Arguments about Religion

I've had many discussions with religious people where they tried to get me to believe. There are many seemingly valid arguments for religions, and there are many which are obviously invalid.

One that I heard is the idea that the universe had to come from somewhere - using science to prove religion. First off, while the science isn't necessarily incorrect, the assumption is completely bogus: that because we do not know/understand something, it must have supernatural elements. This is known as "God of the gaps", the idea that anything we don't understand can and should be explained using God. These arguments only work if you are inclined to believe in a higher power in the first place.

This same person also spent quite a while trying to get me to make some decisive statements about Jesus. Some of the things he said had little relevance to the conversation - he spent a large time asking me what I thought about Jesus, and how I could explain the "resurrection". I proposed some possible explanations, and he spent a while trying to find fault in them, claiming that I was relying on the irrationality of humans, which I was, when the underlying problem was, again, that the argument was essentially: I do not know how this happened, therefore it must be supernatural. It is a flawed argument that should not be used. It's like me saying that everything I can't see must be red. Obviously this isn't true to a rational, outside, and unbiased (so in this case, a religious person would be biased for a statement about religion) but as long as I hold that belief you can't prove otherwise - there is no way to show me that stuff I can't see isn't red, because I cannot see it, just like you can't ever disprove religion through mathematics or science - you can only prove how things actually happened.

Also, I heard an argument not only using this ideology but that was also flawed in another way - we were discussing the creation of the universe (I'm using this to refer not to what we call the universe, but what we call the multiverse, as universe means everything), and he stated that it must have come into being at some point. This is not necessarily true. It is possible that this universe has existed forever, and that our own particular reality simply came into being - it does not require a creator. Humans naturally want to put things into points - they need to have a beginning and end, with points in between - we have trouble with spectra and continuous change. This need to impose "order" results in irrational ideas such as this - the universe needs no beginning, and it is wholly possible that it has always existed. In fact, it is nonsensical to believe that at some point, nothing existed.