Sorry, you are truly wasting your time, which is sad. But honestly all you are trying to say obtusely are various things like:
1. EVERY atheist is a perfect cosmological genius and has a flawless understanding of the definition of nothingness and the singularity. Hell even the current Universe and matter itself is 99.99999999% nothingness so why would it be any different then? That's already illogical and presumptuous.
2. I didn't invent the nothingness question or terminology which has been around for decades. Did I write this article too? https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/27/ask-ethan-how-did-the-entire-universe-come-from-nothing/?sh=379530b42c59
What's hilarious is I actually knew Arno Penzias who got a Nobel Prize for confirming the Big Bang, believe it or not I don't care. We had several discussions on the topic.
3. You both seem to claim this is some sort of Christian conspiracy to debunk atheism which is nutty. Just because a Christian mentions an existing paradox doesn't make it a Christian paradox. That's phony and weird to me.
4. You are both triggered by words I used which is precisely why I used them. Of course if YOU could squeeze a single acorn into a point we would call it supernatural but you can't right? But it's very "natural" to squeeze every acorn on quadrillions of planets, every planet and galaxy and supermassive black hole into point right? No big deal. And if you tell me well it just naturally happened to exist already I won't even disagree but at least supernatural gives it the respect it deserves. Your version of natural is so blasé. Downright disrespectful of something so majestic and awesome that it's thousands, trillions of orders of magnitudes beyond your comprehension so it's easy to call it natural. Everything is natural. Boring. So you've never experienced anything mystical in your life. I get it but millions of people have. You want to discount it all as explained by psychology or chemistry. OK.
5. You don't even know if we are living in a simulation or not. It's not proven but thought by some experts with brilliant arguments on both sides. In that case God is whomever programmed the simulation. Maybe not the God with a beard from fairy tales but it's God to you so it might as well be since the fairy tale is also part of the simulation.
6. You both constantly admit to I don't know which is wonderful and is the exact definition of secular agnosticism. You also express some "faith" in science...astrophysicists are working on that. No kidding and they are far from agreement or anything that explains everything.
7. Even the greatest scientists of all time like Newton and Einstein kept a notion of God handy. Like Bach and Mozart too. So it's not even unscientific to believe in an architect or consciousness or intelligence "out there" any more than "down here." Some would call the Universe itself God. It created you, it controls you and it will end you at any moment.
8. Neither of you have adequately addressed most of the questions I posed such as how God could evolve with regular evolution which is scientific which is based in a belief in science which I have. You dismiss this as a thought most atheists haven't considered. I agree. Instead of over billions of years, over eternity, it's mathematically impossible for God not to evolve, i.e. the highest possible form of Being. The only counter to that is there is no such thing as eternity and their HAD to be a beginning. Did there? Faith.
