do you not understand the meaning of the word prime? or supreme

nope im not a physics person

it means first

We have energy in the present - ergo that energy must have been created at some point - the 'beginning of time' if you would

it's physically and philosophically true

Nice post, vassal. Maybe behave better if you want to stay ours and not Putin's.

So it doesn't really mean anything, since we are only saying that since it exist, it had a beginning. What created that beginning is more of the idea I'm having here. That 'created energy' came from 'nothing' - so god coming from 'nothing' is the same probability.

Your question is nonsensical though - what do you mean what created that beginning? That is why it is called the beginning, nothing else created it, at least not in the observable universe. So most normal people recognize that force as coming from a transcendental nature, the divine.

I feel that we are talking on different wavelengths, because we have the same conclusion, my point is that atheist believe in the big bang being the start of the universe and all things; yet something had to spark that. The likelihood of energy coming from nothing is the same as it being sparked by the divine.

I do think we agree/have the same conclusion, I am a theist but I also believe in the big bang theory, because that hypothetical singularity & explosion had to have been caused by something. I see it like this: Theists assert that the big bang was sparked by God, Agnostics assert that it is not possible to know (which is true that you can't measure/know it via observable measurement), Atheists assert that it couldn't be God, but nothing else. My problem with atheists is that what DO they assert? They have zero evidence to their anti-God(s) claim whatsoever. The best they have is that it is unknowable which is not atheist but agnostic.

To add the likelihood of coming from nothing is nothing, because we know that from the laws of physics - you can't create mass or energy from nothing

Just because two options exist doesn't mean they have the same probability. You could argue that since we don't know what really happened assigning probabilities is stupid anyways and "we really don't know, for now believe whatever you want to" is the only correct take anyways. Alternatively you could define whatever initiated and the big bang as "divine" and would be correct by construction.

There are still very few predictions on what trump is gonna do and how that will turn out in this thread. Nothing to lose here really and your chance to appear very smart in a year or two if you accurately predict something.