[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Basically, that's unknown. As Tyler pointed out, if we go back in time far enough our models break down. We don't truly know what there was before the big bang. Therefore we can't conclude that there was nothing. At some point there was something, but we so far we only have speculation about what came before.

Actually, whilst I have a great desire to try and understand and deduce what was before the Big Bang I'd like to argue that we'll never be able to do more than speculate what was before... Sad as it is

As can be seen however I'm generally more pessimistic towards the theist explanation, albeit I'm not overly stubborn about it. I do realize that it could be "the" explanation.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

It's not that simple because it doesn't explain how that randomness occurs. As you said, in effect it's the same as the God argument; it obfuscates rather than explaining. Neither argument contributes to our understanding.

Ah, of course. Nice of you to notice. So listen, I have two possible universes (both with their possible subhappenings and "explanations" and whathaveyou, whatever people want to throw in there):
Finite
Infinite
Would anyone like to argue that there's an inbetween? That'd be awesome because I've never figured out anything inbetween Okay, so the infinite universe to begin with...
Time and space always exists and always have. The Big Bang and Big Crunch which happens infinitely many times in this infinitely long and infinitely "big" universe continously removes all evidence of there ever being a time or space before - that is to say we only see what is after the Big Bang and then the Big Crunch comes and takes that away - repeat. That is the only way to explain infinity in scientific terms because we have to take into consideration that we have observations that prove that Big Bang has happened. But... of course there's a reason why so little people believe in an infinite universe, and that's because we also have observations that the universe is expanding, oh my...
A good question is; in relation to what? How can a universe "expand", I mean, in relation to WHAT is it expanding?? People claim "nothingness", that which is between atoms as well, a "nothing". Well, if a "nothing" exist, and it arguably isn't the opposite of space, then shouldn't nothingness be able to be infinite, otherwise, what is beyond? And then we have the expanding universe in relation to the "other nothingness" outside? I guess that would make sense, otherwise we have the infamous "wall" that is the "stop" of the universe, and quite frankly that makes even less sense.
If there is one thing that I believe that a human can't do, then it surely must be to imagine infinity, please try it yourself, it IS impossible - because our minds are limited to our world; we will never be able to think infinity because we have NEVER observed it. From what I've been able to collect from other people, the thought of "infinity" is impossible, and maybe they are right. I wouldn't know, since I've never been able to grasp the concept and apply it...

So, about the finite universe then... Here we have several popular theories that try and explain the universe by space, so to speak, how it isn't infinite. Imagine that you're at the border of the universe (trying to prove this practically should be really hard since the universe is expanding faster than you can go in your spaceship, tadaa, hehe); even though you go straight forward, the universe BENDS you, so however you try you just going in your ol' universe. Or, imagine that you are going straight forward PAST the border, and you're at the OTHER side of the universe. No warp, no hokus-pokus, nothing of that sort - the other side is just there, and, you're just there. Inexplicable? Illogical? Remember, outside of the border of the expanding Big Bang, there should be no time nor space, so who's to say that this is impossible? If space is corrupt then it could very well mean you're at the other side. There are no "laws" over there that govern you. So, possible? Yes. Would science buy it? Probably not, I don't blame them for wanting concrete solutions to it all. Like randomness, and many other theories (read: God, haha, oh my, sorry, I am embarrassed, truly ) it sounds just like an excuse. But hey, if the premises are correct then the answer is rather logical, innit? I'm not saying I believe it but I won't dismiss it..
In general, the question about finity is not space, but it is time. Universe cannot always have existed, can it? So the opposite, must be that universe is finite. It had a beginning, to ask for something before the beginning is to ask for something which surely we all know cannot be observed or calculated - like Big Bang theorists say, why bother? "It will all just be speculations anyway and according to our theory there wasn't anything before the Big Bang."
But people don't buy this, they want a cause, an explanation, a main argument is the law of energy conservation, remember? How can nothing create something? The scientists,? they say: Randomness

People won't buy an infinite universe, nor a finite universe, nor randomness as an explanation. And I don't blame them, I actually agree it doesn't explain it in a satisfactionable way from all views.

To finish, mind if we get a little philosophical? Have you ever played with the idea that the universe HAD to exist? Hm, have you? I mean, if you're denying that then you shouldn't exist, should you? Obviously it DID happen, so what if it just had to? No cause, no begininng - no "then it was there", but rather "there it is". The Big Bang wasn't in relation to anything, no "before" and no "cause", not even randomness! Imagine that there are two alternatives, let us make this real simple for us:
1. The universe exists
2. The universe doesn't exist
No inbetween, no cause in either, no randomness in either, one of them just HAD to be - there are NO more alternatives. And I am 100% confident on this. Don't you agree? "The universe exists" isn't in relation to anything resembling time, no cause, remember - it just IS.
Or, the universe doesn't exist. Let me quote this webpage:

Originally Posted by Webpage

We cannot imagine nothingness, that is, if we are referring to a nothing prior to existence. We can describe the type of nothing that is common in our lives, the nothing that we encounter everyday. There is nothing here or there. There is nothing to talk about. There is nothing in the refrigerator. That type of nothing is something empty, something lacking substance, something uniform or plain or simple. But the other nothing that is prior to existence is a special case in terms of semantics and meaning. By definition, words simply can’t describe it, so it is different than everything else that we define with words and everything else imaginable.

Please read the rest of the webpage for at least an interesting thought on the subject. A non-existence, by its very definition; cannot exist! "Nothing prior to existence" just cannot be. Dare I draw another one of my scary conclusions? The universe HAD to exist. That's it, search is over, if it had to exist there doesn't have to be a cause, it just is there. This cannot be explained by science, sadly, but logically, doesn't it make sense?

Wow, okay, tell me if you found something wrong with this analysis. I will happily read through that.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe.

Um, what slight deviations? If you mean the relation between Earth and Sun, water-conditions, and those circumstances, then you are most utterly being assumptive. I'm not saying I have proof but the likelihood of there being no other life in the universe except for on Earth, from an objective reality scientific view is about null.

Please clarify.