The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[redhorse1L]

Please clarify. Is god falsifiable or not? Are your assumptions falsifiable or not? Can you prove* your assumptions or not?

*proof, not analogies

I don't know what proof you're expecting.
If you're expecting a spectral analysis that shows a pattern of God's hands, that would be ridiculous.

Di ba ni-ingon naman ko:
Please remember that my stand does not rely on God as NOT falsifiable.
What my stand is, that there are good reasons why I believe in a Creator that is beyond our natural world.

1. The beginning of the Universe from nothing points on a Creator that is beyond space and time.
From my previous posts, I already provided the Cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (of course, something cannot come from nothing)
2. The universe began to exist.
The Beginning of Time
WMAP- Age of the Universe
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So, what was this cause?
This cause must be uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial Being. It must not be bound space and time, or else, it would have a beginning, and therefore, had a cause for its existence.
Now this supernatural cause, is what we call God.

How can this be falsified? If there are good naturalistic explanation that the Universe is uncaused, existed eternally, or came out from nothing.

2. The fine tuning of the Universe dictates an Intelligent Designer.
The laws of physics are extremely fine tuned to permit the existence of matter, much less, the existence of biological life forms. For some of these physical laws, a change of as little as 1 part in 10^37 (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0) would prevent the universe from ever containing any kind of life.
If you believe that the fine tuning of the Universe is merely by chance, it would be virtually impossible for all quantities and constants just to come up in order to support life.
Just imagine a football stadium full of dice. You toss the dice all at once and expect to have all the dice face to 1.

For example, if the gravitational force constant is larger than usual, the stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller, then the stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
Or if the expansion rate of the universe is larger, no galaxies would be formed. If smaller, the universe would collapse, even before a star is formed.

As what physicist Paul Davies stated: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.

How can this be falsified? If there are good naturalistic explanation that the fine-tuning of the universe happened by chance.

3. The presence of Life considering a lifeless Universe demands a Giver of Life.
Attempts to produce small living cells from inorganic matter disappoints scientists. They just all end up a dead chemical compound.

Here are some quotes from scientists.
"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley). (1
"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of Ribonucleic acid: a chemical that directs the manufacture of proteins and sometimes codes for the genetic material within certain organisms.RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication." (Leslie Orgel)
'There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and Relating to the earth science study of fossil organisms and their related remains.paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going." Niles Eldridge (paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History).

How can this be falsified? If there are good naturalistic explanation that we can create life from lifeless chemical compounds.

[schmuck]

1. Firstly, the assumption of this argument is wrong. Not everything requires cause. It has been found that a photon scatters in a totally random direction, requiring NO CAUSE for it to take the direction that it did. Secondly, provided a natural explanation on the universe, whats keeping you from claiming that god was somehow behind this natural cause? Again, reverting back to the falsifiability of this line of thinking.

2. Theoretical physicists will tell you, that our universe was not "fined-tuned"(implying that someone was behind the scene tweaking stuff). We just won the lottery. Why? Because there might be countless other universes where these "fined-tuned" constants have totally different values from ours. A universe that is all electricity, or one that is very hot, or all light or even universes so unstable they would collapse. We are just lucky, we are in this universe.
And I put "fine-tuned" in quotes because the universe is anything but "fine-tuned".
I give you Neil Tyson, one of my favorite scientists. YouTube - Fine Tuned Universe ? (Neil Tyson,Leading Astrophysicist)
Still think the universe is "fine-tuned"?

3. Firstly, organic materials are not that hard to find or are unique to earth. They have been found on comets and asteroids. They are that abundant. Secondly, scientists have been able to construct DNA material using chemicals and using a computer to code the sequence. These are just baby steps and more progress is expected. So, what happens to your argument that organic material(e.g. DNA) can't be created from "lifeless" chemicals?

As always, don't take my word for it. Look it up and judge for yourself

PS. kapoya type ani balik oi, naa naman unta ni sa S&O saona. You're arguments are nothing new and have been previously debunked before.

[redhorse1L]

1. Firstly, the assumption of this argument is wrong. Not everything requires cause. It has been found that a photon scatters in a totally random direction, requiring NO CAUSE for it to take the direction that it did. Secondly, provided a natural explanation on the universe, whats keeping you from claiming that god was somehow behind this natural cause? Again, reverting back to the falsifiability of this line of thinking.

2. Theoretical physicists will tell you, that our universe was not "fined-tuned"(implying that someone was behind the scene tweaking stuff). We just won the lottery. Why? Because there might be countless other universes where these "fined-tuned" constants have totally different values from ours. A universe that is all electricity, or one that is very hot, or all light or even universes so unstable they would collapse. We are just lucky, we are in this universe.
And I put "fine-tuned" in quotes because the universe is anything but "fine-tuned".
I give you Neil Tyson, one of my favorite scientists. YouTube - Fine Tuned Universe ? (Neil Tyson,Leading Astrophysicist)
Still think the universe is "fine-tuned"?

3. Firstly, organic materials are not that hard to find or are unique to earth. They have been found on comets and asteroids. They are that abundant. Secondly, scientists have been able to construct DNA material using chemicals and using a computer to code the sequence. These are just baby steps and more progress is expected. So, what happens to your argument that organic material(e.g. DNA) can't be created from "lifeless" chemicals?

As always, don't take my word for it. Look it up and judge for yourself

PS. kapoya type ani balik oi, naa naman unta ni sa S&O saona. You're arguments are nothing new and have been previously debunked before.

1. Firstly, the assumption of this argument is wrong. Not everything requires cause. It has been found that a photon scatters in a totally random direction, requiring NO CAUSE for it to take the direction that it did. Secondly, provided a natural explanation on the universe, whats keeping you from claiming that god was somehow behind this natural cause? Again, reverting back to the falsifiability of this line of thinking.

Please read my previous statements:
Whatever BEGINS to EXIST has a cause.
We are talking about the existence of SOMETHING from NOTHING. I'm not talking about who's pushing what.

Now you might want to say: "Aha! But the quantum physics says!..."
Sorry, but you cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.

Were you able to refute my argument? Nope.

2. Theoretical physicists will tell you, that our universe was not "fined-tuned"(implying that someone was behind the scene tweaking stuff). We just won the lottery. Why? Because there might be countless other universes where these "fined-tuned" constants have totally different values from ours. A universe that is all electricity, or one that is very hot, or all light or even universes so unstable they would collapse. We are just lucky, we are in this universe.
And I put "fine-tuned" in quotes because the universe is anything but "fine-tuned".
I give you Neil Tyson, one of my favorite scientists. YouTube - Fine Tuned Universe ? (Neil Tyson,Leading Astrophysicist)
Still think the universe is "fine-tuned"?

So again, you believe on the multiverse hypothesis? Like I've told you, a multiverse is NOT plausible.
Neil Tyson is only talking how dangerous the Universe outside earth is.
What I'm saying, is that, the Universe is FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE, most especially for Intelligent Life.

Without those massive collisions and explosions, LIFE on Earth could not simply exist.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Those are not my favorite scientists, I wonder why we have the same outlook.

Does your argument falsify my claims? I don't think so.

3. Firstly, organic materials are not that hard to find or are unique to earth. They have been found on comets and asteroids. They are that abundant. Secondly, scientists have been able to construct DNA material using chemicals and using a computer to code the sequence. These are just baby steps and more progress is expected. So, what happens to your argument that organic material(e.g. DNA) can't be created from "lifeless" chemicals?
As always, don't take my word for it. Look it up and judge for yourself
Sorry, I don't buy it. DNA is just a set of blueprints.
What we are talking here is a LIVING CELL from lifeless chemicals.
So what if they reconstructed a DNA? That's nothing new.

Was it able to falsify my claims? Unfortunately, NO!

PS. kapoya type ani balik oi, naa naman unta ni sa S&O saona. You're arguments are nothing new and have been previously debunked before.
Does this looked like debunked? kapoy sad answer balik2x bro.

[schmuck]

1. Firstly, the assumption of this argument is wrong. Not everything requires cause. It has been found that a photon scatters in a totally random direction, requiring NO CAUSE for it to take the direction that it did. Secondly, provided a natural explanation on the universe, whats keeping you from claiming that god was somehow behind this natural cause? Again, reverting back to the falsifiability of this line of thinking.

Please read my previous statements:
Whatever BEGINS to EXIST has a cause.
We are talking about the existence of SOMETHING from NOTHING. I'm not talking about who's pushing what.

Now you might want to say: "Aha! But the quantum physics says!..."
Sorry, but you cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.

Were you able to refute my argument? Nope.

2. Theoretical physicists will tell you, that our universe was not "fined-tuned"(implying that someone was behind the scene tweaking stuff). We just won the lottery. Why? Because there might be countless other universes where these "fined-tuned" constants have totally different values from ours. A universe that is all electricity, or one that is very hot, or all light or even universes so unstable they would collapse. We are just lucky, we are in this universe.
And I put "fine-tuned" in quotes because the universe is anything but "fine-tuned".
I give you Neil Tyson, one of my favorite scientists. YouTube - Fine Tuned Universe ? (Neil Tyson,Leading Astrophysicist)
Still think the universe is "fine-tuned"?

So again, you believe on the multiverse hypothesis? Like I've told you, a multiverse is NOT plausible.
Neil Tyson is only talking how dangerous the Universe outside earth is.
What I'm saying, is that, the Universe is FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE, most especially for Intelligent Life.

Without those massive collisions and explosions, LIFE on Earth could not simply exist.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Those are not my favorite scientists, I wonder why we have the same outlook.

Does your argument falsify my claims? I don't think so.

3. Firstly, organic materials are not that hard to find or are unique to earth. They have been found on comets and asteroids. They are that abundant. Secondly, scientists have been able to construct DNA material using chemicals and using a computer to code the sequence. These are just baby steps and more progress is expected. So, what happens to your argument that organic material(e.g. DNA) can't be created from "lifeless" chemicals?
As always, don't take my word for it. Look it up and judge for yourself
Sorry, I don't buy it. DNA is just a set of blueprints.
What we are talking here is a LIVING CELL from lifeless chemicals.
So what if they reconstructed a DNA? That's nothing new.

Was it able to falsify my claims? Unfortunately, NO!

PS. kapoya type ani balik oi, naa naman unta ni sa S&O saona. You're arguments are nothing new and have been previously debunked before.
Does this looked like debunked? kapoy sad answer balik2x bro.

1. How quickly you forget, that I hold the position that the universe has always existed. Therefore it did not "begin" to exist. It just expanded 14 billion years ago from a singularity that could always been there. I do not subscribe to the idea that the universe came from nothing.
Though you are right, in retrospect I was tackling the uncaused cause argument(because this is the justification that is used for a creator not need to be created).
Still I maintain that your argument is unfalsifiable. How can one prove there isn't this "Creator" outside space and time?

2. Multiple universes is a huge possibility as Theoretical Physics have the mathematics to back this up. It also explains why gravity is such a weak force compared to the other forces. It is theorized that the graviton particle is not bounded to 1 universe/brane. Thus its force is distributed to multiple branes making it weaker. Multiverse is more plausible than a bachelor Jew multiplying loaves of bread.

How many of those quote-mined scientists presented actually believe in the Theist god? How many of them are referring to Spinoza's god or a Pantheist god? Saying there is a god is as unscientific as saying there isn't. With that, their talk of god is merely opinion and nothing to do with there scientific backgrounds.

"the Universe is FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE, most especially for Intelligent Life."
Really? So you are willing to accept the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life? If yes, did Jesus come to save them too? If no, then the universe is not so "fined tuned" for life as you said it was after all.

There is no reason to suppose intentionality on this "fine tuning". It is an assumption to think that the "fine tuning" was done for our benefit. And again, you dismissed the multiverse view as NOT plausible without supplying any reason why.

3. DNA is nothing new? LOL that was just done merely 2 months ago.
Though yes you are right, not yet a full cell, but organic material. DNA, the building blocks of life at that. Hold your pants, synthetic cells are next. Now I'm thinking what the next creationist argument will be when synthetic cells are successfully made. hmm...

[hitch22]

schmuck, your arguments are right on the money.

The apologist's arguments at the start of the thread is very William Lane Craig-ey---the theologian who re-popularized the Kalam Cosmological Argument and mis-applied Big Bang cosmology to support it. If you think about it and go along with it for a while, you'll realize it's just another "God of the gaps" argument dressed up in new clothes.

Essentially, the thesis goes like this: Before the Big Bang, there was THE FIRST CAUSE...which of course they'd like to call God, the God they just happened to believe in. What a coincidence! Why is schmuck right on the money? Well, have we proven beyond reasonable doubt that our known universe is all there is? Remember what the word FIRST CAUSE means. Schmuck presented the possibility of multiple universes and higher dimensions. In light of these possibilities, whatever caused the Big Bang cannot be the FIRST CAUSE (because we still have other universes and other dimensions to account for). The statement that God was behind the 8-ball called the Big Bang also competes with these other hypothesis...and all of these hypothesis currently un-testable (or perhaps the LHC is one such attempt at simulating the beginning of the universe)...with God, of course, being eternally un-testable and un-falsifiable and can explain everything.

Just a digression, our current scientific picture of the beginning of the universe based on the Big Bang model goes only as far back as Planck time, a period when all four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were unified. At this point, particles of matter in its most fundamental form interacted through the medium of a single unified force. From there, it went downhill, as expansion took its course. Before Planck time, of course, is not known. All known laws of classical physics break down at the singularity. Whatever event we can think of about that "time" (if you can call it such...since there is no time zero) can only be speculative....until such time we can finally confirm a unified theory (of which, the String Theory currently seems to be the leading candidate).

Unless these apologists can (a) give a compelling reason to absolutely reject all of the competing cosmological hypothesis, and (b) give a conclusive reason to believe that no alternative hypothesis, conceived or otherwise, is viable, the Kalam Cosmological Argument will be nothing more than a philosophical curiosity.

Like I've said, these are BIG QUESTIONS. Science will say I don't know, but we're working on it. Religious apologists, on the other hand, will say "You don't know? I'll tell you the answer: GOD DID IT." And to come back full-circle...that's what you call the "God of the gaps" argument, once again.

* As I don't claim to be deeply knowledgeable on cosmology, I will defer to schmuck to correct any erroneous statements I made above regarding Big Bang and the current state of cosmology.

[treize]

Of course your relying on BLIND FAITH, what else can you describe about your Faith? NOT-BLIND FAITH? wahahaha.

You are believing in a GOD, that you NEVER SEE, and WILL NEVER SEE. Thats why you have a BLIND FAITH, because you believe in something you cannot SEE!

Thats why i urge you to leave FANTASY land of Angels with Wings and a Huge Kingdom in heaven sitting above the clouds. wahahahahahaha! mata na, mata na, ga damgo ra ka.

you're laughing about faith, yet you are relying on faith.. and I can prove that you are...

I've been very busy this week, got to go, just stop by to check my reservation.. I'll be back posting next week... so keep it coming..

[bungot25]

hahay. so many hoaxes this days!

[robert_papalid_ece]

and leading so far... mga Creationists! wohooooo! the existence of a Creator is still the "logical" choice... thanks to our team captain... redhorse1L... i'm just the mascot...

a lot of people might not like me for this... and by "a lot of people"... i meant 3-4...

for sure... bombahan na sad ko ani nila later...

God bless mga bros... and enjoy the rest of the day...

[necrotic freak]

^^hahahaha! ako lay gunner sa redhorse bro.

[redhorse1L]

1. How quickly you forget, that I hold the position that the universe has always existed. Therefore it did not "begin" to exist. It just expanded 14 billion years ago from a singularity that could always been there. I do not subscribe to the idea that the universe came from nothing.
Though you are right, in retrospect I was tackling the uncaused cause argument(because this is the justification that is used for a creator not need to be created).
Still I maintain that your argument is unfalsifiable. How can one prove there isn't this "Creator" outside space and time?

2. Multiple universes is a huge possibility as Theoretical Physics have the mathematics to back this up. It also explains why gravity is such a weak force compared to the other forces. It is theorized that the graviton particle is not bounded to 1 universe/brane. Thus its force is distributed to multiple branes making it weaker. Multiverse is more plausible than a bachelor Jew multiplying loaves of bread.

How many of those quote-mined scientists presented actually believe in the Theist god? How many of them are referring to Spinoza's god or a Pantheist god? Saying there is a god is as unscientific as saying there isn't. With that, their talk of god is merely opinion and nothing to do with there scientific backgrounds.

"the Universe is FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE, most especially for Intelligent Life."
Really? So you are willing to accept the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life? If yes, did Jesus come to save them too? If no, then the universe is not so "fined tuned" for life as you said it was after all.

There is no reason to suppose intentionality on this "fine tuning". It is an assumption to think that the "fine tuning" was done for our benefit. And again, you dismissed the multiverse view as NOT plausible without supplying any reason why.

3. DNA is nothing new? LOL that was just done merely 2 months ago.
Though yes you are right, not yet a full cell, but organic material. DNA, the building blocks of life at that. Hold your pants, synthetic cells are next. Now I'm thinking what the next creationist argument will be when synthetic cells are successfully made. hmm...

1.See what I mean? There should be an uncaused cause. The only problem with this eternal singularity is that it would, in some way, be subjected to space time dimension. Having an object in a form of matter or energy is subject to changes. Let's just say that singularity has been there for 500 trilion years, was there no activity going on? Now, how about an infinite past?
I think that singularity your talking is also beyond space and time (like God?)..

2. Remember on my Multiverse hypothesis and "God hypothesis"? Again, neither of these "hypotheses" are testable.

Based from your previously posted YouTube link, a Multiverse would consist of some sort of "Mother Universe" that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. Think about this, an infinite number of BigBangs! Wow, that would require an infinite energy to do that.
An uncaused cause, beyond space and time, with an infinite amount of energy (power) that made our Universe ... hhhhmmmmm..
It makes me think that it looks like God. The only difference is that the latter has intellect.

On the other hand, if our Universe would just be a small seed coming out from the "Mother Universe", would it not be in conflict with your stand that our Universe (in singularity) has always existed?

According to physicist Paul Davies:
"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

3. I don't know what you mean when you say "organic material". Organic matter is matter that has come from a once-living organism. If they created such DNA, then it is just an artificial one.
Talking about synthetic cells, I think you're referring to this:
It's alive! Artificial DNA controls life - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
There have been a lot synthetic stuffs made these days, and I don't think that would pose some
problems on my argument.

Of course there is a big difference between a synthetic and natural organisms.

"A most careful and universal research has proved beyond prudent doubt that all visible organisms
arise only from germs of the same kind and never from inorganic matter."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis