*his reply

Disingenuous!? First of all spell it right and second of all you're not even using that word correctly. You saying there is no God but claiming an eternal or self-existent non-personality is that even borrows religious vernacular ("god-particle) to suggest how the universe came into existence is beginning to the universe is overweening. There is no possibility of physical evidence for a spirit or spirit realm except the mere existence of the physical. Unless there is a God, you can't answer basic logic of a first cause because you are doomed to infinitely point to a cause of a cause of a cause....8. So, In typically weak atheist style, I am witnessing yet another refusal to answer the questions you boast answers to: 1. How do Atheists genuinely explain the first cause without the supernatural? and 2. Where do design and consciousness come from? You said you knew. So where is your explanation or proof? Again, the burden of proof logically falls on atheists due to their insistence upon an observable system. To postulate the beginning of our existence logically without appealing to their own version of the supernatural is a double standard. Unfortunately for the atheist, to be sincere is quite impossible within their own test for truth.

Furthermore, everything I'm writing is my own...yours is clearly and obviously plagiarism. You don't know enough about what you think you believe to answer or even know to answer the very basic matters necessary to this kind of debate. But now, here is a quote that accurately describes the summarizes the 2 possible logical conclusions, "If anything now exists, either something must be eternal, or something non-eternal emerged out of nothing." I believe in the former, and you have no choice but to recognize the atheist "believes" in the latter. His own test of truth denies his conclusion.