"He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)"

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

Doomgaze: If he is a deist (ie, if he believes that god is responsible, which I'll point out he does NOT say in that article), then yes, he would believe in intelligent design. The name having design in it would imply what you're saying, but it actually just means that god had something to do with the creation of the universe or life. It can be applied to either. (I was going to agree with you, but I checked the dictionary definition)

However, I don't see what this has to do with proving intelligent design. All he's saying is that other people don't like the theory because it seems to imply intelligent design. This doesn't mean it's proof of it. Not at all. That's like finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and calling it proof of leprechauns.

"Yes, but do they acknowledge the implication that we were created. (at least indirectly (mass was just created is what I mean by indirectly))"

Created does not equal created by god. You could say I believe we were created by evolution.

"Most things in the universe seem to be carefully balanced between being too large and too small. (either of which would be catastrophic for life)"

Try looking at it from another viewpoint. Instead of looking at things as too complex, or balanced to be created by anything other than god, thinking about things as chain reactions. Because of the properties of matter, energy, space, and time, there is no other way thing could possible exist. God didn't make the Earth round, the spinning motion of gravity when the solar system formed did. The Earth may seem in too perfect a position for life for it just to be coincidence, but it's merely the properties of the solar system that caused the conditions for life. I suppose you could argue that got designed the universe that way. I'm not explaining myself very well here either, so I hope you see what I mean.

"A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics."

Auronhart is right, things did have to exist for this to work. However, that's actually how I believe the sigularity mentioned in the Big Bang theory ceased to be a singularity. With all matter confined in infinite density, it's unavoidable that such a particle-antiparticle meeting would occur. Such a large amount of energy being released, in my theory at least, would cause the singularity to begin it's exansion. As the dimensions stretched, time and space fell back into place again. As a singularity, because of infinite mass, these were suspended. I'm forgetting a lot of quantum physics whatnot, so I'll get a better explaination once I get my book.