All I'm waiting for is evidence. Not philosophical musings on how things "must" have gotten started, but material, concrete evidence. Fetch some and then we'll see.

Please note that this is not "faith in science"; it is trust in science. The difference is that faith is blindly given, while trust is earned.

"Where did particles come from? We have no answer, but it couldn't have been God."

One more time...that's a strawman. We aren't saying it couldn't be god, we are saying we are unjustified in claiming it was god. I understand that you refuse to actually read what we are saying, but just this once it would be nice.

"When and how did the cell begin? We don't know, but it would be ridiculous to say it was God."
"How did creation begin? We don't know for sure, but if you say God, you are clearly illogical."

Once again, we are saying that sans evidence for this entity that you call "god" we are unjustified in claiming that it is responsible for all of these things. The best answer is to claim that we don't know and not simply believe in whatever we want to. That is why you are irrational and illogical to assert positive belief in god instead of non-belief. Again, I doubt that you'll get this and you will continue to flog strawmen.

It cannot be proven that God does not exist.

True. This, however, does not give us license to believe that god does or must exist. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist either.

And an eternal, omnipotent Being is to me far more rational than professing belief in an unknown, undemonstrated feat of matter to not be bound by space and time or to generate its own existence and then flourish into complexities beyond our human faculties.

What you are really saying is that an unknown entity that has no evidence is somehow more rational than reserving judgement or relying on methods and empirical data. This is clearly not so. I could just as easily say that unicorns are far more rational than professing belief in an unknown, undemonstrated creator god.

Also, I'd like to point out, once again, that you seem stuck on this idea that something had to generate its own existence when it could have been generated by impersonal forces, a meta-universe, or simply have always existed. You can't rule out any of those possibilities, no matter how often you try to flog your strawman.

Finally, you want to claim it's impossible for something to come from nothing, but you use special pleading (as Ebon pointed out and you've ignored) to not include your god in that classification.

Of course, this is to approach God through the mind only... and God's presence is manifest through both the mind and the heart.

Sorry, but hearts don't think or feel or do anything beyond pump blood.

An atheist clearly has faith, though it is faith in what God has created, and not faith the in Creator directly.

Your strawman versions of atheists may perhaps have faith. Perhaps if you actually listen to what we are saying, you might be able to overcome your erroneous assertions. Disbelief in your faith does not constitute a positive faith of its own. Or, do you think you have faith that unicorns don't exist as well?

Where did particles come from? I don't know. God must have created them. End of story. Where did the cell come from? I don't know. God must have created them. End of story. How did the Big Bang occur? I don't know. God must have done it. End of story.

Rejecting God as mythological through such an argument is opening the door to the problems with atheistic justification.
"Where did particles come from? We have no answer, but it couldn't have been God."
"When and how did the cell begin? We don't know, but it would be ridiculous to say it was God."
"How did creation begin? We don't know for sure, but if you say God, you are clearly illogical."

It cannot be proven that God does not exist. And an eternal, omnipotent Being is to me far more rational than professing belief in an unknown, undemonstrated feat of matter to not be bound by space and time or to generate its own existence and then flourish into complexities beyond our human faculties. Of course, this is to approach God through the mind only... and God's presence is manifest through both the mind and the heart.
An atheist clearly has faith, though it is faith in what God has created, and not faith the in Creator directly.

Explaining the beginning of particles, the cell, the Big Bang theory, etc, without God is a dead end.

That's hilarious.

"Where did particles come from?"
"I don't know. God must have created them. End of story."
"Where did the cell come from?"
"I don't know. God must have created them. End of story."
"How did the Big Bang occur?"
"I don't know. God must have done it. End of story."

Seems like explaining these things with God is the dead end.

The fact that everything comes from something shows the need of there to be One who is not created.

We've already told you about cases where something doesn't have to come from something else, and also mentioned that you don't know that the universe was not always around. Once again, simply repeating yourself doesn't make you any more persuasive or right.

If God did not exist, there would still be nothing, which is clearly not the case.

This is begging the question.

I am explaining that belief in God is rational.

By relying on logical fallacies and strawmen arguments as well as unevidence assertions that are shown to be wrong?

Assenting to the belief that creation, matter, or energy was always here is not rational.

It's a logical possibility that the universe always existed.

Some are making an inexplicable assent to faith in something while denying God, and claiming that assenting to faith in God is not rational. That does not make sense, but some accuse theists of irrationally accepting the possibility of God.

Wrong again. None of us here are saying that the possibility of god is irrational. We are (at least some of us) saying that belief in god is irrational and that your arguments for positive belief in god are irrational. There's a big difference. OTOH, it's more rational to withhold belief in god, as we do, until such time as evidence comes forth to support such a belief.

And God has no comparability with fairies or unicorns as some try to say.

Says you, but until you can show why your god should be held as more likely than any of those other mythological creatures, there's really no difference.

The fact that everything comes from something shows the need of there to be One who is not created. But everything in the universe has been able to occur because of existences already here. Nothing causes or wills its own existence. There is a "Necessary Being" therefore, who most call God. If God did not exist, there would still be nothing, which is clearly not the case.

Translation: "Assertions already shown wrong can be resurrected without regard to answering objections."

Arch, you should know that "Because I say so" isn't a very persuasive argument.

How so? If you are going to claim that our existence proves god's existence, then you'll have to make an argument for it beyond, "You don't know it doesn't, so therefore it does."

I am explaining that belief in God is rational. Assenting to the belief that creation, matter, or energy was always here is not rational. Some are making an inexplicable assent to faith in something while denying God, and claiming that assenting to faith in God is not rational. That does not make sense, but some accuse theists of irrationally accepting the possibility of God. I'm afraid that rejecting God is the truly irrational stance. And God has no comparability with fairies or unicorns as some try to say. God is eternal, and that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

About your example, I was suggesting that was a poor example of virtual particles when yall say they come from nothing, yet you yourself claimed that the photons are given off after (as a result of) an electron slides into a lower orbit.
Maybe I am confused but that is just how I took it.
I don't understand why the bible cannot be used in evidence towards God's existence?
Seems the direct source is always the best place to go.

The photon was materially non-existent before the drop in orbits. It arose from the excess energy in the system. Thus, something materially may come from nothing.

Using the Bible as evidence for God's existence assumes the truth of the proposition that you're seeking to prove. That is circular reasoning, a clear logical fallacy. Let me break it down for you:

"God exists."
"How do you know?"
"The Bible says so."
"Couldn't the Bible be wrong?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because it is the inerrant Word of God."

Does that clarify this fallacy for you?

Arch wrote:

So they clearly do not come to exist of their own accord from nothing, create their own being, or occur without a medium... trying to explain the means of their existence without God is an act of speculation, another "leap of faith in science" with no definitive answer.

Clearly, they did. First they didn't exist, then they did. Quite literally, they come out of nowhere and go back into nowhere. Simply because the energy was already extant doesn't mean anything, because energy itself is eternal, and the substrate for material existence.

Quantum mechanics do not make the incredible complexity of the cosmos, matter, the cell, human life, etc, any more likely without God.

My citation of QM was as a direct reply to the false statement that "something cannot come from nothing." I'm aware of its limits and am not trying to use it to explain these things, although it certainly has a role in physical existence.

Explaining the beginning of particles, the cell, the Big Bang theory, etc, without God is a dead end. For creation to have occurred from nothing, without God, is unexplainable and impossible. Nothingness cannot create or beget anything, and if nothing can cause its own existence, there should still be nothing today.

These are all bald assertions advanced without evidence. To paraphrase Hitchens, what is advanced without evidence may be discarded without evidence.

Someone can make the argument that there could have been something, but will be unable to give any reasonable explanation of the existence of that something, unless they recognize the existence of an uncreated, transcendent Being.

Statistically speaking, something is much more likely than nothing, especially when you consider that a vacuum is most unstable.

Forgive me for quoting my self, but you have yet to address this:

Additionally, saying that "everything comes from something" is certainly fatal to your creator hypothesis.

Kindly explain why you feel this doesn't apply to your creator.

I repeat problems and questions that your comments and responses continue to fail to answer.

Because you fail to actually look at what is being said. For instance, you keep claiming that nothing can cause its own existence and we keep correcting you that the universe may very well be a-causal (as some particles are, which has also been pointed out) and/or that the universe was "caused" by impersonal "cause." It's also been pointed out how it doesn't really make sense to speak of causality in the absence of time, which you continue to ignore.

The possibility, the likelihood, and the necessity of God can be recognized through observation of creation and reason.

That may be so, but god of the gaps fallacious thinking isn't getting you there.

Yet there is absolutely no reasonable argument for how matter, particles, the cell, human life, etc, came into existence from nothing, or had the ability to be in existence perpetually.

You don't know that. The universe may very well be eternal or part of a larger meta-verse that is eternal for all intents and purposes. The universe did not exist eternally in its present form, but that doesn't preclude other options. Jumping to god is simply not warranted since you're doing it based only on pouncing on any perceived gap in knowledge.

Without an eternal God, this is an inexplicable belief. God's presence is stamped in creation, and in the very fact that we exist.

How so? If you are going to claim that our existence proves god's existence, then you'll have to make an argument for it beyond, "You don't know it doesn't, so therefore it does."

Why is there something rather than nothing?

We don't know yet, but why should there be God rather than nothing?

How could the universe come to be, without an eternal Being, if nothing can cause its own existence?

As above, but how do you know "nothing can cause its own existence"

How did human life begin without God?

Evolution.

How did the cell derive from matter?

It didn't. The cell is a further evolutionary step way after a simpler (possibly RNA) chemical replicant arose. We haven't filled in the first step yet but we have hypotheses that don't require God. Watch this space (gap?)

How is there any meaning of life without God? Wouldn't it be arbitrary meaning

There is meaning because we have family and society and relationships that we have evolved to imbue with meaning. Is it arbitrary? maybe but no more abitrary than meaning from God.

How did time begin without God?

Time flows from entropy, and in any event may only be an artifact of the way we perceive the universe.

How could organisms without intelligence have been able to act in particular ways without God?

I don't think this is even a meaningful question

Sticking your finger in your ears and yelling the same thing over and over is rather unpersuasive when your argument has already been met with objections. Ignoring them and repeating yourself doesn't make you any more correct.

I repeat problems and questions that your comments and responses continue to fail to answer. Why is there something rather than nothing? How could the universe come to be, without an eternal Being, if nothing can cause its own existence? How did human life begin without God? How did the cell derive from matter? How is there any meaning of life without God? Wouldn't it be arbitrary meaning, and therefore just as acceptable to have no meaning? How did time begin without God? How could organisms without intelligence have been able to act in particular ways without God? Etc... These questions are some of the key questions to natural revelation. The possibility, the likelihood, and the necessity of God can be recognized through observation of creation and reason.

No matter how long you go on about it, Arch, your argument can be reduced to one sentence of special pleading:
"The universe has to have a creator, but God doesn't, because I say so."
Do you really expect atheists to not recognize this fallacy for what it is?

If I may show the atheistic position in a similar light, we may say: "The universe just came to be. Though nothing causes its own existence, it came to be without a Being who was not created, because I feel like there must have been some way for that to happen." Yet there is absolutely no reasonable argument for how matter, particles, the cell, human life, etc, came into existence from nothing, or had the ability to be in existence perpetually. Without an eternal God, this is an inexplicable belief. God's presence is stamped in creation, and in the very fact that we exist.