Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[RozKek]

---

---

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.

---

 

---

 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?

1) I had a hard time understanding your first question:
"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?" But I think I have the gist of it. You mean that my implications are that cause and effect is the result of the natural forces? And by that do you mean that cause and effect can exist without and existed before the laws of nature? I'll approach this in a relevant way. What Catholic_Lady was saying was that either a supernatural element made everything or nature somehow did it itself because everything in nature is created. But we do know that our current understanding of physics break down at the point of a singularity (big bang), so like Esquilax said it is silly to say that it operates by the same causal rules, but we do not know. We already know that probabilities are present in quantum mechanics imagine what comes past planck time. So I say I do not know and without knowing that one cannot draw the conclusion that CL did saying nature must've somehow done it itself also implying that cause and effect were present at the point of a singularity. Without knowing that, you can't say it must've been a supernatural element nor can you say that nature must've created itself somehow because we do not know if cause and effect applies to a singularity so those aren't the only options. Even if cause and effect applied to a singularity, god isn't proven at that point either. There are other options, it may be that the default state was that something existed, didn't have to be nothing. It may be that the universe has always existed, there are theories on that one.

Also I thought these might help: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blo....uclvccfhr
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207
Lawrence Krauss even made a book on how it's possible that a universe can come from nothing. In that case I doubt very much that cause and effect applies to a singularity.

2) Can you quote me on when I alluded to something outside of nature. What do you mean by nature anyway. Personally I haven't given it too much though, but when I think of nature I think of materiality or everything that can be observed, explained physically etc. While supernatural I think of immaterial, something that cannot be explained by science or such, i.e something nonsensical.

3) I think my answer on 1) answers "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?" too. If effect exists without causality then something can come from nothing. You can read the articles I mentioned and read further on quantum fluctuations and quantum. And the medium article mentions quantum potentiality, so that's probably relevant too.