PaperNun
Did you miss me?
I've been trying to get a good opinion on this , what do you think of Ayn Rand?

Science says nothing in terms of (before) the Big Bang "like coming into existence", that notion is completely fabricated for your Theology. Now there are Scientist who have speculated on the matter, however the Scientific consensus is that: yes there was this early change, but what happened before that is still unknown. But its a good thing we have Philosophy, which I think is a better working model than Science. ~kisses

*~ kisses *

In the Big Bang all matter & space came into existance , So the universe can not come from a prior material state.
And here I think most Cosmologists would agree with me heres what P.c.w. Davies (Britains leading Quantom Gravity expert) had to say "The coming into being of the universe as described in modern science is not just a matter of imposing organization upon a previous incoherent state but literaly the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."

"I began to exist regardless of whether the things that make up myself have always existed."

Ok good, I think you just answered your own question. Now apply that concept to the Universe, and you'll understand my position.

Which again confuses a thing with what its made up of.
I began to exist regardless of whether the things that make up have always existd ,

"ACT AND POTENCY (Greek ενεργεια [energeia]—δυναμις [dynamis], παθη [pathe]; Latin
actus—potentia)—mutually ordered factors or components (ordered in different orders) of
one being, in which act and potency are respectively: form and matter, substance and
accidents, existence and essence, and thus that which determines and that which is
determined, that which subordinates and that which is subordinated, that which is real and
that which is possible in a concrete being."

*SIGH* its virtualy the same as mereological nihilism

"You said "NOTHING ever truly begins to exist. I certainly began to exist,"

(facepalm) Look I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself. Look up the terms Potency/Act.

WLC gives good reasons to think the first premise is true.
You said "NOTHING ever truly begins to exist"
I certainly began to exist , (you aren't gonna resort to mereological nihilism are you?) < thats what i meant by fallacy of compostition.
The reigne from which the Big Bang came is not necessary in existance ,if it was it couldn't be changed or altered and so there would have been no big bang.

2) Ok. what do you mean by the [necessity of existence] to mean that we live in a static Universe? ha say wha?? Like I said look up the terms Potency/Act. This is Aristotelian logic, the Potency would describe the [potential substance], the fundamental properties that make up everything within our Universe. You can take anything within the Universe and NEVER be able to break it down into nothing, there is always some form of a fundamental substance that will persist. This necessary tenet alone demonstrates at least a prori, that [existence itself] requires that an [eternal substance] must always exist, by the necessity of existence. Once again the Universe though contingent still has necessary being, that does NOT require a necessary creator.

~ kisses