If you're undecided, then you're an atheist because you don't (yet) believe in any deities, so you fit the one and only criterion for atheism: no belief in god(s).

 Theism does not include all forms of spirituality,  it includes all forms of spirituality that appeal to a supernatural "higher power".

Our Susan wrote an excellent tutorial on using the quote function, here:

How To Use The Quote Function

I hope you read todangst' link.

The universe has set boundaries defined by the hyperbolic curvature of the space-time fabric. Granted, the universe is expanding under the push of Dark Energy, but it still has defined boundaries. When you reach the "edge" of the universe, you will simply curve around the side. But like the curvature of the Earth, this hyperbolic shape is so vast that it is completely imperceptible. The existence of Dark Matter (albeit not detected yet) was sealed by evidence that Omega is 0.3, and Lambda is 0.7, which is consistent with the known makeup of the universe, which is consistent with the Cosmic background black-body radiation detected by WMAP

The universe is not static either. It is expanding. Fast. There is a fight going on between the gravitational attraction of bodies of matter that reside in the space-time membrane and a mysterious "dark energy" that overpowers gravitational attraction. As gravity becomes weaker, expansion becomes faster. If we were to draw a map of the universe, the dark energy would be spread out in perfectly even pattern of exactly 10^-26 g/cm3. This means there is little more than an asteroid sized chunk in the entire galaxy. Almost nothing. Ordinary matter on the other hand, is clumped. In this map of the universe, there would be billions of of small dots representing galaxies arrayed in a filament-like arrangement, and no matter anywhere else. In most parts of the universe, the denisty of matter is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, which for all intents and purposes, is nothing.

If the universe is expanding, it had a beginning. It is not eternal. It was born in a singularity exactly 13.7 billion years ago according to extremely authoritative data from WMAP that can establish it to an astonishing 1% margin of error. Idiots call this singularity the Big Bang, when it was not big, and definitely not a bang.

One thing that struck me immediately is the notion that the BB was the "start" of the universe. This is not the case. BB is transition, not creation. The symmetry breaking, brane collision, false vacuum fluctuation etc is the creation, BB is a transitional event that occured 10^-43 seconds after the birth of the universe called the Planck Era. Nothing is known about the prior state, and by the reckoning of some cosmologists, nothing can be known of this state. But BB is a transition event, the genesis of matter and energy, not the universe. Of all the things that sealed my belief in the finite universe, none did more so than when I was shown Smoot's historic picture from the WMAP probe.

If we wind the clock back, we find a state of hypercompressed energy that created a false vacuum forcing an outward expansion which expanded at the rate of empty space called hyperinflation, which is about 10^50m/s. This is many times faster than light speed, but as there is no matter and no mass empty space can violate the c-limit.

Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonious than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

I always found it difficult to overcome my prejudice against ex nihilo, which clearly violated the iron laws of thermodynamics. However, that all changed one day when I was abruptly reminded by Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, that the actual matter/energy content may be very low because the false vacuum has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunnelling event which broke the singularity, and released a huge tide of positive energy, cancelling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood).

However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's OK though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect)?

In a flash, Guth had blown my mind. I had forgotten about the negative energy of the vacuum. But in truth, he had pointed out something really obvious. After all, the solution to something that seemingly breaks the first law of thermodynamics would probably have to be so simple and obvious, because if it was monstrous and complex, it would probably be false, given how iron that law is.

I also wish to cover ex nihilo. We need to understand spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken thus producing the space time continuum) is born. Something can indeed come from nothing

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

Obviously one has to have a good handle on science to digest and understand all of that , I found myself consulting a dictionary every 5 seconds then couldnt be bothered. However I did pick up on some of the more general points as Ive read some similar but simpler explanations elsewhere and remain agnostic.

"Way to make a half-hearted effort, give up and walk away stauch in your views. If only more people did that, this world would be a much better place"

I detect sarcasm. I appreciate the effort someone put into copying and pasting that there and spent a great deal more time reading it but have since found  easier understanding and more balanced  views elsewhere  on the net.Like everyone else I have the right to choose what I read, how much I read, where I read and from what viewpoint. 

I dont force my so called staunch views or beliefs on anyone .people can believe what they want as long as it does no harm to others.

I never implied you never wrote that article ( I did not know) but more so implied it wasnt written specifically for me. I dont believe I was debating your article

God theres some uptight fucks here who expect people to just go hey i believe these guys without looking at other viewpoints. 

Has neuroscience come up with a chill pil yet ?

Do you?