Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes it is, just like gravitation. You're coming upon the very common fallacy that our knowledge is absolute- You take it for granted and absolute fact because that is what you were taught, and what our world knows at the time.

What we saw- The universe expanding, which we determined by redshift. What we assumed- That it was initially one singularity that exploded outwards. What we saw- Objects falling towards the earth, planets going around stars and stones staying in a spinning sling. What we assumed- Objects of large mass pull objects in but space has a "slinglike" property to keep large enough items in an orbit rather than falling straight down into it- Hence Newtonian gravitation, in a loose nutshell. That's how our understanding works. We see something and try to reason out how it functions. Some brain in a laboratory doesn't just know it. In fact, a lot of our physics is done entirely by math, and the numbers are translated into concepts of what those results may mean in the physical world. This is why quantum mechanics is so ********, because people took the math literally rather than understanding that it was an abstract probability deal. So yes, the big bang, and all of our other theories on physics are made up, but backwards. We see something happening and try to define "How".

The stone is a metaphor of the universe- Since we cannot prove it conscious, though we seeing it exhibit behaviors that imply consciousness, do we just assume it is unconscious due to the untestable nature of consciousness?

And thereby offend me with an idea of a god greater than mine. But once again, see Hawking. If I believed in what Hawking talks about, with infinite universes for every possible outcome, since I already believe in a conscious universe, infinite layers to God wouldn't be of any consequence to my belief. I just don't believe in Hawking.

The singularity had infinite energy. The trouble is, in its stasis forced upon it by the laws of physics, unless it were consciously able to move, it could not move.

They explain the lensing of light we see on occasion, and certain patches of discoloration caused by the bending of light. They also explain what happens to the mass of a star after it goes supernova.

Yet I have evidence- I see this, and to what I understand, it means that there should be consciousness of the universe- or God. Its not "I don't understand it, so it must be God", it's "I see signs of an intelligent universe, so why not?"

Then we have the same problem, because then humans are unconscious and, again, we should legalize murder since it can't be proven that we are aware to know when we are hurt. It's no more than disassembling a car. Besides that, we both know consciousness exists. The fact that we cannot prove it does not make it untrue.

Perhaps I was mistaken. In either event, it had all of the energy of everything.

If the laws of physics prevent it from happening, then it must have been something metaphysical, beyond those laws, to make it happen. Something zero-dimensional where mass, gravitation, energy, time and velocity are irrelevant. You know, the troublesome little things that would have made any sort of movement impossible for this singularity. And many things have been done on sheer willpower, like in the cases of ascetic monks being able to bend spears with their throats, when it should rend flesh with its surface tension, or going without food, water, or even breath for long periods of time. Connecting back to the spiritual, even in the physical world, leads to the bending of rules. A consciousness simply becoming aware of itself in a singularity would have the capacity to move it- Rather, it could not stay a singularity, as it would, by being aware of itself, grant meaning to the nothingness around it. Space, location, according to Newton, is relative to an observer. When God, the first observer, became self aware, the abstract fact that there was mathematical point (zero) in "nothing" became impossible. Previously, the universe had essentially been dividing by zero.

The reason for this is that is that a singularity, a true singularity, is a mathematical point (unlike a black hole, which actually has a measure, just a very, very tiny one). This singularity contained everything. And so, around it was nothing. Forever. An infinity of zero- Meaning, there was no location, and its location was irrelevant. Any point around it was trillions of light years away, and also literally on top of it. And so it expands- Stop it immediately, and you still just have a fireball surrounded infinitely by nothing, and between the points of protomatter and energy, there is still the infinite nothing. Once something is able to observe it, once something is conscious, location is relevant. Only when something is conscious could location be relevant.

That's true, but not to the degree of a black hole, with its event horizon and extreme density.

Exactly. A prediction based on our current understanding.

Yet again, though, the untestable nature makes it impossible to determine how it works. A brain could very well be a focus for a physical body to carry consciousness- A matrix capable of harnessing awareness. Screw with your television and it won't work. Screw with the receiver and your TV won't work. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as signal, or that the frequencies are not sent from a station in space.

Yes it has- That's the only way we can detect the black holes we think we've detected. We obviously can't see them, so we go by light being bent around them.

Because it is a prediction. "We see X and Y. We know X=A because we have observed it. We have not observed Y. Y could be B, C or D. X implies B. The most likely is B." That's filling a hole. We're solving for Y based on what we know about X rather than observing Y.

Faith is the proof! God is alive. Open your hearts and u will see for yourself.

I'd count this one, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

I don't think there was ever a case of war where politics weren't involved.

But if the politics were justified by religion, it's a religious war. And it not being "just Christianity" is no excuse - Christianity had a part in it.
You can't claim it's never the fault of religion, just because politics are involved - religion, in many cases, is politics.