I guess the problem with us humans is that we have a hard time picturing infinites and making logic out of the illogical.

Its believed the Big bang was the result of the fight between matter and anti-matter due to the tremendous violence of the explosion. You can look at it as the battle between something and nothing. The cosmos is a place of chaos, it doesnt stay orderly neat, its always churning and transforming. Its a dificult concept to grasp when something comes out of nothing.

I dont understand why an entity like God would create such a thing, nor what his purpose would be.

Another point of view is to question your final question. If god created everything, who created god? Did he perhaps come out of nothing? Then perhaps "your"  god, is the cosmos itself? Just a bunch of physics laws beeing bent and unbent, creating matter and anti-matter and sometimes some bi-products, like us. There really is no reason for a councious entity to do something like that, and it would always beckon the question of who created it? The laws that rule the universe dont have a will, they come into existance as the universe itself comes into existance from the battle of something and nothing and particles interact with each-other.

When faced with this logic i just cant see how an entity like the "humanoid all powerful, just and kind" god can exist or have a will, even if i wish it did.

We don't disagree. I don't know that. And you don't know it. Nobody knows, thats my point. Saying "I believe in god because there must be a point where it all started" is a weak argument. You guess you are right, thats it. 

There is no logical reason to doubt an infinite row of universes. There is also no rule against having such a principle. Could be like in quantum physics. Even in empty space, where there is nothing, the room is full of virtual particles which are continously created from nothing (and later destroyed).

Except I didnt do that. My point was that you most certanly can prove a negative. I wasnt talking about proving or disprovig God at all, since that would be pointless

Thats one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That is the one of the most common logical thoughts.

Its also worth pointing out that you cant actually ''prove'' anything related to this topic. Even the most commonly believed things are not ''proven''. You can not prove theory of evolution or even thoery of gravity either. You would need a proof for that. The only abstract of study that relies on complete proof is mathematics. There is a difference between evidence and proof. The difference being that, evidence is something that suggests or points out towards a specifi theory or scenario and  proof completly removes any doubt and absolutely confirmes a theory. 

This is getting too much for me , I always stop when I feel that I'm about to repeat myself.

Nem already informed me. As I answered him, my point still stands, those thing existed with as all along before we could prove them. the claim that if we can't prove something exists then doesn't isn't true at all.

Personal belief really. I don't see how this could enrich the discussion but ... Looking around, I find this world was created with a lot of attention and care, I've read through scriptures (Quran mostly) and I found it very... godly (if that is a word), the amount of details mentioned is ... interesting to say at least.

The idea is simple, nothing can starts on its own within the law of nature, and that is the very idea of God; God is not bounded by the nature. The idea is that god created nature that we understand. I don't suggest god has some random supernatural abilities; god as a being is and has to be supernatural. without the supernaturality of god, the whole idea is flawed.

First, I don't see any logic by saying that the big bang just happened by its own, why are we ignoring the chain of cause & effect for something that is supposed to be natural ?!. Once again, If I believed for a second that science can understand and figure out everything in this world even in the distant future I wouldn't be religious at all. Will science prove me wrong ?, I hope so, I'm eager for more understanding. However, God is the answer for the thing that is beyond nature, it is not -as you put it- a shallow idea that we created to cover our ignorance, we are not ashamed or afraid of our lack of knowledge, we all live to learn.

It is -more or less- a personal belief. I see a world that was created with a lot of attention and care. You are asking questions about the minor details of God, I don't think that they should be asked before the acceptance of the idea. However, believing that god is supernatural, I can't reasonably answer because this is not something I can figure out. But religion (Quran) gives us such details. just one example  "If there were therein gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been disordered. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, from all that they ascribe (unto Him).".

Your points are very similar to Jay's points, I gave my take on them just above this quote.

I'm open for all kind of ideas , I love learning and productive discussion, don't judge me. I explained my point of view about God just above.

The chain of cause and effect is a natural law, the existence of a virtual particle is caused by the presence of other virtual particles, so the chain of cause and effect clearly apples here. Again, why are we ignoring the chain for something that is supposed to be natural !.

-----

I hope that I made my point clear that far

Fair enough. It just seems to me that using the supernatural to explain the unexplainable is extremely premature. I personally don't think we should believe anything yet. I of course acknowledge a higher being as a possibility (Though not some specific Earthly Gods). But with current evidence, there's also the equal possibility that there is no God. There's the possibility that the properties of the universe are/were much different than what we currently believe. There's still much we do not know about the universe and its beginnings. As of now, Most theories about why the universe began are unsupported. We don't have to believe anything.

It is true that there are a lot of unexplainable phenomena with our current knowledge and technology. But I don't think we should try to explain those phenomena until we can support one theory as the most justifiable position. And as of now, I don't believe anyone has a truly valid justification. There is no reason to adopt any positions as of yet imo. We should remain neutral until we reach sufficient evidence that makes a particular position justified. So i think the best position is simply "I don't know yet".

Ooops broke the thread

@VXIII

No ,cause and effect apply only to the macroscopic world. They do apply to the quantum world by statistics only and are not strictly causal. Virtual Particles are created in pairs with a limited timespan. Created without a causal connection other than it has to be this way. They will be annihilated immediatly in order to not break the law of energy conservation.

This can happen according to physics: If you stare Billions of trillions of years on one empty space sooner or later a Cheeseburger will appear and plop into existance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

"In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with particles continually popping into and out of existence. It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether serving as the transmission medium for propagating light waves."

I am not judging you. All I am saying is that there must be no cause. Saying there must be a cause is just a guess not backed up by Physics.

Indeed Netyaroze, that seems to be the nature of the universe. The idea of a god on top of that is just bogus, there is no need or logic for there to be one, when the answer is that existance and void just constantly battle for supremacy. They just are and just arent, its alot like the cat in the box example of quantum physics.
I really dont grasp how this logic explanation is less acceptable than one that has an entitiy called god pop out of nothing to do this. Its just an unlogical step that only raises more questions.

This thread makes me laugh a little. so much faulty logic!