Re: Bible stories to be interpreted literally??

The theory of a pre-existent universe is just another theory.  My point was, and I think you would agree, is that at some point, you most have an unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc.  This has to be pre-existent because it cannot have been created.  If it was, you have to then ask, "What created that?" until you finally reach something that truly was uncaused. That is the pre-existent.

The question then becomes, are you (and everything else) created by that which is pre-existent...or are you an aspect of it.

Even if the universe did have a start and will have an end, doesn't that still mean that something doesn't.  Did this intelligent designer that you speak of have a beginning and does it have an end? 

We can attach whatever name we want, we are all describing the same thing- the pre-existent.

"If I take a lump of clay, sculpt it and bake it and make a statue I have changed it and it has become something new - and I have created that statue as well. "

Well, I would have to ask, have you really fundamentally created something or did you re-arrange and transform something that already existed.  As you said, "If I take a lump of clay..." you are conceeding the the lump of clay was already there.  You merely shaped it and rearranged it into a statue.  You can say that you "created" a statue, and we do say such things all of the time, but you truly didn't in the purest sense of the concept.  You made the form of the clay new.  Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but I think it is an important disctinction.

"How did the matter that lead to the creation of the universe come to be in the very beginning"

 If  you are invoking the existence of an intelligent designer because of the fact that matter came into existence, this assumes that anything that exists must have been created.  My question would be, What brought the intelligent designer into existence?  And once you name that, then tell me what brought that which brought the intelligent designer into existence? 

Isn't it eventually necessary to have something that is pre-existent?  Is that a cop-out?

I consider the scientific idea of time, space and matter never having a beginning and being truly infinite to be as much of a scientific cop-out as the "miracle card" is.

It's just one theory.  The point was, at some point you have to have a pre-existent "something".  Something that was unborn, uncreated, unformed, etc.  This could, and is, considered a scientific cop-out as well, but do you deny that?

Are you saying that the entire notion of pre-existence of anything is a cop-out? Or is it just a cop-out when it is ascribed to the universe.  It is no longer a cop-out when it is ascribed to an intelligent designer, am I correct?

The question really is this-  Did that pre-existent "something" create the cosmos (both seen and unseen) or is the cosmos a manifestation of that pre-existent "something"?  Creation entails separation and the ceramic theory of the universe.  Transformation entails intimate non-separation between All That Exists.

You seem to be intimating that there is this deep duality of existence- the dichomotization of Creator and Creation.  The "intelligent designer" and that which the intelligent designer designed.  What if the cosmos and everything in it (and "outside" of it) is the singular manifestation of the pre-existent ?  No duality, just singularity. 

What if that everything that exists IS that which caused it.  Not two (creator and creation) but ONE.  It is something to think about for those who insist on duality and separation, when it could in fact be otherwise.  Maybe the energy that underlies everything was never created and maybe that energy never itself creates, but rather changes form.