Where do moral laws come from?

[ding]

You are making an argument of a child. Atheism truly is an intellectual dead end.

Who is discussing atheism?
All real scientists are agnostic.
All real philosophers are logical.

You don't seem very logical to me.
You aren't an agnostic either.

If I am not agnostic, then you are not religious.

Who said I was religious, dipshit? I am awake. You on the other hand make arguments of an atheist. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck.

What? You are NOT religious? Not a theist? You certainly walk like such a duck!

YES, i am NOT a theist, but that does not automatically make me an atheist, "dipshit"!
However, i am not a believer in ANY of your theistic claims, so from your illogical standpoint, i am an atheist.

However, with regard to the possibility of there being a."god", i am agnostic.
Try to keep up.

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

 

[PK1]

Who is discussing atheism?
All real scientists are agnostic.
All real philosophers are logical.

You don't seem very logical to me.
You aren't an agnostic either.

If I am not agnostic, then you are not religious.

Who said I was religious, dipshit? I am awake. You on the other hand make arguments of an atheist. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck.

What? You are NOT religious? Not a theist? You certainly walk like such a duck!

YES, i am NOT a theist, but that does not automatically make me an atheist, "dipshit"!
However, i am not a believer in ANY of your theistic claims, so from your illogical standpoint, i am an atheist.

However, with regard to the possibility of there being a."god", i am agnostic.
Try to keep up.

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

Was that an emotional rant?
A monkey can do better than that.

It would be more interesting if you could put forth a rational argument for any claim of intelligence.

 

[ding]

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

You actually have to watch the videos to know what they say.

People talking isn't real, peer-reviewed, scientific proof. Geez, don't you have ANY?

But these are the guys who write the peer reviewed papers.

Then link to that, you'll be more credible in your posts. As well as easier to understand, your link had dozens of videos. With linking to their paper, you can directly quote the relevant part and then put the link if we need to investigate further.

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

 

[ding]

You don't seem very logical to me.
You aren't an agnostic either.

If I am not agnostic, then you are not religious.

Who said I was religious, dipshit? I am awake. You on the other hand make arguments of an atheist. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck.

What? You are NOT religious? Not a theist? You certainly walk like such a duck!

YES, i am NOT a theist, but that does not automatically make me an atheist, "dipshit"!
However, i am not a believer in ANY of your theistic claims, so from your illogical standpoint, i am an atheist.

However, with regard to the possibility of there being a."god", i am agnostic.
Try to keep up.

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

Was that an emotional rant?
A monkey can do better than that.

It would be more interesting if you could put forth a rational argument for any claim of intelligence.

No. I thought it was pretty accurate and funny. You are ashamed of being an atheist, as well you should be.

 

[PK1]

If I am not agnostic, then you are not religious.

Who said I was religious, dipshit? I am awake. You on the other hand make arguments of an atheist. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck.

What? You are NOT religious? Not a theist? You certainly walk like such a duck!

YES, i am NOT a theist, but that does not automatically make me an atheist, "dipshit"!
However, i am not a believer in ANY of your theistic claims, so from your illogical standpoint, i am an atheist.

However, with regard to the possibility of there being a."god", i am agnostic.
Try to keep up.

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

Was that an emotional rant?
A monkey can do better than that.

It would be more interesting if you could put forth a rational argument for any claim of intelligence.

No. I thought it was pretty accurate and funny. You are ashamed of being an atheist, as well you should be.

Ashamed? Ha ha!
I am proud of being your atheist.
Those with logical minds realize that i am agnostic like most other scientists.
Again, try to keep up.

 

[ding]

Who said I was religious, dipshit? I am awake. You on the other hand make arguments of an atheist. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck.

What? You are NOT religious? Not a theist? You certainly walk like such a duck!

YES, i am NOT a theist, but that does not automatically make me an atheist, "dipshit"!
However, i am not a believer in ANY of your theistic claims, so from your illogical standpoint, i am an atheist.

However, with regard to the possibility of there being a."god", i am agnostic.
Try to keep up.

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

Was that an emotional rant?
A monkey can do better than that.

It would be more interesting if you could put forth a rational argument for any claim of intelligence.

No. I thought it was pretty accurate and funny. You are ashamed of being an atheist, as well you should be.

Ashamed? Ha ha!
I am proud of being your atheist.
Those with logical minds realize that i am agnostic like most other scientists.
Again, try to keep up.

And yet you still can't bring yourself to admit you are an unconditional atheist. You are no scientist either.

Silly Beliefs - Agnostics - Valid Stance or Scam?

 

[PK1]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

 

[ding]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

You didn't quote wiki as your source probably because the majority of that source is positive. See?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Inflation theory addresses several problems that had been previously unresolved; the Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Five of the six predictions have been confirmed. They are still working on the 6th. You are out of your league here. In fact, I bet you had never heard of inflation theory until today. Google is dangerous for people like you who seek to confirm their biases.

 

[RWNJ]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

Any way you slice it, the universe cannot be explained without a Creator.

 

[PK1]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

You didn't quote wiki as your source probably because the majority of that source is positive. See?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Inflation theory addresses several problems that had been previously unresolved; the Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Five of the six predictions have been confirmed. They are still working on the 6th. You are out of your league here. In fact, I bet you had never heard of inflation theory until today. Google is dangerous for people like you who seek to confirm their biases.

You missed my point. There are various theories on the cosmology data patterns, some are more popular than others. No one theory explains all the observations, and our observations are limited.
No one knows what transpired billions of years ago and what may exist beyond our perceptions.
If you want to believe something you don't know, then you are fooling yourself ... to pacify your emotional insecurities.
.

 

[PK1]

What? You are NOT religious? Not a theist? You certainly walk like such a duck!

YES, i am NOT a theist, but that does not automatically make me an atheist, "dipshit"!
However, i am not a believer in ANY of your theistic claims, so from your illogical standpoint, i am an atheist.

However, with regard to the possibility of there being a."god", i am agnostic.
Try to keep up.

Oh, I will try to keep up because I can tell that you are such a deep thinker.

The fact that you are drawn to argue with people who believe in God speaks volumes about your beliefs. In effect they give you away. You may even realize one day that you don't believe in God and that your semantic argument was in reality an admission of shame. Come out of the closet, monkey.

Was that an emotional rant?
A monkey can do better than that.

It would be more interesting if you could put forth a rational argument for any claim of intelligence.

No. I thought it was pretty accurate and funny. You are ashamed of being an atheist, as well you should be.

Ashamed? Ha ha!
I am proud of being your atheist.
Those with logical minds realize that i am agnostic like most other scientists.
Again, try to keep up.

And yet you still can't bring yourself to admit you are an unconditional atheist. You are no scientist either.
Silly Beliefs - Agnostics - Valid Stance or Scam?

You certainly do not understand agnosticism. Ingersoll said it best:

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

If you cannot be honest about your ignorance, then it's your emotional problem, but you are ignorant nevertheless.

 

[PK1]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

Any way you slice it, the universe cannot be explained without a Creator.

Show me a creator that does not have a "creator".

 

[RWNJ]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

You didn't quote wiki as your source probably because the majority of that source is positive. See?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Inflation theory addresses several problems that had been previously unresolved; the Magnetic-monopole problem, the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem. Five of the six predictions have been confirmed. They are still working on the 6th. You are out of your league here. In fact, I bet you had never heard of inflation theory until today. Google is dangerous for people like you who seek to confirm their biases.

You missed my point. There are various theories on the cosmology data patterns, some are more popular than others. No one theory explains all the observations, and our observations are limited.
No one knows what transpired billions of years ago and what may exist beyond our perceptions.
If you want to believe something you don't know, then you are fooling yourself ... to pacify your emotional insecurities.
.

I know that there is a God, and that He created the universe. The evidence is conclusive.

 

[RWNJ]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

Any way you slice it, the universe cannot be explained without a Creator.

Show me a creator that does not have a "creator".

God.

 

[ScienceRocks]

human thinking and considering of their world

 

[Mudda]

Then link to that, you'll be more credible in your posts. As well as easier to understand, your link had dozens of videos. With linking to their paper, you can directly quote the relevant part and then put the link if we need to investigate further.

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". This does not pass scientific scrutiny. You still have nothing. Please try again.

Do you realize how stupid you look?

Post a link to a credible site with real proof. Because so far, you still have nothing.

Who knew that Discover Magazine, a magazine devoted to science, was not a credible source?

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

 

[Mudda]

People talking isn't real, peer-reviewed, scientific proof. Geez, don't you have ANY?

But these are the guys who write the peer reviewed papers.

Then link to that, you'll be more credible in your posts. As well as easier to understand, your link had dozens of videos. With linking to their paper, you can directly quote the relevant part and then put the link if we need to investigate further.

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

 

[ding]

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". This does not pass scientific scrutiny. You still have nothing. Please try again.

Do you realize how stupid you look?

Post a link to a credible site with real proof. Because so far, you still have nothing.

Who knew that Discover Magazine, a magazine devoted to science, was not a credible source?

Just because it's a science magazine doesn't mean that they have all the answers. In fact, they admitted on this one that "Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be". But at least they're honest with their findings, unlike you.

Given that you have zero proof for anything, I find your claim to be most ironic.

The universe had a beginning, just as the Bible told. How this happened, only God knows. Our best answer is that it began by a quantum fluctuation that obeyed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics which existed before space and time.

Do you have any proof that the universe did not have a beginning?

 

[ding]

But these are the guys who write the peer reviewed papers.

Then link to that, you'll be more credible in your posts. As well as easier to understand, your link had dozens of videos. With linking to their paper, you can directly quote the relevant part and then put the link if we need to investigate further.

I have already quoted the relevant part. You dismissed it. Space and time came into existence through quantum mechanics which followed the law of conservation. Which means these laws were in place before space and time were created just like vile Kim said in the videos.

Got a proper link?

Is it just my imagination or are you just flinging poop like a talking monkey. I mean after all here is the leading cosmologist in the world explaining it to you in print and video and all you can do is fling poop.. Do you have any proof?

Here's my proof. Where's yours?



"What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Are you going to cry now?

"Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be".

Only as to how the universe began. Not that the universe did have a beginning. That, we do have proof of.

 

[ding]

Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”

Cosmology has many views, including those who doubt "inflation" as the sole explanation ...

Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."

At a conference in 2015, Roger Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.
.

Any way you slice it, the universe cannot be explained without a Creator.

Show me a creator that does not have a "creator".

That is an argument of infinite regression. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. This is solved through inspection.