The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate; I am going to show that the standard Big Bang model entails a contradiction. ---Argument For The Standard Big Bang Model Entailing A Contradiction--- P1: The standard Big Bang model entails a singularity P2: A singularity entails a contradiction C: Therefore, the standard Big Bang model entails a contradiction The argument follows valid form: A implies B, B implies C, therefore, A implies C This is called a Hypothetical Syllogism in deductive logic [1]. However, even though the argument is valid, the only way the argument can be sound is if both premises are in fact true. This is what I will prove in the following sections. -Premise 1- P1 is true as the singularity is simply a prediction of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity used in standard Big Bang Cosmology [2] [3]. Nobody actually has doubt about this premise so I do not need to further justify it. However, it is widely accepted that some new theory of Grantum Gravity will do away with the singularity, but some physicists like Aron Wall believe the singularity will likely remain regardless of Quantum Gravity [4]. Either way, this new theory won't actually be the standard model as the standard model only assumes General Relativity and doesn't take Quantum Mechanics into account (this debate is about the standard model). Therefore, any potential theory of Quantum Gravity has no bearing on the classical standard Big Bang model. Premise 1 is uncontested and is controversial to no physicist or cosmologist; I have a feeling this debate will revolve around P2. -Premise 2- Matter has extension, and thus, necessarily requires it be within spatial dimensions to exist (if no spatial dimensions exist then there is no "room" for any matter). However, at the supposed Big Bang singularity all matter was packed into a point with zero dimensions; this entails the following contradiction: i) It is the case that matter exists only within spatial dimensions (as matter has extension, therefore, requiring spatial dimensions) ii) It is not the case that matter exists only within spatial dimensions (as the singularity posits that matter exists within a point with no spatial dimensions) As Philosopher of Physics Quentin Smith notes: "The universe state that would exist at t0 if there were a fist moment of time would be a zero-dimensional point in which there is packed all the three-dimensional matter of the universe; this is what physicists mean when they call that point 'infinitely dense'. But the existence of such a point is both a mathematical and logical impossibility." - Quentin Smith [5] There is another way to illustrate this problem by pointing out another contradiction with regards to the singularity. Density = mass/ volume. When dealing with a point with no spatial dimensions we are dealing with density that is some number n/0. However, of course, dividing by zero is nonsensical: "What's 10 divided by 2? It's 5, because 10 split up evenly in 2 groups have 5 in each. 10 divided by 1? 10 in 1 group has 10. But 10 divided by 0? What does that even mean?" [6] Let's say we have some real number and it is divided by zero; a contradiction arises. Division is splitting up numbers into different groups or leaving it, as is, in a group of one. However, if we are dividing by zero, then there are zero groups. This leaves us with the contradiction: i) Division only deals with a group or groups (as this is what division actually is) ii) Division does not only deal with a group or group (if we do the nonsensical and divide by zero, then we are dealing with zero groups) Dividing by zero goes against what division actually is (leaving a group as is by 'dividing' by one, or splitting up said group in evenly distributed groups). But dividing by zero means no groups. However, if there are no groups (not even one) then there is no original number to be divided in the first place; which is clearly logically contradictory. ---Conclusion--- The argument I presented was logically valid, which means if the premises are true then the conclusion logically follows. The first premise is trivially true and is contested by nobody, while the second premise is true because the singularity is riddled with logical and mathematical contradictions (packing three-dimensional matter within a zero-dimensional space, dividing by zero etc.). Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable... ... The resolution has been affirmed. ---Sources--- [1] http://krypton.mnsu.edu... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.space.com... [4] https://arxiv.org... [5] https://infidels.org... [5] http://www.math.utah.edu...