For your information, my universe is a cosmic balloon that oscillates continuously between cycles of expansion and contraction without beginning and without end.
Theist: How do you know that this fantastic cosmic oscillation scenario of yours is true?
Atheist: I don’t. But you do not know that it is false either. And as long as you cannot show that it is false, I do not see how you could force me to accept your God conclusion. Besides, I bet you do not know that your God is really eternal either, if It, He or She as the case may be, indeed exists.
What this short exchange has shown is that even though it may sound more natural to say that God rather than the universe is eternal, the fact remains that the causal argument for the existence of God has not really deliver to the theist the decisive outcome that he requires. For if the atheist were also adamant about the eternity of his universe (a position long held and taken for granted by all ancient naturalists, Greek as well as Chinese), there is no reason why the existence of any supernatural being (or beings, as in the case of polytheism) has got to be entertained. Historically speaking, it was also for this reason that theism had to try and shift its weight onto the design argument.
(2) Controversy over the design argument
But how could the universe really stumble into so many good and beautiful designs? In the history of this philosophical debate, it has been the style of modern theists to pitch their position pivotally upon the eye. What an intricate and wonderful organ it is, they were most eager to point out. What they meant to assert is that it is just not conceivable that such a