Already done that and you drew a blank other than your pink unicorn shtick. It was fun but it got old fast. If you care to continue start a thread on unicorns in the appropriate forum and I will join you there.
I have no recollection of you presenting any such evidence. Perhaps you can either link to the relevant post or tell me the thread and relevant post number, please? Also, can I remind you that the fun you derived from the 'pink unicorn shtick' amounted to offering no reasoned counter argument to the point I was making by invoking it.
But you have not presented any evidence that there was a singularity at the beginning of the universe. Do you have such evidence or only more speculations?
The 'evidence' is a consequence of Einsteinian physics and BB cosmology. As I have explained, a 'singularity' is our best attempt at explaining a reality that existed close to the BB, but that our physics are currently unable to fully explain; it is an artefact. This discussion may help you:
'According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.'
More here:
http://big-bang-theory.com/
You are doing a good job of hand-waving but we would prefer to see real science to support that hand-waving?
Well, good enough that you seem to be unable to offered any reasoned counterargument.
What does Stephen Hawking say about singularity?
It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe—as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account. (Hawking, A Brief History of Time)
'A Brief History of Time' was published in 1988. Did you source your reference directly from the book, or did you find it in a secondary source and, if so, can you tell us where? In either case, it may interest you to know that, in a lecture in 1996 available at his website, Professor Hawking discusses the BB singularity at some length:
'The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation.'
Full text of the lecture here:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
I see – something did not come from nothing because something else that could have come from nothing may exist but you are not quite sure what that something else that preceded nothing might be or where it came from but you are sure it may be there – somewhere. Try getting that peer-reviewed. Isn't that similar to your “evolution of the gaps' quagmire from our previous discussion? You may want to change your repertoire.
And you may want to tell us want you understand by nothing and how the hypothesized BB singularity amounts to this nothing. I remember no 'evolution of the gaps quagmire'; I suspect you may be subject to selective memory syndrome. Perhaps you can reference the relevant posts?
Have you given the question of why there is something instead of nothing more thought or was that about it?
Do you have any reasoned argument to make concerning BB cosmology, or do you simply wish to scoff? The latter tactic suggests that you have nothing else to offer.
Can we now conclude from your presentation thus far that you have no evidence that demonstrates your "energy potential" (whatever that means) that has allegedly always existed "in one form or another" out there in our universe or a similar multiple-universe? Perhaps you can expand your thinking on that one a bit. You meander.
A singularity is an artifact that constitutes an energy potential. If BB cosmology is correct, a singularity is the inevitable consequence of that cosmology. Our part of the Universe/Multiverse began when that energy potential was changed from one form (the singularity) into another (one expression of which would have been matter as we understand it). If a singularity does not constitute an energy potential, perhaps you would like to tell us what it does constitute?
Alternatively, as you seem unwilling to address these ideas directly with counterargument, perhaps you would prefer to get on with supporting the substance of your assertion that is relevant to this thread, i.e. that the phrase 'stretched out' as used in the Bible corresponds directly with the currently held theory that our part of the Universe/Multiverse expanded and is countinuing to expand from a singularity?
According to Hawking, even IF the predictions of these theories were proven the 'no boundary' proposal would not be concluded correct. I guess my final point is that even at the furthest stretch of the imagination of one of the smartest men on earth our origins are nothing more than unprovable conjecture proposed solely to offer counter-point to the statement made so many thousands of years ago, "In the beginning, God..."