Ah, yes. This is an oft-repeated query: "If everything has a cause, then what caused God?"
That was not my major premise. I said everything that begins to exist has a cause. If God is omnipotent, and if he created space and time (which, it is asserted by us, he is, and did), then it stands to reason that he is not limited by those laws of space and time which he invented.
God, therefore, did not "begin" to exist--and therefore, he did not neccessarily have a cause.
Ah, but then, if God didn't need a beginning, there is no reason for the universe, or rather the multiverse to have had a beginning.
As for the beginning of the universe, recent theories, if they are correct, describes it thusly: There is a hyper space, the 11th dimension. Universes have 10 dimensions and exist along the hyper space axis as a membrane. The membranes vibrate, and when they come close enough to interact, when one peak of a universe slams into another one, this will trigger a big bang. A new 1-dimensional dot starts, which will then blossom into a full-fledged 10-dimensional universe.
And you know what's the ultimate kicker? According to theory, we can steer such peaks in the membrane. In short, if the theory is correct, then somewhere in the next century, WE will be creating a universe, starting a big bang in the lab. For a tiny insignificant fraction of a second, a tiny dot will exist, that is the big bang of a brand new universe. A brand new space-time continuum will exist, right here, in our own universe... and then, it will simply disappear into the hyper-dimensions to find itself place along the hyper-spacial axis, to continue its life as a brand new universe.
And we, shall be the creators of a universe. No god required.
The logical law of cause and effect works in science, too. Movement requires energy. An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
And consider a few other laws of science: Matter and energy are interchangeable. The total entropy in the universe can only increase or stay the same--it can never decrease.
Only in a Newtonian and an Einsteinian universe. The moment you hit the quantum, the super strings, and the hyper-dimensions, that rather goes out the window.
Let me put it this way.
The main line of "evidence" for the Big Bang is...that the universe is expanding--
Well, no, there is evidence that suggests the universe is expanding, of course, this evidence depends on certain assumptions and theories, and if those turn out to be wrong, the evidence may have nothing to do with an expanding universe at all, or at least, is expanding in a very different rate the evidence and theories suggest.
and that the expansion is slowing down.
Nope, the expansion is speeding up.
Extrapolation of this model in reverse led to the theory.
Nope, not at all. The model was created by a Christian priest in order to fit with the universe that has a beginning per the bible. It's only later that the evidence was discovered, and was happily interpreted to fit with the model.
The logic Law of Cause and Effect demands that something that does begin, such as a Big Bang, had to have had a cause. Now, whatever combustive proccess started the Bang, if we were to reverse it, should, in theory, decrease in intensity until we reach the stating point, before which, apparently, whatever the "proto-universe" was was simply "there".
But whatever the procces was that started the Bang had to, in turn, be caused by something. If God were to be removed from the picture, the logic of this reasoning would demand that this procces was caused by another, and that by another, and that by another again, on and on, ad infinitum....
And in such a demand, God is nothing but another one of those that had a beginning and thus had a cause, and I suppose a creator. The thing is of course, if you get to say arbitrarily that god doesn't have a beginning, there's nothing stopping anyone else from saying; this hyper space doesn't have a beginning, it was simply always there. No god required.
You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either if you have infinite looping process with causes and god is just another iteration in those loops; or god can be the end point, and then anything else can be the end point as well.
Thus, there are three possibilities, all of which are, frankly, logically consistent with the evidence:
1. An infinite universe, which always existed in some form or another.
2. A finite universe, created by a natural intellegent designer, who in turn was created by another natural intellegent designer, etc.
3. A finite universe, created by a supernatural intellegent designer, who is infinite, and outside the bounds of time and space (both of which were created by said designer).
You're forgetting number 4: A finite universe existing with many other finite universe in an infinite hyperspace that has no time and causality laws, which always existed, and had no beginning, and thus no creator.
People of religion (such as myself), choose option 3, as, under Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is usualy (until you can prove otherwise) the most rational one to have.
Except that number 3 is not the simplest answer. Number 4 is actually the simplest answer.
And he claimed to be the Son of God.
Now, there are three possibilities:
1. His claims were false--and he knew it.
2. His claims were false--and he didn't know it.
3. His claims were true.
If you choose option 1, then he was a lier, a con artist, a hypocrite (because he told his followers to be honest in everything they do), an evildoer (because he told others to trust in him for the sake of their souls), and, ultimately, an idiot (because it was his claims to deity that led to his crucifixion).
But...then how do you explain the "wisdom that defied time itself"? How do you explain the moral code that he established, one that has changed the lives of so many?
Because he knew it was the only way to influence people. To get people to stop being barbarians and have compassion for each other. This then is a man conflicted, a very difficult ethical choice to make. Do I lie, and have a larger chance of getting people now and in the future to learn from my morals, or do I not lie, and see the barbarism and the suffering of people at the hands of others continue far longer and much worse? After many a night of agonizing, he chose that the lie was the lesser of the two evils.
Option 2, quite frankly, means that he was mentally unstable--a lunatic. If a man were to honestly believe he was the one and only Son of God--indeed, that he was one with his alleged Father, and if it were not true, than insane would not begin to describe it.
But again...how do you explain the "wisdom that defied time itself"?
Uh, wise and insane are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, some people may even theorize that true wisdom can only come when you are insane.
Thus, that leaves us with option 3...as the simplest answer.
Uh, no, it is not. A supernatural being versus someone who chose what he considered the lesser of two evils and an insane one, the supernatural being is MUCH, MUCH more complex.
Also, you're forgetting two options:
4. He never claimed to be the son of god at all. Some people after him attributed those claims to him, so they could manipulate people and screw them over.
5. He never even existed! He was simply sucked out of some people's thumbs, whatever their goal was.
Seeing as there is not a single shred of evidence that Jesus actually walked the planet, and there are a LOT of pieces of evidence to suggest that the story of Jesus is just another version of the many gods people have worshiped, Occam's Razor says number 5 is the correct answer.
