I've written and talked extensively on this. You can download show 9 (Fishdon'twalk), for free on our homepage where whe get into this fairly in depth.

You can also read my essay that led up to that show:

First of all, I want to give David Mills credit for inspiring me to think along these lines, years ago. In college, I understood the concepts of thermodymanics and applied them every day, but it was David's book "Atheist Universe" that got me thinking and helped me to put it all together in a philosophical sense, and it was my knowledge of thermo and fascination with cosmology that let me put my own flavor on the the thing.

David's argument is great, but I've attempted to take it a step futhur. 

Anyways, many of you have seen it before, but here goes:

There was never literally nothing. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.

It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn't create the universe from nothing, that He didn't simply say "Let there be Light" and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not.

The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo - it MUST be, an atheist wouldn't be caught dead believing something that foolish.
What baffles me, is that you've actually answered your own question here, and are simply too thick to realize it. You've simply projected your own problems onto the atheist, which is sadly typical.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because "nothing" is an incoherent concept. "Nothing" is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because "nothing" quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing, but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories include the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

One of the most lucid theories going at the moment is proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the "no boundary proposal". Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it - pretty much what I've laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

We don't know exactly how the Big Bang happened, and nobody was there to record it - but that does not me we do not have evidece for it.

Personally, I'm currently a fan of Lee Smolin's theory of fecund universes. This is a multiverse threory that essentially says that each black hole is the nexus of a new universe. We see many of the same events and properties in black holes that we believe were present at the big bang. It really is a fascinating theory, as it employs a form of natural selection in it - i.e. universes that have a proclivity to produce black holes and that don't collapse in upon themselves are selected for, and thuse spawn similar universes.

Now, I admit, that's some wild stuff, and it needs to be fleshed out, but I have a feeling Lee's on to something here.

And no, my feeling and your feeling about God are NOT the same. We have evidence for black holes, we have no evidence for the supernatural or deities. ANY natural proposal, no matter how far fetched, will ALWAYS be more probable than a supernatural explanation. Simply because we actually have evidence for the natural world.

We have empirical evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This CMB was predicted as a result of Big Bang theory, it is a remnant of the very young and VERY hot infant universe and was first observed in 1965 by radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who shared the Noble for their discovery.

Then there is the fact that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble's Law, named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Then there's a little thing called Olber's Paradox, which is why the night sky isn't filled totally with starlight and as bright as the sun. The only plausible explanations for this are that distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity because they are traveling away from us at enormous speeds, or that the light from very distant stars hasn't reached us yet. Both explanations support the inflationary Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there's the homogeneity and isotropy of the observed universe - gobs of data showing that our location in the universe is not special or central and that the universe looks the same in all directions; more support for the Big Bang.

And there's time dilation in supernovae light curves! This was a direct prediction of the inflationary Big Bang model and has been directly observed several times.

We trust such data on the basis of scientific peer review. This is an indisputed way to check the facts and observations of scientific findings. One person says they found X, so another researcher attempts to repeat their experiments or collect the same data. When they find the same same things, that's pretty solid evidence for the experiment, and support for the principle.

In terms of fossils or geological observations, we do the same thing. Independent researchers look for the same things. If they find them in predicted geological strata or at predicted distances from earth at predicted intensities, it is evidence for the finding.

And before you bring up the argument from the law of entropy (because I can smell that smack from a mile away), let me smack you down before you humiliate yourself. The law of entropy has NOTHING to do with the existence of the universe in its present state. It does not prevent planet or star formation or evolution. Only the ignorant maintain such.

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is simply the spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system
If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.

Now, let's do some math.

(In the below <= and >= will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity?s sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.

As far as earth goes, it is not a closed system. We have constant input energy from the sun.

If the objection from the second law via entropy were valid for evolution or the Big Bang, it would ALSO have to be valid for a mother's womb. The same principles apply, as a mother's womb is also an open system.

Please understand a scientific concept before trying to use it in an argumentative fashion. Educate yourself.

  ....way Smaller   too

"Well designed"?

WTF? We are as a species stuck on a rock where the species will most likely die out, unless we can figure out a way to coninize Mars, but there is no way we are getting out of the solar system.

Not to mention meteors and comets could and probibly will at some point, wipe out the species. And that doesnt include energy waves from colapsing and exploding stars.

If it were well desigend we'd be able to travel across the universe and we wouldnt be surrounded by all the potentially harmfull objects in the universe that WILL inevetiably kill the planet.

Being stuck in a long period of calm from a human perspective does not take into account the VIOLENT tottallity of the universe's history. It is NOT well designed. It kaotic and violent.

This statement is a cause of emotionalism of a mistaking "awe" for design. The person is simply amazed at the enormity of potential and kenetic energy in motion and at rest in the universe.  

When you say theories here do you mean the same thing you mean when you say theory of evolution?  Don't scientists call it a hypothesis until they have factual data to back them up? Please correct me if am being stupid. 

To Brian37, I think I just worded my post badly. Susskind wrote that book to explain all of the things I mentioned WITHOUT using any kind of god or creator. He also thinks that a lot of people mistake "awe" for design, and he's trying to provide a scientific explanation of why everything (gravity, electromagnetic forces, cosmological constant, etc...) adds up perfectly.

[Edit: Double Post]

Don't hate me  

But we can directly observe the moon.

We can't directly observe strings or extra dimensions, so we must rely on mathematical models.

If we can't someday directly or indirectly observe these extra dimensions... Then all this is a waist of time... If these dimensions exists, we will have to observe them if we want this theory to stand a chance of survival.

But anyways... My point was just to say that maths as absolutely nothing to do with a theory being scientific or not. Note that I'm not saying that maths are useless.

Luckily the existence of particles that could be used to verify not only the exitence of higher dimensions, but also the size and shape of such dimensions, have been predicted by mathematical theoretical physics.  The idea is that they're more massive than standard model particles but in 4 dimensions appear more massive because we are seeing the higher dimensional momenta of the particles as they appear in 4 dimensional spacetime.  Because we can't see the actual higher dimensional momentum, but momentum is related to mass we're going to be scouring the LHC for particles with identical charges to our known standard model particles but higher masses.  If we find them at the energy levels we will be able to probe with the LHC when it comes online we will be able to use the information we gather about them to not only tell us how many extra dimensions they exist in, but the size and shape of those extra dimensions.

And for anyone curious, the particles in question are known as Kaluza-Klein particles.

I gave an oversimplified and extremely naive description of a scientific theory... I am well aware of that... Of course that a theory have to take into account previous observations, laws and theories and that an hypothesis doesn't come from directly out of the blue. And of course that maths are extraordinary tools for us to model the world.

I absolutely agree : We can't even start dreaming about the possibility of dreaming about maybe thinking of something remotely close to general relativity without maths.

But it doesn't change a single thing.

Mathematics are not what define a scientific theory.

And I did not say that we will not be able to observe what strings theory or QM for that matter have predicted.

My point was very simple.

If you are going to say :

My theory as maths in it. It is therefore scientific.

You are wrong.

One of the most lucid theories going at the moment is proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the "no boundary proposal". Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it - pretty much what I've laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Can anyone elaborate on this because I am struggling to understand the concept of no eternity coupled with no creation. If the universe is not created and thus has no beginning then surely it must be eternal?