Are those atheists right? Did existence came from nothing?

It's possible to use math in a way that has no real world application. It's the same with logic and philosophy. U have good points logically but u spend too much time ignoring the science. Like my last post says I think theists have a stronger argument scientifically and that is what should inform our philosophy. I realize saying I don't know is superior, but given u r taking a skeptic position to something causing the universe, you have no choice but to engage scientifically... otherwise u have empty logic and rhetoric 

So where do the simply applied strong electric field and Schwinger effect come from.

lol! 

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously???

Science does not address the question of why anything exists. All science, and specifically big bang cosmology begins at the point of the big bang. It does not delve into what came before the big bang or whether that is even a coherent question to ask because we cannot go back beyond that point - all of the laws of physics, math, logic etc. break down at that point.

If theists had a stronger argument scientifically then scientists would largely be theists, yet that is the opposite of what we see.

Science is born out of philosophy. You have to understand how to think before you can apply it to the real world.

Science is rooted in methodological naturalism, which means it does not take a position on whether there is such thing as the supernatural but instead presumes based on practicality that there is no supernatural and moves to find explanations for phenomenon from that point.

You are mean, but its okay. I forgive you.

Empty space is anything but, according to quantum mechanics: Instead, it roils with quantum particles flitting in and out of existence.

Thanks to the uncertainty principle, the vacuum buzzes with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. They include, among many others, electron-positron pairs and pairs of photons, which are their own antiparticles. Ordinarily, those "virtual" particles cannot be directly captured. But like some spooky Greek chorus, they exert subtle influences on the "real" world.

What created all of this? 5 billion Creator programmers. It is time to rethink reality based on what actually happens.

Hmmmm.

Well reality is what it is.

We just don't know what it is.

Other than what we think we know.

Quantum mechanics is fun.

But a lot of theory.

And relative to something from nothing 

Was Schwinger, swinging it to good effect.

And the simply applied strong electric field?

Is something.

As are pairs of particles playing hide and seek.

As are 5billion creator programmers.

so how would you address the science? thermodynamics as far as we know, requires something of lower entropy to produce something of higher entropy. this is a firm rule, as far as we know. the only science that i see skeptics use, is the fact that empty space has quanta. sure, that's true, but the glaring hole in this argument is that space and particles are all a part of space... therefore it doesn't necessarily follow that we can extrapolate to the beginning of the universe like that. we have a firm rule being violated for those who think something caused the universe, and an illogical proposition from skeptics. all you are doing, is reverting to philosophy when confronted with the science.... but like i said, it's possible philsophy can have no bearing on reality, like math sometimes. 

see my last post to double 

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Doesn't poor design show that all existence is accidental ?

I don't, because at their core, science and religion do not overlap with each other.

Again, science is based on the principal of methodological naturalism, which is the presumption for methodological purposes that the natural world is all there is. It therefore limits any and all scientific explanations to natural causes. Religion is based on belief in the supernatural which science does not address.

You talked about thermodynamics and entropy, that's about energy transfer and temperatures which have no application outside of space and time. Many skeptics talk about quantum physics, but that doesn't apply here either because we can only examine it within the boundaries of space. It's said that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from nothing but this is an argument from ignorance fallacy, just because we don't know where they come from doesn't mean they come from nothing.

We are physical beings constrained within a physical universe, there is no form of experimentation we could possibly conduct that goes beyond the physical.

Because there's nothing left. If science doesn't address religious claims (because it does not have access to them) then all we can do is figure out what to do about this limitation and how it relates to what we should believe. That is necessarily a matter of philosophy.

Not necessarily.

Which isn't necessarily to suggest that data processing and manipulative organic structures were designed by a designer per se.

Though there seems to be a certain inevitability to the processes that gave rise to said structures. 

And Napoleon B said a lot and then fucked up.

It's possible to prove logically that there is no smallest number. I used to teach this in high school algebra and geometry classes I taught. There doesn't have to be a beginning nor and end. 

Yeah, sadly the entire observed world disagrees with you.

Yeah, irrelevant claim where you assume world is in some logical conjunction with your math.