If I Shake my Fist at the Sky

[Derideo_Te]

Ultimately, if pressed long and hard enough, we ALL have to admit that either (a) something or someone has always existed, or (b) something came from nothing and without an antecedent cause.

Option (b) completely contradicts logic. Therefore (a) has to be assumed.

While your reasoning is sound it falls apart when you pose the question "How did all this begin?"

Oh?


... which I did not do...


I have no problem applying it to God, and never avoided doing so.


Incorrect. The biblical claim is God has no beginning, and the universe has a beginning.


The conclusion that there had to be a "beginning," is hardly a fallacious assumption. In fact, the Big Bang Theory is based on the same premise. Are you prepared to accuse anyone who buys into the Big Bang Theory of making a fallacious assumption?

Given that this is the question that the Christian bible attempts to answer on the first page it is taken as "gospel" by believers.

The bible doesn't "attempt" to answer how or when the Creator came about. It simply states that the universe was created. If there is a creator of this universe, all biblical claims related to creation are completely logical.

But it requires the suspension of critical thinking and denial of the laws of physics.

Not so. In fact, what does require a denial of the laws of physics is to claim that the universe sprang into existence without an antecedent cause.

Obviously I failed to make myself clear. Let me try once more. Can we agree that the singularity did not "spring into existence" since to do so would violate the laws of physics? Secondly the "Big Bang" was not the "beginning" of the entire universe but only the "beginning" of what WE know about the universe. The limitations of our knowledge as to what preceded the Big Bang do not automatically equate to the existence of a "creator".

Which sets the stage for your question "How did all this begin?" We don't know what preceded the singularity but we do know that it existed and comprised of highly compressed matter/energy. This density would have created a massive distortion in the fabric of space/time. Since we cannot "see" beyond this event horizon we make the assumption that this was the "beginning" of space/time. However it was not the beginning of matter/energy since that had to already exist in order to form the singularity. We also have no idea how long it took for the singularity to form and reach that critical point of density that caused the Big Bang. We can only speculate and apply the known laws of physics to matter/energy and deduce from the law of conservation that matter/energy must have always existed in order to form the singularity in the first place. This is entirely consistent with the laws of physics and requires no "supernatural" intervention.

Your "antecedent cause" requires the existence of "supernatural" intervention in order to "create" the singularity and violates the laws of physics. It also requires the assumption that the "supernatural" has always existed. This is where the inconsistency comes into play regarding your

Ultimately, if pressed long and hard enough, we ALL have to admit that either (a) something or someone has always existed, or (b) something came from nothing and without an antecedent cause.

Option (b) completely contradicts logic. Therefore (a) has to be assumed.

While your reasoning is sound it falls apart when you pose the question "How did all this begin?"

Oh?


... which I did not do...


I have no problem applying it to God, and never avoided doing so.


Incorrect. The biblical claim is God has no beginning, and the universe has a beginning.


The conclusion that there had to be a "beginning," is hardly a fallacious assumption. In fact, the Big Bang Theory is based on the same premise. Are you prepared to accuse anyone who buys into the Big Bang Theory of making a fallacious assumption?

Given that this is the question that the Christian bible attempts to answer on the first page it is taken as "gospel" by believers.

The bible doesn't "attempt" to answer how or when the Creator came about. It simply states that the universe was created. If there is a creator of this universe, all biblical claims related to creation are completely logical.

But it requires the suspension of critical thinking and denial of the laws of physics.

Not so. In fact, what does require a denial of the laws of physics is to claim that the universe sprang into existence without an antecedent cause.

Obviously I failed to make myself clear. Let me try once more. Can we agree that the singularity did not "spring into existence" since to do so would violate the laws of physics? Secondly the "Big Bang" was not the "beginning" of the entire universe but only the "beginning" of what WE know about the universe. The limitations of our knowledge as to what preceded the Big Bang do not automatically equate to the existence of a "creator".

Which sets the stage for your question "How did all this begin?" We don't know what preceded the singularity but we do know that it existed and comprised of highly compressed matter/energy. This density would have created a massive distortion in the fabric of space/time. Since we cannot "see" beyond this event horizon we make the assumption that this was the "beginning" of space/time. However it was not the beginning of matter/energy since that had to already exist in order to form the singularity. We also have no idea how long it took for the singularity to form and reach that critical point of density that caused the Big Bang. We can only speculate and apply the known laws of physics to matter/energy and deduce from the law of conservation that the matter/energy must have always existed in order to form the singularity in the first place. This is entirely consistent with the laws of physics and requires no "supernatural" intervention.

Your "antecedent cause" requires the existence of "supernatural" intervention and violates the laws of physics. It also requires the assumption that the "supernatural" has always existed. This is where the inconsistency in your "How did all this begin?" question arises and that I am trying to address. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are actually saying. The question must be equally valid for both the universe and the "supernatural" for the sake of consistency. So what would be the antecedent cause for the existence of the "supernatural"?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

While your reasoning is sound it falls apart when you pose the question "How did all this begin?" Because if you only apply it to the physical universe you are neglecting to apply it equally to the supernatural entity. Either both have a beginning or neither of them do. For believers their deity has always existed. For Atheists the laws of physics state that matter/energy has always existed. Your question is based upon the fallacious assumption that there had to be a "beginning". Given that this is the question that the Christian bible attempts to answer on the first page it is taken as "gospel" by believers. But it requires the suspension of critical thinking and denial of the laws of physics.

So while your logic is sound in dismissing option (b) it makes an assumption in option (a) that has no basis in fact and pits it against one that does. Certainly believers are entitled to their faith and I will defend the right to those beliefs. But the facts as they stand today are irrefutable. We are only driving ourselves apart if we continue to try and impose our will on others to believe as we do. We need to respect each other enough to allow others their freedom to the point where it does not impinge on our own rights and vice versa.

I don't know about that.

The natural comes complete with natural laws. It comes with "Science" and it comes with us having an ability to measure it and mark it and hypothesize about it and test it.

The "supernatural," by definition, would not necessarily be bound by the natural laws.

IOW logic does not apply to the supernatural either which would explain some of the more bizarre aspects of the supernatural.

We don't know THAT, either.

There might be some "laws" that apply to the supernatural. But, not being part of the supernatural "world," we are likely just not able to discern such "laws" or understand them.

Also, there's this. When we (not me, I am not a physicist; but I go by what those smart guys and gals have reported) delve into the realm of certain quantum physics, the natural laws we think we understand seem to melt away.

For example, whatever it was that went "bang" at the time of the big bang seems to have winked into existence from nothing. That defies our understanding of natural scientific laws. It not only CREATED time and space, but it created both matter and energy. This despite the fact that one of the things we seem to believe we "know" about natural science is that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Thus, our incomplete grasp of natural law SEEMS to harbor, at its inception and roots, certain contradictions that sure seem to be beyond the "laws" of nature. Kind of supernatural.

 

[daws101]

If you shake your fist to the sky, make sure it's not during a thunderstorm

You might find the answer to your question sooner then you think

lol
!

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't know about that.

The natural comes complete with natural laws. It comes with "Science" and it comes with us having an ability to measure it and mark it and hypothesize about it and test it.

The "supernatural," by definition, would not necessarily be bound by the natural laws.

IOW logic does not apply to the supernatural either which would explain some of the more bizarre aspects of the supernatural.

We don't know THAT, either.

There might be some "laws" that apply to the supernatural. But, not being part of the supernatural "world," we are likely just not able to discern such "laws" or understand them.

Also, there's this. When we (not me, I am not a physicist; but I go by what those smart guys and gals have reported) delve into the realm of certain quantum physics, the natural laws we think we understand seem to melt away.

For example, whatever it was that went "bang" at the time of the big bang seems to have winked into existence from nothing. That defies our understanding of natural scientific laws. It not only CREATED time and space, but it created both matter and energy. This despite the fact that one of the things we seem to believe we "know" about natural science is that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Thus, our incomplete grasp of natural law SEEMS to harbor, at its inception and roots, certain contradictions that sure seem to be beyond the "laws" of nature. Kind of supernatural.

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

IOW logic does not apply to the supernatural either which would explain some of the more bizarre aspects of the supernatural.

We don't know THAT, either.

There might be some "laws" that apply to the supernatural. But, not being part of the supernatural "world," we are likely just not able to discern such "laws" or understand them.

Also, there's this. When we (not me, I am not a physicist; but I go by what those smart guys and gals have reported) delve into the realm of certain quantum physics, the natural laws we think we understand seem to melt away.

For example, whatever it was that went "bang" at the time of the big bang seems to have winked into existence from nothing. That defies our understanding of natural scientific laws. It not only CREATED time and space, but it created both matter and energy. This despite the fact that one of the things we seem to believe we "know" about natural science is that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Thus, our incomplete grasp of natural law SEEMS to harbor, at its inception and roots, certain contradictions that sure seem to be beyond the "laws" of nature. Kind of supernatural.

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

Oh? Really? Where do they "say" the singularity CAME from?

In fact, since I am not a scientist (according to rderp I may not even be an example of the 94% of non liberal Democrats who aren't scientists, since I am not even a Republican) and most certainly not a physicist much less a quantum physicist, my grasp on all this stuff is more akin to a freshman philosophy student trying to puzzle some shit out. But some bright people come to ask the very same type of questions that I keep bumping up against.

Check THIS out:

According to Big Bang proponents, when it occurred it created both space and time and everything that now inhabits the vast universe. There was NOTHING before it, not even what we would call "emptiness".

That being the case, where does the singularity come into the picture? EVERY explanation begins with the assumption that it was there. It existed, period. But saying it existed contravenes the very idea that there was nothing prior to the bang itself. If it DID exist prior to the bang, then the idea there was nothing prior is faulty reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

There are various attempts to explain the singularity theory, but there is no way to PROVE any of them. And any theory unproven remains just that- a theory. A theory is NOT a fact. It is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's an opinion at worst, an educated guess at best.

-- Where Did the "Singularity" that Caused the Big Bang Come From? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[Derideo_Te]

We don't know THAT, either.

There might be some "laws" that apply to the supernatural. But, not being part of the supernatural "world," we are likely just not able to discern such "laws" or understand them.

Also, there's this. When we (not me, I am not a physicist; but I go by what those smart guys and gals have reported) delve into the realm of certain quantum physics, the natural laws we think we understand seem to melt away.

For example, whatever it was that went "bang" at the time of the big bang seems to have winked into existence from nothing. That defies our understanding of natural scientific laws. It not only CREATED time and space, but it created both matter and energy. This despite the fact that one of the things we seem to believe we "know" about natural science is that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Thus, our incomplete grasp of natural law SEEMS to harbor, at its inception and roots, certain contradictions that sure seem to be beyond the "laws" of nature. Kind of supernatural.

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

Oh? Really? Where do they "say" the singularity CAME from?

In fact, since I am not a scientist (according to rderp I may not even be an example of the 94% of non liberal Democrats who aren't scientists, since I am not even a Republican) and most certainly not a physicist much less a quantum physicist, my grasp on all this stuff is more akin to a freshman philosophy student trying to puzzle some shit out. But some bright people come to ask the very same type of questions that I keep bumping up against.

Check THIS out:

According to Big Bang proponents, when it occurred it created both space and time and everything that now inhabits the vast universe. There was NOTHING before it, not even what we would call "emptiness".

That being the case, where does the singularity come into the picture? EVERY explanation begins with the assumption that it was there. It existed, period. But saying it existed contravenes the very idea that there was nothing prior to the bang itself. If it DID exist prior to the bang, then the idea there was nothing prior is faulty reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

There are various attempts to explain the singularity theory, but there is no way to PROVE any of them. And any theory unproven remains just that- a theory. A theory is NOT a fact. It is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's an opinion at worst, an educated guess at best.

-- Where Did the "Singularity" that Caused the Big Bang Come From? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

You and I are just amateurs at this but we do have a couple of things in our favor. Basic logic, the internet and an interest in figuring this out. Oh, and I almost forgot the duct tape. Moving on, when cosmologists use the term "nothing" it doesn't have the same literal meaning that you and I might assume. There was no "time" as we currently measure it but as you have stated yourself time is dependent upon the observer. There was no one to observe time prior to the big bang ergo there was "nothing" in cosmic terms. The term "big bang" is also misleading because we tend to think along the lines of Hollywood and massive explosions. The actual size of the singularity and what it comprised of are not absolutes. Give the inflation event the current thinking that it was almost pure energy in the form of compressed radiation. (That is my simplistic interpretation rather than the actual scientific explanation.) Again the cosmological definition of "nothing" refers to there being no matter as we understand it today but that is only because everything was in the form of "energy" instead. It is easier to imagine this as a "compressed ball of radiation" that suddenly expands in fractions of a second before it starts cooling and coalesces into matter. So the "nothing" is merely a vacuum of knowledge rather than literally nothing at all.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

Oh? Really? Where do they "say" the singularity CAME from?

In fact, since I am not a scientist (according to rderp I may not even be an example of the 94% of non liberal Democrats who aren't scientists, since I am not even a Republican) and most certainly not a physicist much less a quantum physicist, my grasp on all this stuff is more akin to a freshman philosophy student trying to puzzle some shit out. But some bright people come to ask the very same type of questions that I keep bumping up against.

Check THIS out:

According to Big Bang proponents, when it occurred it created both space and time and everything that now inhabits the vast universe. There was NOTHING before it, not even what we would call "emptiness".

That being the case, where does the singularity come into the picture? EVERY explanation begins with the assumption that it was there. It existed, period. But saying it existed contravenes the very idea that there was nothing prior to the bang itself. If it DID exist prior to the bang, then the idea there was nothing prior is faulty reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

There are various attempts to explain the singularity theory, but there is no way to PROVE any of them. And any theory unproven remains just that- a theory. A theory is NOT a fact. It is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's an opinion at worst, an educated guess at best.

-- Where Did the "Singularity" that Caused the Big Bang Come From? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

You and I are just amateurs at this but we do have a couple of things in our favor. Basic logic, the internet and an interest in figuring this out. Oh, and I almost forgot the duct tape. Moving on, when cosmologists use the term "nothing" it doesn't have the same literal meaning that you and I might assume. There was no "time" as we currently measure it but as you have stated yourself time is dependent upon the observer. There was no one to observe time prior to the big bang ergo there was "nothing" in cosmic terms. The term "big bang" is also misleading because we tend to think along the lines of Hollywood and massive explosions. The actual size of the singularity and what it comprised of are not absolutes. Give the inflation event the current thinking that it was almost pure energy in the form of compressed radiation. (That is my simplistic interpretation rather than the actual scientific explanation.) Again the cosmological definition of "nothing" refers to there being no matter as we understand it today but that is only because everything was in the form of "energy" instead. It is easier to imagine this as a "compressed ball of radiation" that suddenly expands in fractions of a second before it starts cooling and coalesces into matter. So the "nothing" is merely a vacuum of knowledge rather than literally nothing at all.

The DUCT TAPE!

YES!

Fucking LOVE the duct tape.

You are CLEARLY much smarter than I had previously assumed.



I'll get back to the balance of your post some other time. But not at this moment. This moment is for relishing.

Duct tape.

Bravo, sir.

Bravo.



Ok. One more thing. 10^-33 cm. Think SMALL. Very very small.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ok. Relishing done.

That very compressed energy/space/time/matter.

Where did "it" come from?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ok. Relishing done.

That very compressed energy/space/time/matter.

Where did "it" come from?

You are making a presumption that it had to "come from" somewhere. How about it always existed? Then we don't need anything "supernatural". The law of conservation is not violated if it always existed, right?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Awesome lightening and thunderstorms happening as I write.....

​

 

[skye]

Awesome lightening and thunderstorms happening as I write.....

​

There you go!

You see? ....Heaven is answering you after all!

 

[AVG-JOE]

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

Oh? Really? Where do they "say" the singularity CAME from?

In fact, since I am not a scientist (according to rderp I may not even be an example of the 94% of non liberal Democrats who aren't scientists, since I am not even a Republican) and most certainly not a physicist much less a quantum physicist, my grasp on all this stuff is more akin to a freshman philosophy student trying to puzzle some shit out. But some bright people come to ask the very same type of questions that I keep bumping up against.

Check THIS out:

According to Big Bang proponents, when it occurred it created both space and time and everything that now inhabits the vast universe. There was NOTHING before it, not even what we would call "emptiness".

That being the case, where does the singularity come into the picture? EVERY explanation begins with the assumption that it was there. It existed, period. But saying it existed contravenes the very idea that there was nothing prior to the bang itself. If it DID exist prior to the bang, then the idea there was nothing prior is faulty reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

There are various attempts to explain the singularity theory, but there is no way to PROVE any of them. And any theory unproven remains just that- a theory. A theory is NOT a fact. It is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's an opinion at worst, an educated guess at best.

-- Where Did the "Singularity" that Caused the Big Bang Come From? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

You and I are just amateurs at this but we do have a couple of things in our favor. Basic logic, the internet and an interest in figuring this out. Oh, and I almost forgot the duct tape. Moving on, when cosmologists use the term "nothing" it doesn't have the same literal meaning that you and I might assume. There was no "time" as we currently measure it but as you have stated yourself time is dependent upon the observer. There was no one to observe time prior to the big bang ergo there was "nothing" in cosmic terms. The term "big bang" is also misleading because we tend to think along the lines of Hollywood and massive explosions. The actual size of the singularity and what it comprised of are not absolutes. Give the inflation event the current thinking that it was almost pure energy in the form of compressed radiation. (That is my simplistic interpretation rather than the actual scientific explanation.) Again the cosmological definition of "nothing" refers to there being no matter as we understand it today but that is only because everything was in the form of "energy" instead. It is easier to imagine this as a "compressed ball of radiation" that suddenly expands in fractions of a second before it starts cooling and coalesces into matter. So the "nothing" is merely a vacuum of knowledge rather than literally nothing at all.

Two things...

1. Time is not dependent on the observer, it is however measured by the observer.

Time marches on whether or not a Monkey checks his watch daily, or religiously X's her calendar.

Time marches on whether or not Monkeys exist, truth be told.​

2. Origins don't matter, because here we are.


I you boys for your up and coming intellectual endeavor, and I look forward to the discussion, but in the context of the questions "Is there a God?" and, if so, "Who is God?", origins don't matter, because there's no disputing the fact that we're here.

Question one is 'Could all THIS have happened without a God?'
Question two is 'if God is, which God is God?'



AVG-Answers:
1) Yes. All this could be a result of gravity and "Shit Happens."
2)

If there is a God, who He/She/It is remains a solid, unprovable mystery, especially if human generated evidence is considered only carefully.


Could the God of Abraham be real? I'm sure He was to Abraham... we've all felt that voice.

It's possible, but the historical evidence of the human search for the Divine suggests otherwise.


Outside of the words crafted by human hands, the only Divine consistency in our sordid history as a species is a distinct lack of the Divine, both in the physical world and reflected in the behavior of His supposed crowning achievement: Monkeys.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Awesome lightening and thunderstorms happening as I write.....

​

There you go!

You see? ....Heaven is answering you after all!

Storm's over ​

Missed me, missed me! Now you gotta kiss me!!




Is mocking God as bad as shaking my fist in challenge?

 

[skye]

you wait.... wait till the next storm catches you .... ^^^^^^^

 

[AVG-JOE]

The odds are...

Living in in The Sunshine State and all.

 

[Derideo_Te]

you wait.... wait till the next storm catches you .... ^^^^^^^

But aren't you getting a little tired of Avg-Joe always shaking his fist at you?

 

[AVG-JOE]

That's funny! Shaking fist at 'skye'!

I see what you did there.

Punny!

 

[Missourian]

If I shake my fist at the sky and declare to God that I am impressed with neither his presence nor his proofs to date, and I challenge the aforementioned God to kill me now or forever be regarded and described by me as fictitious, does that prove anything?

Somewhere there is an ant shaking it's foreleg at the sky, making the same ultimatum.

"I challenge the aforementioned Giant Boot to kill me now or forever be regarded and described by me as fictitious!"

 

[daws101]

We don't know THAT, either.

There might be some "laws" that apply to the supernatural. But, not being part of the supernatural "world," we are likely just not able to discern such "laws" or understand them.

Also, there's this. When we (not me, I am not a physicist; but I go by what those smart guys and gals have reported) delve into the realm of certain quantum physics, the natural laws we think we understand seem to melt away.

For example, whatever it was that went "bang" at the time of the big bang seems to have winked into existence from nothing. That defies our understanding of natural scientific laws. It not only CREATED time and space, but it created both matter and energy. This despite the fact that one of the things we seem to believe we "know" about natural science is that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Thus, our incomplete grasp of natural law SEEMS to harbor, at its inception and roots, certain contradictions that sure seem to be beyond the "laws" of nature. Kind of supernatural.

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

Oh? Really? Where do they "say" the singularity CAME from?

In fact, since I am not a scientist (according to rderp I may not even be an example of the 94% of non liberal Democrats who aren't scientists, since I am not even a Republican) and most certainly not a physicist much less a quantum physicist, my grasp on all this stuff is more akin to a freshman philosophy student trying to puzzle some shit out. But some bright people come to ask the very same type of questions that I keep bumping up against.

Check THIS out:

According to Big Bang proponents, when it occurred it created both space and time and everything that now inhabits the vast universe. There was NOTHING before it, not even what we would call "emptiness".

That being the case, where does the singularity come into the picture? EVERY explanation begins with the assumption that it was there. It existed, period. But saying it existed contravenes the very idea that there was nothing prior to the bang itself. If it DID exist prior to the bang, then the idea there was nothing prior is faulty reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

There are various attempts to explain the singularity theory, but there is no way to PROVE any of them. And any theory unproven remains just that- a theory. A theory is NOT a fact. It is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's an opinion at worst, an educated guess at best.

-- Where Did the "Singularity" that Caused the Big Bang Come From? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There is always a quantum field with random fluctuations.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

Where did the singularity which caused the Big Bang magically come from? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No scientist has ever claimed that the singularity just "winked into existence from nothing". It also did not "create" matter and energy. It simply transformed what was in the singularity into the universe as we see it today.

Oh? Really? Where do they "say" the singularity CAME from?

In fact, since I am not a scientist (according to rderp I may not even be an example of the 94% of non liberal Democrats who aren't scientists, since I am not even a Republican) and most certainly not a physicist much less a quantum physicist, my grasp on all this stuff is more akin to a freshman philosophy student trying to puzzle some shit out. But some bright people come to ask the very same type of questions that I keep bumping up against.

Check THIS out:

According to Big Bang proponents, when it occurred it created both space and time and everything that now inhabits the vast universe. There was NOTHING before it, not even what we would call "emptiness".

That being the case, where does the singularity come into the picture? EVERY explanation begins with the assumption that it was there. It existed, period. But saying it existed contravenes the very idea that there was nothing prior to the bang itself. If it DID exist prior to the bang, then the idea there was nothing prior is faulty reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

There are various attempts to explain the singularity theory, but there is no way to PROVE any of them. And any theory unproven remains just that- a theory. A theory is NOT a fact. It is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's an opinion at worst, an educated guess at best.

-- Where Did the "Singularity" that Caused the Big Bang Come From? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There is always a quantum field with random fluctuations.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

Where did the singularity which caused the Big Bang magically come from? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

ALL non answers. No joke. Where did a "quantum field" come from?

What "thing" led to any fluctuation in it?

Without being TOO much of a wise ass: phlogiston does not cause "fire."