It started out as an inanimate object called singularity. Nobody knows where it came from and how it got there. Nobody knows how long it sat there, wherever *there* was, because since space didn't exist yet, there was no *there* for it to be. And it was unexpanded but nobody knows for how long. Then is expanded but nobody knows why either. If it was being held together, why did it expand? What was the mechanism that caused it to let go?
Then it expanded all on it's own to fill all of known space in a trillion-trillionth of a second, set up it's own laws by which to function and then organized itself into stars, planets, galaxies, and a whole host of other celestial objects.
After that this inanimate object proceeded to produce life. Once the life started, which we aren't sure how happened anyway because that's abiogenesis and not evolution so we don't deal with it, then through random mutations pressured on by random environmental factors which is called *natural selection* life came to increasing complexity and produced consciousness and intelligence. All with no guiding or controlling mechanism.
If scientists (or whoever chooses) are going to reject ID or creation because IDers/creationists can't explain where the creating agent came from, by that reasoning, no one should accept sciences explanation of how the universe came into existence and life arose because they can't explain where IT came from.
There's an 'I know' category and an 'I don't know' category. I'll put you in the 'I know' category.
Some people simply take note that it is illogical to say the universe has to have a creator, but God doesn't. But then faith shouldn't require logic.
It is a mistake to bring up the first cause argument. It's worthless from all points of view.
Multiple strawmen placemarker.
How DARE you be so logical!!!
--EvoDude
I think I said something quite similar in one of my very first arguments on these threads. That's how we met!