God created the universe

1.: Causation we experience is just the rearrangement of existing things. If you think about it you will see that there is nothing actually beginning to exist. Those reassembles such as the building of table from the wood, seem to caused but there is nothing to suggest that an actual beginning of existence requires a cause (no evidence). Also if you describe is as a causation, we would have to assume that god would have to cause something (a material cause) to become the universe as everything we experience beginning has such a material cause. As this is obviously not working for an immaterial god, you have to conclude that a normal causation just isn"t a fitting description of something beginning to exist and therefore there is no reason to believe that if the universe had a beginning it would need a cause. Now lets come to the question if a beginning is even a good model. The big bang is just the sign of a our universe starting to expand from singularity, but this gives no reason to think it were the beginning of everything. Working and self contained models in modern cosmology also implementing quantum mechanics mostly have an infinite universe (it is not certain but seems to be the best way forward). If you now thing that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies a beginning this is just false as it is only applying to a classical universe without quantum mechanics doesn"t apply). If we now come to the question whether an infinite universe works, we have to go into B theory of time. It states that time is not flowing with a past, present and future but rather a fourth dimension with all the attributes of the other dimensions in space. It works well with relativity as it allows for speed to influence the passing of time. If we now look at A theory it still holds to the common sense (not a reliable source) flow of time and uses a reference time frame with all other observers having an illusory time to explain relativity. The main frame has to be god. Now if you need A theory for the problem with an infinite universe as it would need an infinite number of events before everything and therefore nothing happening at all, you need a god to ground the theory in for the main frame and to account for the observed relativity of time. But then your argument is circular as you prove a god with a theory that ultimately needs god to ground it. B theory on the other hand is not just working better with relativity and our observations it also needs such assumption. The flow of time is due to the overall increase in entropy, which makes it different from the other dimensions. This is a major point and explains the arrow of time and so how one knows the difference between yesterday and tomorrow. If we come back to causation we see that it isn"t the case that any next moment is caused by the one before, similar to the next piece of space not being caused by the one before. If we come back to the infinite, we can see that there is no problem, as you can just be in one part of time with it being infinite in all directions as well as you can be in one part of space if it is infinite. 2.: Your argument boils down to the notion that the lack of a scientific theory of consciousness in some way makes god more likely. The reason science can"t explain all of consciousness is that it is dependent upon our brain, which can be seen in everything from the loss of it as the brain lacks oxygen to the influence of the lack of a morning coffee on the mood. So far there is no phenomenon that seemed even in the slightest to suggest that it is not based on the workings of the brain (e.g.: a consciousness working without a brain). Now as we know through the scientific method that consciousness is directly dependent upon the brain, the actual problem in your remark is that we don"t understand the brain, which is not surprising as it is extremely complex. Regarding free will you argue that it seems to be the case that we choose but I have to object. If you look at it scientifically we can trace more and more actions directly to the neurons and even the thoughts of a person can be seen if measuring the currents in the brain. The thing is that in all those experiments the neurons of the brain were acting before the person knew what was thought suggesting that the brain activity was the cause of the experience. Even in the common sense way you talk about, which is concerning science one of the worst places to get knowledge, we can experience it. If one thinks back as something that just pops into their mind you will encounter the problem that you have no idea why you thought it. You may recollect that it is due to an experience at some point but mostly even this can"t be said. The central point is that you haven"t made the choice to think about it, but rather your brain, due to its complexity build by experience and genetics, brought in a deterministic way the thought you had, maybe because you have seen something like it earlier. All we know leads us to believe that all action work this way. 3.: First to the second law of thermodynamics I can just say that entropy (or randomness) increases in a closed system and our earth is not a closed system which is why it doesn"t apply. I can just recommend Sean Carroll on this topic as he explains it really well why you would expect complexity as entropy increases. Coming to the complexity of life, you say that it seems to be so incredible and I have to agree. The thing is that science can explain a good amount of the problems you brought up. A modern cell didn"t just happen, but it started from a way more simple organism most likely with just a membrane and a replicating nucleic acid (very likely not DNA) (If you are interested in the current research on the beginning I can recommend Jack Szostak"s three lectures (Yes science has theories about it and we can be confident that we will ultimately find possible working mechanisms)). Evolution through random mutation and natural selection brings you from a simple protocell up to us and complex life. It uses things like the golden rule or results in eyes as they have benefits to the organisms possessing them, leading to a higher likelihood of reproduction and therefore the evolutionary mechanism. Complexity in the universe arises due to our laws of nature as the pattern in our universe. Complexity and information is not as you say just build through a designer but through the workings of nature. If you drop a glass and is smashes on the ground the pattern emerging has all the information about the drop. Similarly has our universe in the laws of nature a pattern which is self consistent and gives an explanation for the things. The universe all in all is much more of a shattered glass than a written poem. 4.: The answer to almost all of it can be easily provided by science as it observes the nature working by patterns that explain everything(obviously we can"t do it with everything so far but the things you mention as water swimming or the distance between earth and sun is explained). I also have to object that either our planet or our universe is fine tuned for live. Our planet is uninhabitable in many part from the poles to the equator and our universe seems to be aside from us to be absolutely dead. This can"t be described as fine tuning but rather fits a natural description of the universe in which due to the specified needs for life there is only a few places where it fits. To conclude I can agree with you that if it was all random and just happened it seems to be impossible but as our universe is not random but governed by the laws of nature (the pattern the universe itself takes) we have only a small set of things that have to be there namely some constants and the laws of nature and here a notion of an infinite multiverse explains. I sadly lack the space to finish but have to say to your last sentence that I don"t think there is any reason to expect a why in the universe.