Theism is literally childish

[John V]

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

If you're applying such laws, then you would also conclude that a universe existing as a singularity would continue to do so, unless acted on by an outside force.

On what evidence do you believe that an eternally existing god is possible?

The existence of a universe with a beginning. But note that I'm not calling you childish for your beliefs. I'm OK with different camps having different beliefs.

Yet it still shows us that the process is likely similar even if the conditions were not exactly the same.

Cool, let's see the evidence.

Define magic.

Why don't you ask emjay to do that - he's the one using it. I'm only using it with him.

How about some effect where the cause is not only unknown but can't ever be known?

How do you know what "can't ever be known"? I'm guessing it's just bias. An explanation involving a creator god can't ever be known. The mechanics of inflation - well, we might figure those out some day. If something is currently unknown, you can't know if it will ever be understood.

Think of the idea of wizards and you'll see that the definition fits. That is also the very hallmark of christian belief. No christian ever tries defining what a soul is, or a holy spirit, or what a god is or how it or prayer could possibly work. Because to do so means that you then have something that is falsifiable and can be shown to be false. You are the perfect example of this by not even trying to explain how your beliefs could in any way be plausible.

We don't try to define such mechanics because we just don't know. Similarly, you don't know how this vast universe could exist eternally in a singularity, what cuased inflation, or how life arose. Just because you speculate on such things doesn't make your speculations necessarily plausible.

Yet waiting for a statistically rare event has been shown to take time in practice on average. If I gave you a bucket load of 6 sided dice and you tipped them all on the ground, the probability of them coming up all 6's is a statistically rare event. If I gave you a task of doing just that, how long would you ask for to complete that task in the knowledge that you were likely to manage just that? This isn't magic, it's just a lower probability requires more time to happen on average. Now if we tasked every person on the planet to do the same thing, then we can calculate a much higher chance of success happening within the near future.

The difference is that we know the mechanics of how all 6s could come up, or how a particular lottery number comes up. We don't know the mechanics of abiogenesis.

That said, I don't even assume that life is a statistically rare event. Again it's the theists making the assumption to make it sound less likely.

It's not an assumption, it follows from your own belief of a single tree of life, and on daily observation in which we don't see new life forming.

We don't know that the universe had a beginning.

We're told it's 14 billion or so years old - that implies it had a beginning.

All we know is that at some point which we call the Big Bang, all energy and space-time was condensed into one small point. We don't know what happened before that. What we do know though is that since the Big Bang, energy cannot be created nor destroyed so is essentially eternal. All All matter in the universe has come from energy, so yes, the universe does seem to be eternal.

And again, if we're applying rules like the conservation of energy and matter, then we also should conclude that an eternally existing singularity would remain a singularity. We tried to get around this with an oscillating universe, but the rate of expansion of the universe didn't fit that model.

Adding an additional entity to explain what we observe is not in keeping with the principle of Occam's razor if it ends up relying on more assumptions as a result.

No, Occam's razor prohibits unnecessary assumption. In this case, if we had an eternally existing singularity, we would expect it to remain a singularity unless acted on by an outside force. As the singularity was the entire universe, that force is necessarily outside the universe, and so has at least some charactersitics of a god.

Your god character does exactly that and does not even help solve the initial question, it just pushes the solution further away like a homunculus fallacy. This is because the same questions that we can ask of how an eternal universe came into being can now be asked of how an eternal god came into being.

No, if we had evidence of an eternally existing universe, it would be nonsensical to ask how it came into being. It didn't - it's eternal. The problem is that the evidence indicates that the universe has not existed eternally.