I just thought that as long as you were being presumptuous, I'd return the favor.
Are you not an atheist? Can you see why I made such an assumption after having read your earlier posts in this thread?
It is fallacious to believe that something can come from nothing. When trying to explain the possibility of the universe's existance, you can kind of shift things around by varying your suppositions, but all you really change is the particular facet of this logical fallacy at which you ultimately arrive if you exclude the possibility of a supernatural creator.
The first possibility you mentioned has time preexisting the universe, which is impossible if you define the universe as "everything that exists". The infinitely repeating process of redefining "supernatural" is actually a logical artifact resulting from the incorrect supposition that time can exist apart from the universe. This leaves only the possibility that the universe has existed for all time. You wrote:
I don't see how this is somehow a less "rational option". It seems to make some sense if you take "time" to be part of the universe rather than some mysterious extrinsic property that somehow can exist independently of the universe. In that case, the universe and time, which is part of the universe, have always existed together and started together.
This was in response to my statement:
I skipped a step -- ignoring the possibility that things have always existed -- because it seems like a logical impossibility.
I was unclear here. I have no problem with time being an intrinsic part of the universe, existing along with the universe and beginning when the universe begins. What I think is impossible is that the universe has existed for an infinite period of time.
If you suppose that the universe has existed for all time, then there are two possibilities for "all time" -- it is either an infinite amount time or a finite amount of time. The infinite-time possibility circumvents the need for a supernatural creator, but it means that our universe must be infinitely old, which it doesn't appear to be the case (I also think there's a purely logical argument that can be made against the concept of an infinite amount of time existing). The finite-time possibility appears to jive with what we can observe about our universe, but it requires the existance of a supernatural creator, who can exist outside of time, to have brought the universe into existance some finite time ago.
In regard to the logical possibility of a supernatural something existing which brings the universe into existance, you said:
It sure is a far cry from logically proving that there is or was some willful, or thinking supernatural being.
My position is that the fact of existance demands the existance of a supernatural creator. I don't think that the fact of existance proves that the creator is willful or thinking. The existance argument cracks open the door to the possibility of a God with those qualities, but it certainly doesn't provide the proof.
I said:
Uncaused-ness is a supernatural characteristic
To which you replied:
O-Oh, is that right? I didn't know that. I-I guess I'll have to inform mythelf.
What natural things can happen without being caused?
No.
incorrect supposition that time can exist apart from the universe
Of course. I didn't expect you to see that. In fact, I'm not convinced you yet do.
it requires the existance of a supernatural creator, who can exist outside of time, to have brought the universe into existance some finite time ago.
And just what do you imagine existence outside of time is like? It seems to me you believe in a time before time, which is a logical contradiction assuming time simultaneously existed and did not exist. You imagine causation in the absence of time but causation cannot be separated from it. Furthermore you describe the existence of something before anything existed (assuming the universe is all that exists). That's another logical contradiction.
What natural things can happen without being caused?
You were the one making an assertion in this matter, and you expect me to defend it? Sorry buddy, the burden is on you to defend your own assertions. Perhaps this is just an assumption of yours?
I don't think that the fact of existance proves that the creator is willful or thinking
Perhaps presumptuous on my part, but you are a strange deist indeed if you think the creator is some mundane physical force without a will.
"Supernatural" is a strange term. Many use it in a logically contradictory way. If something supernatural exists, then it is part of the universe b/c the universe is all that exists. Since the universe is nature (I define these as synonyms which I believe is consistent when used in the context of the supernatural). Therefore if the supernatural exists, then it is natural. Its a term that really is only useful to those who adhere to the validity of logical contradictions (simultaneously natural and supernatural while defining "supernatural" as not natural).