Science can prove a god must exist

[Welsh cake]

I offer two tidbits to chew over, first is that it is not all speculation, there is indeed evidence that points to a cyclical universe. There is a great TV program called Through the Worm Hole which summarizes that many physicist in order to explain the scattering of galaxies and some constants are thinking the universe might be cyclical.

You said it yourself. Its speculation. Making hypothetical models of the pre-universe and studying string theory is not scientific fact in of themselves, like evolution for example, because there's still no direct empirical evidence of the phenomena in question. If they did, or if there were evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The Second point is that saying physics makes no sense only strengthens my initial argument of logic vs illogical condition.

No it doesn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Are you saying that no laws of physics were followed pre big bang?

No, I'm saying don't currently know yet.

Does that mean purple elephants could shoot fireballs at Skeletor and I could hold 3 glass marbles in my hand but could throw 5 of them when I only have 3.

You need to present a mental construct that is remotely meaningful. Skeletor is an arch-enemy and main antagonist within the He-Man fictional universe created by Mattel.

Could consciousness be contained in nothing and create at will anything, thus magic is real?

I'm not sure what cognitive science has anything to do with any pre-Big Bang event. Addressing consciousness as merely a by-product of the brain found in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals - could the early-universe support life? Very unlikely. The temperatures back then were incredibly high.

Well if so then the argument of god existing will have weight behind it.

So magic man's existence is highly improbable then? I'm fairly confident that wasn't the point you were trying to make.

No I do not think you imply these things because that is illogical, not to have 1 to 1 correlations on physical objects, it is illogical to have nothing be composed of something.

Broadly, we're talking about metaphysics here, not logical arguments.

But my whole point was that if this is true something illogical was needed to prime mass/energy out of nothing as logic dictates this is impossible.

Then I don't understand your whole point sorry. Where does it say anywhere in philosophy that the "quantum singularity" or whatever before the Big Bang event violates the laws of logic?

I was using God as a place name holder, I usually refer to god as giver of domain, you can refer to it as a process or entity, it just easier to type god then event or uncaused cause, because most people think of god as creation of some type

Which in practice is asinine. You make the noun "god" even more meaningless to me than it was before when you throw it around casually like that. I'm even not aware of any theology where a deity is presented as a process rather than an entity, you might as well call god "Wumbo" for all the sense it makes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dDSmKbwiR0

As before, I stated there can be different laws, laws of logic, laws of magic or imaginary. We need logical laws in order to measure and this universe is based on them. My argument just stated that there can be only two states before the universe was created. A “place” of logic and ordered process and concrete definition of properties or a “place” of imagination or magic, whatever you want to call it where if honestly if that is the case, god being real has a very high chance of being real. I just tried to reason from these two states and build them into the known simulation of the universe, that’s all.

So its all utter nonsense then? Products of myth? Non-existent? Because there are no "laws" of magic or the imaginary.

The quote I used for Georges Lemaître are both correct and not correct, so I can give you this point.

Please familiarise yourself with the Law of noncontradiction at your earliest convenience.

Fact is Georges did say nothing existed before the big bang, that you can look up. I however defined what a complete void of nothingness is and I switch out his word nothing existed to void just as a clarifier.

Which is quote mining and intellectually dishonest. You do not get to change the definitions of 'void', 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' to build up an argument or make some arbitrary point. You are taking George's work out of the original context it was worded in.

So I do think I honestly have present a sound argument and I have reposted retorts to all questions in a similar sound manor.

You haven't presented anything yet.

I see the universe as both amazingly complex and also extremely simplistic.

So you're intentionally oversimplifying complex problems and phenomena, thereby making unrealistically simple judgements or analyses about the cosmos? Is that right? If not, stop using the word "simplistic" please.