First Cause Argument Continued

I was going to post this earlier, but dinner preparations have delayed me. For some reason, after successfully making uber gigantic cupcakes by bastardising  Margaret Fulton's recipe, I am the cook of the house. Little did they know that I had prepared for them a meal greasier than the two fat ladies on cannabis.

 The Gman's Cupcakes of Doom. Guaranteed to send Maggie Fulton mad with anguish at what has become of her recipe...

I got a lot of interesting comments last post. I definitely stirred up the hive, and I think I may have not done the topic justice. Civilization has forever been perplexed by this puzzle and so it deserves some more time (for all those muso's and hypnosis guros out there... see what I did there?).

I digress. It's a topic most people don't want to discuss but that is the purpose of this blog really, to discuss what every non-indoctrinated free thinker does not want to discuss

Just like Cheshire commented on my last post, Big-Bangers and Creationists are very much alike.
They are both locked in an impasse when it comes to disproving the other.

In light of the other comments, perhaps the question that should be asked is whether the first cause argument has any merit anymore. The Big Bang's premise is that time existed when space existed, asking what happened before the big bang makes no sense and as for God, God lives outside of time. If we assume these to be true then the first cause argument falls flat on it's face and does not argue for or against anything. It still does not stop Christians from using it though.

Reflecting on my last post, I think I have willingly fallen into the age old trap that Dawkins refers to as the argument from "personal incredulity". I want String Theory to be true because a timeless god makes about as much sense as an event with no cause.