The universe's origins versus God's origins

This is a follow up to the thread that I made, What made God?
Of the 5 people that bothered to take my poll, 2 said that God has always existed, 2 said that God's origin is a mystery.

My question is, why is it easier for Christians to accept that God always existed, or that his origins are not fully known, than to accept that the universe always existed or that it's origins are not fully known?

 

If you accept the Big Bang Theory the universe is ~14 billion years old.

If God was created than what created God? It only makes sense if God is eternal or outside/beyond time and space.

 

If Yahweh always existed then that does away with the problem of infinite regression.

I guess its easier to believe that way because the Bible says that Yahweh created the Universe, not that it always existed.

Do you mean non literalists then? in that case I think you have to do away with the distinction of mythological belief and narrow it down to every day experience. Things come from something in every day life. A causes B, etc

Its hard for me to imagine (tho I tend to lean toward this belief) that Reality has always existed.

 

Why couldn't that same logic apply to the universe/matter?

 

I believe that I exist. i don't know how, why, or when, and honestly I don't even care. I'm not gonna try to figure it out, because nobody really knows. Some people just need an explanation.

 

for all we know., there may have been several big bangs..

 

yeah

maybe at some point all of the stars turn into black holes and they suck eachother in, leading to singularity, then bang, then expansion, contraction, then singularity, etc

 

There a theories that there have been, and that there will be again; that the universe is cyclic in nature.

 

let's face it. It's hard for humans to wrap our minds around either alternative, kind of like a dog trying to figure out if there's an infinite supply of the food he gets for breakfast. Recently, Catholic priest and physicist weighed in in favor (obviously) of a creator in his book New Proofs for the Existence of God which seem a lot like the old proofs dressed up in lab coats. On the other hand, physicist Stephen Hawking, who doesn't think a transcedant being is necessary to account for the universe. (or should I say the cosmos, since there may be lots of other universes although we haven't found one yet). Some physicists propose a string of Big Bangs. The Hartle-Hawking "no Boundary Universe theory posits a universe that is finite but had no initial singularity to produce a boundary. (And don't ask me to explain that).

 

Here's the fundamental problem with any question/discussion that has anything to do with god; everybody has a slightly different definition of what god is and most (in my opinion) don't know what god really is. You have to be able to understand the nature of what exactly god really is before you can even try to answer anything that has to do with it. Most never bother to try and understand the real nature of god, they just go with the definition they were taught. Most never really bother to question it.

 

Yep.

 

It could, but according to science the universe was at one point the size of a grape. It just seems too limited to me to be infinite and eternal. It's all speculation though and I realise this is only my opinion.

 

We don't know how everything began.

Humans invoked the need for a God to fill in the blanks because most people aren't comfortable with not knowing.

 

Agreed that most discussion about religion or God do not have definitions hammered out prior to engagement, but isn't it really definitions on which we disagree?

I disagree that "most...don't know what god really is". I think what you think is that people generally do not agree with you, for any number of reasons, but I venture one of them is that your view of god does not really mean anything worthwhile.