First off, I would like to say thanks for responding to my post. But u guys didn't really answer my question.
You asked how the conclusion that a singularity "was nothing or just a tiny spec?" You were informed that the singularity is neither
defined as nothing nor is it defined as a tiny speck. So the answer to your question is "Nobody came up with that theory, that isn't the theory"
Wouldn't logic dictate that matter can't come from nothing
Logic might break down unfortunately. If you define an event as something which has a cause, then logic implies an infinite series has led to where we are now - which is logically impossible. However, since time itself came into existence at the Big Bang, then there might be no 'cause' that preceded it. There might be no 'where' that existed before it. Unfortunately high level physics at these extremes frequently defies what seems logical to us. Indeed, when discussing big bang even high level physics is inadequate.
What does logic dictate happened before time began?
But what I don't get is why people believe it started from ''nothing''.
People believe that due to a simplification of extremely difficult relativistic mathematics. In the end, where it 'came from' remains unknown. There is a point it time before which we simply do not, as of the moment, know what went on. As such we can't say where it all 'came from', if anywhere.
Doesn't it make more sense if the ''singularity'' was actully a huge object that got to massive and exploded?
No - the universe is expanding, so it must have been smaller in the past. Extrapolating that back to a singularity, and then using the maths to take it forwards again, we can predict certain things which must be true. Such predictions have since been confirmed.
Its all rather complicated of course, and the maths is beyond my comprehension - us mere mortals just have to follow the steps, and accept the maths is accurate

This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-June-2005 02:56 PM