And that’s where things go into the gray area.
I have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, and I’m almost positive we’ll never know (which is maddeningly frustrating for me). There’s no evidence for one claim or another, so I don’t see why I would lean towards any particular explanation.
However, there are many that I think don’t hold any water.
The theist argument, for example. If there was no space or time, there’s no space or time for this deity to exist in, and there’s also the question of where this deity came from.
The “Breathing Universe”, as G.O.A.T. might not hold water as the universe could easily just carry on expanding. Even if the universe was going to contract the argument still doesn’t work. The universe is constantly loosing energy in the form of heat and light, meaning that if there was a “Breathing Universe” it would expand less and less in each Big Bang.
This isn’t creation theory, but danielsangeo’s argument about a circular universe doesn’t make sense either. The idea that something could travel outwards from the universe and then end up on the other side doesn’t have any grounding in physics.
It may be older, but the latter part is referring to members of National Academy of Sciences (whereas the study you cited appeared to be looking at a less distinguished range), where a personal belief in a god is 7% and a belief in human immortality is 7.9%. So just over 90% of “great” scientists (to use their classification) lack a belief in gods or life after death. Also, the trend from the study makes it seem likely that it’s probably only increased since then.
Indeed far from “almost every successful scientist”, but a very significant correlation, which rather dismisses the idea that atheists are all angst ridden teenagers who will “grow out of it”. 
Incidentally, if you think about the study you cited, there is still a definite discrepancy between the percentage of those who lack a belief in the AAAS (almost half), and the percentage of those in the total American population (15% claiming no religion, 1.6% explicitly stating atheist or agnostic). So it still suggests a higher ratio of those who lack a belief will be scientists than theists.
I’m ignoring their distinction between “great” and “normal” scientists because it’s subjective. Who’s to say that NAS scientists are more distinguished than AAAS scientists? It’s an arbitrary distinction and an even smaller (less accurate) sample.
Sure, both studies suggest that scientists are more likely to be atheist/agnostic than the general population. But, as per my original point, both studies conclude that a
highly significant proportion of scientists are also Deist or more generally religious.
In other words,Belief in the supernatural does not automatically preclude belief in science.
edit - I never said all athiests are angst-ridden teenagers, just like all Christians aren’t anti-science zealots, right?
Now, I don’t know much about physics (or astrophysics), but how is it possible for the universe to loose energy?
There’s a constant amount of energy in the universe, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and seeing that the universe is expanding (and if it is indeed going to collapse) then wouldn’t it be a closed system, which would mean that the energy would just be “recycled”?
Although I seem to remember something similar to what you’re saying being said on Discovery Channel, so I’m a little confused here…
What exactly is your agenda in these debate threads, mattemuse? You only ever play devil’s advocate, and not in any helpful way. The whole point of the devil’s advocate is to be completely objective but you’re opinionated and rude. If you can’t do that, at least make some points worth debating.
EDIT: @Chrillen: as I said, it’s dissipating in light and heat (I should really have just summed it up in radiation) in the form of photons of various energies. The energy doesn’t disappear or get destroyed, it’s just lost as it’s emitted away from the universe.
Oh jesus, I’m opinionated in a debate thread? Sorry, it won’t happen again.
Even so, if the universe ultimately collapses completely, all that energy wouldn’t exist as light or heat anymore, so your argument doesn’t really hold up, I think.
I think it’s pretty clear what I meant.
If all matter collapsed in on itself, why would that effect any energy that escaped?
There is a significant difference between the two societies. Anyone can join the AAAS regardless of scientific credentials. The NAS annually elects new members to recognise distinguished and continuing achievements in original research, and election is considered one of the highest honors that a scientist can recieve, aside from a Nobel prize etc. See the Wikipedia articleson these two.
I’m not disagreeing with this. But you can’t really dismiss the significant correlation between a lack of belief and scientific success.
That seemed to be your implication though. 
But yes, Christians can and do help the cause of science a lot. Christianity itself? That’s a different question.
The implication of this whole thread is that believing in a Creator is explicitly anti-science. Turnabout is fair play, and I think I’ve successfuly demonstrated the falsity of this attitude.
I’m pretty sure the implication of this whole thread is that evolution has more weight behind it than creationism.
You were arguing with two people about Christian scientists for about a page. That’s not exactly the whole thread.
Not all matter would collapse in on itself, the whole universe would, including energy.
Energy can’t escape the universe.
I’m probably wrong, but I thought the universe was infinite? I mean, at some point there may be no planets anymore, just a crap load of nothing, but it’s still the universe right?
I’m pretty sure that’s what I was taught.
Why can’t energy escape the universe, Burbinator?
I find it hard to take anything religion has to say seriously. Everyone in a religion believes that their religion is correct, though most probably are the result of people trying to create morales, theorys of creation or other things.
Well, how can energy escape the universe if it’s infinite? How did you mean the spot where there is something?
I think the correct terminology is that the part of space with mass in it is the universe, anywhere else is just space.
Makes sense.
I’m only getting my information from what I remember of A Briefer History of Time (granted, my memories are pretty vague and possibly incorrect), so I realize I might be wrong.
The way I understood it, the universe is not infinite. How could it expand if it’s infinite to begin with?
Well, I don’t really have anything to back me up on that, I’m too lazy to look anything up.
And I’d think energy can’t escape the universe, since the universe is kind of everything.
I guess I’m not exactly the right person to debate this with, unless I do some looking up to refresh/correct my memories.
The main thing is that the nature of “space” isn’t as linear as humans perceive it, it’s actually curved by gravity, just like time.
Which is also a part of the issue about the “beginning” of time. It’s not relevant because that’s not how time works.