A problem with how theists think.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I had said before, I believe that everything in the universe had a beginning, because I believe the scientific evidence and reasoning, indicates that the universe had a beginning.  Therefore everything within the universe, that is dependent on the universe, must also have a beginning, and a need for a cause.  The other alternative would be an origin from outside of the universe.

What does scientific evidence and reasoning say about gods-as-cause? What does it say about that "cause" of the big bang in the general? Do you believe that great "I don't know/the question may not be informative" as well? Seems like you don't.

The cause of the universe, must be outside of the universe.  Once you get outside of the universe, we are limited in what we can say from science and reason.

Then why lead in with it up above?  

I think we can induce certain attributes, that the cause of the universe must have, to produce the effect we see.  I also believe the reasoning on infinite regress, so at least eventually, there must be a first cause. I don't know of any arguments from science and reason, which state one way or the other, whether the cause of the universe, is itself contingent or non-contingent.  I also don't know if we can determine from this point of view, whether something is non-contingent, although we can reason that there must be.

What reasoning on infinite regress, exactly, and it was limited just a moment ago, wasn't it?  Why must there be some non-contigent thing, and if there were, are you sure it's your god? I think you may have tied yourself into a knot regarding infinite regress. You misunderstand what it means, and thus feel that there is some problem that you have to work your way around for gods case....but you're wrong here, flat out, and doing so is special pleading that only creates further problems of consistency for you below.

Once you start asking specific questions about God, I think it is important to note, that for the most part, you are entering a different territory of knowledge.  It is going to be theological, and based on the history of God's interaction and revelation with man.   This indicates that God is the creator of the universe, outside of the universe, and non-contingent.

You don't see any issue with consistency in any of this?  You create a rule, then break the rule.  Appeal to standards, then deny the standards are uniform. All this to say nothing more than "revelation". God's interaction and history. For a being that's outside the universe, and thusly free to break the rules you insist upon (but how could you know that's true.....perhaps the same rules do apply), he seems awfully involved, awfully -inside- the universe.

If god is outside of the universe, how did you come to know anything about it? I barely know my neighbors, and they live inside the universe.  Science, reasoning....couldn't be, they're uninformative in this context.  Now we've got a third category, special knowledge.  You clearly don't reach your position through scientific evidence, or reasoning. You reach it through revelation. That's what you know -and- how you know it. What's with all the rest of this stuff?

In any case, if things outside this universe can traipse in, then we're right back to where we were before when asking, "if there are un-caused things, why not the universe?". The point where a consistent person, convinced by scientific evidence and convinced by reason, would have to conclude that the singularity could have done the same.