"Reality is that we do know the answer to the question and we do know the origins of the universe: we just don't like the answer. So we say, ha! who knows , but I bet I can make up a really good sounding answer"

Such as God, for example?

"So, to sum up what you are saying, we just don't know about the origins of the universe at this place and time..."

That bit is right, yes.

"...and that the big bang theory is just an assumption and cannot be considered as the beginning of the universe."

But this bit you've misunderstood. The Big Bang definitely happened. It was not, however, the beginning of the universe. It was an event that happened at a finite point in the past that caused space-time to grow exponentially. The universe existed before (though remember what I said about the assumption that time existed pre-Big Bang) the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was simply the rapid expansion of the already existent universe.

What I'm trying to get across is that anything regarding the state of the universe pre-Big Bang is purely speculation (apart from the fact that it existed, as that is required in order for it to expand), as there is no way for us (currently) to see beyond the Big Bang. There may very possibly not have even been a before, as to talk about "before" means that we are subscribing to our linear understanding of time (which is a property of the universe itself). Therefore, any assumptions made about the universe (such as whether time existed, whether the universe had a "beginning", etc) are all just speculation.

They can, therefore, not be used within any logical reasoning (The Transitive Property of Equality you provided in your previous argument) as they are points that are presumed to be correct (axioms) but are actually not so.

"I'm not really getting what you are saying."

I misunderstood the point you were making with referring to the second law of thermodynamics. I've often heard it used to show how the Big Bang could not have happened. Apologies.

The cosmological argument is based on incorrect assumptions and therefore contains a logical flaw.

"2.The universe had a beginning (Big Bang)"

Here is the assumption. The Big Bang was not (or at least, cannot currently be known to be) the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang actually refers to an event in which the Universe expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. Unfortunately, due to technological constraints, we can not accurately say what happened before the Big Bang; in fact, we can't even say with any certainty that a before even existed. Remember that time is (or could be) a property contained within the universe, and therefore the universe itself exists within a plane that may or may not contain the dimension of time (or, at least, our linear representation of time). Take the first and second law of thermodynamics too. They obviously apply within the bounds of the universe, but do they apply to the actual universe itself? The universe, before the Big Bang occurred, may well have been infinite. Therefore, everything we think regarding the conditions of a pre-Big Bang universe are simply speculation at best.

"The First Law of Thermo talks about the universe being constant, in other words, that it only has a finite amount of energy. "

Time is an integral part of our universe so it is not clear how exactly one would characterise the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved. The idea of the "total energy of the universe" is difficult to define properly, especially with regards to gravitational relativity. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian measures the total energy of a system, and the Hamiltonian calculation for the universe shows a zero amount of energy when you offset gravitational potential energy against actual energy, assuming a closed universe. If we assume an open universe, however, then talk of energy conservation is meaningless anyway.

"With the Law of Entropy, things naturally fall apart over time, right? If the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? ... The universe could not be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete entropy by now."

This may or may not be true. Thermodynamics considers the evolution through time of the entropy of systems. As such, we can say that the the total entropy of the universe ought to decrease through time (that's assuming the the universe as a whole can be considered a "system" in the thermodynamics sense; which is not at all clear). However, If the origin of the universe also marked the beginning of time itself, then the universe can "start" with an arbitrarily large amount of useful energy without any contradiction to thermodynamics; because there is no period of time during which the universe's useful energy is increasing nor its entropy decreasing. Again, we're making assumptions about time and whether the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe itself rather than within the bounds of the universe.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that things are far more complicated when they come to the existence of the universe, and absolutely no assumptions can be made, which is what the majority of these "logical quandaries" about the origins of the universe are based on.

Incidentally, does your view of God (ie, infinite) not break the laws of thermodynamics? If you apply special properties to God that allow him to sit outside the bounds of physics, why not allow the same for the universe?

There is nothing to rebuke. You have yourself failed to provide any reason why the points you mentioned point towards any god, let alone the Christian god, being a probable or required starting point for the universe.

Provide some reasons why the afformentioned "acronyms" point towards the existence of a god, and I will gladly rebuke them for you. Are you simply repeating information that you have heard, or do you really understand the concepts you are trying to put across? We'll see. Okay, just for fun, let's take your first point regarding the second law of thermodynamics as the first point of contention.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. The entropy is a parameter for disorder. More order means less entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is often used by the religious to implicate a god in the perceived organisation of the world. However, this is a huge misunderstanding, as the second law applies to a closed system only. Although the entropy of a closed system never decreases, the entropy of a local system within the closed system may decrease, as long as the total entropy of the closed system does not decrease. This is very important to remember. Therefore, ordered structures can be created in a local system. For instance, water molecules may combine to form more ordered liquid water. If the second law prevented the decrease in entropy within a closed system and thus the formation of ordered structures, we would never have rain.

Order can most likely be created in a closed system which is far from equilibrium. When a closed system is in the equilibrium state, its entropy has reached a maximum value. The entropy of the closed system cannot increase further. Hence, there is no room to compensate for the entropy decrease of a local system within the closed system unless it is accompanied by an entropy increase in a neighboring local system. By contrast, if a closed system is far from equilibrium, its entropy will increase dramatically, which can compensate for a substantial entropy decrease of a local system. Thus, ordered structures are more likely to be created from a non-equilibrium state than an equilibrium state.

The Big Bang theory backs up this view of the world. The Big Bang creates an initial universe which contains an enormously high energy density and is extremely far from equilibrium. In order to reach an equilibrium state, the universe expanded rapidly, resulting in dramatic increase in entropy. This can compensate for the entropy decrease due to the formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on Earth.

Next!

Christianity is a religion based on sun worship. The "God" Christians worship once had a name according to the Old Testament, "Yahweh". The title of "God" was instituted to put an end to all worship of other gods and deities for tighter control of the masses. The Ten commandments come straight from the Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125, they just rearranged the words. Study history and you'll see how man once had many gods and worshiped the sun and then you'll realize how Christianity was created to control the masses. Educate yourself first, believe second.