Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 28 by William]

It makes no sense to tear apart my reply in post 26 the way you did in post 28. A paragraph is a self contained unit of communication. Taking individual sentences out of it and writing retorts shows you've missed the point. For clarity sake, let's put post 26 in here for reference:

Not sure where you need me to expound. The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical. There is no middle to infinity. If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists. If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

In post 28 you seem to think there is a difference in the illogical nature of an infinite universe compared to an infinite creator being. This is due to your bias in thought that a universe is a created thing, which makes zero sense if it is eternal. Anything that has always existed can't also be called created. If you find an eternal universe illogical, so too must you find the eternal being claim.

If X has always existed, it would take an infinite amount of existence before reaching the moment when Y could have happened. It doesn't matter what X is, it's an absurd claim...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 29 by William]

I'd like to clear up some inaccurate statements in your links that you provided.

The Big Bang cannot be extrapolated beyond this present universe to make claims about finite or infinite existence. The BB is the best theory so far that explains all the data and evidence of an expanding universe from a central point. It says nothing about where this universe came from. It could come from nothing, it could come from previous universes, it could com from a god being. All options are on the table.

We don't know if gods can exist. We don't know if something can come from nothing. We don't know if something can always exist. We don't know if there is truly anything as nothing. We don't know what, if anything, preceded this universe. We don't know if cause and effect requires an arrow of time or not. We don't know if consciousness can exist all by itself. We don't know a whole bunch of stuff, yet you seem comfortable making claims about things despite this massive lack of knowledge.

In one link you talk about Not sure where you need me to expound. The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical. There is no middle to infinity. If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists. If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

From link 3:

We know that we can be 'in two places at once' when we physically sit in a chair and imagine ourselves somewhere else.

That doesn't prove that you are in two places at once. It proves that your brain can recall information from previous experiences. Every measurement and study done has shown that activity takes place in your brain, the same brain that the rest of your consciousness resides. If we were part of some greater consciousness than you should be able to recall things you haven't experienced personally, and obviously no one does that.

From link 4:

I think rather the point is, something cannot come from nothing. It either has to have always been, or it was created.

Already touched on but worth reiterating, this assumes that nothing can be a state that exists (which we don't know), it assumes something cannot come from nothing if nothing is possible (which we don't know), it assumes that something can be always existing (which we don't know), andit assumes that finite things have to be "created" (which we don't know).

[bjs]

[Replying to post 18 by For_The_Kingdom]


Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by Kenisaw]

It makes no sense to tear apart my reply in post 26 the way you did in post 28. A paragraph is a self contained unit of communication. Taking individual sentences out of it and writing retorts shows you've missed the point. For clarity sake, let's put post 26 in here for reference:

Okay, lets see where this might go then...

Not sure where you need me to expound. The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical. There is no middle to infinity. If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists. If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

In post 28 you seem to think there is a difference in the illogical nature of an infinite universe compared to an infinite creator being.

Correct. That is also why I said there is a difference between the created and the creator in that one has a beginning (as indeed we can verify) and the other does not, which - while not scientifically verifiable, is nonetheless a good philosophical argument.

This is why I pointed out your conflation of the two ideas.

This is due to your bias in thought that a universe is a created thing, which makes zero sense if it is eternal.

It isn't a matter of bias. It is a matter of sensibility. Also, I get the impression you think that I think the universe is eternal. I do not.

Anything that has always existed can't also be called created. If you find an eternal universe illogical, so too must you find the eternal being claim.

This comes directly from the fact that you are conflating the two ideas. It is illogical to you because you are conflating the two ideas.

If X has always existed, it would take an infinite amount of existence before reaching the moment when Y could have happened. It doesn't matter what X is, it's an absurd claim...

Again - this is the part of your argument which I have asked you more than once to expound upon as it makes no sense to me in the form in which you have thus far written it.

My reply (inasmuch as I am trying to get the gist of what you are conveying) was - and still is -

A creator entity who has never had a beginning can indeed create at any point in Its existence. The potential to create this universe has always existed. The actuality comes into play when the universe had been set into motion at its beginning - the potential was thus actualized.

Perhaps if you addressed the above we might come closer to bringing our views into better alignment.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by Kenisaw]

I'd like to clear up some inaccurate statements in your links that you provided.

The Big Bang cannot be extrapolated beyond this present universe to make claims about finite or infinite existence. The BB is the best theory so far that explains all the data and evidence of an expanding universe from a central point. It says nothing about where this universe came from. It could come from nothing, it could come from previous universes, it could com from a god being. All options are on the table.

I am well aware of this and fail to see how you would think otherwise.

Looking at those options I am reminded of a metaphorical maze where we are forced to find our way through without a navigator or map. We have to make our own map.

In this, science can take us only as far as describing the maze. It cannot say how the maze became or how we happened to be in it, other than the two events are related.

Science comes across a dead end and sometimes is able to expose a formerly hidden doorway, which leads into another part of the maze which is also a dead end. That is the nature of the maze.

Science is great for working out the physical aspects of the situation. It is the best tool on the table for that.

However, it cannot be used to say how the maze came into existence, or even whether the maze had a beginning or has always existed...but the science we do now have tends towards the impression that the maze did not always exist. It appears there is evidence that the maze had a beginning and will one day have an end.

Now of course we could extrapolate that the BB isn't actually evidence of the universe's beginning, but if that is to be the case, then what is it evidence of?

So while that idea too can be on the table, it isn't seriously contemplated as something worth the time wandering down that path to investigate. Generic science specifically favors the BB as evidence of the universe's beginning.

We don't know if gods can exist. We don't know if something can come from nothing. We don't know if something can always exist. We don't know if there is truly anything as nothing. We don't know what, if anything, preceded this universe. We don't know if cause and effect requires an arrow of time or not. We don't know if consciousness can exist all by itself. We don't know a whole bunch of stuff, yet you seem comfortable making claims about things despite this massive lack of knowledge.

That is besides the point.

You are most comfortable inclining towards science alone and leaving the 'we don't know' to itself. Personally I have absolutely no problems with anyone assuming such position. For me though it is akin to leaving the imagination basically inert, which fells very unnatural at that. I enjoy the philosophical idea of assuming a creator being and working things out from that perspective - while incorporating science into that.

As I have said, we differ on our approaches and what we each have decided is the most comfortable position to have. Yours is strictly science - which to me is too limiting in scope and that 'we don't know' does not signify that we cannot make good educated guesses, and science doesn't allow for that to the degree that philosophy does.

What I do gather from your responses over the weeks is that you have a problem accepting my position, whereas I have no problem accepting yours. That in itself is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. Your having a problem with my position is not MY problem, it is YOUR problem...but of course, needn't be a problem at all...as far as I can tell.

You might seek to make it NOT your problem by having me convince you that my position is worthwhile in assuming, but we should be able to agree by now that this
is highly - nay - extremely unlikely given I am coming from a more expanded way of thinking which requires a philosophical bent - one which you appear to be unable to venture into.

Which of course, is not my problem either - indeed, as far as I can tell, it is not something which needs to become a problem for anyone.

In one link you talk about Not sure where you need me to expound. The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical. There is no middle to infinity. If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists. If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

I have answered that and am waiting for you to address that.

From link 3:

We know that we can be 'in two places at once' when we physically sit in a chair and imagine ourselves somewhere else.

That doesn't prove that you are in two places at once. It proves that your brain can recall information from previous experiences. Every measurement and study done has shown that activity takes place in your brain, the same brain that the rest of your consciousness resides.

The point being is that consciousness is not limited by any particular physical environment. In context, I was specifically referring to the idea of First Source exploring potentials which IT has actualized through 'going into the experience of a creation' (this universe in this case) and experiencing that from within. Thus FS is actually always in the one place, but is also able to be everywhere else at the same moment.

Of course I am having to align the nature of FS with the ability to be able to do such a thing effortlessly, which is easy enough to imagine in simplistic terms. In a 'get the gist' kind of way.

How could we really contemplate a being able to experience Itself in Its wholeness as well as Itself in its innumerable 'parts'? Even in relation to Earth Entity, where my theology refers to this Entity as 'The Local GOD' and says that every individuate unit of consciousness in form (not just us humans either) on the planet are all aspects of that which collectively make up the large part of the wholeness perception of that Entity - which essentially is saying that all those 'parts' simultaneously represent that Entities subjective reality as a SELF - as an individuate being...can we as individual comprehend this in any manner other than getting the general gist of it?

Could we fully understand the nature of that Entity from the capacity of our individual subjective experiences?

No we cannot. We cannot even understated the nature of our own body functions to that degree. We get the gist that the parts of our bodies work in congruence but we do not consciously experience this in any detail.

As far as the brain and consciousness goes, we are woefully lacking in scientific data which can show us without any doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe.

Thus, the notion (that consciousness is NOT emergent of the brain) is still very much on the table.

If we were part of some greater consciousness than you should be able to recall things you haven't experienced personally, and obviously no one does that.

Actually that happens to me a lot when I am dreaming. Apart from that, I can argue that human instruments are designed specifically so that they do NOT allow for any spillage of other conscious experiences to overlap our individual wakeful dominant realities.

There is also the idea that in a particular area of the Astral Realm, one can experiencing being both an individual AND have access to all other individuals 'minds' at the same time, and thus experience being a self which is greater than one's ordinary experience as an individual self.

Which is to say yes - it is possible to experience other types of things independent of what we might consider as our normal' experience of 'the self'.

From link 4:

I think rather the point is, something cannot come from nothing. It either has to have always been, or it was created.

Already touched on but worth reiterating, this assumes that nothing can be a state that exists (which we don't know),...

No it does not assume this at all. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not assuming that nothing exists. The rest of the sentence supports this as well.

...it assumes something cannot come from nothing if nothing is possible (which we don't know),

Rather, it assumes that nothing doesn't actually exist.

...it assumes that something can be always existing

Correct.

...and it assumes that finite things have to be "created"

Correct.

(which we don't know)
(which we don't know)
(which we don't know)
(which we don't know)

We are more likely to come into such knowledge after we die than if we wait for science to venture into finding answers to these questions. Indeed, that we are able to ask the questions gives us some license to come up with reasonable answers to them. It is all a matter of what we each decide to do in that regard, as I have already mentioned.

Basically, if something is 'on the table' it can still be ignored if one has more preference for the other fare on the table.

but like I said, 'what of that?'

[Elijah John]

That's too good. No, he won't answer a simple question. Instead he'll supply a dozen links to who? A cosmologist? A physicist? No... To himself!

I love it. I've never seen anyone support their own claims by referencing more of their own claims, William. You're a much needed reminder of why I take such long absences from the site.

........... If the best you can do is link people to unfounded conjecture, largely philosophical woo-woo, authored by yourself, well then so be it.

........... that qualification can precede any wild ass thing I feel like saying, too...

Moderator Final Warning

Your post here is way out of line on several levels. If you don't like the way your opponent debates, ignore him, report him or work around his response and redirect the argument.

Focus on the content, not on the poster himself.

Also, profanity, even mild profanity is not accetable here.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 31 by Kenisaw]

Not sure where you need me to expound. The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical. There is no middle to infinity. If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists. If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

In post 28 you seem to think there is a difference in the illogical nature of an infinite universe compared to an infinite creator being.

Correct. That is also why I said there is a difference between the created and the creator in that one has a beginning (as indeed we can verify) and the other does not, which - while not scientifically verifiable, is nonetheless a good philosophical argument.

This is why I pointed out your conflation of the two ideas.

Will, it is critical if this conversation is going to move forward that you understand and accept two important things:

1) There is no data or evidence, and no good logical reason, to assume that this universe is created (meaning purposefully brought into existence). You really need to let that go. You are making a claim that cannot be justified, yet you use it as a pillar of your arguments.

2) Any argument against an eternal universe (or eternal iterations of universes) is equally as valid an argument against eternal creator beings. Claiming a god critter can reach the middle of an infinite existence but a universe cannot is an inane double standard.

This is due to your bias in thought that a universe is a created thing, which makes zero sense if it is eternal.

It isn't a matter of bias. It is a matter of sensibility. Also, I get the impression you think that I think the universe is eternal. I do not.

No I agree with you, I do not think the universe is eternal, or that it comes from an eternal string of previous universes. The reason why I don't think the universe is eternal is the same reason why I don't thing a creator god is eternal - it is irrational to think that something that has always existed can ever reach a point in it's existence where it this universe appears. That is a logically sound argument against BOTH eternal things.

It is important to note though that the universe, as the saying goes, is under no obligation to make sense to us. Despite the valid logic that argues against eternal things, it could still be possible that an eternal thing (be it a universe, creator god, or anything else) can exist and can reach a point in its existence where this particular universe could begin. How that could be I don't know, but we can't rule it out, and we reason why we can't rule it out is because we have no idea about things pre-Big Bang. That void in our knowledge makes it impossible to rule anything out, even if it is not logical to humans at this time.

Anything that has always existed can't also be called created. If you find an eternal universe illogical, so too must you find the eternal being claim.

This comes directly from the fact that you are conflating the two ideas. It is illogical to you because you are conflating the two ideas.

No, I am consistently applying the same logic to everything labeled "eternal".

If X has always existed, it would take an infinite amount of existence before reaching the moment when Y could have happened. It doesn't matter what X is, it's an absurd claim...

Again - this is the part of your argument which I have asked you more than once to expound upon as it makes no sense to me in the form in which you have thus far written it.

My reply (inasmuch as I am trying to get the gist of what you are conveying) was - and still is -

A creator entity who has never had a beginning can indeed create at any point in Its existence. The potential to create this universe has always existed. The actuality comes into play when the universe had been set into motion at its beginning - the potential was thus actualized.

Perhaps if you addressed the above we might come closer to bringing our views into better alignment.

No, a creator being that has always existed cannot reach a point in it's existence where it gets around to creating a universe. If a creator being has always existed, it would have to have an infinite amount of existence before it reaches the moment that it creates the universe. It could never get to that moment of its existence because of the infinite existing it would have to do before then. It's no different than an always existing universe reaching the point just before the Big Bang.

Hopefully I am making my point clearly to you. I'm racking my brain for a better way to explain it, but I think this is the best that I can come up with...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 32 by Kenisaw]

I'd like to clear up some inaccurate statements in your links that you provided.

The Big Bang cannot be extrapolated beyond this present universe to make claims about finite or infinite existence. The BB is the best theory so far that explains all the data and evidence of an expanding universe from a central point. It says nothing about where this universe came from. It could come from nothing, it could come from previous universes, it could com from a god being. All options are on the table.

I am well aware of this and fail to see how you would think otherwise.

Looking at those options I am reminded of a metaphorical maze where we are forced to find our way through without a navigator or map. We have to make our own map.

In this, science can take us only as far as describing the maze. It cannot say how the maze became or how we happened to be in it, other than the two events are related.

Science comes across a dead end and sometimes is able to expose a formerly hidden doorway, which leads into another part of the maze which is also a dead end. That is the nature of the maze.

Science is great for working out the physical aspects of the situation. It is the best tool on the table for that.

However, it cannot be used to say how the maze came into existence, or even whether the maze had a beginning or has always existed...but the science we do now have tends towards the impression that the maze did not always exist. It appears there is evidence that the maze had a beginning and will one day have an end.

Now of course we could extrapolate that the BB isn't actually evidence of the universe's beginning, but if that is to be the case, then what is it evidence of?

So while that idea too can be on the table, it isn't seriously contemplated as something worth the time wandering down that path to investigate. Generic science specifically favors the BB as evidence of the universe's beginning.

I agree with most of this, although I would state that I don't think it is possible to say that science can never do anything in due time. As long as there is a way to investigate it, science can test it. One day we may be able to test and verify theories about how the maze started and where it came from. We certainly can't do that now of course, but I would not deem to totally exclude that possibility from occurring in the future.

The only reason science favors the Big Bang is because that theory explains the data and evidence the best. If it didn't offer the best explanation, it would not be favored. To be honest, I think once someone figures out how quantum mechanics, relativity, and gravity go together, the BB will be replaced by a new theory.

We don't know if gods can exist. We don't know if something can come from nothing. We don't know if something can always exist. We don't know if there is truly anything as nothing. We don't know what, if anything, preceded this universe. We don't know if cause and effect requires an arrow of time or not. We don't know if consciousness can exist all by itself. We don't know a whole bunch of stuff, yet you seem comfortable making claims about things despite this massive lack of knowledge.

That is besides the point.

You are most comfortable inclining towards science alone and leaving the 'we don't know' to itself. Personally I have absolutely no problems with anyone assuming such position. For me though it is akin to leaving the imagination basically inert, which fells very unnatural at that. I enjoy the philosophical idea of assuming a creator being and working things out from that perspective - while incorporating science into that.

And that is your right to do that. The problem from my perspective is that you are building something with a foundation that is purely speculative. I don't see that as an efficient use of resources or time. To me the effort is only worth it if I know I have something to build off of.

As I have said, we differ on our approaches and what we each have decided is the most comfortable position to have. Yours is strictly science - which to me is too limiting in scope and that 'we don't know' does not signify that we cannot make good educated guesses, and science doesn't allow for that to the degree that philosophy does.

No argument here.

What I do gather from your responses over the weeks is that you have a problem accepting my position, whereas I have no problem accepting yours. That in itself is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. Your having a problem with my position is not MY problem, it is YOUR problem...but of course, needn't be a problem at all...as far as I can tell.

Please understand that I agree that it is my problem. However there is more to this effort than just a discussion between you and me. A lot of people read these threads as "visitors" to this website, which means there could be people out there who are unsure about various things, looking for information and views. So my effort is just as much to help them see a scientific point of view and why I think it is a more logical starting point compared to theistic ones.

I sincerely believe the more logical and rational people are, the better off the human race is. Religions and theisms are not logical and rational, and I think people are better off without them.

You might seek to make it NOT your problem by having me convince you that my position is worthwhile in assuming, but we should be able to agree by now that this is highly - nay - extremely unlikely given I am coming from a more expanded way of thinking which requires a philosophical bent - one which you appear to be unable to venture into.

Which of course, is not my problem either - indeed, as far as I can tell, it is not something which needs to become a problem for anyone.

I don't ever expect to change anyone's mind at any of the forums I visit. The only person that can change a mind is the owner of the mind. All I do is plant seeds, and let their subconscious chew on the information I've written.

Your way of thinking may very well be expanded, but that doesn't make it worthwhile, accurate, or plausible. Please don't think, by the way, that because I don't agree with your theism that equates to the idea that I haven't thought about it, or explored it in any way. I don't find fault in things because they don't agree with my worldview, I find fault in them because I've examined them and found them to be faulty.

From link 3:

We know that we can be 'in two places at once' when we physically sit in a chair and imagine ourselves somewhere else.

That doesn't prove that you are in two places at once. It proves that your brain can recall information from previous experiences. Every measurement and study done has shown that activity takes place in your brain, the same brain that the rest of your consciousness resides.

The point being is that consciousness is not limited by any particular physical environment. In context, I was specifically referring to the idea of First Source exploring potentials which IT has actualized through 'going into the experience of a creation' (this universe in this case) and experiencing that from within. Thus FS is actually always in the one place, but is also able to be everywhere else at the same moment.

Sure it is limited. The physical environment of the brain is what limits it. There's no reason to think consciousness is not tied to the physical.

Of course I am having to align the nature of FS with the ability to be able to do such a thing effortlessly, which is easy enough to imagine in simplistic terms. In a 'get the gist' kind of way.

How could we really contemplate a being able to experience Itself in Its wholeness as well as Itself in its innumerable 'parts'? Even in relation to Earth Entity, where my theology refers to this Entity as 'The Local GOD' and says that every individuate unit of consciousness in form (not just us humans either) on the planet are all aspects of that which collectively make up the large part of the wholeness perception of that Entity - which essentially is saying that all those 'parts' simultaneously represent that Entities subjective reality as a SELF - as an individuate being...can we as individual comprehend this in any manner other than getting the general gist of it?

Could we fully understand the nature of that Entity from the capacity of our individual subjective experiences?

No we cannot. We cannot even understated the nature of our own body functions to that degree. We get the gist that the parts of our bodies work in congruence but we do not consciously experience this in any detail.

Thanks for the info.

As far as the brain and consciousness goes, we are woefully lacking in scientific data which can show us without any doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe.

Thus, the notion (that consciousness is NOT emergent of the brain) is still very much on the table.

I'm sorry Will, but that is just pure nonsense. In 2011 alone there were 25,000 papers published with the word "neuron" in the title. If you include "neural" or "neuronal" or "brain" that number triples to 75,000. If just 13% of those were related to the working of the brain, that makes 10,000 different research papers being published for review and critique. "Woefully lacking in scientific data"? That's a ludicrous statement.

What none of these papers finds from the data and evidence is that conscious exists separately from the brain, as you like to claim. There is no support for such conjecture.

That we have just scratched the surface of brain research doesn't make it logical to insert a god of the gaps style negative evidence claim that consciousness is not tied to the brain. Instead of focusing on a supposed woeful lack of evidence that removes all doubt, you might want to focus on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of data that supports consciousness as a stand alone thing outside the physical body.

If we were part of some greater consciousness than you should be able to recall things you haven't experienced personally, and obviously no one does that.

Actually that happens to me a lot when I am dreaming. Apart from that, I can argue that human instruments are designed specifically so that they do NOT allow for any spillage of other conscious experiences to overlap our individual wakeful dominant realities.

Well naturally you would argue that. When in doubt, create another speculative unsupported characteristic about baseless claims of design that explain away objections to previous claims. When one operates outside of the realm of the verifiable, there is no limit to the things that can be said...

There is also the idea that in a particular area of the Astral Realm, one can experiencing being both an individual AND have access to all other individuals 'minds' at the same time, and thus experience being a self which is greater than one's ordinary experience as an individual self.

Which is to say yes - it is possible to experience other types of things independent of what we might consider as our normal' experience of 'the self'.

Thanks for expounding on that.

From link 4:

I think rather the point is, something cannot come from nothing. It either has to have always been, or it was created.

Already touched on but worth reiterating, this assumes that nothing can be a state that exists (which we don't know),...

No it does not assume this at all. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not assuming that nothing exists. The rest of the sentence supports this as well.

You haven't quoted my entire paragraph, and have taken this out of context and once again split up a unit of communication into unintended parts. Despite this I will try to address your points here and below...

Your statement does assume that a state that is described as "nothing" could exist, or else you wouldn't be able to make the statement that "something cannot come from nothing". You do not clearly state that "nothing" isn't possible, only that something supposedly can't come from nothing. If your intent is to say that nothing is not a possible state, you should delineate that out in your original statement.

...it assumes something cannot come from nothing if nothing is possible (which we don't know),

Rather, it assumes that nothing doesn't actually exist.

We can't assume that nothing doesn't exist.

...it assumes that something can be always existing

Correct.

Which is illogical of course.

...and it assumes that finite things have to be "created"

Correct.

(which we don't know)
(which we don't know)
(which we don't know)
(which we don't know)

We are more likely to come into such knowledge after we die than if we wait for science to venture into finding answers to these questions. Indeed, that we are able to ask the questions gives us some license to come up with reasonable answers to them. It is all a matter of what we each decide to do in that regard, as I have already mentioned.

Basically, if something is 'on the table' it can still be ignored if one has more preference for the other fare on the table.

but like I said, 'what of that?'

I see no reason to assume that death is going to lead to further information.

Just because it's on the table doesn't mean it belongs there, Will.

[Inigo Montoya]

I think this entire conversation can be stripped down to a few basic ingredients.

The quote is William's, with bolded highlights added by mine own self.

A creator entity who has never had a beginning (has always existed) can indeed create at any point in Its existence. (Unevidenced speculation for both the existence of a creator entity and its abilities.) The potential to create this universe has always existed. (Also unevidenced speculation.)

I'm seeing a pattern here.

So let's make it much easier.

William. You scoffed at my implication that you participate in "magical thinking." So what is an eternally existing creator entity that poofs universes into existence, if not exactly that?

You say the universe can't have simply appeared, and that it also can't be eternal. Let's ignore for a moment that your creator entity gets to be eternal and ask you the following:

How, and from what, did it create the universe?

Remember your commitment to non-magical thinking, and remember the universe can't have just appeared.

So how was it done?

[Inigo Montoya]

To rephrase slightly, upon what did the creator entity act that produced the universe? Something or "nothing?"

Answering it in this way should highlight the point better.