We can sense and feel and touch someTHING. We cannot sense and feel and touch the Biblical picture of God (let's excuse God-incarnate for a moment please).

You are saying it is more reasonable (or at least as UNreasonable) to believe something came from nothing even though we can see and touch and feel this something. I am saying it is much more reasonable to believe something came from nothing because a being outside time and space brought them to being.

Really, my worldview affords me a beginning, yours does not.

Mine doesn't need a beginning. Why do you assert that this is in some way bad?

The physical law of conservation of matter and energy requires that either: 1) that the universe has always and will always (in some form) exist, or 2) that the universe is an open system (if it is an open system, then the greater multiverse of all creation is by definition still a closed system and therefore must satisfy proposition number 1. It must have always existed and will always exist. No other possibility is allowed within physical laws. Does someone here dispute the validity and applicability of physical laws?

Pandersenic: was that too plain for you to bear?

lazysummer: Your post is unreadable. Make it readable if you want an answer.

Dexter I have no idea what that physical law is, who/where it came from, nor can I even understand it.

Care to explain?

And besides, what we're discussing is outside "physical" laws if I'm referencing a spiritual being. I'm arguing for the SUPERnatural.

Is an answer to "I grew up in a Deist environment, drifted away from the idea of an all-powerful being, have never experienced and great conversion or deconversion, and, having read the Satanic Bible, concluded it was as full of nonsense as the New Testament (which I also read.) Explain." buried in there anyway, perchance? If so, I'd like to see it.

bartdogg: You don't know what the Laws of Conservation are?

@Dexter We're talking about religion. Of course someone disputes the validity of physical laws. If God exists and is all-powerful, then he can violate physical laws. Not that I'm arguing either way about God's existence.
That said, I do think that the creation of the universe is the most convincing argument for the existence of some supernatural thing. It might just be my mind's limits, but it doesn't make sense to me that the universe existed forever. However, "some supernatural thing that existed at the time of creation" is not necessarily the same thing as God, and, for all I know, it might have ceased to exist.

pandarsenic I openly admit I do not know the Laws of Conservation, though I'm pretty sure I have a grip on them now.

zuzak said the same thing I said earlier and I agree. We're talking about the supernatural, so citing physical laws is moot.

Laws of Conservation: "Something" cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change its form. Basically, this precludes "something from nothing."

bartdogg: So you confess that, as physical laws define what is logical and possible, you're arguing something impossible and illogical?

If we're talking supernatural... of which we have zero evidence... then all logical argument is moot. But then I probably offended someone.

lol (Pandarsenic +1)

Pandersenic: I don't want an answer, you always answer with a question because the argument goes over your head :P

No, hold the phone.

This law has nothing to do with creation from that explanation anyways. It says nothing about how "something" appeared in the first place. The answer is, "it just was"? It must have a beginning, where is it?

And I am confessing nothing of the like, and it's a funny leap you just took to throw me under the bus. I am arguing for something supernatural.

Now, if you'd like to throw everything "miraculous" or "supernatural" I believe in (Jesus' resurrection et al) under one umbrella and call it "impossible" than that's your right. That's, after all, what makes them miracles.

Dexter I agree! We can have no scientific "evidence" of the supernatural or miraculous, again, that's what makes them miracles.

So bringing physical laws into a discussion about things that involve the supernatural is totally missing the point, and utterly useless.

lazysummer: Are you ever going to make that post from before in *real* English or are you going to continue your ad hominem attacks and red herrings?

bartdogg:
"It must have a beginning"
WHY? Answer, man, I've asked it three times now!

RE not confessing: Supernatural is just another word for impossible. Something capable of doing the impossible, or supernatural, by violating natural laws, for all intents and purposes operates outside the bounds of logic and reason. Arguing for its possibility and existence is, therefore, arguing against logic and reason.

But throw the baby out with the bathwater here. "logical argument" is very much alive and kicking in the discussion of the supernatural, such as creation.

Logically, A exists. If A exists then something/someone created or formed A, it didn't just appear in time/space.

You say A say exists just because A was always around in some form.

So, yes, to answer a question from way above, to believe something came from nothing is indeed "bad" or in this case "illogical".

I meant to say, of course, "But don't throw the baby out with ..."

"If A exists then something/someone created or formed A."

Prove this assertion.

You're holding a mouse. It came from somewhere. Perhaps you'll say, "sure from the maker." And I'll say, you're right.

You could get miniscule and eventually get to the mini-matter or whatever holds the plastic together. And I'll repeat the question, where did the mini-matter stuff come from? You, at some point, will either have to bite your tongue and remove yourself from questioning or say "from the maker."

And I'll hold up God...

Ok, I must retire to bed. I'll admit this convo was quite fun for me, and I hope for others as well. I hope it rages through the night as it did last night and I can chime in in the morning.

Goodnight all and happy diplomatting!

Mmkay. See you tomorrow. Adding something while I'm at it.

"Eternity isn't a long time, it's the only time." - Michael Wakcher

Here's my main problem with your argumentation of that, bartdogg42: If God can exist regardless of the idea of "time," without any creator, why can't anything else? Why the double-standard?

Not wanting to get involved with this discussion, but I think that people here would be interested in visiting
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

A lengthy article, but one that is very relevant to this topic.

Oh, Plato? Shiny. <_<

Here's something:
From what I've observed and experienced, nothing can appear for no reason, out of nothing. I haven't heard from a reliable source that something can appear with no reason (except when a particle of matter and anti-matter appear and eliminate each other, but that's irrelevant).

An infinite amount of time cannot have passed since the beginning of the universe. Therefore, the universe has not existed forever, and must have been created.

Therefore, something outside of what I have experienced must have been responsible for the creation of the universe. This something can be described as "supernatural" because it contradicts everything that I have observed.

I think a problem here is an unclear definition of "supernatural." If ghosts were proven to exist, would you consider them supernatural? I would define supernatural as I did above, as "something that contradicts observed phenomenon," which means that it is theoretically possible.

I hope that made sense.

zuzak: Have you observed or experienced God's presence?
Can an infinite amount of time have passed since God came into existence? Everything saying God is eternal but the Universe isn't applies a double-standard: if one thing can have existed forever (a hypothetical God), then anything can have existed forever (the Universe).
"If ghosts were proven to exist, would you consider them supernatural?" No, but the operative word here is PROVEN.

Supernatural, by my definition, is something that exists or operates beyond the boundaries of logic, reality, possibility, etc.

My question, which I haven't seen answered adequately, is how can you say God CAN have never not existed (as in, has always existed), but the Universe itself CANNOT fulfill the same condition? What makes them so different? Once you admit one thing can have existed in some form forever, must you not admit all things may have?

You've contradicting yourself. If God is supernatural he CAN have existed before the universe because he isn't bound by the rules of his own creation. That's why no one can ever prove God exists: he doesn't really exist in the way we do. He's more.