so we have three basic conclusions that we can come to..

1- There is an infinite number of mundane causes to existance.

2- There is limited number of mundane causes to existance, and there is also a theoretically definable starting point to it all but this starting point would also by default would be matter itself, and as such has an infinite immortal, essentially divine quality to it, although it would be unintelligent by nature.

3- that there is a divine intelligent cause to existance.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

Are you positing these things as all inclusive and mutually exclusive?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

you missed one:

4- Cause and effect is not an absolute rule; there was a defined, mundane starting point that came from nowhere for no reason. It just happened.

thats an interesting one, lol. I wonder if you could actually defend that.... what is an example for an effect without a cause?

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

A true random number.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I believe it's just as "valid" as the other three in the sense that it can't be proven wrong.

I like it, you have a good point.. but if that were the case then life would be truly meaningless.. because as inexiplicably we exist, as inexplicably we could not exist. And most likely by the law of probabilty such a random quirk would probably randomly disappear. It is really strange to think about!

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

If the Big Bang has only one cause, then everything else is a consequence of this single cause. But I see your point. You're saying that there can't be an infinite chain of causes and consequences, and that therefore there must be an original cause, ie God. That argument was famous a few centuries ago, when philosophers tried to demonstrate the existence of God.

The main problems with it are:
1) the original cause can be God just as much as anything else.
2) there could be no original cause, just an infinite chain of cause & consequence.
3) the problem remains that this original cause is uncaused itself - if you admit that, you put into question the principle of causality, which is at the origin of your argument; and therefore, your conclusion contradicts your premise.

Why would anyone think that science is ever going to explain everything?

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Anything not yet fully explained.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Would not God be one? (if God exists, God would have no 'cause', just 'effect').

Ergo, if you are a believer in God, you must accept that effect can exist without cause.

I'm glad you like it.
And yes, if matter suddenly came into existence for no reason it seems quite possible that it would just cease to exist for no reason, though I think you're wrong about the "law of probability" bit. If there is no reason behind events than there is no probability; the number of times something happened in the past is irrelevant to the possibility of them ever happening again. It's pretty weird.

On another note, why would life be truly meaningless? It could still have meaning for you. Meaning is, I believe, a supremely personal thing.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that works. Doesn't "effect" imply that it occurred after a cause? Or, at the very least, that it did in fact occur at some specific point in time? But (the Judeo-Christian) God has no specific moment when He "occurred".
In other words, an 'effect' without a cause is something that "happened for no reason"; God would fulfill the "for no reason" bit, but I'm not sure it makes any sense to refer to something that's eternal as ever having "happened".

.... Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

the conclusion does not disprove my argument, because my arguement is essentially only the divine can have the property of infinity...he is the perfect circle, knowing all the numbers of pi. lol...ect.

The infinite divine does not need a cause, only matter and existance as we know it do.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

I didn't say it would.

God would have no 'cause' to come to be (since God is eternal). Ergo, no cause. But God makes 'effects'.

Ergo, God would be effect without cause.

I'm sure its merely semantics, but I feel that calling something an "effect" implies that it is tied to a certain point in time, regardless of whether it had a cause or not. Not only would something that had always been not be the "effect" of anything, it wouldn't be an "effect" at all.
For example, let's say there are three pumpkins on a table: One was brought to the table by a farmer, another appeared on the table suddenly for no reason at all, the third has always existed on the table.
By my lights, the presence of the first would be an effect with a cause (the farmer), the presence of the second would be an effect without a cause, and the presence of the third would not properly be an effect at all, it would simply be a fact.