MTZehvor said: There wouldn't need to be anyone; if a being exists outside of the universe, it is not bound by the laws that exist within this universe, such as time (and, by extension, the need to have a beginning).

Its not like "time" is much of a law in our own universe anyway, causality is more law-like.

Time is pretty much irrelevant on the quantum scales and doesn't follow the "arrow of time" that humans have invented.

spurgeonryan said:   http://www.big-bang-theory.com/   So where did black holes come from or singularities? What was before the big bang? What made whatever it is that made the big bang? Where did the thing that made the big bang come from? What made the thing that made the thing that made the big bang? Are black holes slowly swallowing up the universe again until everything is sucked up again and they get so full that they expode a new universe out in another billion years? If so then how long till Humans evolve out of Big Bang matter again? Will we look the same or will something else emerge? Does this all depend on luck and chance and science, so we could not possibly know when we would evolve into humans again after the second big bang? How do we know this is not the first big bang? How many big bangs have there been? What started the original Big Bang? What made the thing that started the original big bang? Is a big bang just another reality exploding into a new reality? Is the old reality/alternate dimension still there? Who made that alternate dimension? Seems like time and space is so full that we could all explode at any minute. Fuck it! I will just continue to believe in God. You got to have more faith to believe in Galaxies banging than My Homie G making it all.

I believe the big bang was the result of a computer simulation and the person who created it is "god". 

Mystro-Sama said: Most Atheists i've spoken to dropped the smartass attitude after that question. Not to mention that they can't seem to answer the question of how an existence without consciousness can create an existence with consciousness.

Why?  "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.  Science isn't about pretending to have all the answers, it's about finding out as much as possible.  Neither of your questions really hold any meaning.  If I ask you a question about god that you can't answer, does that prove that god doesn't exist?

Your Mom's vagina.

The same "thing" that created god, allah. Zeus, the titans, and sliced bread.

god... its pretty simple

The problem with creationism is that it leads to the same paradoxes as alot of scientific theory. So we have to admit that the solution alludes us. There is another way of thinking about the universe. It is believed that the total energy of the universe is always 0. So, we don't really exist. Nothing and total energy zero make the most sense.

Another reason why we are stuck on this question is because time as we understand it began with the big bang. This means that nothing happened before it was created and so the existence of God is irrelevant. The creation part never actually happened because any point before the big bang literally didn't "happen". Unless you can describe a place without time where things can actually happen,

o_O.Q said: god... its pretty simple

Why is it simple?

Shadow1980 said: And since God was brought up, well, fun fact: the first man to propose the Big Bang theory was Georges Henri Lemaitre, who was a priest as well as a scientist. The Big Bang theory, like every other theory in science, is no more "atheistic" than, say, our theories on how light or gravity work.

Where I used to work, we'd get in a lot of old men who would hang out and talk about god.  They would argue the finer points because they were different denominations but they'd unite to combat the evils of science.  I remember one of them passing out some anti-evolution literature which they had a big "amen" fest over.  Without saying what I personally believed, I did point out that some of the information in the pamphlet was inaccurate.  That did not go over well at all.

After that, I decided to run a little experiment.  In the following months, I would talk about evolution but instead of saying "evolution", I'd use the word "nature".  Pretty much everything I talked about met with agreement or, at the least, was considered respectfully.  However, any discussion were the word "evolution" was mentioned met with immediate rejection.

It's such a false dichotomy, this idea that everything with religion and science has to be either/or.  I don't really understand it sometimes.

WARNING: LIKELY TO CAUSE FITS OF RAGE AND SEVERE MENTAL EXHAUSTION

I'll ignore the fact that the question "where did the big bang come from" is completely incoherent (absent space, what does from mean? it's nonsensical).

The Big Bang isn't a creation event in the classical sense as is generally misunderstood by so many people on this planet. It's taking the causality to as far back as possible...suppose you can only rewind a video to 1 second in. Do you know what happened before that? Nope, impossible. Same principle is at play here classically.

New maths/physics need to be developed to determine what exactly happened during this initial second (more accurately "the singularity") which is where classical physics breaks down [not the case in quantum physics]. The singularity itself wasn't a creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing") event either though. It is a creatio ex materia (creation out of whatever materials this *state* held) event.

No need to take my word on it. Let's take Alan Guth's of the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theory, "I don't know if the Universe had a beginning. I suspect it didn't have a beginning. It's very likely eternal, but nobody knows."

So basically your question is not only incoherent, but EVEN if I reform it into a valid question such as "Did the Universe have a beginning?" the answer is probably not.