LunarDarkness2 :  Read carefully what I said in my initial post, "anything that begins to exist requires a cause or a maker."  There was never a mention that everything has to have a creator.  The argument was in any case about the universe being eternal and that being absurd.  I have read through the posts again and I do not know who quoted as you stated in your post,  "Everything has to have a creator of some sort".  If it was that way, it would of course be a contradiction.

Is it so difficult to believe that an infinite being was always there, and created us as finite beings?

I do not beleve in a creator, so the creator of a creator would be not likely to be real IMO.

How I see it: Matter changes when it interacts with other matter, when it cools, gets hot.. or when it is under presure.
I think you can see that as the evolution of matter itself, something does not have to be ``alive`` to evolve and change.. and thus become more or sometimes less complex.

I beleve that the only people who have almighty power on this planet are the super rich elite, heads of corparations and large land-real estate owners.
The same kind of people who wrote books like the bible, talmut and tora to push people in a certain direction.
To give them a worldview that they aprove of, religion mostly is about worldview and morals-valeus right?
And those morals/values are based on the worldview shown in the relegious books.
So the lesson is: when you control someones worldview, you control most of his other views/opinions aswel.

On a lot of bills and coins there stands: in god we trust (or in other languages, stil the same thing).
So I think when you pray these days.. you are actually praying to the federal gevornment, the people who print the money.
The people who have to power to move mountains because of their monopoly of the monetairy Capitalist system.

Peace to you.

SoL@R :  Ah, yes, sorry. I actually heard that quote from a video they showed us in church. My parents make me go to church even though I do not believe. I forgot to mention this. Sorry about that.

tRIUNE : We're not finite beings. We also are eternal. Except none of that matters until you resolve the question: is there a God?

darthyoda :  I don't want to speak for farmboy8, but I get what he meant by "eternal".  Eternal in a sense of not really dying.  Yes, we of course have a beginning, but we are all heading towards an eternity - either in hell or in heaven.  Matthew 25:46 - "And these (those who reject Jesus Christ) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Our physical bodies here on earth comes to an end, but our souls live forever.

rcarter2 :

Txgangsta : I understand the argument, but I feel that it is hypocritical because it is very narrow minded on the science side. As I mentioned in my original statement in here, I am not saying that what we perceive as the Universe 'created' itself. Formed after it was created, that is a different matter, so I won't go into that one. But on the creation aspect. First, there aren't literally 'laws' that govern the Universe. These laws are just a label that humans created to explain what we observe happening. But that, I suppose is also not the point. My point is that at the moment of singularity where all matter was condensed in one point as pure energy, our Universe as we know it was not existing. That point of singularity, what we identified as 'laws of physics' don't apply. For comparison, black holes being matter condensed so tight that it is like singularity, a lot of what we understand as physics seem to be bent or inapplicable once we are past the Event Horizon. What we observe as laws are something that would not be the same at the point of original singularity.
The problem with this whole argument that DOES make it a paradox is that it completely uses the 'laws' of our existing Universe and try to apply it to something that is not our Universe. How our Universe works only applies to our Universe when it exists, and not applicable to the conditions of before it's existence. I do believe in God, but to not give the other side the same freedom of logic is nothing more than literally making up your own special rules to your side and shutting your mind off to the same rule being applied to anything but your own view.
I am probably not really explaining this very well as I am having trouble right now trying to articulate what I am thinking. So I will just close it like this. The way the Universe works that we label as laws didn't exist until the Universe was formed. Therefore, how the environment of the energy before the Universe formed works don't follow the pattern/laws that we see now. In a place/environment with laws very different from what we see in our current existing Universe, it is perhaps possible for energy to cause it's own existence. Energy being eternal is also not exactly far fetched either since mathematically speaking, that much energy condensed in a single point would be a literal timeless existence.
That is the problem I have when I was looking at Sol@r using logic of philosophy (even modern philosophers) to dismiss the possibility of the Universe not being created by an intelligent, sentient being. Philosophy (at least from the philosophers that he is using to support the view) is based solely on our existing universe and how it works. This does not apply to something/where that is not our existing Universe, therefore inapplicable.
But again, I personally do believe in God. I am not trying to make this into some sort of God debate. I am just trying to point out that most of the arguments made are applied to a very narrow perspective.

rcarter2 :

I just used "laws of physics" as a hypothetical counter argument. It wasn't really important in my argument. Yes, the laws of physics are not real entities.

But logic must remain logic, regardless. We don't know much about black holes past the event horizon. But that doesn't mean black holes are illogical past the event horizon.

And we don't know what was going on when the universe was condensed in such a way. But it doesn't mean it's illogical. Logic remains. Logic is not a human construct. The way we express it might be, but that's not logic itself. The same works for mathematics. 1+1=2 regardless of spatial compression because math is abstract.

You can't throw logic out the window. The beginning of the universe would then be, by definition, illogical. So we should conclude that it never began.

Txgangsta : There is nothing illogical about the concept that what we observe in our Universe may not apply outside of it. The laws of a Universe are properties that are shaped in the moment it begins it's formation. In our Universe, gravity seems to be the unifying force that governs the properties that energy and matter has. What you are saying is exactly what I think is the problem. Specifically the part where you say that logic must remain logic, and are clearly limiting what is 'logic' as what governs our Universe. The beginning of the Universe wouldn't be illogical. It would just be so in terms of our understanding, just as the specifics about God is illogical in our understanding. Whatever you say about God in terms of defying logic, the same can be said about the conditions before the exact time of the formation of the Universe.

rcarter2 :

Would you deny basic cause and effect? That's all I really rely on. I don't need physics. I just need existence, stuff, and cause and effect.

tornadocam :

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? And do you believe that the three persons are one God?

SoL@R : We will never receive an official answer to that question, but I can share you my thoughts about God. I was born as Muslim, and according to the Quran, God is limitless, timeless. Nobody gave birth to God, he was always there all along. I believe in him. God has no creator, no one is superior than him, and he can do whatever he wants.  He's eternal, and has no beginning.

greenluigi :

If that is the extent of the answer, then why can't we just say that the universe itself "...is limitless, timeless. [Nothing] gave birth to [the universe], [it] was always there all along. I believe in [the universe]. [The universe] has no creator, no [thing] is superior [to it], and [it] can do whatever [it] wants. [The universe]'s eternal, and has no beginning."

What's the difference?

No one created God. He has always been there and always will be. I will agree though, it is confusing to think about it that way, but that is just how it is. God, did create minor Gods but no one created God. If anything, he created himself.

marianne26 : No it is specifically stated that Yeshua  the Christ is God in the form of man fully God fully man.  Another reason he is no ordinary man is he was born of a virgin no man required that does not happen on it's own.

And back to the topic at hand you keep making God seem linear a beginning and end but as pointed out earlier he is geometric line no beginning no end.