@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes. that's my proof. That proof that you so cavalierly dismiss is based on the General Theory of Relativity, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the presence of cosmic background radiation consistent with the universe exploding from nothing into everything, and the Law of Causality(the BACKBONE of science). Your infinite sequence of big-bangs is a theory that is proven wrong with the basic fact that infinite numbers are not possible with finite things such as time. Additionally it goes against the General Theory of Relativity(proven to 9 decimal places, mind you) as well as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
But let's assume that the universe HAS been around forever. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that no new energy is being created and no energy is being destroyed. The Law of Entropy(second law of thermodynamics) tells us that the energy in the universe is becoming steadily less usable, meaning that there is no less energy in the universe, but it is in a form that cannot be used. Think of a flashlight. If you leave it on, the light eventually will start to get dim and go out. The battery is out of energy, the light bulb is not producing any more light or heat, but there is no less energy in the universe. It is just unusable now.
So if the universe had been around for eternity, we'd be a dead flashlight by now. All that exploding and contracting and stars exploding really takes a toll, ya know? No stars would be shining, the universe would be a completely cold box of gases and matter and of course, unusable energy.
The idea that the universe has had 'infinite big bangs' seems to me to be asserting that either A) there are multiple universes, each having its own big bang(which there is no evidence for. After all how could we examine something OUTSIDE of the universe?)
or B) that our universe, though expanding faster and faster will eventually collapse on itself and then explode again.
The problem with B is that eventually, since the universe whether expanding, contracting, or exploding, is still the universe. Because of this, the universe is still limited by the laws of thermodynamics and would have run out of usable energy by now.
As for separating the creator from the creation, I don't really see your point. Using that logic would seem to imply the following:
You build a house. You maintain this house, pay for the electricity, water, and keep it in good shape. You fill it with furniture and make it a nice, comfortable place.
You are now that house.
Of course that is a silly thought, you are the builder of this house. You aren't bound to the limits of the house, you can enter and leave it as you please. Yet you can impose your will on the house. You can destroy it, remodel it, get a dog that'll poo and pee all over the carpet, whatever you decide to do with the house, you can do.
In the same way, God would have created the universe. He is not bound by its limits, but the limits that hold us in do not keep Him out or negate His will.
And would the builder being separate from the house result in something 'bigger than the house and the builder?' Like say a motel? This isn't monopoly, so no.
"And then there´s the transcendent aspect of God that presented as a purely spiritual entity had no logical way of "communicating"/interacting with matter...how would he manifest itself, in "mechanical" terms ?"
Now this is an interesting thought. But being a spiritual being would simply mean that God is - as we've said - supernatural. He isn't bound by the limits of this universe. Why then, if he is unlimited and omnipotent would it be hard to believe he could manifest himself in his own creation? And no logical way of communicating/interacting... would you not consider creating everything to be interacting with it? And since your thoughts themselves are not physical entities, why would it be a problem for a non-physical entity to communicate with it?
I would like to point out that you said nothing to refute my points, which are all firmly rooted in well-documented science rather than 'cutting-edge' theories with no real meat to them. Your statements only redirect the conversation to a mere argument of semantics and throw in a theory that disagrees with the General Theory of Relativity as well as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Causality. If you're willing to throw out these very fundamentals of science, then you choose to ignore good science(not my science either, I'm talking about Einstein and that whole field of thermodynamics).
As for your mathematical model... if it's math you're after, look at the odds that there would be life - excuse me, that's the CHANCE of a planet being able to support life, not the chance that the life would be there.
That number was 1 in 10^138 or 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as calculated by an AGNOSTIC scientist, not a Creationist.
That number is 58 zeros longer than the number of atoms IN THE UNIVERSE. Even IF that lucky 1 was drawn out of the cosmic hat and life COULD form on a planet spontaneously(also against the law of entropy, that nature naturally brings disorder while a nearly incomprehensible amount of order is necessary for even an amoeba), then you would also have to calculate in all the hurdles life faces to be formed by chance. But chance is not really a cause, it is a mathematical expression of probability, right(another semantic argument waiting to happen)? So what we mean by chance is that it happens by natural processes. But again, Entropy will have nothing to do with this, and science has not yielded life from a test tube that contained only non-life before. They have produced amino acids, but without INTELLIGENT intervention(and there's a lot of intelligence working on those experiments, mind you), the amino acids cannot form into the RNA and DNA necessary for life. Have we completely given up on Pasteur's experiments and the Law of Biogenesis as well? There's a lot more to be said on that topic, but that's for a different thread and I'm sorry to be crossing into different territory, but it is related.
The amount of science you have to ignore to get around the universe having been created is rather overwhelming. I am a Christian, but I am making no case for Christianity from this. I am doing my best to look objectively at the facts that I'm presented and I am doing my best to draw a logical conclusion. The conclusion I have reached is what I see as fitting best with the evidence, rather than following an a priori commitment to a philosophy or theology.
Faith fills in the gaps where our knowledge can't explain something. I admire the faith of the atheist, it's much stronger than my own to be able to believe in a non-created universe.
