That's exactly the whole point! God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything. Call that force what you will, I call it God.
Point 3 is fallacious as it relies on the assumption that this great initiator is human-like or even has feelings. Just because you're used to all the Christians and Muslims babbling on about how God "does things for a reason" doesn't mean that the "great initiator" (or whatever the hell you'd prefer to call it) is anything like a human or even explainable in human emotions.
Why would you call it god when god is commonly known to mean a deity? Unless of course you wanted a bullshit rationalization for you to believe in a deity without actually having to prove any deity exists.
What if this "starting cause" is just some kind of particle that was always there? In fact, since by accepting its possible for god to always be there, then you need to prove how the universe couldn't have just always been there as some invisible nothing, and then suddenly spring into its current form.
They're both as irrational positions to believe to be true
because there is inadequate evidence to believe in either claim.
There's no more reason to believe a god created the universe, than to believe that this universe was created in a lab, in another larger universe, or that the universe was created by a cosmic ice cow colliding with a transcendental fire giant
You still haven't shown any evidence that the universe has a starting point, and you also need to demonstrate how its possible for God to just exist, or always exist, but its not possible for the universe to do the same, or another entity that is not a god to do the same.
If everything has to have a cause, why doesn't god have to have a cause?
As I have mentioned before, the concept that everything has to have a cause leads
Turtles all the way down, otherwise known as infinite regression.
Now this is a possible way for the universe to exist, but we neither know whether there is an infinite chain of causes, or there is a single starting cause that had no cause. The point is, there is no evidence to believe in either position, and you have provided no evidence to support the idea that the universe had a first cause, and that first cause always existed.
You are simply labeling a potential unknown "god", and using it as proof of gods existence. Assuming that the universe had a first cause, you have not explained any details about the first cause, or how it is possible for this first cause to exist, how it exists, and why it doesn't itself need a cause, you have merely said, "the universe must have had a cause, that cause was god, therefore god exists".
God is that unexplainable force that initiated the universe. You can't explain it, but there must be something that initiated everything.
3 points that need to validated for this claim to be valid.
1. Point to the starting point of the universe and provide evidence that you know there was nothing before it.
2. Provide evidence that you know what this cause was. What you are doing now is simply asserting that the universe has to have had a cause (unproven assertion number 1), and then claiming that the cause must have been god (unproven assertion number 2)
If by "god" you just mean "whatever started the universe", and are not implying any other properties of "god", then you are being highly disingenuous, as you are saying "whatever made the universe must be god", which by your definition of god means "whatever made the universe is whatever made the universe", which is essentially devoid of any explanatory power.
If the universe does have a start point, which I am perfectly willing to accept that it may have, then yes, there would have to be a cause, but you have provided no evidence for what this cause was, other than saying, "whatever it the cause is, im going to call it god".
For example, the sun exist. We can see how other suns are formed in nebula from the gravitational attraction of gases, which compresses to a point where the frictional forces cause temperature to rise to the autoignition point of the gases. You can point a telescope in the sky and see this shit happening today, at nearly every stage of a suns lifecycle. This counts for fairly strong evidence of what caused are sun to exist. There may be another explanation, but so far thats what has the most evidence and thats whats most reasonable to believe.
Now scientists could have just said, the sun must have had a cause, whatever that cause was must have been god, but they decided not to engage in biased fallacy, and to actually work out what causes stars to exist, rather than use the lack of knowledge as a hiding ground for their pet beliefs.
Of course, there is then the question, what caused the gases to come into existence? and at a certain point we get to "we don't know", as we don't have any information about what existence was like before the big bang, or even if there was existence before the big bang, if the universe has a start and end point, or if it operates in a different manner to what time is like on earth.
It is both rational, and optimal to accept this gap in knowledge.
Calling the potential cause of the universe (if it has a cause) god, does nothing to explain how that cause came about, or what the nature of that cause was.
It is a disingenuous piece of intellectual evasion, in order to to cling to the idea of some sort of god, no matter how vague or illusionary. It does nothing to explain the nature of the universe, how it was created, and the position assumes things for which there is not sufficient evidence to assume.
Hell, if your going to use such a flimsy argument, why not just call love god, math god, or everything god, that way the existence of god is indisputable, except you just happened to have defined god out of any useful definition.