Listening to atheists, it's clear they have no problem with something being uncreated and eternal. After all, atheists insists that all things come from “natural” processes of other material things, clearly leaving us with the notion of eternal matter. What they don't like is the existence of the eternal, supernatural God.
Richard Dawkins is famous for asking Christians, if God created the universe, then who created God? While he congratulates himself with that question, he stammers and falls when asked, if the universe created all that we see, who created the universe? The answer seems to be, well, it always existed. Only, it didn't.
Science has concluded that there was a definite beginning to the cosmos. Arno Penzias won the Nobel Prize for discovering that beginning in the cosmic microwave background. That is where the concept of the “Big Bang” came from. Of course, defining what the bang involved, is pure speculation. No one was there and it can't be observed. But cosmologists all agree there was a beginning to the cosmos. Giving rise to the question, who lit the fuze?
Atheists insist that no one lit the fuze. It just happened. But that sounds too Tooth-fairy or Santa Clause for me. It sounds like a pat answer that shuts off further discovery, if I'm to be completely honest. If I find a broken chair in the middle of my living room floor, a good number of feed from the dining room where it would normally be, I would assume some force had brought the chair to the living room, acted upon that chair and left it in the condition in which I found it. When I ask my child what happened, he might tell me, “It just broke.” The intent of my progeny is to cut off further inquiry into how it might have found itself in the living room or what force acted upon the chair in what manner to destroy it. No, the idea that the cosmos began by “just happening” is a foolish, close-minded, unscientific answer.
A similarly childish answer is another I've heard from Dawkins, “we're working on it.” I'm wondering, how, exactly, are you working on it? How do you 'work on' figuring out how something 'just happened' without a guided cause? And, if that unguided cause needs to follow natural processes? I might presume the “we” is “working on” what natural process exists that will spawn something from nothing. And while the ambiguous “we” is at it, why don't “they” figure out how such “natural processes” came about to begin with, without an intelligent source to form them.
This is the ultimate point where the God-deniers find themselves thoroughly painted into a corner: Design comes from intellect, a distinctly non-material essence. You can't even call intellect a “thing.” It isn't. Intellect defies definition, really. Is it the sum of all the things we know? No, it's not. A baby has intellect that guides the very process of gathering knowledge. Intellect is provides us the means we use to decode language and even create language (such as American Sign Language or even Klingon, a fictional language in Star Trek). Intellect is evident all over among the human race. Books convey information for building knowledge, as well as fictional adventures to allow our minds to soar to different places, times and worlds. Machines, build by the use of intellect shorten work, increase productivity and ease our lives. Music, from instruments crafted from hair, wood, metal and hide, using mathematically precise notes, chords and tempo express emotions, stories and experience.
Intellect created all those things we enjoy. Yet, no one would say that our intellect was, thus, created by a banjo or drum or ink and paper. No, our intellect brought the material together to make the ink and page, the letter and meaning to communicate our message. So, nothing created our intellect, right? It just happened.
To hear an evolutionist, one day, an ape-like creature just decided to stand up. And grow feet. And, for no reason, began thinking in abstract ways, drawing pictures and then figuring out ways to make ink, paper, etc. And, amazingly, these ape-like creatures all seemed to develop different, and very complex communication matrixes, forming different languages, all complex from the day they appear in archeology. Equally amazing, these complex languages are accompanied by societies that could perform successful brain surgery and erect buildings we can't reproduce today, with all our high tech engineering.
It just happened.
No, that's a foolish path to follow. Nothing 'just happens.' We know that an effect has to have a cause. We know that an intricate design that serves an observable purpose had an intellect that designed it for that purpose. And we know that intellect does not sprout from nothing. There must be a source that gave the intellect. And, whatever that source, it necessarily must be the ultimate, uncreated source of all things. It must be eternal.
The choice for us then is this: Do we reject God as the ultimate, eternal, uncreated source who has the intellect and power to cause the universe to come into being and design its natural processes, and sustain them? Or do we elect to reject the idea of God in favor of eternal, unguided matter that cannot create intellect, leaving us with a madman's reasoning that we can observe reliable laws that follow set designs for operation, but conclude they formed randomly and without any purpose?