I fail to see how this quantum fluctuation explanation is plausible.

It's still a timed event that needs a cause.

Ok, a few things. First off, I don't want my frustration to lead me into taking a position that in truth I do not hold. I do not think ill of religion, I think ill of ignorance. I do not think the two are synonymous. I think in the absence of religion, there would still be ignorance. I believe in plurality and believe in the ability to respect those that hold beliefs contrary to my own...as long as they aren't ignorant. Akuma is a christian, and one I can respect because he is far from ignorant. Apalose holds many views I disagree with but he can at least debate them intelligently. Comrade Toyva practices judaism and is both respectful and knowledgeable about others ways of thinking. I do not think that removing their gods from them would somehow make them better people, or more intelligent.

I think people will use their own religious dogma to justify their fears, hates and prejudices. But even without religion people will find science or philosophy that will justify their fear, hate and prejudices. Darwin is no more to blame for eugenics than Jesus is to blame for the Crusades or the murdering of Native Americans.

I also believe that religion is not required for people to be good. Some one said religion is just about being the best person you can. And that's great, I commend the thinking. But why is religion necessary for that? Can a person not ponder on life, people, society, and morality in relation to them without their being an ancient dogma attached? Without their being an invisible man or force to punish them if they stray? I think that people regardless of their beliefs towards the universe are capable of being good people, or wicked people. Neither religion nor science can take credit or blame for either. People make their own choices in life, and decide what they believe for themselves.

The only reason that guy set me off was because he was obviously and blatantly full of himself, disrespectful and relying on the same ignorant tired arguments. Some would say the same of me last night, and for that I'm sorry.

I'll get to anything else in my next post, I just wanted to be clear on my stance :)

As the fellows article contends, prior to the universe there was no such thing as time. As such there would only be a single unchanging moment. As such there could be only one moment that a mechanistic cause could take place. Seeing as how that means there is only a single possibility, why does it require decision to happen at a certain time? There is no time.

He failed to explain that in a clear way.

The way I see it is this: there must be a good explanation of why the universe came to be 13.5 billion years ago and not in any other time. An explanation that gives a specific reason why it isn't 13.50000000001 billion years old or any other numbers. Only God and multiverse theory can do that, since the universe isn't eternal.

And multiverse is a ridiculous explanation, it's just laughable that there would be 1000's of Slimebeasts out there living a near perfect copy of my life.

"And multiverse is a ridiculous explanation, it's just laughable that there would be 1000's of Slimebeasts out there living a near perfect copy of my life."

That has no bearing on whether it is true.

--

"I fail to see how this quantum fluctuation explanation is plausible. It's still a timed event that needs a cause."

No, that's the beauty of it. It is a truly random event, the same as when a radioactive isotope 'decides' to decay. It genuinely isn't caused by anything.

Double post.

You are making a big assumption there.  You claim that scientists are making huge assumptions, but then you go and make one yourself.  I'll throw it right back at you then.  What created God?  You said it yourself that "stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason."  You are limiting yourself to thinking in terms of strict causation.  Eventually, something would have to come out of nothing, whether it be God or the universe.  So believing in God means that you believe that there can be something without a form of causation.  So thus, you have disproved your own argument.

That's just a matter of our perception. If the universe ever began (and it did obviously) then at some point it would have to be 13.5 billion years old, and eventually it will be 13.5000001 billion years old. We just happen to be living at the point that it's 13.5 billion years old. It can only be one age at any given time if it began, and we are living at the time it is the age it is now. If it was 12.7 billion years old instead what would that prove? That we gained sentience a billion years quicker and that's all.

If there was no time before the universe then the universe could only begin at one moment, there could be no random time that it begins because there was only a single timeless moment before it began. It is 13.5 billion years old instead of 13.6 because it inevitably had to be 13.5 billion years old at some point and we just happen to be living at that time.

Just because something happens one way instead of another doesn't imply providence. It just implies that it happened that way instead of another and that another could just as easily have been true but isn't because only one thing can happen. If I roll a dice and it lands on 5 instead of 3 that doesn't mean "it could only have been 5 by providence, why wasn't it a 3 instead"? Just because we are living at a time when the universe is 13.5 billion years old instead of 13.6 doesn't mean that it required concious choice for it to be this way. Only that the universe began and we are living now instead of later or earlier.

 You know what I'm going to reply here.

God is the cause, he didn't came out of something because he's always been there.

I'm not saying it's easy to grasp, and there might even be hints of contradiction in the concept of a God. But it's still a lot easier to accept an eternal God as a cause, than "Universe started with the Big bang which came out of a singularity, which came out of nothing without reason."

Man, you just walked right into that one didn't you.  Did you even read any of the arguments we had in this thread earlier?  You are more entitled to believe what you just said is true, but that doesn't mean your theory is any better than any of the scientific theories that have been proposed.