At the risk of veering off the thread I will comment on your first paragraph above. I agree at least partly! If God wanted us to know about something then it could just instantly be so. Yes, it probably could. But if you then insisted that God must therefore reveal all to us immediately then I absolutely disagree. It would be like telling the end of the story, throwing away a kids toys because they will eventually break, or telling someone about life without letting them experience it. In fact I think we would complain to God if that happened!
This term that you are using ("God") doesn't actually refer to anything real. You might as well say, "If Blark-Schmarbelfarben wanted us to know about something...[insert anything here]"
because it works just the same. Putting letters together that you can then sound-out doesn't in any way show that those letters (i.e. - that word) is coherent or has any objective reality. Again, kids use the word "Santa". It doesn't refer.
Re this thread, I am simply saying that the origin (whether or not it is eternal) must be uncaused and that anything uncaused cannot be natural. I have made no conclusions or assumptions about God from that logic. And I welcome challenges to that logic or a definition of natural which could encompass something that is uncaused.
This just sounds like an assertion, not something that you actually deduced from the evidence. How could you possibly know ANYTHING (whatsoever) about the essence of the cause of our current local known universe? All you're really appealing to here is your own speculation. As I mentioned before, there are lots
of possibilities (as far as science is concerned) and to just jump on the one that agrees with your theology (in Craig/Moreland fashion) isn't a reliable way of fact finding. There very well could be a whole host of natural but unknown, and counter-intuitive, phenomena that we have yet to discover about physics, space time, the cosmos, black holes, dark energy/matter, and countless other subjects (and the time to believe something about them is after sufficient evidence, not before). So, why close your mind by asserting that whatever caused our universe must be "non-natural"?
Furthermore, what makes you think that the cause of our known universe must be "uncaused"? This sounds like a J.P. Moreland line coming, about "the impossibility of an actual infinite"
. If in fact that is the line of reasoning you are driving at I will respond like this. 1) Do you believe "God" (whatever that means) is actually infinite? If so, then this rebuttal is mute due to it's hypocrisy. We only need Occams Razor to stop with the global universe and there's no need to posit a deity. 2) How could you know if our current experience is not just on a continuum, and that we are just part of that continuum? Xeno made a related mistake with his arrows, in postulating that distance is infinite because we can keep dividing the distance an arrow travels (in half), infinitely. Similarly, saying that an "actual infinite" is impossible because we would have had to go through a series of infinite past events in order to get to "now" is to assume that such a mindset correctly represents how reality actually works (i.e. - that we are not just on a continuum and experiencing part of it wholly now - like the below image). And 3) the argument is really based in ignorance, since it assumes the reality of how an "actual infinite" might actually be played-out, or actualized. So too, it is ad hoc, since Moreland (and others who propose the argument) haven't really shown how this would be impossible. It's just an assertion, and since the First Law
tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed we have better reason for thinking that our experience is simply a part of the global whole of an infinitely continuing matter/energy reality.