I'd love to give a great answer to this question, maybe enlighten the confused, or clarify the unknown, but I can't do that. One reason is because I myself am confused; I don't exactly understand the second part of the question. God? Having no beginning and no end? It's a challenge to describe what god is and does because no one knows for sure. I picture God as an entity that is not in any one place, but surrounding us all, inside and out. Not telling us what to do, not setting the balance between the natural and unnatural, but just watching all of us. In a sense, one could interpret being everywhere as being no where: No beginning, No End. The other idea that stands out is that God has been always been with us. In terms of time, there has never been a moment when God didn't exist. But keep in mind, this is all hypothetical.

WELL HERE WE GO ANYTHING THAT HAS CREATED US CAN AND IS CONSIDERED A GOD. ENERGY HAS CREATED IS AND KEEPS US ALIVE. THEREFORE, GOD IS ENERGY. the question is: if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed do we ever die?

You bring up a good point that many atheists tend to chose to ignore. Often times they will argue that the Big Bang started creation. Reasonably enough, I suppose. But when asked "what caused the Big Bang?" they usually have no answer or a circular answer. Its either an "imbalance or disequilibrium in nothingness, caused by a dark matter formation" or equally common "a singularity," or some garbage like that. Simultaneously, the argument that "God sprung into existence" is regarded as absurd. Some atheists and scientists argue that the universe has always existed. Fair enough. But why is "God always existed" an absurdity? Atheists tend to be close-minded, both using science and false claims to empiricism and objective unbias, to make any claims they can... rhetoric... to form convincing yet unprovable arguments against God. They use double standards, as apparent in the above examples, to argue in favor of atheistic ideas and against theistic ones. Same line of reasonings, but different conclusions... one is arbitrarily deemed "illogical" I make no claims to Gods existence or his non-existence... I consider myself an atheist in the true unbiased sense of the word - that certainly means I dont pro-actively dis-believe in him. That is to say I dont have blind faith in God, but I dont have blind faith against him either. I dont condone ignorance, but that only makes me open to possibilities that have yet to be disproven, and distances me from the typical mentalities of those who would call themselves 'atheists'