Most of the confusion in this issue comes from individual definitions or assumptions of nothingness.

When any system is in equilibrium, it can be described as nothingness relative to its own environment. In a state of equilibrium, there is no differentiation, no point of reference because every opposing force is cancelled out.If and when any of the equilibrium factors are altered, flux ensues and activity begins, then we have differentiation because the system desperately wants to regain its original equilibrium state.this is natural law of physics.

The big bang altered the equilibrium state of the pre-unverse(the assumed state of nothingness).In the case of the universe, the flux in energy is what we call creation. The system is still trying to regain its original state of equilibrium or zero energy flux, that may be why the universe is expanding from our own vantage point in the universe. It is actually a back and forth contraction and expansion ,perhaps within a finite(?) space.

Lord Babs, Plaetton and Deep Sight, kind words indeed.

It was mainly a summary of the contributions on this thread.

In my opinion, if someone needs for god to exist, you can do precious little about that fact. Any argument is bound to be met with obstinacy. Early on, I used to ask the question "what will it take for you to stop believing in god ?". The answer is usually that they will never stop.

In an episode of the Simpsons, one day after Homer gets an IQ boost by getting a crayon removed from where it was stuck in his brain, he accidentally proves that there is no god. He shows Ned Flanders his proof as Ned is about to go to church. Ned reads the proof and realises that the calculations are irrefutable and god actually doesnt exist.

What does Ned do ?

He destroys the paper and goes to church.

That is the attitude of those who need god. There is a difference between needing god and believing god.

Deep Sight, no offence intended, but you come across as one of those who need god.
Like I said, no offence and I hope non taken.

caezar:

Now, we do not know the truth values of statements 1 and 2 and it would be very difficult to ascertain them. Statement 1 is in fact impossible to prove through experiment as you would first have to create nothing itself before deriving something out of it, which would be ridiculous as the experimenter would be a something which created the something.

A catch 22

I should point out, in light of certain comments earlier on this thread, that we are always operating under certain assumptions and these assumptions may not always hold for every situation.

Take for example, the idea that "cause" precedes "effect" with respect to anything that progresses "forward" through time. This assumption does not always hold in all situations, a good example being this:

"They [Penrose and Israel] especially could not conceive of jettisoning it [the apparent horizon] in favor of the absolute horizon. Why? Because the absolute horizon - paradoxically, it might seem - violates our cherished notion that an effect should not precede its cause. When matter falls into a black hole, the absolute horizon starts to grow ('effect') before the matter reaches it ('cause'). The horizon grows in anticipation that the matter will soon be swallowed and will increase the hole's gravitational pull. Penrose and Israel knew the origin of this seeming paradox. The very definition of the absolute horizon depends on what will happen in the future: on whether or not signals will ultimately escape to the distant Universe. In the terminology of philosophers, it is a teleological definition (a definition that relies on 'final causes'), and it forces the horizon's evolution to be teleological. Since teleological viewpoints have rarely if ever been useful in modern physics, Penrose and Israel were dubious about the merits of the absolute horizon. . .Hawking and James Hartle were able to derive, from Einstein's General Relativity laws, a set of elegant equations that describe how the absolute horizon continuously and smoothly expands and changes its shape, in anticipation of swallowing infalling debris or gravitational waves, or in anticipation of being pulled on by the gravity of other bodies." - Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, p. 419 (Chapter 12: 'Black Holes Evaporate')

[Penrose = Roger Penrose, Israel = Werner Israel, Hawking = Stephen Hawking]


In a different area of physics (quantum entanglement), the Klyshko advanced wave model and other advanced wave models exhibit a similar kind of thinking with respect to sequences of events.

Anyway, the point is, the "cause" for some things may not have to follow the standard temporal behavior that seems to apply to most things.

jayriginal: Lord Babs, Plaetton and Deep Sight, kind words indeed.

It was mainly a summary of the contributions on this thread.

In my opinion, if someone needs for god to exist, you can do precious little about that fact. Any argument is bound to be met with obstinacy. Early on, I used to ask the question "what will it take for you to stop believing in god ?". The answer is usually that they will never stop.

In an episode of the Simpsons, one day after Homer gets an IQ boost by getting a crayon removed from where it was stuck in his brain, he accidentally proves that there is no god. He shows Ned Flanders his proof as Ned is about to go to church. Ned reads the proof and realises that the calculations are irrefutable and god actually doesnt exist.

What does Ned do ?

He destroys the paper and goes to church.

That is the attitude of those who need god. There is a difference between needing god and believing god.

Deep Sight, no offence intended, but you come across as one of those who need god.
Like I said, no offence and I hope non taken.

I do not "need" a belief in God: I have advanced my belief on this forum severally that even atheists stand excellently in creation so long as they live with a good conscience.

The belief in God, as I have severally shown, is a logical construct, a logical necessity, simple.

In fact, in my philosophical evolution, i was once very close to atheism: until i recognized what the compound of infinity was: God.

Most people in my everyday life who do not know me well actually call me an atheist. Funny.

PhysicsQED: I should point out, in light of certain comments earlier on this thread, that we are always operating under certain assumptions and these assumptions may not always hold for every situation.

Take for example, the idea that "cause" precedes "effect" with respect to anything that progresses "forward" through time. This assumption does not always hold in all situations, a good example being this:

"They [Penrose and Israel] especially could not conceive of jettisoning it [the apparent horizon] in favor of the absolute horizon. Why? Because the absolute horizon - paradoxically, it might seem - violates our cherished notion that an effect should not precede its cause. When matter falls into a black hole, the absolute horizon starts to grow ('effect') before the matter reaches it ('cause'). The horizon grows in anticipation that the matter will soon be swallowed and will increase the hole's gravitational pull. Penrose and Israel knew the origin of this seeming paradox. The very definition of the absolute horizon depends on what will happen in the future: on whether or not signals will ultimately escape to the distant Universe. In the terminology of philosophers, it is a teleological definition (a definition that relies on 'final causes'), and it forces the horizon's evolution to be teleological. Since teleological viewpoints have rarely if ever been useful in modern physics, Penrose and Israel were dubious about the merits of the absolute horizon. . .Hawking and James Hartle were able to derive, from Einstein's General Relativity laws, a set of elegant equations that describe how the absolute horizon continuously and smoothly expands and changes its shape, in anticipation of swallowing infalling debris or gravitational waves, or in anticipation of being pulled on by the gravity of other bodies." - Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, p. 419 (Chapter 12: 'Black Holes Evaporate')

[Penrose = Roger Penrose, Israel = Werner Israel, Hawking = Stephen Hawking]


In a different area of physics (quantum entanglement), the Klyshko advanced wave model and other advanced wave models exhibit a similar kind of thinking with respect to sequences of events.

Anyway, the point is, the "cause" for some things may not have to follow the standard temporal behavior that seems to apply to most things.

Such only holds true for self existent things, my friend. Such as eternity, and its consequences.

You should also note that there is a difference between the occurrence of events and the perception of occurrence of events.

plaetton: Most of the confusion in this issue comes from individual definitions or assumptions of nothingness.

When any system is in equilibrium, it can be described as nothingness relative to its own environment. In a state of equilibrium, there is no differentiation, no point of reference because every opposing force is cancelled out.If and when any of the equilibrium factors are altered, flux ensues and activity begins, then we have differentiation because the system desperately wants to regain its original equilibrium state.this is natural law of physics.

The big bang altered the equilibrium state of the pre-unverse(the assumed state of nothingness).In the case of the universe, the flux in energy is what we call creation. The system is still trying to regain its original state of equilibrium or zero energy flux, that may be why the universe is expanding from our own vantage point in the universe. It is actually a back and forth contraction and expansion ,perhaps within a finite(?) space.

Sorry, you have it all confused. Nothingness does not refer to what you suggest: real nothingness means the absence of the existence of anything whatsoever. Period.

That knocks off the rest of your post, mate.

It astonishes me that you can speak of somethings such as when you refer to an equilibrium state of a pre-universe - - - and then say that this is nothing.

For heaven's sake.

Equilibrium is NOT nothing. The very word connotes balance between existent things.

Please stop messing around nonsensically with words.

PhysicsQED: The horizon grows in anticipation that the matter will soon be swallowed and will increase the hole's gravitational pull.

In addition, assuming that this is correct, these words (bolded in red) already disclose a cause, and as such, defeat your postulation.

Deep Sight:

In addition, assuming that this is correct, these words (bolded in red) already disclose a cause, and as such, defeat your postulation.

No one said that there were no "causes." My point is about the position in time of apparent "causes" and "effects".

And the point of that excerpt is that the horizon grows because matter reaches it, but according to our ordinary thinking it should grow when the matter reaches it. But the horizon does so before the matter reaches it, putting the effect before the cause. The author (Thorne) is not asserting that a black hole is some sort of conscious entity waiting in the background, planning to swallow up matter.

PhysicsQED:

No one said that there were no "causes." My point is about the position in time of apparent "causes" and "effects".

And the point of that excerpt is that the horizon grows because matter reaches it, but according to our ordinary thinking it should grow when the matter reaches it. But the horizon does so before the matter reaches it, putting the effect before the cause. The author (Thorne) is not asserting that a black hole is some sort of conscious entity waiting in the background, planning to swallow up matter.

Still discloses a cause, mate, pre or post.

Deep Sight:

Such only holds true for self existent things, my friend. Such as eternity, and its consequences.

As far as I can tell, eternity is a concept, not something existing or self-existing.

You should also note that there is a difference between the occurrence of events and the perception of occurrence of events.

This is not about perception, but occurrence.

Deep Sight:

Still discloses a cause, mate, pre or post.

Right. So how does that "defeat my postulation"?

Just to add, so you understand: somethings in nature occur because of a thing yet to occur. That in itself shows that the first "occurrent" thing had a cause: the future "occurrent" thing. A vague and crude example would be a woman developing milk in her breasts for a yet to be born baby. The fact is that the triggers were there for the yet to be born baby. Simples.

PhysicsQED:

Right. So how does that "defeat my postulation"?

As above. That there was already a pre-existent trigger for such a happening. Obviously.

PhysicsQED:

As far as I can tell, eternity is a concept, not something existing or self-existing.

O, so do you assert that eternity exists only in our minds?

Tell me that.

This is not about perception, but occurrence.

And you know this while observing from perception?

Deep Sight:
Just to add, so you understand: somethings in nature occur because of a thing yet to occur. That in itself shows that the first "occurrent" thing had a cause: the future "occurrent" thing. A vague and crude example would be a woman developing milk in her breasts for a yet to be born baby. The fact is that the triggers were there for the yet to be born baby. Simples.

This is a bad comparison.

I'm not a gynecologist and I don't think you are either, but it seems obvious here that hormonal changes of some kind would bring about lactation in a woman's b.reasts because of the pregnancy itself. In other words you can go back in time and say that the fertilization of her eggs is the root cause for the lactation.


My point was that ruling out the "first cause" or "prime mover," whether that prime mover is a God like entity or not, on the basis of it needing a prior cause may not necessarily the case. Basically I disagree with the assumptions underlying the argument of the opening post of this thread.

PhysicsQED:

This is a bad comparison.

O NO, on close examination, it is not.

I'm not a gynecologist and I don't think you are either, but it seems obvious here that hormonal changes of some kind would bring about lactation in a woman's b.reasts because of the pregnancy itself. In other words you can go back in time and say that the fertilization of her eggs is the root cause for the lactation.

The example seeks to show you the absurdity in what you say: no horizon will mysteriously rise to meet something without an impetus: the fact remains that you may not have observed the physical attractions that would have caused such: and not that it was uncaused: or preceded its cause. Such is illogic, my friend.

My point was that ruling out the "first cause" or "prime mover," whether that prime mover is a God like entity or not, on the basis of it needing a prior cause may not necessarily the case. Basically I disagree with the assumptions underlying the argument of the opening post of this thread.

If you disagree with the OP's conclusions from ex nihilo nihil fit, then we are on the same page.

But it seems to me that you seek to say that causal relations may not be as we perceive them. This is fine. So long as we acknowledge that causal relations DO exist in the finite and contingent realm.

Deep Sight:

O, so do you assert that eternity exists only in our minds?

Tell me that.

It's just a mental abstraction for now as far as I can tell. Do you have evidence of it existing?

And you know this while observing from perception?

No. But I see no reason to assume that cause would precede effect when another formulation can be constructed quite well without need of that hypothesis.

PhysicsQED:

It's just a mental abstraction for now as far as I can tell. Do you have evidence of it existing?

Lol. What are we existing in. What is the universe existing in. What is everything existing in.

No. But I see no reason to assume that cause would precede effect when another formulation can be constructed quite well without need of that hypothesis.

Yeah, no reason that cause would precede effect? And you want me not to regard you as some herbalist or shaman? Be scientific, for crying out loud.

LAAAAWWWWD!

I am quite tipsy on whisky and have alot of work tomorrow. . . so gnite.

I will. revert. . .

But seriously, you guys are far worse than the religionists. . .

Deep Sight:
The example seeks to show you the absurdity in what you say: no horizon will mysteriously rise to meet something without an impetus: the fact remains that you may not have observed the physical attractions that would have caused such: and not that it was uncaused: or preceded its cause. Such is illogic, my friend.

The point of the example is that claims about what constitutes the "normal" sequence of events are ultimately based on assumptions which have not been proven to be superior to all other assumptions.

And I already discussed this in that other thread, but if you view things from the perspective of a positron and if a positron is in fact an electron going "backwards" through time, then "effects" precede "causes." I don't see why the same couldn't be the case here.

I did not say the change in the horizon was uncaused. I said the "effect" would be actualized before the "cause." Has it occurred to you that a black hole is so strange an object that it could possibly surmount supposedly normal temporal restrictions on its behavior?

Deep Sight:

Lol. What are we existing in. What is the universe existing in. What is everything existing in.

You impose an eternal external timeline on the universe with no evidence. Why is this idea so necessary for you?

PhysicsQED:

The point of the example is that claims about what constitutes the "normal" sequence of events are ultimately based on assumptions which have not been proven to be superior to all other assumptions.

And I already discussed this in that other thread, but if you view things from the perspective of a positron and if a positron is in fact an electron going "backwards" through time, then "effects" precede "causes." I don't see why the same couldn't be the case here.

I did not say the change in the horizon was uncaused. I said the "effect" would be actualized before the "cause." Has it occurred to you that a black hole is so strange an object that it could possibly surmount supposedly normal temporal restrictions on its behavior?

Nah, nansense. . . . hic, hic.

But will discuss, hic, hic, tomorrow.

Hic, hic, dont't agree. Hic. . .hic, this whiskey is strong.

Later bro.

Yeah, later.

PhysicsQED:
then "effects" precede "causes."

Causes, nonethelss. Hic, hic. Goodnite bro.

jayriginal:

Deep Sight : The oneness of infinity. An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence.
Plaetton: Pure energy which only changed form, birthing the Universe as we know it and which is indestructable.

Wahala !!

It's already been said, this is a winner. Looks to me like someone's but.t rap.ing ockam's razor. We agree there must have been something, we agree casuality need not work intuitively, well, maybe not?
me: "There's some theist online who points out supposing some item had existed forever and said item causes a permament effect, that effect too must have existed forever too."
deep sight: "I hear you on this. With reference to the bolded, yes, some things may have existed forever, but this universe demonstrably has not. As such, this specific universe cannot be said to be a permanent effect. "

Except we aren't talking about this universe, we are wildly speculating about pre-big b.ang conditions. Seems to me like you want to add properties to this era that would widely complicate things, just because. A simpler explanation like plaetton's, which could involve simple and naturally evolved programming, like the "game of life" but a version for said universe, matter/energy rearranging itself constantly, (there are reasons it's taken billions of years in this for planets to form in this universe, and even with their now apparent ubiquity we still can't seem to locate intelligent life anywhere else: it involves a hell of a lot of chance, similar to evolution but not really the same in it's details, not a very efficient way for an "intelligence" to operate, this among other options I've not come across or thought about) would do, but suddenly, "An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence". Why?

jayriginal:
Interesting question. If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that the Universe did have a cause, however, that cause was mechanical or physical in nature, perhaps pure energy; in short, the cause was devoid of intelligence and consciousness. would you call it god ? (A hypothetical question but should bring up interesting responses).

Yeah, an interesting situation, should it arise. And I would guess the same thing as you, people will call it God, because it makes them feel better and it will also solve the "gaps" in knowledge (hopefully we always these else it will get real boring imo, I know that's selfish of me).

Edit: clarity

jayriginal: I'd like to state clearly what I perceive to be the problem. Before I do so, I'd like to state that the stances between Plaetton and Deep Sight seem to be similar. The obvious difference is that Plaetton does not assign any properties to "god", whereas Deep Sight gives his god many qualities, intelligence and consciousness being a sample.

Now the topic is a question.
I'd like to modify it slightly to bring out what I think is the true intention.

For the sake of argument, if we assume that the premise that nothing comes from nothing is true, does that refute god's existence ?

On one side, it is argued that
1)Nothing comes from nothing.
2)We know there is something (we exist for example).
3)That means there has always been something (because if there was a time when there was nothing, then something would never have emerged).

The issue is what that something is, and how it can be if we accept the first premise.
This is a problem cos we need to know where that something comes from since it cannot come from nothing (remember, we are all accepting this premise for arguments sake).

The theist/deist proponents call that something "God", which ordinarily should not exist since it cannot come from nothing and if it came from something, it cannot be god (also we must necessarily keep going backwards to investigate the origin of something).

To resolve this problem, god is allowed to be self existent/not needing a beginning or creation or cause. The opposition shouts foul. This is ad hoc reasoning and is only employed to save the theory that something cannot emerge from nothing. One might as well say of a blind person, "Mr X sees very well except when he doesnt".

There is nothing preventing anyone from resolving this problem in any other way such as saying nothing comes from nothing except the first time it happened. In other words, we make a general rule and save it from its fallibility by creating an excuse.

Now it is one thing to accept the first premise for arguments sake and its quite another to argue that something can come from nothing. It was caezar who acknowledged that the first premise is difficult at best to prove/disprove (which made me think there was hope for him), and this is quite true.

So far, I believe everyone has accepted (for the sake of argument) that nothing comes from nothing. God which is something, cannot exist since it cannot come from nothing (some solve this by bestowing self existence on god). But wait, says Caezar, it also invalidates our existence since we cannot come from nothing and we clearly exist, so in the long run, there must have been something. In other words, if there was nothing, there would always have been nothing since (for the sake of argument) nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was something and that something did not come from nothing, rather it was always there. So what was that something ?

Deep Sight : The oneness of infinity. An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence.
Plaetton: Pure energy which only changed form, birthing the Universe as we know it and which is indestructable.

Wahala !!

If we follow the trail to the end and if we accept the conclusion then that some self existing thing/concept existed then we are left with the problem of WHAT? And how can the "what" be verified?

Why is there a need to assign qualities of intelligence and consciousness to this god (this after "saving" it from the brink of non existence by an ad hoc postulation)?

Interesting question. If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that the Universe did have a cause, however, that cause was mechanical or physical in nature, perhaps pure energy; in short, the cause was devoid of intelligence and consciousness. would you call it god ? (A hypothetical question but should bring up interesting responses).




Bear in mind that the foregoing argument is hardly relevant to reality. Whatever is, is. No matter how much we want something to be, it wont if it isnt. No matter how "logical" our arguments are, it has no bearing on reality. If we could learn things just by "thinking" about them, we would have no electron microscopes, no Large Halidron Coliders, no sensitive telescopes etc.
We could all just sit down and come with what works best for us and leave it at that. Nature in no way has to pander to our notions.

Lovely post.

I need to add, once again, that Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit works perfectly as a rule to be applied to our observable universe. But it breaks down completely when you start applying it to eternal, ineffable entities or concepts. For instance, can you apply Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit on itself? On existence? I know I sound absurd, there is a point at which language becomes insufficient for communication, but the idea is that there are things that cannot simply be physically quantified; can't be grasped. For instance, has anyone ever successfully held energy in their hands? (I don't mean the potential energy in your arms O). Can you say "see my own Kilojoule right here"?

I do not want to say too much and thereby detract from the beauty of your post. However, one last thing:

I have no problem with the scientific process. It helps us refine the observations we make with our natural senses. But science must also accept that it has limitations. For instance, I read somewhere recently, talk of building a collider as large as the Milky Way - obviously impossible - in order to validate a hypothesis. This is absurdly silly. Build a galaxy to validate a theory of the universe No! At some point, experiments are not sufficient. With the proper discipline we CAN build whole universes in our minds.

plaetton:

Mr jayriginal:
This is an award winner. You have outdone yourself this time.

I hv advised my friend Deepy to eat the humble pie and say the magic words " I don't know yet or I don't understand yet".
Our new friend, Caezar, has already taken that honourable path.

If you refer to my post about eternity, please note that it referred [b]only [/b]to eternity! And my words were:

caezar:

It is a difficult question to address. I intuitively grasp that eternity must exist and is uncaused... But obviously, you are not asking for mere intuition. And since we are discussing in the presence of the eternally skeptic, I feel obligated to ground my intuition on reasoned logic.

Therefore, I do not know... I am contemplating.

wiegraf:
A simpler explanation like plaetton's, which could involve simple and naturally evolved programming, like the "game of life", matter rearranging itself constantly.

You forget that game of life was programmed that way!

Kay 17:
All existing entities are self existent, SINCE they don't owe their origin to nothingness.

Come on! Are you claiming that you are not a different entity from cow dung? Because, by your above claim, when one entity goes out of existence and another comes into existence as a by product of the first entity, the second entity and the first are still one self-existent entity! Existence and self-existence are different things!

Kay 17:
Eternity invokes a logical absurdity of infinite time.

Finite time is the more absurd concept. What would be before and after this time? Actually, even that question is absurd as that implies eternal time. Thus can you see how absurd finite time is?

Kay 17:
The popular First Cause is an overstretched, exaggerated with unnecessary qualities like consciousness and intelligence.

These qualities are not unnecessary. They become obvious and necessary once you ponder the full implications of the universe as a perfect black box.

Lord Babs: I've read all comments and accompanied with a pitiable laughter at most. It's unfortunate there isn't a luxury of time on my end to reply all, due to some pressing matters. There have been bulky insertions, assertions, assumptions, conjectures, fallacies and fantasies. Forgive me if i can't respond to all. First, on the issue of eternity, it falls under the category of fantasy and fallacy(red herring-deviation)...how far can you prove there is eternity? What is the concern of this thread with eternity stuff? Back on the status quo, the proponents of 'self-existence' have only succeeded in demonstrating their clownish feats, because their arguments are verily contradictory to the underlying maxim, serving as the basis of this argument. The only stronghold of these theistic stance rests on the so-called 'self-existence'; that is their only straw. A Self-existent entity is not within the province of reality. Far be it! We talk of energy, we talk of reality, we talk of photosynthesis, that is real; we talk of causality, that in itself is reality. What the h'ell is infinity?! And what the f**k is self-existence?! Are these 2 part of reality? NO! Can they be empirically proven? NO! The truth is that, you don't create what has no beginning and call it a creation/creator/something: it is overly precipitous, fictitious and dubious. Again, EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT (OUT OF NOTHING COMES NOTHING) is a saying, which if applied correctly, means for something to exist, there must be something. Which instantly translates that if God is to be regarded as 'something', then 'it' must have come from 'something'. This is a primary school logic! Lol! I don't understand how it is hard to understand. The major problem of theistic advocates is their obsession with INORDINATE INQUISITION. . .a deliberate, misguided and subconscious foray into the realm of infinity, in which they themselves don't officially subscribe to. Trying to reason outside the box is an untenable fallacy indeed. Nontheless, I'm sincerely impressed by the intelligent and unintelligent responses of everyone(including myself). I'll try and find more time to descend wonderfully to this arena sooner. Thanks.

You overwhelm me with gibberish.

Try to use paragraphs. That way, even if your statements are as nonsensical as the above, I can consume them one piece at a time.

wiegraf: Ugh, phone
@deep sight
"Nothing defies logic, my friend. God is the sum of all logic."
Vague. What can the sum of all logic do? Add the bits that suit it and subtract others? Does it do it consciously? You can infer that it is the sum of all logic, how? You can't tell if it's sentient?


"We might decide that there wasn't any singularity. The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time."
Stephen Hawking

If a hypothesis is beyond your grasp that does not mean it is nonsense, especially when it is the most popular among the candidates for that particular problem. The problem might be you. I make it clear I'm bouncing ideas as well. You've been taking a piss on both science and logic for a while now, you are freely redefining space, time to fit your needs. When you are asked to clarify, you obfuscate by divining more properties. If we took your attitude this would probably have been over long ago.

"Exactly: it is that very logical necessity of God that the athiest fails to grasp."
So, for the both of you, lucidly if you will, what exactly have we not grasped? Can you do it with diagrams and s-l-o-w-l-y, as you can see I'm no match for your awesome

I am astounded by your ability to throw out strong scientific concepts and claim that to be science.

You are no match for any awesome.