[jonesy]

Originally Posted by photon

Not necessarily, 'started' implies time and time is part of the universe, so when describing the universe as a whole from an "outside perspective" the word 'started' might not even be meaningful. We don't even know if the question 'what started the universe' isn't a nonsensical one, like asking what the smell of purple is.

I think it is reasonable to use terms we are familiar with in these discussions. Saying 'Start', and 'time' may not be meaningful is too simple a way to try to discredit something. These are terms and framworks of a discussion that we can all understand. However, If in fact 'time' and 'start' have no meaning as you say then I would argue that gives more credance to the idea that God has no start and no end and always was, because he exists outside the constraint of 'time' He is looking from an 'outside perspective' as you say.

Originally Posted by photon

So much in so small a sentence...

First you say "Evolutionists" don't know but then say it was from nothing, you can't claim they say they don't know and also claim they say they know.

This really makes no sense and sounds like smug semantics to me.

Originally Posted by photon

Second evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, so "Evolutionists" don't say anything about it.

Again semantics, evolution surely has some ideas on what started the universe, typically referred to as the big bang i believe. I am just asking what banged and who caused it to bang. I have never heard a good response. I choose to call that 'force' God. You can leave it unnamed or unknown if you wish.

Originally Posted by photon

Third, tons of "Evolutionists" are religious and would attribute the origin of the universe to their chosen god(s).

I was not aware of too many religious evolutionists. I suppose the Catholic church is now that i think of it. I usually associate evolutionist as denying the existance of God. If you say that is not the case, I won't argue.

Originally Posted by photon

Fourth, people (like cosmologists) who would care to comment on the origin of the universe don't say with certainty it was nothing, nothing is only one hypothesis (and one most probably wouldn't spend much time on, and their definition of nothing is probably different than what you have in mind). Currently there isn't enough knowledge to say anything much beyond a hypothesis.

I can agree with this and it makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by photon

EDIT: And depending on what one means by nothing, something from nothing happens ALL the time, it just has to make sure to eventually go back to nothing.

I am sorry this does not make sense to me and appears to violate laws of physics, thermodynamics or science in general. I believe this means you think that if the universe started x billion years ago, flourished for many billions of years with countless life forms, planets, solar systems, energy, chemical reactions etc, then died out and somehow and all dissappeared (going back to nothing) then it is ok to say it started from nothing.

skipped some, sorry

Originally Posted by photon

Besides, saying the universe was created by God just moves the unsatisfying part up a level. Just as easy to say the universe was created by the multiverse. Who or what created god or the multiverse? Still run into the infinite regress problem.

Here i whole heartedly agree.