There wasn't yet a where for it to occur (as the singularity created space-time). As to why a transition occurred creating the universe, that's the big question, can't say I know the answer to that. That's then next big question.

There is always a point at which knowledge gives way, to the unknown.

For the record, I don't reject the possibility of a 'god', only that of the god presented by Religion and the cases made by those faiths. Divinity is a metaphysical debate, and as such is an argument about abstract associated concepts, rather than quantifiable qualities.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2015 9.01pm)

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say this is the thread where we've all most over exceeded our knowledge (me included).

If you look back through this thread there's some stunning examples of people making assertions that they do not possibly have the intelligence to make.

Opinions are ok, but realistically, only a few hundred people in the world really understand this stuff. So let's not pretend that we do.

If anyone on this thread disagrees with the above, I'm happy to hear your individual credentials on quantum physics/ theology/ astrophysics.

My guess is this whole board could not sum up a single PhD on any of the above subjects. But, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Well if religion in basic terms (not the great big organised power type movement you despise) is about discovering the meaning of a creator and possible intelligent design, then you should pay religious people more respect.

If a creator cannot be disproved then theology and science should be separate fields of study. I'm not talking really about creation stories and whatnot which are to a lot of people allegorical anyway. Or the stories recorded in religious texts like the bible themselves.
What I refer to is theology and that study of God which is not simply based on records or myths from these books.

I don't think you really understand religion. It is driven exactly towards forming theology and the vast majority of religion's members and serving members are not wealthy, cruel and plotting lunatics looking to control,laughing raucously as they do it.

Most religions and in my direct knowledge mainstream Christianity preach a code of love for others and respect for other peoples' beliefs. Richard Dawkins and others have rejected the notion of Islamophobia but they fail to notice fundamental good principles such as the need to give alms.

Nowhere do I see principles of love and alms giving being promoted by atheist humanists and certainly not respect. It is simply that because their views differ sharply from those who are religious, atheist humanists aim to provoke and mock the religious and religions with labels of brainwashing and human rights failure. You write of sin and guilt festering within cruel, damning religions.

But nothing that comes out of the atheist camp is really that positive at all, rather an 'in your face' position. An ironic reversal it seems of the high horse position. Of course because the atheist humanist position is based on a realist, scientifically proven background, they have every right to be offensive, disrespectful and undignified. Or not.

Promote peace and respect.

Yes.
There are sciolists here, as there are in many places....