sorry i don't understand. how is "first cause" different to "first causing"? all i'm saying is God may have caused the Big Bang.
but why did the Big Bang happen? i know you don't know, i know you said you don't know, and i know that that's perfectly acceptable. but there must be a reason for the Big Bang, even if (like you said) we don't know it yet. even if that reason might be God.
refuse to understand? based on what? all i'm saying here -- all this discussion between you and me is about -- is whether or not God's existence is possible. you're saying there cannot be a God. while i believe God exists, my point here is just that you cannot authoritatively say there cannot be a God.

you need evidence for that. there's no evidence against His existence. just like there's no evidence as to what i had for breakfast yesterday. none that anyone will ever find, anyway. i had organic puffed rice with goat's milk and a banana, but you'll say "no! there's no evidence, so it didn't happen!" maybe i'm lying, but maybe it's true. you'll never know, but you can't authoritatively say that on that morning Julian Smart (my real name, if you believe me ) did not eat organic puffed rice with goat's milk and a banana. you might say the banana skin is evidence, but i live in a family of five; who knows who really ate it?

i've had enough of this discussion.
yeah, i can't be bothered any more.

but it's okay. as much as we disagree, what happens in Hilbert's Hotel stays in Hilbert's Hotel .

julz