No. That point is our universe. You may find it more useful to
think of it as a boundary, instead of a thing. The singularity
is just one "end" of our universe.
> Since we came from the "universe", is not the question "where did
> we come from" also mean "where did the universe come from?"
The universe could not come "from" somewhere else. Somewhere implies
space, and space cannot exist without the universe. Space is part
_of_ the universe.
> So, the question still remains - what is this singularity, and
> where did it come from?
The singularity is an edge of our universe, in the time dimension.
It did not come from anywhere, because there is no where for it to
be from!
> > > Could there possibly be something that exists outside of our
> > > known material universe then?
> >
> > Certainly. But if you want to claim that it's your god, then it
> > falls to you to demonstrate that that is the case. So far, the
> > natural laws that we have discovered make a creator god
> > unnecessary.
>
> That's reasonable. I find your use of the word "necessary"
> interesting. In the arena that is our universe, these laws
> "function", it seems, with no external impetus. But what caused
> the arena?
Cause and effect are things that we are familiar with on our own
scale. It is the law that we, and the things that we deal with on
a daily basis, must follow.
But at scales other than our own, cause and effect break down. How
far causality extends is currently one of the big questions in
science. It may very well turn out that on the scale of universes,
there is no such thing as cause and effect. (Although within the
universe, there is.)
That's how weird the universe is.
> By the way - I CANNOT demonstrate that my God exists.
Then why do you believe in it?
> > > Where did matter come from?
> >
> > Matter is simply a "colder" form of the energy from the Big Bang.
>
> But where did that energy come from? Cold or hot, I don't care -
> where did it come from? It just appeared?
Again, you're asking nonsensical questions. It didn't just "appear",
because that would imply that there was a time before the energy
existed. There wasn't. Time is a _feature_ of this energy. Without
the energy, there is no time. There's nothing appearing. It just
_is_.
> > So our cosmos has always existed - it had no beginning.
>
> Where did I say this? Do not put words in my mouth.
>
> Not my intention - I was suggesting what my conclusion is from what
> you said - it is actually words from my mouth. Are you suggesting
> then that our universe had a beginning? If so, then what did it
> start from, and where did that starting material originate?
Our universe has a boundary that we call its beginning. There was
no "where" for the material to "originate" from. There is no "before"
this boundary.
> Your conclusion is based upon the premise that what is self-
> existant must have an unlimited time dimension. Where did you get
> that premise? That is _not_ one of my premises. Why are _you_ using
> it?
>
> If what is self-existent doesn't have an unlimited time dimension,
> then does that mean it had a beginning?
Yes!
Where you go wrong is assuming that everything that has a beginning
must have a cause. This is _not_ a law of science. It is an assumption
that you have made.
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/