Hi Vinny:
I don't mean to attack your beliefs. I would like to take the opportunity to try them on a bit, though...
There are Only TWO answers here for how everything arose: By some Intelligent Designer or all by themselves.
Not sure this is useful for me. Seeing as we are all saddled with the myopic view of our accustomed conventions (as you point out in our limited ability to appreciate "no time"), perhaps there are other possibilities than just these two.
Since nothing in my house just happend to create itself...tell us just how all things today can arise from nothing at all, by no intelligence at all?
Nothing in my house tells me how a spirit being can exist either. But that's ok, I don't think the spiritual world can be described by physical world analogies (though that may be all we have to work with).
Again, I hear you speaking to our conditioned ways of thinking and cognition, which limits our abilities to think beyond the possibilities we see "around the house". Rain falls without intelligent cause - unless you suppose a creator that put physical laws into motion. A possiblity. But it seems just as "magical" to me to see the Universe haivng an innate characteristic that led to a Big Bang as it does to suppose a Creator. Just because our minds are predisposed to living in a cause-and-effect world, a 3D world, a time-based world, it does not follow that this is the way of all the Universe. See how hard it is for you to conceptualize "before time", and you will see the limitations of the mind.
It's good to point out that other cultures do not accept "cause-and-effect" as the way of the Universe. We in the West might think their worldview "magical", or not based in logic. But in the end, the Biblical God is not claimed to be "logical" as such.
What I'm trying on is this notion that because the physical world seems predicated on creator-created relationships, then it must be true that the world itself was created. I don't think this holds together for me. If the argument is that God Himself transcends time, then I must make room for the argument that the start of the Universe transcends my creator-created worldview.
ADDITIONALLY, I said the second line of argument is that practically ALL physicists, astronomers, scientists etc. DO believe and DO teach that the universe DID HAVE A BEGINNING.
That may be true, I haven't read "practically all" scientific literature. But the majority of what I have seen goes further: that there was a state prior to the beginning, and that it was a very different state to what we know now, and that we really cannot conceptualize that state. Kind of like conceptualizing God having no beginning. It's a difficult construct - perhaps as difficult as evolution, but perhaps equally possible because of it. But just because we cannot readily conceptualize the Universe state prior to the Big Bang, and just as we cannot readily conceptualize God having no beginning, does not mean we can invalidate either.
HE IS THE FIRST CAUSE.
I admit to being a little confused with your point. What is "the first cause"? An event? A trigger? Is this something God "is", or something God "caused"? Not intending to bait, actually interested in this conversation.
Because all of us personally live in the dimension of time, it may be difficult to impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning or an end.
Yes, I would agree. And because of the constraints our ordinary consciousness places upon the boundaries of our conceptual abilities, the same can be said of evolution - evolution may place a strain at the boundaries of what some of us have taken for granted, a strain against our established worldview, a strain against our everyday way of thinking things. But perhaps this strain is not too much different than the strain in conceptualizing God.
If it matters, I am familier with the concept of "no time" and "before time", and find this place experientially in meditation. I in no way mean to challenge this "before time" concept as something we cannot relate to. I do acknowledge it is difficult for many to relate to it, though, because it is not part of our ordinary world. Equally, what I'm seeing is that it serves the other side of the argument, as well.
Because everything and everyone I know is subject to the dimension and effects of time...This is what we are accustomed to, programmed to accept.
I completely agree. But (not meaning to be argumentative) this strikes me more as a comment on our human limitations rather than as an argument for a Creator.
This INTELLIGENT DESIGNER would be the reason why the universe is so precise and well arranged.
That one is hard for me. I see the world comforming to some "natural laws" (e.g., gravity). But I also see chaos (at the subatmic level), which seems to be another part of the set of "natural laws". I see irregularity and "imperfection" (noncoformance to regularity) as a part of the Universe. I see the very way we reproduce (genetics) as a fundamental demand to keep things "mixed up". I think I would need to challenge the assertion that the Universe is "so precise and well arranged" - that seems more a conclusion drawn from a filtered world view; if the "natural laws" were different, what we think of as precise and well arranged would be different. It's that same "we always see what we are prepared/used to seeing" argument you bring up.
It's kind of like the old JW rhetoric that we should be thankful that Jehovah created the Earth in such a "just so" way that life could exist. I would always think, Yes, but if the Earth were closer to the sun and hotter, and we still lived, then the argument would still be valid - it's just our absolute minds taking in a relative position and thinking it's all there is.
You see precision and order; I see areas of order and areas of chaos. You seem to say order is the proof of God's hand; I would counter that there seems to be a bubbling up of chaos at the subatomic level that resolves to a perceived order at our everyday worldview. What I'm left with is either God uses both chaos and order, or chaos and order are parts of the world we see - but in either case I'm not able to justify God's existance from this argument. Whether God is there or not, there is still what there is to see.
This INTELLIGENT DESIGNER would be the reason why we humans have a conscience, appreciate scenery, plan ahead, and seek justice as well as love.
Then I wouldn't understand why he chose to also create those without these qualities.
I really do understand your argument, it's just that it seems the same logic can be used on the flipside.
By the way, I do not mean to challenge the existance of God here. I'm just trying to understand and see if your arguments work for me.