Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Ah, nevermind. You guys are blowing this way out of the simple concept I'm bringing to the table, and still making assumptions about things that I never even said.

---

We aren't. We've me met your claims and assumptions. Simply put, you said either a supernatural element created the universe or nature somehow did it itself, because in nature everything is being created therefore the universe itself must have been created. (I explained that it's not created in the way you think it is). But the important things.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.

---

 

 No, actually, you're wrong. Leaving aside quantum mechanics, which suggests that you can, in fact, get something from nothing, all of the evidence from physics suggests that this "you can't get something from nothing" style of causality breaks down past the Planck time. That things require causes in this specific iteration of the universe is simply a function of the linear time inherent in this specific iteration, but it's not a uniform standard applicable to every region of spacetime, just what we can observe.

Essentially, prior to the Planck time the universe existed in a state completely unlike anything we've ever known, and beyond our current ability to measure, so expecting that it operates by the same causal rules is extremely silly.

---

 This is what I meant earlier, the everday logics doesn't need to apply to the beginning of the universe and doesn't.

So there, I summed it up to make it easier for us, picked out the important parts, and I'd appreciate it if we could continue discussing, I happen to find this interesting.

I have been following this conversation, and find it interesting as well.   I think it is interesting that so many self proclaimed skeptics are willing to dissolve the principle of causality and the principle of sufficient reason so readily.  I will comment in blue for your list below.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
When you say the laws of nature, I think of natural forces.  You seem to be implying that the principle of causality is a result of these forces.   How did you come to that conclusion?  Also, if what is being put forth is possible, then what in nature is prohibiting this from occurring now?
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
I would not use the word proven (as this pertains to math and logic), but I would disagree.   In the previous comment you alluded to something outside of nature (or supernatural).   So I don't think you agree with this either. 
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.
I have seen this statement a number of times, and asked before; but don't think I ever got an answer.   What is the reasoning behind this statement?   What "according to quantum mechanics" says that something can come from nothing?