It couldn't have always existed, because again, something cannot come from nothing, so at some point, that something had to of come from something.
Time is measurable; therefore, time must have a start, and anything that exists before time, cannot exist because you need both time, space, and matter, for something to exist.
Secondly at some point there had to be nothing. That means no time, space, or matter. It is really hard for humans to picture nothing, because even a black void is something. Now why did there have to be this point? Because if something exists then there has to be something that created it, and before that thing created it, that something wouldn't exist.
These arguments are arguments against both sides of this debate.
Science says the answer transcends our frame of reference, and as such, it is beyond human understanding. Your argument says God did it, God transcends our frame of reference and as such, is beyond human understanding.
How does this favor one over the other? It doesn't.
You are relying on a God of the gaps approach, which is not a valid argument when our spiritual detractors use it, and it's no valid when spiritual supporters use it. The“God of the gaps” fallacy is typically invoked by both sides of this debate and takes many different forms, a few being “God of the gaps”, “evolutionary advantage ofthe gaps”, “complexity of the gaps”, “hidden variables of the gaps”, “emergentproperty of the gaps”, and I will contend that they are all one and the same theory inprinciple. All of them are only different forms of the argument from ignorance,illogical attempts to say that the lack of an adequate explanation supports mypresumptions, and not yours, which is a logically invalid argument.
The concept of the “God ofthe Gaps” was coined by a deeply religious evangelical lecturer named HenryDrummond and then made popular by the use of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, anotherdeeply religious man who was martyred by Adolf Hitler. They were not trying toimply that it was an explanatory term, both used the term to describe what Godis not, both were railing against dumbed down and uninformed conceptions, toseize upon it and use it as an ad hoc explanation of religion is uninformed andanti-intellectual to the point of being absurd.
No serious scholar of religion has ever found this "God of the gaps"theory to be even loosely correlated with the evidence, nor has it ever beenconsidered to be the least bit analytically useful in the intellectual study ofreligion or faith. Perhaps the concept is ideologically useful in places likeinternet debate forums, but no real scholar of religion, faith, or theologytakes it seriously, it really only indicates a lack of knowledge regarding the subjectmatter.
