I think we've been here before. A repeating cycle of cause and effect does nothing to affect the argument of a single cycle. You still have the same problem and argument, only for multiple cycles.
All this still applies to an open or closed (repeating) universe.
But no one really knows for sure who is right, do we?
In my opinion, no; and I think it's a safe assumption.
it's an altogether different thing when some groups monopolize one theory and turn it into "official truth."
Though I'm not what's termed a "creationist" and I don't adhere to the full ID position (I believe it makes the same kinds of mistakes in category errors), I feel the same way about scientism. So as long as as both and all sides stick to their areas of study, maintain some sort of epistemological coherence, I'm fine with the debate. We're discussing the large questions of existence and meaning and I think that is a healthy necessity given the power of human beings - for good or ill.
Knowledge is the greatest human "humulifier".
Amen.
I mentioned it only in reference to the "beginning". Evidence suggest it was an event so many aeons ago. We don't know if it was the "beginning" of all existence or simply a recycling of an eternal universe. We know nothing of what existed before, if anything existed.
The argument is that all things in motion (in the largest sense) must have cause and effect. The first cause is not in motion, is not changing, etc. - and therefore without need of cause.
Well, if all that exists is caused, and God exists, he must be caused. And if he is caused, then he is not the first cause.