Quote:

Ok, so we have some pre-universal state. What then caused this pre-universal state? Where do these membranes come from, or these 'phase transitions' that are spontaneous, in the first place?



Both are completely different theories. The membrane model assumes an eternal space/time continuum of moving n-dimensional membranes. Imagine you have two 3-dimensional bubbles that intersect. The intersection area is first a point, then grows to a circle. If the bubbles are 4-dimensional, their intersection area - our universe - is a 3-dimensional sphere growing from a point. This is an oversimplification, but a better description of that model can be found for instance in the popular science books by the physicist Michio Kaku.

A phase transition happened, for instance, when the original force separated into the four forces known by physics, and caused the inflation of the universe in its first split second (this is not a hypothesis but just applied quantum theory). The hypothesis is that the origin of the universe itself was such a phase transition occurring in a cold, eternal, infinite 10-dimensional space, by the separating of our 3 spatial dimensions within a local, yet infinite area. This is the Gabriele Veneziano model. It generated an immense amount of energy that led to the creation of baryonic matter in our universe.

Both models assume an eternal space existing before, beside, and after the universe. As you or someone else here went to great lenght to explain, eternal things need no cause.

Quote:

As far as uncaused...things. I would like to know how science proves something does not have a cause. As far as I remember you never really answered that question. I wondered how we can prove anything other than that we don't know the cause. I don't know how to prove a negative. It was like scientists 50 years ago proving that vestigial organs have no purpose. Surprise! They do.



I'm indeed surprised, as the outcome of the discussion so far clearly showed that they don't. You are, as to my knowledge, still brooding over an answer on the debunking of the "appendix purpose" weeks ago.

The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem

It's a little annoying to refute all creationist arguments just to see them repeated some time later. I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.