1) What is your take on the claim 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed'?
I think it is the best way to humanly state a governing principle of this universe, but it does not by any means apply to what God can or cannot do. It makes no statement concerning existence, but the nature of what exists.
I admit I am not a scientist, but from what I remember, the term 'nothing' does not mean 'absolute nothingness.' When you state "virtual particles pop in and out of existence by mere chance", I'm not so sure the claim is that they 'came into existence' from complete 'nothingness'. But instead, changed form...? And if they merely changed form, we can still ask, "what is the driving change agent?'
Yes, I agree. Lol, 'absolute nothingness' is as foreign a term to our comprehension as 'infinity' is. To my mind, if there is no first cause, even the resulting concept, 'absolute nothingness', has no meaning at all. I find it necessary to consider First Cause the be the source of mere reality, as opposed to being just another component of reality.
Concerning virtual particles, I could also say, I think, not just changed form, but position. To me that is no more impossible than changing form. We just don't have any knowledge basis yet for considering such things.
2) You then state "nothingness of necessity spawns somethingness." What is your take on the topic of abiogenesis? Again, assuming my initial statement holds true about matter neither being created nor destroyed, then we may ask a differing question.
This,
"nothingness of necessity spawns somethingness." was not my statement, but a pseudo-quote (for lack of a better word I don't know). It is what I hear from 'scientific writers', some of whom come across more as attempted poets or attempting philosophers than scientists. It is certainly not my claim.
I don't know enough about the theory of abiogenesis to comment to anyone's satisfaction, I think, other than to say, if it happened, it would seem reasonable to say that this is how God did what he did. I do find it odd that people place so much trust in 'may have' and 'could have' and 'would likely have caused', but that applies to much more than abiogenesis.
3) Do you have a problem with evolutionary theory? Sounds like you might not, but may still ask the question, what drives the changes?
Like the abiogenesis discussion, Darwinian Evolution to me is too sketchy, too full of gaps and presuppositions to be reliable. I personally just don't find it compelling. There is still too much we don't know. I will admit to the possibility in cosmology of the related long-time age of the earth/ universe, yet I don't think that necessarily contradicts the 6-day creation narrative, believe it or not! Time is relative, and easily manipulated, I would think, by the One who created time. (And if you find too strong a logical contradiction there, you are in good company. I've even had Christians tell me I'm either insane, or I'm calling God a liar, after hearing me say that.) I tend toward the notion represented by what my dad once said, "How old was Adam, when God was done making him?" Same could be said for the Universe. In fact, as one of my brothers would say, do we have any proof this whole business wasn't made this morning?
(response to your red comments) -
While I certainly would not have what I call 'saving faith' in God, purely by reason, I can't say it happens without reason. I won't say it can't happen without reason or logic, though even a clinical idiot, incapable of what we would think of as reason, intelligence or even self-awareness,
would nevertheless be capable of knowing the great distance between Creator and Creature, and gladly embrace God's grace to himself --perhaps even more purely than we who possess some degree of intelligence, for lack of self-important complications.
I don't remember if I told you before: The view I have of Omnipotence, First Cause, as God himself, seems logically unavoidable to me.
Could one categorize such statements as "argumentum ad ignorantiam"? Essentially, I guess I'm asking here... Is your core belief in God driven by any form of admitted fallacious reasoning? I'm not accusing you, so please do not take offense preemptively 
But I have to ask you to explain yourself here...
That looks like 'argument from ignorance' only as a stand-alone statement. As I consider logically necessary attributes of First Cause, the statement may, (or may not), be supported.
I don't think my core belief is 'driven by' something logically fallacious (but then what would you expect me to think, haha) because if indeed what I believe is true, the logic follows. But the explanations (statements) I might pose would most likely have some logical flaw. That is true for just about anything I believe in, though. Meanwhile, much of faith is beyond mere logic, and logical investigation kind of finds it, affirms it, and so carries with it the suspicion or appearance of confirmation bias. It is backwards from good principles of scientific investigation, yet that is what science does all the time. It proposes a notion in order to find out if it can be supported or denied. And guess what scientists are so often interested in? --their favorite notions, of course!
Some things we know are true, we can't explain well. Or at least I can't. That doesn't make them logically unreliable, but only my explanation logically unreliable.
(response to what you stated in
purple)
IF that was all I had, it would be enough to believe in God, but not in itself would it be 'saving faith'. As the Bible teaches, that kind of faith is the gift of God, and not even man-produced. It is not even exactly subjective. (I can explain further how I see that, but, I laugh, because you probably should not ask most other Christians if that is true. Most would disagree with Reformed Theology in that, I think.)
- How does one go from unanswered questions,
ALL the way to what
the Bible claims?
I can only presume, by "unanswered questions", that you are talking about the existence of God-- I don't know what else you would be referring to. So I suppose you are asking how does one go from matters concerning First Cause, to the Bible's God? Logical extrapolation is one way. All the attributes that philosophy has generally decided are logically necessary concerning First Cause or Omnipotence are represented in one way or another by the Bible's statements and accounts concerning God. I can't say that all the Biblical claims concerning God are affirmed in philosophy, but....
I'm aware 'revelation' is a large topic. This is why I was careful to use the term "revelation of sorts". Would you mind giving me the best example of revelation; for which you felt, and how you know it was not only God-given, but given via YHWH?
I'm not sure what you are asking yet. To me your last question contains a redundancy, "God-given via YHWH". Do you mean, how did I know it was God himself revealing something to me? I LOVE that question, because I too often hear Christians claiming God told them, or God said, or God gave them, or some other such thing, like it was direct inspiration, when to me it smacks of taking the Lord's name in vain. Two things come easily to mind, for me: One is a memory, one is something that happens all the time, neither of which I can prove to anyone, both of which I could be fooling myself about. I don't know if that is disappointing or affirming to you to hear, but remember, I don't claim to be able to convince anyone of the existence of God.
So: 1. I once had a dream, maybe it was a vision, but I'm not going to say it was. (Either way, to me it makes sense that if God is First Cause, then all that is natural is God's work too, so it is also miracle, though perhaps not in the fantastic sense we look for, not being so unusual in to our minds). In this 'vision' (or whatever) I was drawn away through the galaxy and away from it, in order to see the structure and nature and wholeness and purity of reality, and was overwhelmed with the notion of the horror of evil and its absolute opposition to what God has made. What I am left with now is mere impressions for memories, very little specifics, but as a result I now consider sin to be the ONLY thing that can (and indeed does) harm God, and that if it was not for him being First Cause, Omnipotent, it would have destroyed what I call (for lack of a better term) the time-space continuum, maybe even reality itself. It is a raw festering gash into goodness. Lol, sorry, but you asked. (Or I presume you did, lol)
So: 2. Daily --constantly even-- God has his hand on me. He turns me this way and that, my life is not just happening to me, this is not random. I feel him working my thoughts, my conscience, my desires, my circumstances. He drives my life. Particular within this is him teaching me things, changing me. And (sorry, but) pointing at Christ the whole time.
Yes, my imagination and even madness could be making me think what I do is real. But not only does pragmatism tell me this is the best ride I've ever been on, but I find myself unable to deny that it is as real as I am --maybe even more real. (So here we are back to that statement.)
Then to continue discussing whether or not the universe "always was" seems superfluous. This is why I did not respond to all of your prior reply
It's kind of a fun notion, nonetheless.
External world skepticism - "No synthetic proposition can truly be known with absolute, unwavering certainty, because there will always exist an infinite multitude of possible explanations for sense data. All synthetic propositions are necessarily tentative conclusions derived from a preponderance of empirical data and predictive models."
(Irreverant side note: Why do people find it necessary to use superfluous language to make a point? In this case, what is the difference between 'No synthetic proposition can be known' and 'No synthetic proposition can truly be known'? And why both 'absolute' and 'unwavering'? But I guess I do it too, lol. Maybe it's just a style thing and that one was informal.)
Actually, I think, any good scientist should be able to say that ALL scientific conclusions are necessarily tentative. Aside from the fact that science always leaves room for better and more abundant or more relevant data, I would say that is in part because the conclusions are always synthetic representations of perceived (or proposed) fact, and not the fact itself, and in any explanation, the original concept loses in the translation to language, and further in the translation to concept in the mind of the reader/ listener.
But I'm sure that wasn't what triggered the External World Skepticism comment you posted. Sorry for wandering (ok, not really sorry --at least I enjoyed it). But I'm not sure what you said it for, as my post you were answering only mentions, along those lines, the notion that external causes do indeed happen in making decisions. If one denies the external causes --i.e because they deny the external world-- then they may as well deny decision altogether.
Thanks for the fun.
