Hmm, I like the everything exists as you see it because of occupying space, even if it is just mainly enery within something. However, this reminds me of something me and a friend talked about, where the main point was something only exists in that single moment of time that we are all a part of. After a second passes what was once there is replaced with what is now there carried through by momentum (of though, substance, percive this any way you wish) and the only proof of it being there before is memorys, which can really be false. So how do we know if time is even contiuous, or just one moment snapshoot to the next. Sorry if thats a bit OT, but I thought it fit.
Also, I like how we've already established science can't prove a negetive, and I feel like pointing out that by definition religion is having faith in something and faith is belief in something without proof. I don't think people with faith should have to justify to science something that by definition is lacking in proof. If we all had proof of god, I personally think this world would be much more boring. Likewise, science shouldn't have to spend to fighting something not even related to it, when there are so many things from science we can learn.
And next, to actually answer the question in the first post, something comeing from nothing, I think time was always in existance (actually more in the sense that when we don't think about anything so defined as being something that their is no time, realitivly) (and I also think it's immeasurable) but that the universe did start off with nothing but space, which is something (in my opinion, it is the most interesting thing in the universe actually, because it was a constant along with time, because time need space to have something to enact upon) and things just sort of evolve, even from nothing, as long as their isn't a lack of everything then something is always bound to go off-chart of the norm and create something new.
If anything here makes sense, let me know, if not, well, have fun.
Note: This post was well written befor scaredgirls post, so I'm kinda just ignoring it for now, other than to say this- there was reasearch done proving that early religions formed do to what illness's people had- which geographically factors affect-, and grouping with likewise people, who were all afraid of death. Nowaday, it's more geographical, but when it started it was just people trying to appease themselves of fear, like the same way we don't let a child know what death is, but they find an 'delusional' way to give themselves the same belief in a more grown-up way. Really quiet interesting, that relgion has it's base in biological factors.
To end this off... Next, seeing as how I don't know if a god is out their i'll say my imput on that matter- if it does exist, it's not the one written of in the bible, not something we could understand, and certainly not something we should try interperting to create mass killings. My opinion about the bible and the god in that book is a whole other matter (it should be noted I don't think any god exists)
This is fun.
http://www.evilbible.com/ <---not a link, just the adrsess. I love the view this has for three explanations of god in the bible. God is an evil sadist. God is not all powerful. God is not real. And eve with me having this veiwpoint, I don't care if god is really, bcause if it is and I get sent to hell while still being a decent perosn in life, that only proves god is prideful and idiotic, and if god is kind, then i have nothing to worry about.
Hmmm, on an actual last note, I have a saying about religion and church. "Religion is good for the person who does not go to church." And I only think that because no-one should be deprived of what gives the comfort, but tthen look at the churches track history.
.
