Why is it any easier (or more logical for that matter) to believe that matter is eternal and God is not?

It's a false dichotomy. Why couldn't matter create itself out of nothing? It doesn't really make any more sense to say that God created the universe out of nothing than to say that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. Both violate the laws of physics as we know them, but the laws of physics as we know them could be wrong.

Matter isn't exactly eternal, in that it can be converted into energy, or energy can become matter. However, it is simpler and more consistent to say that the universe is eternal, than to say that the universe can't be eternal but God can.

"God is not eternal" implies that God exists but is not eternal. That's why nobody is saying that "matter is eternal and God is not". I don't know where you got that idea.

Because there is evidence that matter actually currently exists. So fewer assumptions are required to believe that matter is eternal, as opposed to a God which lacks any evidence of existence.

This is not to say that either conclusion is actually correct. I am only demonstrating why one is easier to believe than the other.

Matter is just one type of energy. Energy exists in positive and negative forms. The net total amount of Energy in the Universe is likely to be zero. Therefore, energy (and matter) need not be past or future eternal. This has nothing to do with the existence of God.

If it's one or the other, I will go with the one that exists. At least to believe that matter is eternal I don't have to add a whole other "being" to the equation.

There has to be more than just matter. We have to postulate that matter has changed appearances, i.e. the laws of physics have changed. One big bang gets us one stab at a universe that can evolve life. Life is too delicately balanced for anyone to believe that one random shot is enough.

So now, we have to postulate an expanding, then contracting universe in order to get many big bangs. But it doesn't look like the universe is going to contract. Therein, we have to postulate the multiverse.

Matter exists, we know that for a fact.

Energy itself is very simple.

God is completely unfounded. God would also have to be very complex.

One argument is that simple energy has existed for ever.

The other is that an incredibly complex intelligent super being that can break all known laws of nature has existed for eternity.

1. I know matter exists. There is no evidence of gods, leprechauns or pixies.

2. There is no reason to assume matter needed to be created or that it needed to be created through supernatural means.

3. You are using circular logic to try to provide an excuse for god belief. Sorry, that does ot work and you are bright enough to know that.

If you want to conclude things are created by gods, you will first need to provide evidence of gods. If you have no extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim it is unreasonable to give your claim any credence whatsoever.

You have to reject science to believe in eternal matter. But some people will reject science to discount the possibility of God existing.

Fissionable materials are converted to energy in a nuclear explosion; ergo, matter is not eternal. So much for your hypothesis.

God, like any other bad idea, will live forever in the minds os the lame.