Edited sentence: As ridiculous as this statement may seem, it illustrates the important point that, as a so-called first cause, who are we to define the nature of that cause, especially since God, despite efforts to the contrary, will inevitably be anthropomorphised to an extent; indeed, the very concept of a 'being' within the known environment of the universe (which, since the dawn of humankind has not actually yet exhibited any concrete evidence of any 'beings' other than ourselves), known to us as something which can never be defined or understood seems somewhat fantastical, when compared with an observed phenomenon that is being increasingly well documented and brought into the realms of our scientific understanding.In other words, can we truly apply an objective logic that supposes that a first cause of the universe could not be something as apparently 'abstract' as the quantum processes thought to be involved with the Big Bang.Opponents of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God may argue that if the supposed concept of God as a 'first cause' of the universe is viable, then why is the concept of the Big Bang any less so.Some may even go further to suppose that "maybe the Big Bang is God".Ultimately, this problem stems into more than just the issue of the existence of God: it also begins to involve the nature of God