1. There is evidence for existence. 2. Things that exist have a cause or causes. 3. Causes also have influences that guide them. 4. These influences must exist before a given cause. 5. The universe exists. 6. The universe had a cause. 7. Something cannot come from nothing (philosophical sense). 8. Something existed before the universe was caused. 9. Something that existed prior to the caused universe must have caused the universe to exist. 10. The physical universe is not eternal based on scientific observation of things in the universe and experience. 11. The law of conservation of matter and energy only pertains to an existing universe, thus the law is not absolute. 12. Nothing is impossible, because something cannot come from nothing (philosophical sense). 13. There is current hypothesis of many-worlds, parallel universes and dimension, and other unseen realities. 14. God is characterized as unseen and of a different reality. 15. Cells in the body communicate back and forth. 16. Cells do not speak communicate as humans do. 17. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest revelation to be false. 18. Supernaturalism suggests a reality beyond nature. 19. Nature is comprised of matter. 20. All matter is in the physical universe. 18. There is a reality beyond the universe that caused the universe to exist. 19. This reality had a guidance. 20. This guider is god. Sorry if this is sloppy but I was just having fun.

7. is false: read about Zero point energy

8. is an unjustified assertion

9. is hand waving.

I stopped there.

Don, I know. I know from experience that this stuff is beneath your superior intellect. You hand wave me to read zero point gravity and claim this is false then accuse me of the same in response to 9. Your response to 8 is itself and an assertion with nothing to counter mine. The fact that you stopped there explains so much of the utter drivel I have read from you on this site. Have a nice day clown!

If you want to make a logical argument and some of your logic is incorrect, then your conclusion is incorrect. It's enough for me to find one flaw and the argument fails. That's how it works.

Zero point energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy) is the idea that even a vacuum ("nothing") has energy which can be spontaneously be converted into matter and antimater, hence something from nothing.

Most of the theological "first cause" arguments fall into the same sort of trap. They assume everything has a cause, but at the quantum level, there are spontaneous events, that can only be described in a statistical way.

Don, no one is criticizing the failure of the premisses in the argument, but I am criticizing you for hypocritically doing so. I am not sure what institution you went to to get your education, but Wikipedia is usually frowned upon in in academic research. And to answer the last part, I think calling it a trap is to imply that there is actually a trap. If there is something, then logically it is not nothing. So, my question is this, what is left after the quantum level and the rest of the energy is taken out of the system? Copping out and defending your position with current quantum physics research that clearly uses "nothing" in a different sense than philosophers does not explain anything, but the fact you have no problem appealing to Wikipedia and ignorance when ever it suits you.

What makes you think philosophers understand the nature of the universe better than physicists? If the philosophers aren't grounded in the reality of the universe, what good are their arguments?

I could look up some physics articles on Zero Point Energy, but you wouldn't read them. Not everything is false on the web.

No one is arguing one knows more about the universe than the other. I think that most scientists these days are not exactly fans of philosophy and are ignorant of certain aspects of it. Your assertion that I would not read the articles you point out is based on what exactly? Are you that smug that you think every person you respond to here is willfully ignorant? What would lead me to believe you would read any literature that would change your mind on your current position? That's right I don't, but at least I grant you the benefit of the doubt. What I am saying is that zero point energy is not nothing.

"No one is arguing one knows more about the universe than the other." I'm arguing that physicists know more about the nature of the universe than philosophers. They have demonstrated this with the Standard Model, that makes predictions to six figures of accuracy. They have demonstrated this with huge amounts of technologies THAT WORK based on their science, such as semiconductors, lasers, quantum computing, LEDs, etc.

"Your assertion that I would not read the articles you point out is based on what exactly?" By the fact that you have blown it off as evidence that something can be created from "nothing".

"What would lead me to believe you would read any literature that would change your mind on your current position?" You haven't provided any.

"What I am saying is that zero point energy is not nothing." Then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that "philosophical nothing" has any basis in reality.

You might look at Brian Greene's new book, "The Fabric of the Cosmos". It's about the nature of space, what goes on within it, and how we know what we know about it. He's a cosmologist.

Here's a new finding where something is created from a vacuum.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/111117_casimir.htm