“Me: Oh? Well, where did the material for that singularity come from in the first place? Did Harry Potter create it with his wand? And what caused the explosion? Magical Teletubbies lighting their flatulence?
This is what you are left with.”
You shouldn’t assume everyone has the same intellectual limitations that you do. There are very pragmatic and logical theories that deal with this, backed up by experimental evidence. If you had a clue about science, you would know this. I suppose you think it’s better just to wallow in your ignorance about science and attack it with nothing but outdated dogma and outright lies from prejudiced Creationist websites. Instead of making utterly ridiculous statements, why don’t you go do a web search on “vacuum fluctuation”?
Even though this advice was not directed at me, I was interested enough to peruse the topic.
In summary, it was interesting stuff about the universe not having any net energy, thus explaining how nothing was necessary to make it (being that mass itself can come out of energy). Relatedly there was the view that atomic events can be "without cause". Much related commentary inferring from this the idea that this universe could have come into being "without cause". The most developed speculation I found introduced the concept of a mind-boggling number of universes developing randomly (without cause) apparently to explain how our carbon-based life freindly universe could have happened randomly:
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
Is this what you were driving at?
To be fair, I hardly think you should call someone ignorant for not being up to speed on this kind of stuff.
In a quick once-over analysis, I'm inclined to view it as far from sufficient to explain the existence of our universe. One apparent logical confusion being the language "without cause". Which boils down to an acknowledgment of randomness in physics (also called the uncertainty principle I believe).
But it seems the developed arguments use "without cause" in a different way, not logically inferred from such a principle. An example of a typical word association fallacy. To support the more developed argument "without cause" is being equated to "from nothing". And even the concept of "nothing" is fallaciously being associated with "absence of mass and energy".
Seems we are no closer to eliminating the need for something which transcends the universe then before. Even if you consider that there is more then one "universe" (quoted because the meaning of the word "universe" implies there can be only one. Perhaps we should call them "realms of physics", and consider them all part of the universe).
Disclaimer: this is mere first impression, perhaps the inferences you want to make from this will seem more logical after I chew on them for a while.
<attempt at humor>Hmm, if "nothing" created the universes, perhaps "nothing" is all powerful, and "nothing" is all knowing. Then I must ask you...IS NOTHING SACRED?!?</attempt at humor>