OK let me summarize the aforementioned discourse on logic:
1) In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion.
2) The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause.
3) It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well.
4) Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause.
5) There are but three possible answers to the existence of the universe: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
6) Eternal Universe violates energy laws of science: The Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever.
Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use.
7) Did the universe come from nothing? All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness, and this would violate the law of excluded middles.
In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing.
8) Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by something.
9) Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist’s argument, then, is this:
1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
3. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
Conclusion: This is where theists differ from atheists: theists consider the mind to be a part of reality, and science to be a subset of logic.
Like I said before, man’s logic did not get us here, but atheists think it can explain how we got here. It sounds like a self-fulfilling assumption on their part. In any case it requires another assumption they can not accept, and that assumption is that God exists. Otherwise they'll just keep spinning new theories only to watch them go to the science graveyard.
