Saying god always existed provides it's own set of logic traps: it suggests the universe existed before it's creation since, for a being to exist within a universe, the universe already needs to be present. There was nowhere to exist in before the universe was created. He wasn't allowed to pop up and spark his magic to make our universe, he had nowhere to pop up, he'd need to be inside the very thing he created before creating it in order to exist within it. I guess this answers the previous question, God made himself, but with the added twist of creating himself before he existed.
Science also states that there are 4 different states the universe existed in before the big bang, so science also concludes the effect that the Universe has always been there. Secondly, you're again stating that the universe came from nothing. Since you can't create nor destroy energy, that is not possible.
The universe may not have come from nothing, and this is where the theory of parallel universes comes into play. It has, in effect, that same logic that ET theories have. We can't be the only life; we can't be the only universe. However, not all of these universes have stable atoms, but they do exercise the idea of infinite universes with infinite possibilities.
All of this on parallel universes is assuming that theory is true, which is probable due to other laws of science supporting it. The theory is not refined, though. Like you said, we discover new things which change what we know, and the theory would adapt accordingly. Also, you're right, energy cannot be created or destroyed in any process. From a scientific standpoint, something must have existed before our universe in order for it to exist. You cannot bring any type of god into science, though, and simply state that he created everything; science is not theology.
Now, the idea of a god in science would say that you cannot simply state that it's supernatural and therefore he can create himself from nothing. You would need concrete laws of supernature in order to prove this, as science is based on observation and conclusion. We have concrete laws in physics and cosmology, and we're breaking ground in the quantum physics that would explain how multiple universes could exist. Religion states otherwise, though, because it is based on acceptance. That is why science cannot be brought into theology; theology is not science.
My point here is that you cannot insert a theological fact into a scientific theory and say that's the truth. They must be totally separate from each other. I used to be religious, and became atheistic for my own reasons. However, when I was religious, I kept science separate from religion. My religion said that God created the universe, but science said otherwise. I believed from a religious standpoint that God made the universe, but from a scientific point of view that there was a different reason. I believed at the time that God created science for us to explain things with, and that the possibility of him creating everything could not be disregarded as false. But the problem here is that is heresy. To believe in one religion and then believe the near opposite. Science is observation and conclusion, religion is acceptance. That is why I became an atheist; my love for science overrode my beliefs in God. What I am saying to you is that you, as well as Muffinmix (seeing how my argument is relatively neutral), is that you cannot argue religion with science and you cannot argue science with religion. They are foils to each other.
The statement I quoted brought that up in my mind.
