Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Esquilax]

I did not know there were other options available that you guys considered. My apologies.

The thing is, the whole "everything came from nothing" bit is so wrong it doesn't even reflect a possible option, in my view. At least not one I could consider with any degree of seriousness, at the moment. It's an apologist tactic to make atheism look oversimplified and impossible, a way to turn opposition into a cartoon to be laughed at, not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs.

With regards to the options, there's a whole bunch of them, as there's a point in our universe's history where what we can understand about it breaks down, at the Planck time. Things are... different, there. Space and time occupy new states that we can't even begin to predict, at the moment of the big bang, we can't rely on anything we understand about this reality there. The short answer is that we don't know what's beyond it, but that appealing to the mechanics of causality in this universe is like appealing to mechanical engineering for knowledge of how to make a sandwich; the two aren't applicable to one another.

So it's not "everything came from nothing," because nothing does not accurately describe the state of affairs prior to this universe. In actual fact, it'd be more accurate to say that the universe came from everything, given that all that is within this universe was bound up in the matter of the big bang, in one form or another. Where did all that come from? That might not even be a question that makes sense, there. For something to come from somewhere assumes a level of causality that we can't even be sure existed prior to the big bang.

The point is, it's a big, complex topic with a bunch of qualifiers, that our best science doesn't even get yet. There's no need to simplify it any.