> >"There was nothing, and then a universe boomed into existence." Uh huh. Sure.
>
> This is one of the things that really confuses me about what religions say. Somehow it's impossible for the universe to have boomed out of nowhere, but it *is* possible for a supreme being to just *be*. It seems that most religions think of God as more perfect that the universe, and that makes me wonder how something more complex than the universe can just be there, and the universe can't. If I'm not understanding, then can someone please clear this up for me?

I've not yet seen a convincing rationale for this, and I doubt I will (but of course, skeptical as I am, I'm open to hearing one!)

Hmmm...what, logically, prevents us from positing that the universe might be self-existent, when the concept of God is not similarly restricted? Perhaps the fact that God needs no prior cause follows logically from some of its other properties. I challenge anyone to come up with a demonstration of this. Seriously. I would be very impressed. And it had better not be anything as absurdly flawed as the Ontological Proof.

Maybe it's just part of the "definition" of God. Maybe it's an axiom. God exists without prior cause, because it is so defined. For some reason, we are not allowed to consider a "physical universe" without prior cause, though. Okay then, just take the self-existence of the universe as a given. There, equal footing -- that was pretty easy.

Oh, but wait. The universe is "natural" and must follow a series of changes, each of which has prior cause, whereas God is "supernatural" and is free of such trappings.

Q: Why is God supernatural?
A: Because it is the first cause, and is thus outside the regulation of the physical universe (the realm of natural things), which it created.

Q: Why can God be a first cause, and be outside the regulation of the physical universe?
A: Because God is a supernatural concept, silly! Things which are supernatural need not have prior cause.

Find the logical problem with this argument, and then try to explain either question from a more reasonable foundation.

I don't know if I got anywhere in these few paragraphs. I don't even think it's possible to put these ideas into concrete terms, where a logical argument could be constructed. I suppose that in the end everything just reduces to bickering about semantics, so I thought I'd get my bickering in.