> Rather than just negating, why don't you posit an alternative? The
> argument for the existence of God is based on analogical reasoning which
> we use everyday.
Analogical reasoning may lead to error. For instance, as light behaves as
a wave, there should be a medium of propagation (aether). Well, there is
not an aether. So much for analogy.
> So, why don't you explain how something can pop into
> existence from nothing by the POWER OF NOTHING?
When you show *when* the universe did not exist, you'll be right about it
having popped out of nothing. Until then ... they are just meaningless
words.
> Why don't you explain
> to us if you think the universe is eternal? Why don't you explain to us
> if an infinite number of prior causes is possible?
You just miss the point. Again.
Ricardo Aler.