MBPrata wrote:Oy! And theists are accused of believing in fairy tales?
You say spontaneous creation is a fairy tale, atheists say God is a fairy tale. Both of the assumptions have their logic, so what gives?
Wrong. Spontaneous creation is a violation of the law of non-contradiction for it presumes the creation of something from nothing. Nothing is nothing, it cannot create anything, otherwise it would not be nothing. That's the very definition of nothing (if it can be defined at all).
God, on the other hand, as the prime unmoved mover and uncaused cause, is the
necessary conclusion of a logical set of premises. I certainly hope you can see the difference.
MBPrata wrote:Exactly where did these rules come from?
If God doesn't need to come from anything, neither do rules.
Wrong again. God, by definition, is eternal as he IS the cause of everything. Rules in general, and laws in particular, don't exist apart from whatever it is they rule and govern.
MBPrata wrote:Particles might have to come from anything because, you know, they're physical. Metaphysical things don't have to come from anything, right?
At a minimum you're implicitly acknowledging the existence of non-physical things, that's a good start. But you're dead wrong if you think metaphysical things (I'm assuming here you mean universals?) can stand in self-causation apart from an eternal uncaused cause.
MBPrata wrote:That's the difference between us, we can actually make a rational case for creation whereas the only thing you can offer are inexplicable, scientifically unreachable set of brute force laws.
No. You make a case full of unexplained stuff. So do atheists, you might say, and you could be right. Other than that...they're not "inexplicable". They can be explained if people actually have a flexible mind AND a good tendency not to take things too literally. Personally, I think christians usually abuse of the word "nothing" in order to make atheists look naive. At least that's how I felt when I was a convict atheist...
Lol, there you go again, trying to justify a (re)definition of nothing. It's really much more basic than you think. In fact, it's nothing at all. But you'er batting a 1000 so far (in case you missed the reference, you're wrong, yet again). It's not us who are making "a case full unexplained stuff", quite the opposite. Our case is built entirely from reason based on a set of logical premises that necessarily conclude in an eternal unmoved mover, without whom nothing gets started. (get it? nothing gets started).
On atheism though, there are only 2 possibilities:
1. Something from nothing, which is contradictory, or
2. Brute force laws without the possibility of an explanatory power as to their origin
MBPrata wrote:Evidently brilliant minds can't be bothered with mere violations of the law of non-contradiction. They simply redefine nothing.
This again?! Since when do rules are a physical thing? They're not! Something metaphysical doesn't need to be created, right?
[/quote]
And once again, rules and laws cannot exist apart from that which they rule or govern, and most importantly without the reason for their existence (metaphysical as it may be). You're getting there but you're not there yet. Keep trying.
You had me at "polygamy"! 
). That's because you do not understand the nature of God or the nature of universals. You think God is subject to some rules (you really do mean universals here but whatever). You are redefining the nature of God to suit your purpose. There is no rule or law or universal that God is subject to simply because God IS the rule and law and the universal for nothing exists apart from Him for He IS existence itself. You're desperately (knowingly or not) trying to interject Euthyphro's dilemma here not knowing (I'm assuming) that it has already been shown to be a false dilemma long ago.