Anyways, just to clarify in the realm of physics, Boyle's law doesn't really go anywhere when you're talking about the universe and the big bang. This is because Boyle's law relies on macroscopic uniformity, when in reality microscopic changes occur all of the time.
No actually, it doesn't apply to macroscopic bodies, it applies mainly to the microscopic view of an atom. On a large scale basis, being a macroscopic collision, some energy can be converted from kinetic energy into thermal energy through friction, or when one body is larger than the other, one will travel faster than the other. Although there is velocity change in many collisions, no energy is ever lost, just transferred between atoms. Of course this will apply to the big bang.
Here's a definition of boiling:
Boiling (also called ebullition), a type of phase transition, is the rapid vaporization of a liquid, which typically occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding environmental pressure. Thus, a liquid may also boil when the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere is sufficiently reduced, such as the use of a vacuum pump or at high altitudes.
This means that if you take a liquid into space, whenever a molecule collides into another molecule they will veer off in different directions. The atoms at the edge of this liquid will veer off into space and continue along their path, resulting in the entire pressurized group of atoms to all disperse. The only way these atoms would not disperse is if they were compacted together from an external pressure, which does not exist in space.
This is why no stars have ever been seen created, because they were created 6000 yrs ago or so.
This means that Boyle's law is actually not true, but is true for all observable cases. It's kind of like Newtonian physics. In any case, gravitational forces affect gas particles floating around in space, and even with all of these elastic collisions (which aren't actually all perfectly elastic, no such thing as an ideal gas) there is still a net force that will pull gas particles together, and the closer they get, the greater the force. The result of the increase of force is that as soon as a perfectly uniform universe starts to have small changes, the changes will tend to continue, and an equilibrium cannot be formed. For a more technical physical proof, gravitational acceleration is GM/r^2, and the amount of particles in a sphere with radius r varies as r^3, this means we can write M as kr^3, where k is a constant that is largely irrelevant. This means that the force attracting a particle towards a point will be porportional to Gkr, meaning that when we take r to be massive due to the massive size of the universe, the force will actually be ridiculously high on particles that are not close to the center. Also note that k is extremely small, and that G is in the order of -11, so we will not see attraction unless we examine areas much larger than even our own galaxy. To put it in to simple terms, the gas in a balloon will never form a star because the gravitational force is minimal compared to the pressure. When we examine a spherical portion of space with a certain amount of gas in it, with a radius of say X meters, the gravitational force is immense compared to the pressure, which allows the particles to be drawn together.
No, this will not allow the particles to be drawn together, this will allow the particles less collisions if there is a low pressure, but whenever there is a collision, due to elasticity (i'm not talking about chemical reactions in which neutrinos take an effect, just atom collisions) the atoms will knock into each other, and undergoe a transfer of momentum. the gravitational force between two atoms, is extremely tiny, and unless the atoms were set down touching each other with almost no momentum at all they would hit and veer off in opposing directions. Now if the pressure was greater, then the combined force of gravity, and the external pressure being laid upon the gas by the spherical boundry will allow the atoms to slide along one another without veering off into random directions from collisions. This is the state known as a liquid. Without this external pressure, no grouping of atoms in a vacuum can be achieved.
If we assume that there is one hydrogen particle per cubic meter, then we end up with the following acceleration at the edge of the X meter radius sphere:
a = 6.67x10^-11*[(4/3)*pi*X^3]*[1/(6x10^23)] / [X^2] = X*4.6*10^-34
So, when x is about a trillion light years, you end up with around 10^-9 m/s^2, so after say a thousand years of accelerating, the particles on the fringes are going at like 10 meters per second towards the center of the area, and will eventually get together and form a galaxy. Now, to fast forward things, in the first billion years or so, the area of the entire system will close by about one light year, in the next billion years it'll be about two light years, and it'll keep on going like that, the force of the mass always overriding the force of pressure, because of the immense proportions involved. The reason Boyle's law won't apply to this is because Boyle's law relies on each particle undergoing like a million collisions per second, which allow a uniform force to be applied to each atom. When there's only like 1 atom per square meter, that thing could go a million years without colliding with anything. Now, when we add the fact that the big bang caused this system to begin with some predetermined randomness, and that there was a large amount of plasma present, the actual process goes even faster, and will often work much better due to increased density. I'd also like to note that I'm using theoretical numbers, the actual events were quite different but this is simple proof in scientific terms that when we examine something as large as the universe, basic thermodynamics laws aren't really that important until we get in to topics like heat death and entropy. Again, just so this doesn't get unneeded semantics arguments, all I did was propose a basic model that is not actually anywhere near the scale of the universe, but it does prove that when you have a spherical area filled with gas, it will constrict at a rate dependent on it's radius, and by the time Boyle's law does kick in, the mass will be so great that the force will hold back the entropy.
The problem with this example is: it calls for an enclosed area very small compared to the universe. I'm not even sure where you got this idea from, but the only way for these atoms to group together using gravitational force would be if energy is lost to the outside of the boundary, which wouldn't make any sense at all as there are no practical applications of such a system in our universe.
Anyways, that aside, the interesting question is how did earth make life? Science has shown that there were the right building blocks for cells, but so far we haven't be able to prove whether or not it's possible for a living cell to come out of the primordial soup. Lots of Empiricists will tell you that the fact that life did in fact come in to being proves that a cell was randomly formed, but this is not proper logic, and never will be. (It's called affirming the consequent, first year philosophy course stuff, and it's a fallacy to use it) Anyways, the two explanations on the table would be firstly that random electric energy and molecules forming a perfect cell, suddenly able to propagate itself, feed off of it's surroundings, and practice survival of the fittest, this seems kind of like a stretch, I mean believing that such a perfectly designed life machine just popped out of some goo is almost as dumb as believing that a god made a man, ripped his rib out, and then made it in to a woman. The second idea is that some mystical force of consciousness (or some old bearded god guy, whatever floats your boat) pushed life along and somehow influenced the primordial sludge to evolve in to a race of beings capable of holding consciousness and thinking and all that. This one seems kind of dumb too. Well, there's where I'm stuck, both options just seem too ridiculous to pursue any further, normally I'd go with the first one, but recent theories in quantum physics and string theory are almost at the point where they support intelligent design, which makes the whole deal even more confusing.
So you mean, you want matter to be able to form life on its own, but you know it can't. But you will never accept an authority like God, so you'll just ignore choosing a side to the question all together because you don't like the idea of having a boss, or accepting a ridiculous idea like evolution.
About the whole intelligent design and creationism; Intelligent design, a variation of which is called the Gap Theory, believes that God used evolution to create man. You said you don't believe a man can be made from the dirt, but you believe a cell magically popped alive, and changed dramatically, survived for millions of years, and slowly and magically progressed into things bigger and better through death. These beings then later on start mating.. from the usual method of budding. Then moved onto land, and gained lungs. Well, how in the world would a fish, start to move around on land. And even if it did, how would a fish halfway in between gills and lungs breathe? Why would this fish stop using it's gills, and become solely dependent on lungs? There shouldn't be very much food a fish like mouth can eat on land.. so this would have to breathe with its lungs ONLY, and travel into the water (mind you its getting used to the land to develope feet) for food. Then after it became dependant upon land started to fly? Now, i don't have wings, so if my species started jumping and waving my hands frequently, will we start sprouting wings?
Look, having a creator is much more logical than random chance in which the creators of the idea they don't know anything about how anything happened. And having a creator use evolution destroys the need for christ as there would be death before sin, so that one is illogical as well.
Here's an example, say you see a building on the side of the road. And you think, wow, it must have taken 10 men to build that thing. Then your buddy next to you says, wow, the chances of that happening by nature are like 1 in 1^85742039750934759879503475. And you think, no, that was made by 10 men, it didn't just randomly happen. Would it be logical to look at your house, and say: I do not think that house had a creator?
The same thing applies to our world. You shouldn't look at our universe without saying, wow look what God made in 6 days.
None.