Honest question to all atheists here

There is, or at least appears to be, a glaring problem with Big Bang theory. And I'm not talking about old af meme serial, but theory on how universe came to be.

>It assumes universe to be infinitely vast
(it needs to assume that to not contradict itself, but more on that later)
>It assumes that universe is created of infinite matter
>Earliest possible point in our universe's history, when our laws of physics apply is Big Bang
>Before that, it assumes that all particles were located inside an infinitely small point
>Therefore, at some point in time, universe MUST have been finite (when you go between -infinity to +infinity you must pass by finite numbers)

See what this glaring problem is? If an observer observed universe at point where it was finite, with such instruments that he could see every particle, he'd have observed infinite particles on finite space.
How the fuck is that possible?! How the fuck do you represent infinite number of things on a finite space?
>inb4 muh points on a circle
Yeah, yeah very thoughtful of you! But a point is abstract concept, it can't be measured, doesn't have a set diameter.
Every particle (to my knowledge, if I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me) does.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wsOXvQn3JuE
youtu.be/elvOZm0d4H0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>still dont know what an atheist is
just because you're athiest doesnt mean you believe in the big bang it just means you don't believe in god
holy shit my religion isn't science its just what am i going to do when i wake up tomorrow
god dam you retards

This

No. Your religion is science. You hold science as the only power in universe that can properly explain everything.
Yet, it doesn't explain everything. It's based on incomplete data, gathered by imperfect instruments.
How the hell are you different from a X century peasant, that used incomplete data, gathered by his eyes (imperfect instrument) to concur that Earth is flat?

the actual space or vacuum in the universe is infinitely vast (this is actually debated) but not the material in it.
Its just such a high number that you can round it to infinity.

>You hold science as the only power in universe that can properly explain everything.
you're so dense it's astounding. do you believe allah is the one true god?

Why the fuck would you ever try to reason with an atheist?

jesus christ you are retarded

are you really from Poland? Hows ur enlgish so god?

>You hold science as the only power in universe that can properly explain everything.
>Yet, it doesn't explain everything.
>therefore, muh god did it

>that you can round it to infinity.
That doesn't make sense mathematically speaking. You can't just round something to infinity.
1000 billions may be closer to infinity than 1, but it's still infinitely away from infinity. If you could said that 1000 billions is x away from infinity, then infinity would be 1000 billions + x, so it wouldn't be an infinity at all.
>God doesn't exist, as nothing exists, until you can prove it to me by science.
>I don't hold that science is the only tool to explain things.
Yes, I am. I've been using it on day to day basis for 3 years, that's why.

I don't assume any of this. I have no idea. I just really doubt it was designed. But it could have been for all I know. I don't believe in an afterlife either. I also don't hate religion and often will defend it.

>It assumes universe to be infinitely vast
It doesn't. The universe has a finite size. It doesn't have a boundary but that isn't the same as being of infinite size. For instance, you can travel infinitely on the surface of a sphere without running into any boundary but that sphere is still finite.

>It assumes that universe is created of infinite matter
It doesn't. In fact there is a fixed amount of matter/energy in the universe.

>Before that, it assumes that all particles were located inside an infinitely small point
Before that time, as we understand it, didn't exist so the entire concept of 'before' is meaningless.

I'm not going to address your theology.

Your fundamental understanding of math and space are off.

>Every particle (to my knowledge, if I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me) does.
Not in a state of singularity.

The whole point, no pun intended of the singularty is that much of relativity, and thus our understanding of how space works breaks down.

It's generally thought to be an expansion of space, that the distance between two fixed points is increasing over time.

Work on that and then come back to the theology. And take this shit to /sci/. It's off topic.

If we knew everything WE would be gods. Well, we're not that far from creating life, mysteries of the universe will come later. Also: big bang theory can be theoretically proven just by building ftl capable ship that can travel far enough. Also:
>implying that religion explains everything
Was it religion that brought you computers and the internet so you can post slide threads?

This

>You can't just round something to infinity.
I retract my previous suggestion. You don't actually undrestand what infinity is. Infinity isn't the same as all encompasing. . Work on that first. And again, not on Sup Forums

>1000 billions may be closer to infinity than 1
Numbers can't be closer or further from 'infinity' anymore than they can be closer or further from 'dog'. Infinity isn't a number.

If we don't know how the universe was created, then the answer is "We don't know." and not "God did it."

You're right, we can be wrong when new and better evidence arrives. The scientific method is a way of getting closer to the truth. Not perfectly obtaining it the first try. What evidence is there for your version of God?

>2 fag flags
True. They wouldn't try unless they wanted to get eternally BTFO by the atheist.

While scientific understanding of the universe is definitely a work in progress and there are undoubtedly flaws in it, I still don't see how this validates a religion based on semitic mythology.

>For instance, you can travel infinitely on the surface of a sphere without running into any boundary
But you could and would eventually run into the same point. You can travel around Earth in much the same way.
If you are bound to sphere, you're still bound to it right? This boundary exists, but not in the same way that a boundary in the box works.
>implying that religion explains everything
I've never said that. It doesn't need to explain every law of the universe, it was never its stated purpose.
It only needs to explain what is necessary for salvation.
Science's purpose on the other hand, is exactly what stated above. To explain laws that govern the universe and to practically apply them for the betterment of humanity.
>The scientific method is a way of getting closer to the truth.
That's what I hold as well.
>What evidence is there for your version of God?
Pure, scientific evidence? There isn't. If science could explain God that created universe and can change every variable in it, then it would've passed the point of knowing all laws in universe.
I may need to explain my reasons here. I created this thread to disprove "muh science can't explain God, so he's not real".
My argument is in response to leaf above.

>Big Bang theory
>theory
its not a definite fact, that's the think with Atheists, we don't claim to have the answers but at least it doesn't involve retarded fairy tales with ZERO credibility.

Yes indeed, infinity is a concept. A concept of sum of all numbers. That's why it isn't a number Because it's combination of all, therefore greater than all.
That doesn't mean you can't be closer or further. Let's look at this simple sum
1+2+3+4=10
10 isn't 4, it's greater than 4, but 4 is greater than 1 (i.e. closer to 10 than 1 is)

>muh science can't explain God, so he's not real
That's not the argument. The argument is that no evidence exists which would suggest/support the existence of a god. Much like how you can't prove the existence of Apollo, Bacchus, Loki, Thor, or Amhenotep, neither can you prove the existence of jew god.

No. Your understanding of infinity is fucked up. There's an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1, an infinite number of rational numbers between 1 and 2, And an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 2.

However the number of rational numbers between 0 and 2 minus the number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is zero.


See also Xeno's paradox.

See also infinite series mathematics.

the whole point of the singularity is that we don't know what happened. we see the ~14 billion year old afterglow of a hot, dense universe and that the universe is currently expanding. thus the conclusion that our universe was even hotter and denser before the afterglow was liberated, up to a point where calculations stop making sense and all that's left is educated guesses.

Holy shit this guy is dumb
The universe was not condensed in an infinitely small point , more like a small point .
Science is not a religion , it is the pursuit of truth.
Also we had no idea what was inside that point , we don't know if there were even particles

Also if you don't believe in big bang theory all you have to do is listen to the static noise on an untuned radio or old tv
see that weird noise , that's radiation from the big bang billions of years old

>knowledge is incomplete
>"whelp, better just stop trying then!"
stupid

>It only needs to explain what is necessary for salvation.
Die with a sword in your hand so you can go to valhalla.

>It's just a theory!
>A Ga- ehr.. Big Bang theory! Thanks for watching!
You unironically sound like Christians that claim evolution is not correct stance, because "It's just a theory of evolution, duh!"
Theory =/= Hypothesis
Hypothesis can be almost baseless in evidence, because it's not always the goal of hypothesis to prove it.
Theory relies on evidence to be proven. Sure, no one will say (besides r/Atheism) that theory is proven beyond any shred of doubt. But when theory is inconsistent, then it's not a theory at all.
>neither can you prove the existence of jew god.
That's Agnostic stance. That it cannot be proven, or disproven.
Neither can you prove what sentience is, does that mean that you're not sentient?
>There's an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1
Yes, it's true!
1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5...=1
That proves my point not disproves it. 1/2 is greater number than 1/5.
You could assign every natural number, to every rational number between 0 and 1, It works the same.

>Science is not a religion , it is the pursuit of truth.
If you hold that your views are infallible and won't be ridiculed in 100 years or so, then yes it is. And, not scientists, but "I fucking love science" redditors hold that exact view.
Where I have said, "Leave science, there's no truth there!"?
My statement is "Science can not explain everything, that's why it can't explain God, too"

wtf are you on about mate.
If your god plans salvation and is all good and loves his people , why does he kill people daily through hurricanes and earthquakes, why does he let us die in wars , why does he leave you of no , AND I LEAN ABSOLUTELY NO , physical proof of his existence.
If you had no knowledge of religion until you were 18 you would think that religion is an old fairy tale like the godamn toothfairy.
What you're defending is just a myth from the bronze age , the fact that is so easy to dispute is only proof of how flawed it is , something impossible when you're talking about god cuz he's perfect

The Alt-Hype has responed to thundercuck's video JOIN!

He's a pagan, not a Christian obviously.

>That proves my point not disproves it. 1/2 is greater number than 1/5.
>You could assign every natural number, to every rational number between 0 and 1, It works the same.

You clearly missed the key point of that. There's no progress for you to be made here until you can do infinite addition, subtraction and comparisons correctly. Good luck with your future endeavors.

Amen
Use of Word intended

Enlighten me. How I "missed the point"?
What is the point according to you?
We may hold the same view, just misunderstand each other.
Sum of all natural numbers = infinity
Sum of all rational numbers between 0 and 1 = same infinity, just reached in a different way

>That's Agnostic stance. That it cannot be proven, or disproven
Thats the only intellectually honest stance any atheist can take since we do not know everything there is to know in our universe. However, as it stands there is currently no evidence which would support the existence of a god.

since you haven't even taken calculas ill give you a quick point, sorry if someone already told you this i didnt read the other posts

you can say a number like 1.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
would often be rounded off to 2 for the sake of discussion, yes? In any mathematical calculation the fact that 2 is used would be give you pretty much the same answer.
This could also be a said for 1.9 with an infinite number of .9's.
If this is true, then for the sake of argument it would also be be true to round an extremely large number like 999999..... to infinity.
This number is represented by an infinity symbol, but is not actually infinite.
There is finite calculas that assumes the number is not actually infinite since there would really be no application to calculating something that transcends beyond measuring

>1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5...=1

1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 = 13/12

well there have been people to point out some of the same things you have with problems with the big bang hypothesis. of course some of those same problems would still apply to a conscious-creator based hypothesis too... namely that nothing we have ever observed can exist without some kind of cause. this not only includes a universe without a creator, but a creator as well.

even before aristotle explicitly formulated the law of identity there were philosophers in presocratic greece that concluded the cosmos--that is, everything that exists, in whatever form that might take--is ultimately infinite and eternal, and there is no beginning or end to any of it. this was the only thing that didnt contradict basic reasoning.

I kind of lean in that direction and actually take the big bang hypothesis with a grain of salt given its semi-creationist take on the observational data, and how none of the interpretations make any logical sense whatsoever.

My initial point
>That doesn't make sense mathematically speaking. You can't just round something to infinity.
was disproven
>you can say a number like 1.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
would often be rounded off to 2 for the sake of discussion, yes?
>f this is true, then for the sake of argument it would also be be true to round an extremely large number like 999999..... to infinity
If you have just stated this, then I would've conceded. I appear to be in error, as every human does from time to time.
Still we round up 1,99999999 to 2 for the sake of convenience. What convenience is there in rounding up 1000 billion to infinity?
Why not just say, "The universe consists of too much particles to be humanly possible to count, but it's a finite number'
stead of
"The universe consists of that much particles, that it can be said, while not exactly true, that they're infinite"?
Latter causes unnecessary confusion, former doesn't.

1 + 1 = 2

You cannot comprehend before the bang

Actually wait.
I've one last card up my sleeve.
>You can't just round something to infinity.
Is true. Infinity is not a number. You can round up only to numbers. You can round up 1,99999 to 2, because 2 is actually a number, not only sum of numbers as infinity is.
You know that 1,99999 is so close to 2, that it almost doesn't matter. You would never round up 1,4534568687587587587 to 2, it's too far away.
If 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is to infinity, same as 1,4534568687587587587 is to 2, such rounding up would be incorrect. And you don't know what number above is to infinity, because infinity has no value by itself.
Lest it would've been a number.

it would be more true if it wasnt in fraction though
14...infinitely repeating
is much larger than 1,4....infinitely repeating

the point is that you can just round it off since the number is so abstract

You can't round up to anything
This is pseudo math
youtu.be/wsOXvQn3JuE

You know the Big Bang was actually proposed by a catholic to come up with a creation event, right?

this nigga gets it

There is a finite amount of matter in the universe

Polish autism at it's finest.

>the point is that you can just round it off since the number is so abstract
It'll cease to be abstract, when there will be enough computing power to comprehend it.
>You can't round up to anything
If it's true, then it even furthers my point.
If you can't round to anything, then you that much more, can't round anything to everything.
I'm aware of that. But it's theory that most of scientific world subscribes to.
Catholic can also make faulty theories. We're not infallible you know?
Only Pope is, and only in matters pertaining to morality and only when declared in special, solemn form.

it's all great you kids discuss this and perform all kinds of mental gymnastics but the TRUTH is - you will never know for sure.
so fuck you, focus your energy on something more useful

>assumes athiest = science
>goes on to "disprove science"
>therefore my spacefriend did it
The amount of obsession, cog itive dissonance, and lack of reading comprehension in this one is astounding.

Drink bleach. There is precisely 0 hard proof of any space friends. Space friend books written by humans hold no water.

>No. Your religion is science.

No it isn't. Atheist means a lack of belief in deities. That's literally it.

No it is not
it was a theory conceived by many scientists and proven by more different scientists
also how the fuck does proving the world was created billions of years ago validate the bible that suggests it was created 5000 years ago
Also how the fuck does suggesting there was only one intervention by god (the big bang) prove that he created tbe earth in 6 days

How about, I'm godless heathen because I frankly don't care about God or religion, I rather spend that time and effort in a more productive manner.

In a few years time the CERN Hadron collider will smash an unknown particle and create a black hole and the big bang "god particle'.
And it starts all over again.And then again.again.forevernever

Actually atheism is a belief in a lack of deities. An agnostic would have a lack of belief in deities, but an agnostic isn't an atheist.

>But it's theory that most of scientific world subscribes to.
You're trying to prove to atheists they are wrong about god, by disproving a theory made up by a catholic priest trying to prove there is a god, do I have that right?

say what you want about the big bang theory, much smarter people than you thought about it much longer than you and your understanding seems extremely minimal

>It'll cease to be abstract, when there will be enough computing power to comprehend it.
ok, but we dont actually know the number so its easier to just round it

>Actually atheism is a belief in a lack of deities.
No, that would be an antitheist.

>An agnostic would have a lack of belief in deities, but an agnostic isn't an atheist.
Gnostic and agnostic are terms concerning knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic Theist or and agnostic Atheist. It is simply an admission that you don't know for sure what you believe is fact.

here's the thing , YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT
as i pointed out earlier your logic is flawed from the beginning as you suggest that the singularity is infinitely small which it is not , it is infinitely dense , but I bet you can't understand that with that thick brain of yours

...

>It doesn't matter, Newton. You can't prove for sure that gravity exists. Stop trying.
>There is precisely 0 hard proof of any space friends.
If you use only your eyes, there is zero hard proof that Earth is a globe.
Atheism
>Science can't prove God
>Therefore God doesn't exist
Agnostic
>Science can't prove God
>Therefore God may or may not exist
You can see that it's a belief in infallibility of science. Believing in infallibility of anything is a religion. Not all religions must have God in them. See: Buddhism
>inb4 muh Buddhism is philosophy not religion
It claims to have answers how universe came to be, how it works and how to live a good life.
If that's not religion to you, I don't know what is.

>Is true. Infinity is not a number. You can round up only to numbers.
Wouldn't you be able to round up to a countable infinity? I mean all rounding up is is counting up to a particular interval and the entire point of countable infinities is given infinite time you could count to them. So a countable infinity-.4 would round up to a countable infinity.

>physics is easy
your assumptions are wrong from the start and your reasoning is even more wrong. your arrogance is honestly an embarrassment.

density = mass divided by volume
For something to be infinitely dense, by definition it must have infinitely large mass, or infinitely small volume.
Either way, if you claim that it wasn't infinitely small, then it must have been of infinitely large mass.
Therefore
>It assumes that universe is created of infinite matter
>Therefore, at some point in time, universe MUST have been finite
(If it started from something that was finite, it'd still need to pass finite numbers for
>It assumes universe to be infinitely vast
to be true)
Therefore, this point stands
>How the fuck do you represent infinite number of things on a finite space?

Prove me wrong. Demolish me and glory would be yours.
>your arrogance
Where? I can be wrong, I hold that God has all the knowledge not I.

>Science can't prove God
>Therefore God doesn't exist

Wrong. It's more like:
>I have seen no evidence of God.
>Therefore I don't believe in God.

Atheist is not a definite affirmation that a God doesn't exist, it's a lack of belief in a God. I don't believe in a whole range of things that could potentially be true. There could be a mint condition 57 Cadillac Coupe DeVille encased in a heatproof sarcophagus at the center of the Earth. I can't definitively prove there isn't, and I have no intention of even trying, but despite the fact that there could be; I still don't believe it. When I hear an outlandish claim, until I see something to change my mind, my default stance is that it's probably not true. That's all there is to it. I don't know for sure there isn't a God, I just think there probably isn't, and contrary to your clear misconception as to what the term means, that by definition makes me an atheist. An agnostic atheist, yes, but 99.9% of all people are agnostic and the rest are insane or supremely stupid. Neither of us can know for absolute certain that what we believe is true, and that is what gnostic means. I'm an agnostic atheist, you're an agnostic theist. Throwing around the term agnostic like it's separate from those concepts means absolutely nothing.

> it assumes that all particles were located inside an infinitely small point
wrong. particles are excitations of fields that get created and destroyed all the time
>It assumes universe to be infinitely vast
show me where. next show me how you get from infinite space to infinite particles. i'll wait.

I don't think you grasped the idea of infinity quite yet...
You know that there are bigger and smaller infinities?
youtu.be/elvOZm0d4H0
This vid explains it quite well

>if you use your eyes than earth isnt round therefore baby jezus is reel
The mental gymnastics, fuck.

>There could be a mint condition 57 Cadillac Coupe DeVille encased in a heatproof sarcophagus at the center of the Earth
>I can't definitively prove there isn't
Yes you can.
Drilling to planet core just to bury some shitty car there is pointless. Similarly, such drilling would have caused unprecedented damage to the planet. The damage that is not evident.
Such this hypothesis is false.
It's also false, because it doesn't lead you anywhere.
What are implications of it? There are none.
What are implications of Christian God existing? You must lead a moral life.
>inb4 but how do you know that nigger paganism is wrong?
By your terms, aka science? I can't. I can only now this by faith. Faith is not scientific.
I believe that all knowledge is in God. He imparted excellent knowledge on the topics necessary to achieve unity with Him, to His faithful.
Similarly, science is also valuable knowledge, on a different topic, obscured, because it wasn't imparted by God, but reached by man himself.
Therefore, scientific theorems change, for they're imperfect.
Religious dogmas are unwavering, for they're perfect.
>how you get to infinite particles
here

>If you use imperfect instruments you get imperfect results
>That's why science can't explain some things in this universe, our instruments are not perfect
>That's why it can't prove God, so when you're asking for scientific evidence of God you ask the impossible
>Just like it's impossible to ask science, to explain all questions of this universe and life itself
Do not obscure my points.
That's true.
Relevant how?

"infinitely small", in physics, means so small we can neglect the size. the fact is the standard model doesn't take you to t=0 of the big bang, it takes you to the singularity, which is not infinitely small nor infinitely dense. physics as we know it breaks down past that point because neither the gravitational nor the quantum effects can be ignored at those scales and mass-densities, and we dont yet have a quantum theory of gravity.

i honestly don't know why you're so concerned about disproving the big bang when it's perfectly obvious that something must have initiated it, natural or supernatural. i think you should work more on explaining why it is you think that thing can read your mind.

I do not try to disprove this scientific theory.
I state that it's incomplete, for it raises questions.
As you admit >something must have initiated it
We don't know (scientifically) that something.
It may be completed one day, or disproven by another, better theory.
If at least one science theory is incomplete, raises questions that it can't answer, then the science isn't complete, perfect knowledge.
If it's not complete, perfect knowledge, then it can't be assumed that a scientific evidence of God is possible to achieve within it. As explained here

of course it raises fucking questions, do you think scientists have all gone on holiday until further notice? you, however, aren't asking those questions, you're falling into obvious traps resulting directly from your inability or lack of will to actually sit down and understand what the fuck you're talking about. you're either the best troll in the world or a fucking idiot. either way im out.

The universe is a finite blob of stardust expanding in an infinite void. As it expands it becomes less dense.

There is no contradiction, you're just filling in gaps in your own understanding with contradictory & presumptuous bullshit. You're making assertions no one ever claimed and acting all surprised the end result doesn't make sense.

>of course it raises fucking questions
If it was complete, it would have answers for all of them. Raising question and answering doesn't show lack of knowledge. Raising question that you're unable to answer does. I'll restate my claim, because it went over your head
>If science could explain God that created universe and can change every variable in it, then it would've passed the point of knowing all laws in universe.
>do you think scientists have all gone on holiday until further notice?
It's Christmas time, so it's possible.
>you, however, aren't asking those questions
If I didn't, I would dismiss it immediately, because "muh first passsages of the Bible"
>to actually sit down
In what position do you think I use my computer?
>either way im out.
Yeah, I'm out too, goodbye thread.
>The universe is a finite blob of stardust expanding in an infinite void
It is valid hypothesis, but it all coming from singularity means that it had to be infinitely small singularity.

>Yes you can.
Not without seeing for yourself.
>Drilling to planet core just to bury some shitty car there is pointless.
This is not proof it didn't happen.
>Similarly, such drilling would have caused unprecedented damage to the planet.
Who says it was put there via drilling? Why not a teleportation device? Why not a magic spell? Why not the act of an all powerful supreme being?
>What are implications of it? There are none.
This does not disprove the existence of a a mint condition 57 Cadillac Coupe DeVille encased in a heatproof sarcophagus at the center of the Earth.
>What are implications of Christian God existing? You must lead a moral life.
This does not prove the existence of God.

All of your conclusions are predicated on the need for some inherent purpose, which is not something the universe owes you any more than it owes you a living. The purpose derived from your desire to survive and replicate and the moral behavior you exhibit naturally through being a member of a cooperative species does not somehow lose value through the mere fact that it can be explained. Your bizarre need for a divine mandate that transcends human comprehension is entirely abritrary and I promise you'd function just fine without one.

But hey, each to their own man. This was about your misconceptions about what an atheist is, I'm not about to try and convince you to be one. I might think your beliefs are goofy but I'll fight to the death for you to keep them.

>This does not disprove the existence of a a mint condition 57 Cadillac Coupe DeVille encased in a heatproof sarcophagus at the center of the Earth.
If there is no implication that such knowledge has on your life, and no evidence of it, it's useless belief. Sure you can hold it, but it doesn't impact anything, so why hold it?
>Your bizarre need for a divine mandate that transcends human comprehension is entirely abritrary and I promise you'd function just fine without one.
If there is no objective Being that has all the knowledge, then yes, my desire is arbitrary.
In such state, everything is subjective and nothing is truly objective, making everything, even your own claims arbitrary, for you've only achieved them by your own, subjective, experience and reasoning.
>I promise you'd function just fine without one
I can promise you the opposite. You'd function finer with one.
>But hey, each to their own man.
Agreed. Some past, or even present Christians would like to force their views on you, but I won't. My mission is to state them in such a way that they're internally coherent, so that I do justice to God.
I might view your beliefs as leading you nowhere good, but if God hasn't desired you to have possibility of professing them, you wouldn't have said possibility. Therefore forcing you'd be against God's will.
Goodbye to you, too. And Merry Christmas, even if you don't celebrate them, I hope it'll be a pleasant time for you.

Happy Holidays, bro.

Just kidding. Merry Christmas.

>but it all coming from singularity means that it had to be infinitely small singularity.
Why does that "have to" be the case?

Alternatively it could be a finite mass in an infinitely small space. Infinite density. Divide by zero and a finite numerator becomes infinite.

That's all assuming the singularity has to be infinitely anything at all. Which it doesn't really. We just extrapolate it down to an infinitely small point because our understanding of physics breaks down in the first few fractions of the existance of the known universe. The fabric of spacetime starts bending, getting real weird & hard to observe / test around black hole levels of mass, the speed of light, and other ludicrously huge values.