computer scientists 'prove' god exists, page-16

AuCu,

"Everything we know of has a cause, even the universe, although we are a long way from knowing the finer details of this cause."

Yes that's true. But not everything has the same cause and not everything in and including the universe has the same attributes. It follows logically then that if God is something different from or outside of the universe then the property of 'being caused' doesn't necessarily apply.

"To invoke the idea of a "creator of the universe" seems to me like a lazy mans way of getting around the problem of what caused the big bang 13.7 billion years ago."

Why is it lazy? It's actually quite logical. At this point in time, given our level of understanding you only have two options. Either the universe was caused by something/someone or it was caused by nothing. The latter is a logical impossibility and all secular attempts to try and explain the big bang have been an exercise in renaming 'something' and calling it 'nothing'. A cause has to be adequate to the effect. Any cause has to be sufficient enough to explain how the universe could come into existence with all of the physical and non physical in place for it to work. I'm sure you've read up on how finely balanced the universe is? So given all the data that we have the BEST explanation at this point in time is that God did it. I'd suggest that the reason some people don't like that answer is not because it's lazy or inadequate but because they don't want God to exist.

"Deeply religious friends of mine mention the word faith. Well IMO, faith is a poor substitute for knowledge of cause."

I agree. And faith that 'someday' science will be able to answer everything is a doubly poor substitute.

"But then, my long departed good mother always did call me a Doubting Thomas."

Nothing wrong with that, God loves a curious mind. :)