Let me try and explain why I "belabor" that point. Your response to my argument can basically be summed up as the following:

You source the Law of the Conservation of Mass by not actually stating the Law. You then draw a conclusion from it, without actually supporting that leap in logic. Your point in doing this, I can only assume, is to show that matter is infinite. However, in order for that Law that you sourced to be valid, the universe must be a closed system. By definition of a close system, the universe HAS to be finite, then. Either way, the universe is finite, and therefore my point stands. Since the denial of God would mean that the universe is infinite, a point which you yourself have proven to be false, my argument has yet to be challenged.

So, your "counterpoint" proves itself wrong, in the context of my argument.

You then switch gears and say that it is insane to use logic to prove the existence of something beyond logic. Seeing as you had no real response to my rebuttal, I'll take it that you realize just how ridiculous your claim was.

So, for the time being, you have yet to show why my proof fails to show the existence of God.

"That's what being an atheist is, truly: to require that things be proven beyond any doubt."

You obviously have no background in science, judging from this statement. You have no idea how the world began, and unless you are talking about pure mathematics (which apparently is false, according to your reasoning) there is no such thing as pure science. NOTHING in science is proven beyond a doubt. Absolutely. Nothing. So, are you a nihilist? I mean, the LAW of conservation of mass was replaced and changed. And yet, what defines a law in nature is the fact that it is never changing, or never broken. And yet, it changed. What law is beyond doubt?

This simply has everything to do with pride. To acknowledge that God exists would be a massive bruise to your enormous ego, and you can't back down now. You have no reason to believe in God because it is inconvenient to do so. Plugging your ears and saying that you have no reason to believe in something doesn't change a thing. You say that religion requires a certain level of suspension of disbelief. I'd say that atheism requires an extreme denial of reality. You set up inexact science as the source of all knowledge and claim that it is infallible (which is ludicrous), but you refuse to acknowledge the supernatural. Not everything can be explained in the lab. But, you use the fact that God cannot be dissected on table as the reason why belief in God is for halfwits. That you are so oblivious to the hypocrisy of that stance can only be explained by blinding pride.

Also, I didn't ask you to "buy" into God. What I asked you was to provide what it is that you believe in. The origin of the universe is something that science has yet to (and probably never will) prove. So, do you just not believe in the origin of the universe?

I no longer need to explain further why the argument made about the conservation of mass is consistent. I even did so relative to your supposition early on. But go ahead and keep belaboring this point.

No one claims to have figured out for certain the origin of the universe except for religious folk. I'm not particularly hung up on it being proven for sure, but I find it ridiculous that someone would see me as unreasonable for not buying into one that definitively comes with an excess of moralizing baggage.

I have no reason to believe god exists and this certainly hasn't dissuaded me from that viewpoint. That's what being an atheist is, truly: to require that things be proven beyond any doubt. The burden of proof is on those who argue for god, not those who demand proof of it. The idea that 'there cannot NOT be god' seems absurd because to be because I can't see what sort of event would make such a conclusion evident.

Religion requires a certain level of suspension of disbelief, and you seem to have a problem with that. At least Kierkegaard, one of few modern religious philosophers of any real merit, understood that religion required faith in the absurd. Without it, what is faith?

According to your argument, mathematicians and physicists are obviously crazy. I mean, limits that approach infinity(which goes beyond nature, as we do not and cannot fully grasp the concept of infinity), quantum mechanics (which, by your own words, seem to ignore the rules of nature) etc….So, how are they able to make claims on these things? I mean, how can you apply logic to the limit of natural log of x, as x approaches 0? Or, how do you make a claim on quantum mechanics when quantum mechanics seem to ignore natural law? It's OBVIOUSLY impossible, since you are applying logic to something that cannot be explained by logic.

Your claim is a subtle form of circular reasoning. We cannot logically prove the existence of the supernatural, because the supernatural is beyond logic. In order to prove its existence, we can only use what is available to us, (logic and reasoning), but we cannot because to prove it, we'd have to use logic.

Nice jab by the way. You have yet to state your "credentials" while at the same time showing a complete and utter lack of understanding of the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter (whatever fits your current argument). It's just so much easier to attack me, then it is to attack my arguments.

I won't take any jabs at you and continue this intellectual mud slinging. You're welcome to continue though, as you have little else to fall back on.

I do have a question to pose to you. You seem hell bent on showing that God does not exist. However, what I have yet to see from you, or any atheist, is a reasonable explanation as to how the universe came to be. Don't forget. You cannot use anything that goes beyond logic (like infinity, or anything that disobeys natural law) to explain it. So, do you have a logical and naturally reasoned explanation as to how things came to be? You immediately dismiss God as an explanation as being antiquated, so you must have some revealed knowledge that explains the nature of the universe.

"But only if you acknowledge that the Big Bang is not a part of the natural universe, as long as you admit that the Big Bang still exists, as long as you admit that the Big Bang is unchanging, as long as you admit that the Big Bang is self-sufficient, etc."

Taxing further the suspension of disbelief I've had to endure for the entirety of this discussion, I could entertain the first assertion there. The second and third are writing flourishes you ought to have removed. They don't apply to the argument. My point is that if you boil it down to simply saying that there had to be something that caused the big bang, the argument no longer means anything. It could be a giant banana. If that's all you are arguing, then you aren't arguing anything at all.

I said your argument "serve to;" I didn't say you said it per se. *sigh*

I still can't help but notice how condescending your tone is toward our scientific knowledge. Would you care to cite your credentials? (Not that I really give a shit and not that it's relevant to this discussion. But if I had to guess, you don't have much more formal training in science than I do.)

"But tell me: if it's not meant to prove 'God,' than what is the proof proving at all? If it is simply "first-mover," you could just as easily substitute "Big Bang" for the word "God" in the proof and it would still work. In fact, it makes more sense that way."

Fine. Call it the "Big Bang" if you want to. But only if you acknowledge that the Big Bang is not a part of the natural universe, as long as you admit that the Big Bang still exists, as long as you admit that the Big Bang is unchanging, as long as you admit that the Big Bang is self-sufficient, etc.

"Even further, both of your arguments serve to divorce the relevance of either cause and effect or the finite/infinite nature of the universe with the existence of god, which apparently isn't really 'god' either."

*Sigh* Learn to read. I've never in any way "divorced the relevance of…cause and effect…with (sic) the existence of [G]od." I've said that God has to exist because, without Him, there is no first mover, which is logically necessary to set off the chain of causes and effects. What don't you get?

"since theories regarding the end (or not) of the universe depend on whether or not it is to be considered a closed system." That is called circular reasoning…..

The infinite/finite nature of the universe isn't "divorced" from the existence of God. You can ignore certain aspects of my argument as much as you want. To deny God is to imply that the universe is infinite and has always and will always exist. Both logic and scientific evidence at the moment indicate that the universe has a boundary and is therefore finite. Until you (not you specifically) prove that the universe is infinite your "counterpoint" does not exist.

Let me also clarify something. I am not arguing the "First Cause". I am arguing the existence of a supernatural being who is the source of all things. Don't group two separate argument forms into one, Panzo.

"since theories regarding the end (or not) of the universe depend on whether or not it is to be considered a closed system." That is called circular reasoning…..

The infinite/finite nature of the universe isn't "divorced" from the existence of God. You can ignore certain aspects of my argument as much as you want. To deny God is to imply that the universe is infinite and has always and will always exist. Both logic and scientific evidence at the moment indicate that the universe has a boundary and is therefore finite. Until you (not you specifically) prove that the universe is infinite your "counterpoint" does not exist.

Let me also clarify something. I am not arguing the "First Cause". I am arguing the existence of a supernatural being who is the source of all things. Don't group two separate argument forms into one, Panzo.

I haven't suggested that this was meant to prove a specifically Christian God or anything like it. But tell me: if it's not meant to prove 'God,' than what is the proof proving at all? If it is simply "first-mover," you could just as easily substitute "Big Bang" for the word "God" in the proof and it would still work. In fact, it makes more sense that way.

As I've stated before, whether or not the universe is a closed system is an issue of scientific debate. And for you to claim that "all science" points otherwise is completely false, since theories regarding the end (or not) of the universe depend on whether or not it is to be considered a closed system. Even further, both of your arguments serve to divorce the relevance of either cause and effect or the finite/infinite nature of the universe with the existence of god, which apparently isn't really 'god' either.

You're right, jackass. What did you expect me to say? That WE are the ones who have a reluctant relationship with reality? This statement of yours betrays a hint of circular reasoning on your part. Somehow, you think that theists must believe, in their heart of hearts, that God doesn't exist.

"I have no interest in repeating myself when it comes to cause and effect. I've already said why conservation of mass is important and NJR has chosen not to deal with my counter-point."

And I've already said why conservation of mass is irrelevant. I, too, have no interest in repeating myself when it comes to cause and effect. Apparently, you think that causes can be traced back ad infinitum. If you believe that, then I may as well stop trying with you.

"Particles can affect one another without any apparent interaction, from two separate areas of space."

The key word here is “apparent.” There is clearly interaction. Ever heard of force carriers? But, again, this is really irrelevant.

“There's a big jump between "cause and effect" and "(g)od" or even "first-mover" and (g)od.”

The reason you think this is because you don’t understand what a logical proof of the existence of God is intended to prove and what it’s not intended to prove. It’s not intended to prove the existence of the Triune God, and it’s not intended to prove that Jesus is God. I’ve already explained this, but apparently you are so obstinate in your beliefs that you missed that part.

“And the universe, as we are coming to understand, doesn't follow the simple rules we are governed by.”

Bullshit. The universe never contradicts logic, even if it may appear to at times. But when it appears to contradict logic, the atheists are the ones who use a cop-out and just say that “logic doesn’t apply,” while the theists are the ones who try to figure out what the logical explanation is. So, in fact, you guys are incredibly uncurious.

Well, I’ll have to thank you, Danzo. You’ve helped me vindicate myself yet again.