

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space.

Feel free to show how it is a false comparison. You’d have to show that there was in fact a singularity, not just that the equation gives a singularity (since as I demonstrated, just because a theory gives a singularity doesn’t mean there is a singularity)

This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is.

Oh, look at that! You can make snarky remarks and pretend that you’re being clever for it.

Very well then, I’ll give you the answers. The two correct dichotomies that could be made from that sentence are:
The implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out something.
the implication is that the universe either came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms, or it came out of that which can be understood in physical terms.

See, when you make a correct dichotomy there is no option but the two mentioned. I disprove your false dichotomy by the possibility that the universe came from something which we do understand in physical terms, such as branes. The existence of a possibility that does not fit with the dichotomy proves it is a false dichotomy, regardless of how remote you may want to think the possibility is. So now I showed both that I was correctly informed (I disproved your false dichotomy), and that as well as not understanding the basics of logic you feel overly confident in your own answers (which is in fact very common, see the study Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

I wouldn’t expect science to explain it.

If there is an explanation it is science if there is no explanation there is no science. What you want though is no real explanation, but instead a pseudoexplanation that “makes sense” but provides zero predictive value.

We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

What singularity?

Anyhow, we can have an infinite universe without any singularity, which is what I was talking about.

 

[greylorn]

And creates a far unhappier universe…
Social justice is a term, not a euphemism, and is a good thing. Socialism is a bad thing, and the radical Marxists have hijacked the term and are trying to use it to mean something else so they can sell Christians a bill of goods. The Church is against socialism, since it’s end result is to reduce everyone to misery and poverty.

You have gotten sucked into the same con job as everyone else, and therefore are confused on this issue.

Marxists, currently calling themselves “progressives,” are adept at twisting words and employing the old science of neurolinguistic programming. One aspect of this is to use agreeable words to name a disagreeable program.

The term “social justice” in the U.S. and the Western world, applies to various schemes for the redistribution of wealth, property, and whatever else some people have which others do not. The social progressives (communists, socialists, etc.) have cleverly insinuated this term into churches, attributing it to the teachings of Christ. So far as I can tell, the Church is so fast asleep that it approves, or at least accepts this perversion of Christ’s teachings.

Do not be surprised to find the same priest condemning socialism yet promoting social justice, although they are the same thing and require implementation of the same programs. The end result of both is rule by those who most successfully manipulate the great masses of people who are incapable of critical thinking, a group to which you currently belong, but at least have the power to leave.

 

[antunesaa]

I would have to say that my personal favorite is the argument from desire. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this argument, let me recapitulate. The human person has a deep longing for happiness and possesses a void that nothing on this earth can fill. Every need we observe in this life has an object that fulfills it (for hunger there is food; for emotional needs, a loving family and friendship). Since our interminable longing can be fulfilled by nothing physical, logically, this must mean that the end of this desire is non-physical and can only point to God, or Infinite Happiness.

This is the most convincing argument for me because it shows that God and religion are not brute facts but things deeply tied to our human experience. It also strongly connects to existentialism because it shows the horrifying absurdity of a godless universe–
without God, we have a false desire planted inside us for which there is no answer, a problem for which there never will be a solution. We then become a race of schizophrenics, psychologically disordered humans with false and unhealthy desires. We are duped into thinking there is something greater than ourselves, and happiness becomes both an opiate and a facade.

Some people think this is a weak argument, but I think what they mean is that it is much more dependent on our human experience than on logic. Otherwise, I can’t imagine how it would be a weak argument. When studying eternal and divine ideas, philosophy should take the human person as its starting point. If this is true, then wouldn’t the argument from desire actually be the strongest argument for God, in a certain sense?

P.S. Those who say this is a “weaker” argument than St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Proofs are being somewhat inconsistent–they criticize the logic of this argument as “weak” when the proofs they support use the same kind of logical method, which is inductive reasoning. (Ex. In our experience, all things tend towards perfection; therefore, there must be an infinite degree of perfection: God). I am not saying inductive reasoning is unreasonable, but does this make sense to anyone?

Anyways, that’s my take on God’s existence. I hope this post wasn’t too lengthy.
God bless!

Very good post.

 

[Andy_III]

Andy,
You are very young, right? The best I can suggest is that you do not attempt to discuss physics until you’ve studied it. The errors in your post are so egregious that it is clear to me that you are not qualified to understand their corrections.

This can be corrected by obtaining a B.S. degree in physics from a serious university. This will require four or more years of difficult, but rewarding study. Until then, I suggest that you find a better source for information than crackpot websites.

Finally. Since you do not understand any physics, it is my opinion that you are not qualified to determine its relationship to theology.

There’s nothing wrong with pushing your knowledge, but that’s not what you are doing. You are simply promoting various opinions, derived from others. Not interesting. I advise you to obtain some knowledge of your own and use it to create opinions of your own. Get back to me when you’ve done that. I don’t even think that you should be reading my books until then.

Good luck, and my best personal regards.

You do like to jump, don’t you?

As a matter of fact, I do have a B.S. in Physics. Also, keep in mind that I told you it was a crackpot website (but not in those words), and I am not surprised that you agree with me. The actual article happened to be something that jumped out at me when I was three degrees of separation from what I was working on, which had nothing to do with physics.

 

[Andy_III]

You have gotten sucked into the same con job as everyone else, and therefore are confused on this issue.

Marxists, currently calling themselves “progressives,” are adept at twisting words and employing the old science of neurolinguistic programming. One aspect of this is to use agreeable words to name a disagreeable program.

The term “social justice” in the U.S. and the Western world, applies to various schemes for the redistribution of wealth, property, and whatever else some people have which others do not. The social progressives (communists, socialists, etc.) have cleverly insinuated this term into churches, attributing it to the teachings of Christ. So far as I can tell, the Church is so fast asleep that it approves, or at least accepts this perversion of Christ’s teachings.

Do not be surprised to find the same priest condemning socialism yet promoting social justice, although they are the same thing and require implementation of the same programs. The end result of both is rule by those who most successfully manipulate the great masses of people who are incapable of critical thinking, a group to which you currently belong, but at least have the power to leave.

Do not confuse the beliefs, actions, sins, or even teachings of its members with the teachings of the Church. There are progressives even within the Church; it was part of their plan to get their way. The Church’s teachings (doctrines) have not changed since it was founded nearly 2000 years ago. It also is the only religion I know of that is completely self-consistent and does not lead to irrational behavior and self-destruction.

Also, social justice in its true form does not require big government organizations to run health care and other programs. It is about justice within society, not about robbing people. Unfortunately, the dictionary may not agree in the years to come…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Feel free to show how it is a false comparison. You’d have to show that there was in fact a singularity, not just that the equation gives a singularity (since as I demonstrated, just because a theory gives a singularity doesn’t mean there is a singularity)

Perhaps i am wrong but the evidence suggests otherwise. You asking for a logical proof. I am merely going by what the scientists are saying, what the empirical evidence suggests. The universe has a beginning, time space and energy has a beginning, and that beginning involves our universe extending from an infinitely dense point which scientists describe as a singularity. An infinitely dense point is not physical

See, when you make a correct dichotomy there is no option but the two mentioned. I disprove your false dichotomy by the possibility that the universe came from something which we do understand in physical terms, such as branes.

You claim that it is a logically coherent possibility. But it isn’t. There is no branes in an infinity dense point. Just because a “scientists” makes a hypothetical inference, this does not mean that the hypothesis is rational.

If there is an explanation it is science if there is no explanation there is no science. What you want though is no real explanation, but instead a pseudoexplanation that “makes sense” but provides zero predictive value.

First of all I never said that I can prove that a singularity exists. I meant only to say that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the universe has a beginning that is grounded in an infinitely dense point. The paragraph you have written is only meaningful to somebody who seeks to understand the entirety of existence in terms of physical states.

Your argument is basically the following; “if a theory doesn’t point to a physical explanation, then it is false”. That is ridiculous as much as it is also a pseudo explanation.

Anyhow, we can have an infinite universe without any singularity, which is what I was talking about.

An infinite universe is meaningless, unless you mean only that the universe is potentially infinite, in which case it is never actually infinite.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Christ’s teachings.

.

, wasn’t it not Christ who said, if you have two garments give one to your neighbour?
Perhaps I am mistaken. I will look it up.

 

[Paul328391041]

Although I would have to go back and look for the name of the ancient Greek author, who tried to prove the existence of one god ( God, to me), I do recall that this ancient sage tried to prove the one god existence by starting with the chicken and the egg argument, which was an argument of logical deduction, but it lead to nowhere, ( except maybe in calculus ( which I failed), where how fast a population will explode or dimish over time). So this philosopher, took an alternative form of proof which he called the absurd, and proved the existence of a single entity. Then he went on to define the attributes of this single entity, all knowing, all present, etc. And according to what is written in the tradition of the early Church, the then Church Fathers, found that it adapted perfectly to what they were trying to expound to the faithful. Paul328391041

 

[paduard]

Although I would have to go back and look for the name of the ancient Greek author, who tried to prove the existence of one god ( God, to me), I do recall that this ancient sage tried to prove the one god existence by starting with the chicken and the egg argument, which was an argument of logical deduction, but it lead to nowhere, ( except maybe in calculus ( which I failed), where how fast a population will explode or dimish over time). So this philosopher, took an alternative form of proof which he called the absurd, and proved the existence of a single entity. Then he went on to define the attributes of this single entity, all knowing, all present, etc. And according to what is written in the tradition of the early Church, the then Church Fathers, found that it adapted perfectly to what they were trying to expound to the faithful. Paul328391041

I find this contributiion informative and interesting; particularly its reference to the early Church.

Infinite, infinity etc. can only be attributed to Almighty God. In my opinion If this simple attribution is treated as a dialogue constant, then one doubs whether this topic would have taken up fifty pages.

 

[sinnerdexter]

As has been said before MindOverMatter2, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it. It’s why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake, First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it’s hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake…

The Church has gotten to where it’s at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth…

 

[sinnerdexter]

When I have a cold, I dont need to see the bacteria, I see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there. So is the ressurection of Jesus, do i need to see Him ressurect to believe, or see the masses of followers of His time that believed it.

I can’t see Jesus under a microscope, though… no matter what magnification.

 

[Pitcharan]

Just wondering what is your favorite proof for god and why? Personaly I like St. Thomas Aquinas’ first one, All things in motion are put in motion by a first mover, becuse when I apply this proof to my prayer life or any question about faith or morals it leads me to a deeper understanding. What about you?

The “anomalous expansion of water” is one great scientific proof that an unchangeable physical characteristic of a substance has been unusally modifed in order to preserve aquatic life. God alone could have done such a thing on a universal scale. A human scientist cannot even dream of modifying a basic characteristic for a small quantity of a natural substance even slightly:

*Water shows unusual expansion. If heat is continuously supplied to water at 0°C, instead of expanding like any other liquid, it first contracts up to 4°C and then it starts expanding. Thus water has its minimum volume and maximum density at 4°C.

The anomalous expansion of water helps preserve aquatic life during very cold weather. When temperature falls, the top layer of water in a pond contracts, becomes denser and sinks to the bottom. A circulation is thus set up until the entire water in the pond reaches its maximum density at 4°C. If the temperature falls further, the top layer expands and remains on the top till it freezes. Thus even though the upper layer are frozen the water near the bottom is at 4°C and the fishes etc. can survive in it easily. *

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As has been said before MindOverMatter2, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it.

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn’t even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). “Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove”. The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

It’s why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake,

I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn’t vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity.

I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that’s only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory).

First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it’s hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake…

I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here…iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a

The link explains my point.

Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change.

The Church has gotten to where it’s at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth…

Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance’s, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.

 

[sinnerdexter]

You are talking about hypothesis here, not contending theories. The Multiverse theory, i would argue that it isn’t even a valid hypothesis, since i am not unaware that scientists have found a means by which they can validate the existence of other universes outside of our own space time (if that even makes logical sense). “Many of these so called theories lack empirical testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove”. The current understanding of the big-bang is in my view the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

The key here are the words “in my view” your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view… you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can’t see anything other than the light. Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems. many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more…

I think that you are taking my argument out of context in-order to feed your ego. I think i have already made it clear that i am not saying that my argument isn’t vulnerable to disprove, but rather i was merely stating that if it is objectively true that all time-space-energy has a beginning insofar as it extends from an infinitely dense point (which is supported by the current evidence), then it necessarily follows that something non-physical is at the root of that singularity.

My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views…
MindOverMatter2;7012011:

I certainly am not interested in suggesting that people should believe purely on big bang cosmology alone. However, i certainly think (at least for the time being

) that it points in the direction of a creator, and that should not be ignored. I think that scientists and people in general should be willing to admit what the theory implies regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in God on that basis. I think that’s only fare given that many atheists who happen to be scientist happily spend enough time saying how evolution points to a meaningless purposeless universe. (Richard Dawkings is one person who is not shy about expressing the metaphysical implications of a scientific theory).

Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it…

I think this is a distorted view of actual events based on a popular prejudice. Many historians are beginning to see this. Again; the so called Galileo theory at the time was not scientifically validated in a strict empirical sense. See here…iep.utm.edu/sci-rel/#SH3a

Finally a link to support your point… of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place… fail…

The link explains my point.

No it asserts your point by grossly distorting the reality of the message… Typical for religion

 

[sinnerdexter]

Also, what you are basically saying is that we cannot rely on science to tell us physical truths about reality; that even well supported theories are nothing more than tautologies in that we cannot show them to be consistent with the way things truly are. They are just models of reality which constantly changes. I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable to make logical inferences from a well established scientific theory so long as you are prepared to accept that a particular theory might develop or change.

No, i am saying exactly what you said in your last sentence, you are trying to distort what i said to support your idea of religious truth being better than science. Establishing a religious perception by using science is a mistake, trying to assert a religious reality is dangerous because for religion to change it’s mind people often have to die, all it takes for science to change is better evidence…

Again, while i do not deny that Church leaders had their faults and ignorance’s, this is a simplistic distortion of actual events; similar to claims that the church did not reject the slavery of black people or the atrocities that were committed against the Jews under Nazi Germany. A very strict and close examination of these events free of conspiracy theories and assertions, often reveals that there is a long history of anti-Catholics who have labored in distorting the facts.
Yeah, the anti Catholics laboring to distort the facts, got any evidence of this? I didn’t mention anything about Nazis or slavery did I? I was thinking more about the violent suppression of non Christian religions across Europe and the complete destruction of the cultures of central and South America even down to destroying all written records and histories of those cultures. yes those terrible anti catholics got what they deserved I am sure… This has occurred where ever Catholics have encountered other cultures… especially primitive cultures…

 

[greylorn]

Do not confuse the beliefs, actions, sins, or even teachings of its members with the teachings of the Church. There are progressives even within the Church; it was part of their plan to get their way. The Church’s teachings (doctrines) have not changed since it was founded nearly 2000 years ago. It also is the only religion I know of that is completely self-consistent and does not lead to irrational behavior and self-destruction.

Also, social justice in its true form does not require big government organizations to run health care and other programs. It is about justice within society, not about robbing people. Unfortunately, the dictionary may not agree in the years to come…

Time for some critical-thinking practice. Easiest done when one has one’s “facts” straight. Before you ever again declare that the Church has remained unchanged in two millenia, read up on the Nicene Council, then the Council of Trent. Learn how the teachings of Paul, then Augustine, and finally Aquinas, have warped the original, simple, social teachings of Christ, all shaping the Church into what it is today.

There are some books which describe the actions of the Church which were written by intelligent individuals, who have done their research, and who are not affiliated with the Church. You might consider reading some of them.

Your statements are those of a true believer, but not of someone who has taken the trouble to study the history of that which he expounds. It’s okay. I was there once, did exactly the same thing. To this day, I do not know why the people I worked with did not shoot me in the head, given that all were atheists.

Incidentally, how many religions do you “know of,” and what exactly does “know of” mean, for you? Like, does it mean you can spell the name of the religion, or does it mean that you’ve studied the fundamental teachings of the religion?

If you put your comic books down and pay even a little bit of attention, you might discover that the term “social justice” is used by people who intend to take your money, your property, and your rights…

with the intention of giving your money and property to someone who does not have as much of either as you do…

and throwing whatever rights you might have into the nearest biffy, while collecting a generous brokerage fee for themselves.

As for disconnecting the intentions of any church from the actions of its members— nonsense! Muslims blow people up because Islam rewards them for doing so. Catholics follow their Church’s teachings. Few religionists have the guts to take their beliefs to the extreme levels of what is taught, but always, what the few do is what is taught, and it is done with the approval of the gutless passives who pay their tithes.

The Church has been promoting “social justice” for centuries, inviting the rich give up their wealth in behalf of the poor. (“It is easier for a rich man to get to heaven…”) I’ve been waiting for the Pope to get that ball rolling by melting down a few gold chalices, or selling off its cache of books long hidden from outside scholars, but it could be that the Church is wisely hedging its bets against the inevitable economic consequences of its teachings.

Christ spoke plainly to the responsibility of man towards his fellows, and always made it clear that doing something for your neighbor was a voluntary, man to man, kind of thing. He did not advocate that governments steal one man’s money and give it to another, minus the brokerage fee.

 

[greylorn]

Perhaps i am wrong but the evidence suggests otherwise. You asking for a logical proof. I am merely going by what the scientists are saying, what the empirical evidence suggests. The universe has a beginning, time space and energy has a beginning, and that beginning involves our universe extending from an infinitely dense point which scientists describe as a singularity. An infinitely dense point is not physical

You appear to be getting your science from the History Channel, and haven’t even gotten that straight. Maybe if you record all their episodes and replay them while asleep?

Energy does not have a beginning. The First Law of Thermodynamics makes it clear that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Now tell me, after repeating the TV mantras a few times…

Suppose that there is an infinitely dense point, which you mantra as a “singularity”, which was not physical. How does it become physical?

Do you have even the slightest clue what a “singularity” is, or what the word means?