But saying that we don't know what the conditions were past a certain point is not the same as saying it was a cosmic accident. We are at a point in cosmology beyond which we cannot presently say anything with certainty, and it may well be the case that the conditions we know about time/space in the iteration of the universe we are a part of don't apply to previous states. Our common sense understanding of cause/effect and time/space itself might simply break down at a certain point. "I don't know" is a valid and honest statement in response to the questions "What was there before? What caused it all?" Positing a mind behind the event is an unwarranted leap.
And yes, you are espousing the Christian god. You're just not making that explicit in your argument at this point. Even if we were to grant the soundness of your arguments so far (I don't), the best you could honestly do would be to declare yourself a deist. But you're not a deist; you're a Christian, so at some point this philosophical façade will fall away and we'll be treated in another thread to your cribbed reasons for identifying your philosophical creator god with the Biblical god. But you know as well as I do that you didn't become a Christian by way of philosophical arguments. The philosophy follows the conviction, and you are trying to cobble together a post hoc rationalization for something you already believed for other reasons. This is invariably how it is with apologists.
And yes, you are espousing the Christian god. You're just not making that explicit in your argument at this point. Even if we were to grant the soundness of your arguments so far (I don't), the best you could honestly do would be to declare yourself a deist. But you're not a deist; you're a Christian, so at some point this philosophical façade will fall away and we'll be treated in another thread to your cribbed reasons for identifying your philosophical creator god with the Biblical god. But you know as well as I do that you didn't become a Christian by way of philosophical arguments. The philosophy follows the conviction, and you are trying to cobble together a post hoc rationalization for something you already believed for other reasons. This is invariably how it is with apologists.
