>>19027412I’ll explain it like you’re 5
>UNIVERSE IS HERE>THERE PHYSICALLY HAS TO HAVE BEEN SOMETHING TO SET IT IN MOTION>YES, EVEN THE BIG BANG>refer to >>19026990Now it’s already been presented in thread that the existence of the universe is NOT physically possible without an outside greater external force. And mix with the rules of infinity that THAT external force would need a greater force itself to initially have gotten started. An endless loop going backwards which is technically not PHYSICALLY possible unless it’s something beyond our comprehension like an omnipotent creator.
THAT IS THE POINT OF CONTENTION. Meaning, for your dumbass, you have to prove that the universe is possible WITHOUT the greater external force. Which is not you arguing against me but literally the entirety of physical and scientific prowess.
