The Big Bang and the Beginning of the World

Finally, there is no process here that goes from simple to complex because it has always been complex.

Exactly, as Sh’ says.
I'm not claiming that the evidence doesn't exist, but that the Big Bang didn't advance us in anything.
You write in your notebook that in principle if something is ancient and complex, then it doesn't need a reason (although it does need a reason), and therefore, for the physico-theological argument to be correct, it must be assumed that this complexity is not ancient.
The justification you give for this assumption (apart from concrete infinity) is that the Big Bang showed that the universe is not ancient (or at least its complexity is not ancient), and I claim that the Bang didn't advance us in anything in this matter, since it only gathered the universe into a unique and complex point, which again the atheist can claim is ancient, just as atheists said in Aristotle's time (before the discovery of the Bang).
I think that even in Aristotle's time, if there was no positive justification for the immemorial nature of the universe, it would have been appropriate to conclude that there is a God, but for some reason the Rabbi sees some difference between the two situations, and I didn't understand that.

The emergence of complexity from power (at the singular point) into action (in our world today) is a wild increase in complexity. The fact that it was there in power does not change anything, because it is the laws of nature that are responsible for the fact that this is indeed the power that can be put into action in this way. De facto it is clear that there was a wild increase in complexity here, but given the laws of nature you can say that this complexity emerged from the point in a natural way. And this brings us back to the singularity of the laws.

For example, we can talk about an assembly line that is self-assembled.
It has gears and arms that uniquely connect simple parts to complex robots.
Does the fact that there is now an addition of complexity (assembly line + robots) compared to the initial situation (only an assembly line), advance us towards proving God more than a situation in which we do not know for sure that the robots emerged from the complexity of the assembly line at some point in the past? I am not clear how.
Even in our world, the structure of the singular point (= the ancient laws that governed the process, because laws are only the structure of the ancient singular point) completely included complexity, and brought into being more complexities (humans) according to its structure (the laws), how does this advance us towards proving God more than Aristotle's ancient world?

The laws are not the structure of the singular point. What does this even mean?
Think of the Book of Esther. It is full of various events that you have no idea what they mean, until you reach the end. In the end, everything makes sense, and you understand what each step contributed to the overall process. From this comes the conclusion that the business is premeditated.
Compare this to another hypothetical situation where Haman is plotting his plots, and suddenly he dies. You can interpret that he died by chance and therefore we were saved.
Don't you see a difference between the two things?

(1) What you say here is really fascinating.
If I understood you correctly, you are actually giving another reason here to prefer stopping the infinite regression on God rather than on the singular point and its laws, because our universe is a process and develops, and not just an object that is “complex and standing” statically like God, so that the universe seems even more the result of an intelligent being, than Aristotle's world, where the difference between stopping the regression on God and stopping it on the world is less sharp and clear. Yes?
(2) The laws are not beings, nor are they a description of the action of beings, otherwise let's prove that there is a God directly from the existence of the laws now in 2017, and no complexity is needed. The laws are the structure of our space (and in the past – of the singular point), just as the laws of the assembly line are the structure of the assembly line. And if the laws are indeed a description of the action of beings, then the Being they describe is the universe itself, just as the Being described by the laws of the assembly line is the assembly line itself, and not someone external to it. No?
(3) How happy I was to find a reference for my words from the words of a world genius known as mdabraham himself, where he writes: “[Does the fact that there is gravity in our world and that we do not know of a world without gravity prevent us from wondering about the origin of this force] (unless in our opinion it stems from ***the very nature of matter***. And that too should be discussed in detail)?”

1. Indeed.
2. But the uniqueness of the laws strengthens the evidence for the existence of a legislator. And this uniqueness is learned from the fact that in a long and winding path of 14 billion years they took us from a singular point to the world we live in today with everything in it. Now the laws can indeed prove the existence of a legislator. It is true that even without this there is a good argument.
3. And they are the words of that unknown genius, the ruler. And I am dust and ashes under the feet of His Holiness.

(1) So to be honest, the Big Bang did not actually prove the fact that there was nothing and now there is something complex (and then it is clear that there is a component), but rather gave us further intuitive reinforcement that the universe is not a worthy candidate to be the link that is the foundation of the world, since it has a developmental direction, and has the “signature” of a designer. In the notebook it does not sound so.
(2) So I did not understand what your understanding of the subject is. Why not say that the laws of physics are the structure of the singular point, just like the laws of the assembly line?
(3) But we cannot ignore the end of the genius's words, who wrote that perhaps the law of gravity is by the very nature of matter, that is, a consequence of the structure of matter, and the same goes for the other laws. Has the genius gone back on his word and now believes that the law is something external to matter?

1. Always be honest. This is clearly the argument. I'll check my notebook again.
2. And I didn't understand your understanding of the subject. What does it mean that the laws of nature are the structure of the point? That they are inherent in the child? So the question returns again, where did they come from?
3. Indeed, the Greeks believed then (as far as I remember his early doctrine) and still believe today that it is something external to matter, but even if not – see the previous section. The question is whether another world is possible in which there is mass like ours but it behaves differently (obeys other laws). I see no reason to say that it is not possible. Otherwise, we would identify the laws of physics with the laws of logic. And this is what “Pepple Toba” has in the words of that genius, and his lips will be in the grave.

2. How do you define the laws of the assembly line? As if they are contained in the child of nothingness? If so, then that is what I mean about the laws of nature. The laws of nature are a function of the structure of matter/space. Just as the laws of the cell phone are built into the cell phone, and do not exist outside of it, and if they describe existence, then this existence is the cell phone itself.
It is true that the proof exists even if they are in the child of nothingness, but then the answer to the question of why it is better to stop at God and not at the universe is not logically conclusive (= that the complexity of God is primordial, and the universe is not complex in a primordial way), because the atheist would say that the laws could be primordial (because they are only the structure of matter, and there is no existence, as in the assembly line), and then the Big Bang advanced us only in terms of a general impression of the object called the “universe”, and its development makes us say that it is likely that this object is not the basis of reality.
3. What is the justification for the above-mentioned genius's argument that the laws are external to matter? Why not simply say that they are the structure of space/matter, like an assembly line?

2. This whole discussion is incomprehensible to me. I've already explained it, and I'll say it again. If we don't agree, then no.
If there is a complex structure within the singular point, then it itself requires an explanation of why it is specifically like that (special). It doesn't matter whether the laws are external or inherent in it (I'm not even sure there's a difference between the possibilities). The possibility of stopping at a point doesn't matter at all. Either it is its own cause, and then it is God, or it isn't, and then God is needed.
3. I explained. They can be part of it, but not a necessary part (otherwise you'd identify physics with logic). And as far as evidence is concerned, none of this matters a damn.

Many thanks to the rabbi who bears the heavy burden of answering skeptical Jews.
May the rabbi know that he is doing a worthwhile job in the long term (and also in the short term, of course). In the next generation of rabbis, there will be 100 like you, and then the burden will be divided equally among all the rabbis. Today, our choice ranges between your website and Diabrot.

Here is an example of a paragraph in the notebook that should be corrected: “But again, the answer here will be the same answer. If we continue this further, we reach an infinite chain, or in fact, the conclusion that this information is ancient (eternal). It has been around since time immemorial. Where was it? After all, we have already seen that according to modern physics, our universe is not ancient. So where was this information? The place where it was would be called God among us.” According to the discussion here, we concluded that the Big Bang theory does not show me that the singular point is not ancient, and therefore an atheist who claims that the singular point and its laws are ancient will not contradict science, so that the Big Bang only brought us closer in impressions and not in something logically conclusive. There is no proof here from the very immemorial nature of the universe, but only from its development.

With the blessing of “He who gives strength to the weary” or rather “He who gives fools strength”, Itamar.

PS: It seems strange to me that you now claim that there is no certainty that there is a difference whether the laws are within the material or not, and earlier you wrote to me: “The laws are not the structure of the singular point.” But as is known, taking a break from proofs for God, so I will forgo answering this point (although it is clear that I would be overjoyed if it nevertheless miraculously arrived).
With the blessings of the “thrower of sleep ropes”, Itamar.