I never said nothing existed before. Anyway it is just some theory. The problem with this conversation is in the definition of words. What is existence? What is the universe? I do not see these as the same things.
There are many theories about many things. There is a theory that this universe is only a part of existence. I do not reject this theory. I also do not reject some infinite time theories. I do reject conflicting theories of infinite super beings, such as the one (or three) characterized in, “The Bible.”

ewv said, "The physical universe did not evolve by chance." If it did not evolve by chance, then there must have been an intelligent being behind its evolution. You just contradicted yourself, ewv.

I will agree with you that the universe does not have to have a goal. khalling and I had a side conversation about the existence of spontaneous order. I am not going to deny that such a thing is possible; in fact, we have seen spontaneous ordering on some scales. However, such spontaneous ordering assumes that we are progressing toward a global minimal Gibbs free energy (often confused with heat or enthalpy, which are only parts of the Gibbs free energy) and maximum entropy. If one believes that, then Darwinian evolution should be very highly disfavored as it does require an activation energy (related to the enthalpy term) to overcome. I am not saying that Darwinian evolution is impossible; in fact, I think it is part of the history that has transpired.

Use of Einstein was poetic intimidation. My purpose in using such intimidation is to counter the attempt of Ayn Rand and many who follow her, notably ewv, regarding atheism. Considering the possibility of the presence of a deity is not nonsensical. Many of the great minds throughout history have considered the topic. You are free to reject deism, atheism, or agnosticism. My point is that there is room for debate on this topic and that we will have no concrete answer in this life. Whether there is an afterlife or not is an equally valid question to ponder. All I am saying is that AR was dismissive of the whole topic and did not adhere to the same standards of proof that she did with regard to everything else.

Frankly, ewv, we don't "know better" than Einstein.
I knew that you would fall into my trap to claim to know better than Einstein.

Fuller's translation is an accurate translation and is consistent with what I wrote. This is one point that we should not be arguing about, ewv.
The line that "It is believable, because it is absurd; it is certain, because it is impossible" should have "without some outside explanation such as a deity" after both clauses. This is implied both in Tertullian's writings and in those of the apostle Paul's. I am not saying that they are reasonable or should be believed. They are absurd unless one also accepts the presence of a deity.

Some scientists theorize that this universe was created by a big bang. This in essence means that it did not exist before that. I do not invalidate that theory.

Why would you keep asking someone else to somehow explain someone else's interpretations of some events you feel are significant? Can you explain eye witness accounts of alien abduction? Or of big foot sightings? Or claims of others having lived in another body? Would you even want to?

It works for me. May not be for everyone. Ain't my job to convince others to my way of looking at things which seem to be "mysticism" to some. In my life, I still seek answers to the questions "why" and "how". As science answers the questions with proof, not "consensus" as in the "global warming" theory, I'll adjust. As this is a "free" country, so far, I'll ignore the PC police and keep on trucking.
Like I said, it works for me, but, maybe, not for thee. And, here on the Gulch, we are encouraged to have independent thought and ideas. None more valid nor worthy than the other. Just different. Get it?

Don't worry. He or she will be surprised.

A solid background on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is at http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Che...

If deltaG is negative, then the process occurs spontaneously. Entropy is always increasing. That is one term in the equation. Enthalpy (which most people simplify to "heat") is the other term in the equation. One can think of deltaG (the Gibbs free energy) as the energetic driving force toward equilibrium.

and most of the 500 are on ONE subject. Look at the comments.

So you agree that she just MIGHT have been in error in her (and your) rabid atheism?