I'm not a physicist, and I'm just trying to comprehend the recent findings (folks here have been very helpful in that regard - thank you all), but based on what I've been able to understand so far, it seems to me that the BICEPS2 results do not provide any support for the assertion that there was "something or someone outside" that caused the inflation. As far as I've been able to tell, the results have nothing at all to say about the cause of the inflation; they only describe its nature, speed and duration.
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. It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.
You're forgetting that, inextricably linked with the creation of space, the singularity which we know as "the big bang" also created time. Actually created time itself. There is no "before" the big bang - the concept is as meaningless as asking someone at the north pole to walk further north.
That is compatable with a Supernatural being creating everything out of nothing. The principle of "Occam"s razor basically states that when you have 2 competing theories making the same prediction the simplest one is the better theory. Here there is no real basis for a spontaneous cause of the universe, but a universe created out of nothing by a supernatural being is plausible.
If wands were real, they'd be compatible with anything. But for as long as we have no evidence that magic exists, we'll keep going where the evidence leads us. Saying that a scenario is compatible with a supernaturally omnipotent being is semantically circular and trivial - a meaningless statement which takes us nowhere. It's the same as me saying that if I had Superman's powers, I could leap tall buildings. True enough semantically, but nothing that gets us anywhere.
Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the evidence may never be found.
The laws of nature don't have to "come from" anywhere. They just are. They're properties of nature, just like wind conditions and snow conditions. Anything that exists will have properties whether anybody/anything "puts" them there or not.
Did the laws of nature always exist?
Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature
Shadow71 writes: The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.
For that, you'll have to learn some physics. It's well above my pay grade. Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?
Only the most pompous type of idiot lawyer would ever attempt to get someone to call him 'doc' based on having a JD. There are advanced law degrees (LLM) and (SD) that actually have some academic status.
It appears you have a very low opinion on the requirements to obtain a J.D. What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences?