Supernatural vs a Natural Uncaused Caused and Occam Razor

I just read something that I have been thinking about and it deals with a naturalistic view versus a super-naturalistic view of the cause of the universe and Occam Razor. Occam Razor simply means when you have two competing ideas that equally explains an observation go with the one that requires less explanation or the shorter explanation. In both ideas it is believed that the universe has a self-contained uncaused cause; in the naturalistic concept the universe itself is the self-contained uncaused cause while the super-naturalistic concept is a god is the self-contained uncaused cause of the universe, and thus Occam Razor would mean the naturalistic view should be accepted because it is the shorter explanation because of the one additional explanation of god for the theistic view. In other words, naturalism advocates the universe is itself the self-contained uncaused cause; while super-naturalism advocates that a supreme being is the self-contained uncaused cause. Now you have added something that requires an additional explanation: what is a supreme being?, who is the supreme being?, what evidence does god give for this supreme being’s existence? (I refuse to use a gender for god.) In all honesty both view may be false, we simply don‘t know, however I digress one of them is true because if a third alternative is given it would either be natural or supernatural. I too believe that there is an uncaused cause, because you would have to get to a point where there is something that was uncaused or you would have an infinite regression which is meaningless, because you would never explain anything, however using Occam Razor one would lean towards the universe itself being the self-contained uncaused cause because it requires one less step for explanation., therefore I accept the naturalistic point of view.

How do I know it's true?

I don’t believe that what Christianity professes is true, not just Christianity but any religion that make an unproven claim. What do I mean by true? True is something that is a provable or proven fact. Christianity is a faith or is based on faith, it is something that you have to accept on the word of another, but I have a difficult time just blindly accepting someone’s opinion that don’t have any provable evidence to back up it’s claim. How can we prove the tenets of Christianity’s claim? How can I prove that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of his father? As I type this it is almost laughable that people actually believe this, that is, that a god impregnated a virgin in a village in what was a Roman providence in the so-called middle east area that is now called Israel, this semi-divine being walked on earth, did miracles, knew he was going to be killed and he was going to rise three days later, and if you believe this you will be saved from the punishment this semi-divine being‘s father has created for people who don‘t accept this, believe something else, or even perhaps never heard. The reason this semi-divine being did this is because two naked people in a garden ate some fruit that his father had put in a garden and told them not to eat and they ate the fruit after they were convinced by a talking serpent. It is like me as an adult actually believing in Santa Claus and his eight tiny reindeer, without me being mentally ill or handicapped. However, a believer don’t think this is delusional but it actually happened because of a book put together by the Roman Catholic Church, the remnant or what is left of what was the Roman Empire. I can understand how someone can believe in an uncaused cause, an unknown intelligence that is innate in the universe or that is the universe, that caused the big bang or was the big bang, that goes from simplicity to complexity over an infinite amount of time, however, science hypothesizes that this universe will stop evolving and will one day die. This leads me to ask questions about science. How do I know science is true? How do we know the age of the universe? How do we know the age of the earth? How does science come to its conclusions? Why is this significant? Why do science believes that it is right? What happens if science is wrong? These are things which we should think about...

The Big Bang

I often hear apologist, discuss how it is impossible for the universe to have an infinite pass, this is one of the favorite arguments of William Lane Craig's Kalam Argument for the existence of god. Yet he uses the big bang for his argument. However, for there to have been a big bang there must have been something to bang. You cannot bang anything, if there's nothing to bang. Apologist also like to use the second law of thermodynamics, which in a close system energy experience entropy or things gets worse over time. They argue that if energy has existed forever then entropy would have destroyed everything by now. However, the apologist forgets the first law of thermodynamics which states in a close system energy is neither created nor destroyed, it changes from one form to another. If something is created then it comes into existence and did not exist before and if something is destroyed it no longer exist. Therefore if energy is neither created nor destroyed then it is reasonable to conclude that they have always existed, and if something has always existed then it does not have a creator or destroyer or point to something else. Therefore one could argue that energy could have always existed based on the first law of thermodynamics. Think about it....