[Andrew66]

Even Matt Dillahunty (Atheist extraordinaire) has been quoted as saying that the Existence of the Universe (or more broadly "Physical Existence") demands an Explanation!

The Explanation is an illusive one.

It seems that either:

1) Physical Existence is eternal and has always been dynamic, or "in motion" (this requires an infinite regress - Theistic Position, vast capacity for progressive evolution suggest Existence of a Higher Power. Naturalistic Position; cannot rule out the possibiity, but no compelling empirical evidence yet for existence of a Higher Power)

2) Physical Existence is eternal, and was at first frozen and then became dynamic (this requires an "atemporal" first cause - Theistic position, suggests God as a "prime mover". Naturalistic Position - none)

3) Physical Existence is finite and came into being from a non-physical cause (Theistic position, suggests existence of a non physical "spirit" world. Naturalistic Position - none).

4) Physical Existence is finite and came into being without a cause. (Theistic Position, none. Naturalistic position, *none).

Note: Physical "Laws" are considered part of Physical Existence.

* See book by Lawrence Krause entitled A universe from nothing. "Nothing" as described by Krause actually comprises a quantum vacuum which contains energy, hence is not really "nothing".

No matter how you slice it, the "Explanation" for Physical Existence is pretty damn mysterious, as the human mind cannot fathom an; infinite regress, an atemporal first cause, a non-physical cause, nor coming into being without any kind of cause at all.

From the above it can be asserted that the "Explanation" does not follow conventional norms of how the world typically operates.

Atheists always seem to claim that Theism does not follow conventional norms, and Theism does offer explanations for some of the seemingly impossible possibilities.... hmmmmmm ...

Just saying... Room for Faith??