I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe.
I have never understood this argument.
Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it.
So please explain why this argument makes any sense.
It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.
1. It could be a spontaneous formation out of something.
2. The moving force does not need to be a supernatural deity.
What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences?
For the biological sciences . . .
First two years are split between lab work and course work. Last two years are mostly lab work with some TA'ing. At the end of 4 years you should have at least 3 peer reviewed publications based on the research you have done, and will be expected to defend those papers in front of a review panel of several PhD's in your field of work.
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.
How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"?
If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
No, it would simply become part of nature. At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No. If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?
"Outside nature" is "super-nature", by definition.
At one time, the Earth was thought to be the complete expanse for the natural universe. When we discovered that nature operated outside of what we defined as the natural universe, did that make it supernatural? No. The Andromeda galaxy is not supernatural, even though it exists outside of what we once defined as Nature.
The same would apply to a natural, non-sentient process that produces new universes. It would simply be added to what we consider Nature just as we have always done.
Many would agree that a "deity" is eternal and uncaused (though this wouldn't apply to minor Greek and Roman deities).
This would make naturally occuring universes a deity, which they clearly aren't.
No, you're not making sense. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. (The idea that something is self-caused is a logical impossibility.)
The cause would become part of nature. That is how science has always worked.
I only see two possibilities: 1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause
False. That would be a natural cause since it involves nature.
Nonsense. The nucleus decays because it is intrinsically unstable, because a lower potential energy state exists which it can reach by quantum tunneling.
Using that as an analogy for the production of universes, if there are conditions under which universes can appear, then they just appear. No cause is needed other than the possibility that it can happen.
To most physicists, statements of nuclear instability or of the availability of lower energy states are perfectly acceptable causal explanations for nuclear decay.
What they are saying is that given certain conditions, a certain outcome has a certain probability. If you think this is a valid definition of cause, then the cause of the universe shouldn't be a problem for you. If, as some claim, the instability of a vacuum (i.e. nothing) produces a probability that a universe will emerge, then you have your cause.