Oh I see, you're laboring under the illusion that separateness exists (outside of conceptual metaphor) and that in reality, the universe is not a unified field.
Good luck with that superstitious misapplication of pagan/Manichean spiritual concepts to real world.
I for one, wouldn't fly in any airplanes built using "Biblically correct engineering" or live near a nuke plant designed using "Christian quantum physics."
Godless empiricism for me, thanks.
No, logical tells me that nothing can only
create nothing. We now know that the universe is not eternally old. If it exists, it wasn't created by nothingness. My guess is only something that could break the law of conservation of energy could have brought our universe into existance. That eliminates the big bang and brings about serious flaws with your unified field theory.
Though I'm hoping this wouldn't turn into some religious/atheism debate, you do realize that the atheistic worldview is riddled with physiological issues, logical fallacies and inconsistencies. So I wouldn't start such a fight when standing on such weak ground myself.
Your main flawed assumption is that I claimed that "nothing" existed before the big bang. A good undergraduate astronomy class (or PBS special) can easily explain the fact that the big bang was the result of a symmetry collapse, where the grand unified force splintered into light, gravity, time, and Bitcoins (the Four Fundamental Forces).
Since time and perhaps causality began as a result of the big bang symmetry collapse, we may not be able to tell much about previous universes.
But that doesn't mean scientists claim 'sumptin' came from 'nuttin.'
Arguing about whether 'sumptin' can come from 'nuttin' is a perennial favorite discussion popular with the hick beer-can philosophers and slack-jawed yokels I grew up with, but not the scientists in my current peer group.
They think that the best most winning catch-all put down of science, empiricism, and modern cosmology is to herp, derp, and declare with all the certainty in the world that 'SUMPTIN CAIN'T COME FROM NUTTIN!!!1!
It's cute. Too bad they'll never appreciate the elegance and beauty of what the COBE background radiation and Hubbell's law are showing, to those of us with eyes open enough to see.
Physical cosmology, as a branch of astronomy, is the study of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its formation and evolution. For most of human history, it was a branch of metaphysics and religion. Cosmology as a science originated with the Copernican principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on Earth, and Newtonian mechanics, which first allowed us to understand those laws.
Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the twentieth century development of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity and better astronomical observations of extremely distant objects. These advances made it possible to speculate about the origin of the universe, and allowed scientists to establish the Big Bang Theory as the leading cosmological model. Some researchers still advocate a handful of alternative cosmologies; however, cosmologists generally agree that the Big Bang theory best explains observations.
Cosmology draws heavily on the work of many disparate areas of research in physics. Areas relevant to cosmology include particle physics experiments and theory, including string theory, astrophysics, general relativity, and plasma physics. Thus, cosmology unites the physics of the largest structures in the universe with the physics of the smallest structures in the universe.
Oh well, you can pick your nose but not your family....