The argument proceeds roughly as follows: The universe is not
eternal and therefore must have had a cause. The cause must also be eternal. The
argument then precociously goes on to say that this cause must be anthropomorphic, caring,
loving and personal and even further, if you are a Christian, is said to have a
son within the universe. Asserting there must be a cause is reasonable if you
have an open definition for what a cause might be, for instance any process
that resulted in the creation or allowed for the creation of the universe in a
sense could be viewed to be a cause. The problem comes when you say that it is
a god and even more so when you ascribe more properties to this entity. When
doing this you are picking out one of the potentially infinite amount of
hypotheses that you could pick out. The Christian god for instance is
increasingly unlikely because of all the extra baggage it carries with it:
divine intervention, Jesus as the son (implying this creator has mating
capacity of some kind and a genome) and various other obsessions he seems to
have with us as a single species on the speck of dust we live on.
