I feel like you're going about this the "scientific way", which is to say, trying to see if god lines up with our current knowledge of science.
While an honest approach and much more practical than a philosophical approach, it's deeply flawed. You have to understand that what you're doing is the "god of the gaps" exercise, filling in god when we do not yet know. Like you said, the big bang doesn't have a cause, the laws of the universe at that point are not what they are now, so we literally do not know what the hell happened, and we can't even use the past tense because time didn't exist.
What we do know is that the bible makes no mention of evolution. The bible claims there was a global flood. The bible claims Noah got all the animals into an ark during that flood and survived. So god no longer lines up with our current knowledge of science. You can reject the christian god now.
While an honest approach and much more practical than a philosophical approach, it's deeply flawed. You have to understand that what you're doing is the "god of the gaps" exercise, filling in god when we do not yet know. Like you said, the big bang doesn't have a cause, the laws of the universe at that point are not what they are now, so we literally do not know what the hell happened, and we can't even use the past tense because time didn't exist.
What we do know is that the bible makes no mention of evolution. The bible claims there was a global flood. The bible claims Noah got all the animals into an ark during that flood and survived. So god no longer lines up with our current knowledge of science. You can reject the christian god now.
