And, if I'm understanding correctly, the nature of the strangeness that would have occured in the teeny moments right before the singularity (if it hit that point at all) may prevent us from _ever_ knowing anything about what happened before that. (If "before" even has any meaning in this context.)

-Triften 

No, it is not. Please don't join in on the ignorance parade. Please don't pretend you know what you do not know. Unless you can cite what cosmologists actually say, please remain silent. The 'actual' honest answer is that YOU don't know, so you should consult what cosmology has to say.

Non theistic Ex nihilo is a concept allowable within physics, it does not violate the laws of physics:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_r...

There is no symmetry here between theistic and non theistic ex nihilo, the first idea violates physics, the latter does not. One idea is not workable, the other is mathematically demonstratable. In fact, it is beginning to appear, as per Alan Guth, that it is perpetual nothingness, and not existence, is impossible! 

It would be helpful if theists and atheists alike would respond to these questions by referring to what physicists and cosmologist say, and refrain from speaking from ignorance. If I see a post on cosmology without a reference to a physicist, I see no reason to take it seriously.

I haven't read all of these, but I'm not completely ignorant either. I posed it as a question rather than a statement because I wanted to know what people that post HERE think about it. Sorry that I took up your time.

It is.  There are laws that govern the way the universe runs, and rules which explain these rules, rules to explain those rules, and so on.  However, there is a few factors that decide the universe that are uncaused - they just are.  The universe, in other words, just is.

Why would that be? 

I think existence came from Nothing and Nothing cannot cause anything. The laws of physics simply are and need no determiner.

This makes no sense. 

No, mass and gravity go hand in hand. 

Anyway, what does this have to do with the orgin of the laws of physics?

And I answered your question, yet you prefer to make it personal rather than just READ what I cited for you

I'm not out to attack you, in fact, I'm out to help.

1) Take a look at the resources I posted.

2) Find a book and start reading. The best way to learn is to read, not to post a question on a chat board.

3) This isn't to say that you can't post such questions, my point to you, the one you avoided, is why you'd want to post a question when you can just go read?

Why do you post the question and then just enter into the typical sort of face saving internet bullshit? You say you want to know something, well then investigate it. I can help you.

Or you can just act as if all my post did was call you stupid, when what it really did was point out a better way for us to proceed.

Your choice: just admit that you don't really give a shit about this question, and that the topic is immaterial, you just want one more pointless web argument.

OR you can actually read my links and start a learned discussion on cosmology. I'm not calling you stupid, just uninformed, and asking if you'd really like to be informed.

People. Theist and atheist.

Is there any reason why you have to wildly conjecture rather than just read what cosmologists have to say?

You do every second of your life that your eyes are open. Photons are held to have no resting mass.

Once again, theist and atheist: can we learn first and speak second?

If you want an explanation of how quantum tunneling works from a zero dimensional state, listen to the mp3 above or read the links.

I want to AGAIN stress that it would help us ALL - myself included, to first know what the fuck we are talking about, before we type a word.  There isn't a post in this thread that illustrates the ability or desire to do this, and this problem goes beyond the typical atheist/theist war.

Yes, call me an asshole for saying this, but it woudl be nice if someone could first know what they were talking about before they made a grand pronouncment or a universal rule out. I mean, at least cite a name to go along with your claim.

I am NO expert in cosmology, but even I can see that the wild conjectures here have no basis in reality.  

The parade joke response you gave was a good way to go, my call here was for more learned discussion, not to insult anyone. Everyone in here could well be smarter than me, my point is that there is no reason for wild conjectures from a position of ignorance, yet that pretty much typifies 99% of cosmology discussions on theological chat boards.

I believe so, you seem to have Vilenken's idea in mind.

 It is important to point out that this statement:

"Nothing is known about the prior state, and by the reckoning of some cosmologists, nothing can be known of this state"

Can be misread. First, while it is true that nothing is KNOWN about this prior state, we can still come up with valid mathematical conjectures. Second, the fact that some cosmologists hold we can never know is simply rooting against the home team in my estimation.

We have to parse out what could be meant by 'unknown'

Unknown could mean we presently have no direct evidence. This is true. It is certainly unknown at present.

Unknown could mean unknowable: that there isn't even a potential way to find evidence for the claim. I'm not sure if this is the case.

But these senses of 'unknown' do not rule out valid hypothetical explanations that are likely.... We might not ever "know" but we can surmise a likelihood based on valid mathematical models...

We can't know what happened to Amelia Earhart, but we can work out that she probably crashed, and  we can be fairly certain she is dead.

 Oh, and of course it may turn out that something akin to brane theory is true, and that our universe was caused - by a megaverse. Meaning that the model works, but is not actually explanatory of our universe.

THANK YOU for actually reading and actually CITING what someone who ACTUALLY HAS A CLUE (i.e. reference to a physicist) to what he's talking about has to say on these matters. We are not experts. We can only reproduce what we have learned elsewhere. If we havent' read what cosmologist actually say, we can only speculate from our pool of ignorance.

 Yes.

What I'm getting at is laws determine the consequences of action. For example I drop a pen it falls. Laws of gravity.

Now, my point was what determines the consequence of quantum tunneling? That was my problem, since laws of physics seem interlinked with space. That is why I prefer the mutliverse budding theory. That's all I was saying.

Then how do they travel at the speed of light? 

Understood. If you like to my explanation of Guth's points you'll see that in their understanding, zero dimensional nothingness is unstable - 'no laws' = no stability. They explain it better, of course, so I lead you to the mp3 or the essays.

That's a pretty fine question. My sense is that the expansion of the fourth dimension requires that all photons move at C in a vacuum (but of course, photons can move much slower than this).... other dimensions impart movement

But I'd prefer more than this half of a memory of a conjecture...

What you're asking me to cite is irrelevant and impossible. Not impossible because I'm wrong, but impossible because it can't be found. It's also a cop out so you don't have to do any work to cite a source that says the opposite.

It makes more sense now that I've applied it to p=mv, however, I challenge you to find a source that says that the resting mass of a photon is relevant because they are always moving. You won't find it.

As for what my source was? Newton's Second Law. 

What the fuck are you blathering about? In the time it took you to upbraid me for my lack of preparation you could have given me an answer that illuminated what YOU thought about the question.  I will very likely never have the opportunity to interact directly with the likes of Guth or Hawkings and this forum is not often graced with their presence so I am content with their writings. And it doesn't matter whether your string theory has 9 dimensions or 21. Nor if branes are a valid construct or universes budding out via some sort of quantum fluctation. The problem still remains about existence itself being uncaused. That and the problem of your condescension. Is there is a quantum tunnel between your brain and your ass or are you capable of having a civil conversation?

After accepting the Big Bang theory...

The ability to do science relies upon causality. If an event in the reality we witness and experiment in appears to be uncaused this means that from our perspective the effect was spontaneous.

The validity of such a statement relies on the scope of our knowledge on physical qualities and forces. To ask for sober insights on the constancy of existence, that is whether an action ex nihilo bore the universe, is currently irresolvable.

When we imagine an event it is from the position of a fictitious outside observer. This is ordinarily reliable but causes issues when our invented vantage point is necessarily outside of the universe. Proposals of outside realities lesson the problem as they insist upon some structure, perhaps similar to a fractal.

I would expect resolution of this issue would come from precise physical theories that match reality consistently and also predict the nature of existence (including past and future) rather than by means of supposition.

"Objective reality is and does not happen. Only by consciousness does the world come to be as an image in space continuously changing in time" Einstein

[EDIT] - Speculation is fun, thought provoking and is absolutely sufficiently worthwhile to continue doing so

I already did.

Thanks for making it clear that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in reading what a cosmologist has to say about cosmology. You're here to rant  from your pool of ignorance.

Like most everyone else.

You have NO interest in responding to the essays, but you will  write yet more angry responses to me, because the alternative is to admit to yourself that you're incapable of actually learning cosmology.

Again, you have a choice: read what cosmologists have to say, start with my linked essays

And post another rant.

I can 't believe I have had to explain this twice. 

Only after you first verse yourself in the basic knowledge of the field that you're speculating upon... 

Guys, you each know that you exist.  Why fight over so minute details?

Right. Because it would require that you actually take the time to read a book, rather than allow you to do what you really want: to just argue over things, damn the facts.

There's an actual answer to your question, it's not an unponderable mystery, it's not a matter of conjecture or philosophy. It's sitting in the first chapters of most books on cosmology available in your library. We can answer your question.

You can answer it for yourself by reading the links.

But I could store my bank account number there, safely, couldn't I? 

There's a clear limit in your perception: your steadfast refusal to read what cosmologists say about cosmology.

Why not actually learn about the topics you wish to debate?

Call that 'being pedantic' if you like, I call avoiding looking fucking ridiculous.  

Again, you have a choice:

learn what you're talking about - actually study the answers to your own question that YOU POSTED.

Or just remain ignorant and keep on postin'! 

Check his links - in his first post! - one of them is an mp3 that is both deep and accessible.

I will concede that without adequate knowledge speculations may be only diverting. 

I used to have the goal of knowing a little bit about everything, then I discovered 'God'.