Do you understand that now? The universe began to exist.

Why do you constantly avoid the argument? Then in your opinion, give me a valid argument that proposes that the universe is uncaused and eternal. If you make statements that are false, then obviously you are believing in something that is false.

We all have are own oppinions. Becareful about what you say.

So you are saying you believe in your opinion only even if Science intervenes and denies the validity of your belief?

I will be straight up an honest and say that if Science, and not just Science alone, but also other areas of Christianity such as the Bible and etc. were proven to be nonsensical then I would realize that and acknowledge that my belief is false. However, I believe in a God not just through Science but also through faith and personally. I was abused for 8 years by my dad, went through 8 years of court, and I came out through everything because I think that God is the one who helped me. When all hope was lost, God saved me. You might think that is nonsensical or such, however, I don't care, so I am trying to not only prove God through just my personal beliefs but also through Science.

or a *cough*forum mod*cough* could be kind, and do it for them. :)

Source:
William Lane Craig (The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe)

If the universe never began to exist, then prior to the present event there have existed an actually infinite number of previous events. Hence, a beginningless series of events in time entails the existence of an actually infinite number of things, namely, past events. The series of past events must be finite and have a beginning. But since the universe is not distinct from the series of events, it follows that the universe began to exist.

If the universe did not begin to exist a finite time ago, then the present moment could never arrive. But obviously, it has arrived. Therefore, we know that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist.

I'll just say that time, our time, what we measure as time began to exist what was before is unknowable.

The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.

The Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing (infinite density).

Thus, what the Big Bang model of the universe seems to require is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

Te universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Ross states in his book: The Creator and the Cosmos

By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God is not. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

Hawking said in: A Brief History of Time pg. 144

When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities...In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.

In other words, God according to the Bible transcends "real time", would not be confined to boundaries and singularities, but human beings and the physical universe, both of which are limited to real time, would be so confined.

The forum mod has acted.

Lord, just in time.

What happened to this topic, and why is it being acted on by a moderator?

Heretic,

Concerning matter and the such existing in a timeless state prior to the Big Bang, Matt's quote has already dealt with that:

"In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator."

No matter the eloquently spoken sensical philosophical arguments made you still cannot physically demonstrate the existance of such. The existance of the supernatural cannot be shown conclusively to exist much yet a personal creator supernatural God.

Epistemelogically speaking, God can be shown to exist.  I've given several arguments at the atheist section which went un-replied to.  

I've typed repeatedly and repeatedly that even if no arguments/evidences existed in favor of a personal God, it would still be possible for such a God to exist.  To claim otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.  Even serious atheist philosopher recognizes this.  You should too.