It's a chain of infinite regress that is only broken by the assertion of the theist that their deity is infinite/timeless etc.
The assertion is non-falsifiable and there is no evidence to support it. It's therefor not logical to accept it as true, and it is in no way a proof for the existence of their deity.
Seriously, just replace deity with "Zoltar, destroyer of Worlds" and you'll see how baseless such an assertion really is.
"We don't know" is my answer to the question of "where does matter come from" albeit it not emotionally satisfying, it is truthful and not knowing something is nothing to be ashamed of. Claiming to know when it is in fact belief, is something to be ashamed of, especially when this certainty is unjustly used to ridicule the position of someone who claims no knowledge.
That said, I do think that the multiverse an interesting and poetic idea, I can only attest to it's coolness however, not to it's veracity because I am not schooled in any kind of physics, except by popular culture.
Per the article below we supposedly have already created matter from a vacuum. That is, our idea of nothing (a vacuum) is really a balance of existing matter and antimatter that wipes out the physical properties of each to give the impression of nothing when there is really something.
To me the thing that seems to have always existed is balance or opposites of some kind. This is consistent with the universe not being the result of a biased god but of complete randomness. In randomness everything is given an equal chance so that balance is maintained. This is consistent with Hawking's position that the universe was spontaneously created along with many others.
My theory is this: (please note I am only 16 and dont have a lot of time to look into these sorts of things in detail, but this is my proposition.)
Energy creates matter through the creation of quarks, leptons, etc, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore had to have been expelled from singularity at the point of the big bang due to approaching an increadibly large density contained within an increadly small area. The expulsion of this energy would have caused heat (the transfer of energy) and when the conditions were right, gamma rays, x-rays, etc form, then neutrinos and photons then up down charm positive and negative energy forms the quarks, leptons, which form the protons and neutrons of atoms, etc. So to answer your question, I think it always has existed in the form of energy.
16 years old!!?? I hope you're out of high school and in University.
not to nitpick, but i don't know of black holes actually exploding after their creation. being a phenomena that is so gravitationally powerful that even light cannot escape its grasp, I find it expelling anything (other than sub atomic particles) in an "explosion" a bit of a reach. Also (again, i'm not trying to be rude) consider that as a black hole grows, it also collapses.
I think what you are trying to say is that matter in the universe would be gravitationally pulled together (although this is not the current trend as the universe expands) until it is compressed to its maximum point, the planck constant~ at which point (and this is true as far as I know) all of the matter in the universe combined would be the size of an atom*. this would create the mostly void universe, and give a single location for a "big bang" to occur again, reigniting the process.
*actually, let me state that what I was taught by a good friend of mine, an astronomy professor, was that if you took all of the matter in the universe and condensed it to its maximum point, the maximum energy level, it would be the size of one atom.
[this was edited for content and terminology, my apologies]
While looking up theories on the explosion of black holes, I found an article about "white holes" that act as the opposite of black holes. Its completely theoretical (negative mass/gravity doesn't seem likely to me) but is interesting if they could be found~ hypothetically linking this universe to another via infinite values obtained from black holes and white holes.
I must say, however, that I do not agree or accept the idea for several reasons, I just found it interesting.
ok, well I found what you were talking about. Its a theory put forth by Stephen Hawking that as a black hole outputs radiation, it loses energy. after an enormous period of time (which, from what I assume, would be after its consumed everything around it) it would lose so much energy [and therefore mass] that it would no longer be able to curve space around it~ and that loss of mass would result in its inability to contain itself, thus exploding back out into the universe.
What I'm curious about is this~ a black hole without the immense gravity is essentially a star~ the reason it doesn't appear that way is because the light it emits gets trapped in its gravitational field. So, if fusion is occurring [due to its immense mass] then you have the creation of exponentially heavier particles as its lifetime endures... So what happens when it reaches the heaviest elements possible? (this would essentially be the same point where a star would collapse into itself, creating a black hole) would there be a point where fusion stops occurring, and if so, being denser particles, wouldn't that only aid its gravitational field? wouldn't it only increase exponentially until increase was impossible? at that point, what would happen?