First of all I believe in the future scientists will say it was unfortunate, and dumb, to say (now, early in the 21st century) that particles are created "from nothing". They will then have discovered and confirmed the strings (or something else) and say that the apparent creation of matter/energy from "nothing" really was reorganization or reactions between strings.

I think one is really stupid if one thinks the explanation you cited is satisfying for the fundamental question of why the Big bang came to be, or why anything exists at all.

Second of all, even if stuff could be formed out of "nothing" it still don't explain the cause.

Psi-borgs.

I think Darwin was right.........until I saw the recent Battlestar Galactica episode. We're the 13th tribe.

 Ifyou want a smart, educated answer to that, read this.

Also, if you have a problem with the answer, be mature and e-mail him instead of making fun of it on the forum. Please read the ENTIRE article with an open mind.

Who is going to read the entire thing? Nobody when there is that much text.

So.. @ imsneakers

Then what's your answer?

 I know it's a long article, but it's to cover all rebuttals that may occur. ;)

I'm skimming through the article, I'll read it in full later. But so far he's just using God of the gaps "Science doesn't know how the universe began, so it was god" and some rather dumb assumptions, or coming to conclusions that are logical without the need of god, but then ignoring them in favor of assumptions that do require an intelligent god. At one point he says either the universe is infinitely old are there are an infinite number of universes, and then says "well we can't prove there are infinite universes, and the universe isn't infinitely old, so it must be god". Which is still effectively a god of the gaps way of looking at it. String theory suggests a multiverse and alot of theoretical physics is moving in the direction of there being an infinite number of universes. Provable? Not right now. But I guess that is enough for God to exist.

His assertion that at some point our universe needs a non mechanistic free will agent is based on some rather clumsy assumptions and "well we don't know this for a fact, so it was god" kind of reasoning. It's more of the same, just very lengthy and with an ounce of eduction about physics.

I'll read it in full later, but as of this moment I'm not exactly impressed.

Haha, ok I'm stopped a paragraph short and it just got really funny. He's really self defeating now, he just equated ignorance with faith.

He says that since there is no evidence of a multi verse then belief in it can only be called faith. And he will take his "rational faith" over atheistic "blind faith" any day, and that a multiverse is no more provable than a serpent god. The thing is he is equating the "possibility" of a multiverse as being the same as "certain belief" in a multiverse. Scientists at this point shrug their shoulders and postulate various possibilities but admitting ignorance to the actual facts. This is apparently on equal terms with believing in god. Don't have an answer? LET IT BE GOD.

This is fucking stupid. I'll still read it in full though a bit later.

Ok, this is just fucking retarded. I'm sorry to people with down syndrome for insulting you like this, but this is just getting so stupid. This is just another message board dwelling theists. He starts flaming atheists half way through, and loses credibility as their being an intelligent designer by bringing biblical accuracy into the fray.

"But here is what is worse for this theory: Atheists, aren’t you always telling us that if we can’t measure, see, touch, taste, smell, hear, interact or verify that something exists then you are being a superstitious freak to believe in it. So let me ask you this? You are postulating that there are infinite other universes out there, none of which I can measure, see, touch, taste, smell, hear, interact or verify? Aren’t you being a superstitious freak to believe that? And you want me to believe it too (some sort of evangelization to your superstitious blind faith)? I don’t think I have that much blind faith. Especially when the other alternative seams to actually have certain claims of evidences in addition to this. What I mean by that is that when I start adding other proofs to this like the Moral Argument, the Resurrection of Jesus, the accuracy of the New Testament, and so on, we see that the weight of the evidence really lies on the Theist’s view and one has to force oneself to believe in Atheism and multiple universes."

The conclusion is really good. After asserting that any mechanistic cause of the universe would in and of itself require a cause simply pushing the problem back, he turns the same reasoning on God. This is good.

"Now the big question that everyone asks is: But where did God COME from? Kids ask that, atheists ask that. We ask that. In other words where the God come from and who made God?
Who is Agent X? The short answer for this is: That’s a stupid question."

He then goes on to offer an explanation that since there was no time before the big bang, then nothing came before god, so obviously nothing created god. He always existed. An explanation that could just as easily be applied to a mechanistic cause, and any argument against a non sentient mechanistic cause before time existed can still be leveled at god.  It even shoots his earlier argument in the foot that a mechanistic cause would have to take place in the "infinity past" (as he puts it) and clearly that isn't the case because the universe isn't "infinity old", but if there was no time before the big bang, then "past" ceases to have meaning before the big bang making it perfectly within the realm of reason.  This guy is a moron. Thanks for the laugh, sir, but you aren't convincing anybody but the choir of your brilliance.

Edit: He amusingly and with infinite irony that is no doubt lost on him ends with this sentence 

"Frankly, people who have blind faith in things that are unscientific, scare me (OK I just had to say that – but it is true)."

Setting out to prove God exists through an argument based on scientific evidence in particular is an exercise in futility. Now if you want to say that the evidence could "suggest" that there is a God, that is a different story. But why are people so gung-ho about proving God exists? Wouldn't that defeat the point of having faith?

If God came down to Earth every other weekend and was like, "Hey, I'm God. You will go to hell if you don't worship me," then you wouldn't have "faith" in God because you would know he is real. Most religious people don't even know what faith means. It means you believe something is true, not that you know it is true. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.

I'm not trying to criticize faith, as I am a person of "faith" myself, but let's just point out the elephant in the room. Most people who are religious are as dumb as a sack of bricks. Now let's point out the other elephant in the room. Most people who aren't religious are as dumb as a sack of bricks too.

So what have we learned today, children? That most people are as dumb as a sack of bricks. Think of how stupid the average person is. Half the people out there are dumber than THAT.