I notice the word "probably" true. So so how can you violate occam's razor since it states not a hard fast true rule but a probability.
Very easily. It is a general rule, like; "horses with less than four legs tend not to win races", rather than an absolute one; "hourses with less than four legs never win races". You are adding complexity, you are violating Occam's Razor (now available with non-clog triple blades, a lubrication strip and a swizelling head).
Do you sincerely believe that god is partial and exclusive? Because if you'd been born a Hindu, I think you'd still be a Hindu.I thinkyou are getting off track and into another unrelated subject.
I disagree. Your whole argument seems to be based on the presupposition that the general faith structure of the land you happened to be born in is the correct one.
You are not saying 'a supernatural being may have had the capacity to instigate the Universe in such a way that it would develop as we see it now without any further supernatural intervention' as an isolated statement, you are combining that with residual belief in the veracity and importance of the Bible in comparison to other textual religious works. Whilst the first statement is possibly true (although untestable), the second linkage is unsound as you have no basis for it other than chance and presuppostion.
Thus questions about whether god is exclusivistic, and what you think you would believe if you came from a non-Christian culture might help you analyse your attitude to the subject. The two questions go together. As someone who is a Hindu (or whatever) is likely to remain that even if Christianity IS the one way, it would seem god cannot be exclusivistic without also being unfair, unless you posit some post-life experience when it all gets sorted out, which of course is introducing another thing there is no proof for.
Do you sincerely believe that you have succesfully doged the question of the origin of god? You seem to be putting the explaination into a special class of knowledge, just because you can't come up with an answer ("Time having a begining, could be used to explain it.", "I hope to understand it one day but not here inside time and space."), which is kind of convenient. Please realise that things happened before time, otherwise time could not have started, and thus your hope of doging the endless chain of designers required to validate your theory is just not on.I'm only stating my opinion which like yours has its pro's and con's. I don't think you, I ,or any other human knows enough about time, to make such a conclusive statement as you have done in your last sentence.
I hate to break it to you, but things DID happen before time as we know it (all time is is a dimension which stops everything that has ever been in a set of coordinates exisisting at those coordinates all at once). WE are talking well-exotic physics though, and I'm no expert. And, no matter what, whether time existed or not, your positied designers existence needs an explaination.
They have pretty good theories for how the big bang occured. The theories you are advancing for a god out of time have not and cannot develop upon the speculative theories regarding god's existence that have been knocking around for centuries. The knowledge of physics and cosmology has advanced in the past hundred years. The science of explaining where god comes from is still stuck in the first millenium AD, or at the very very best, the late Middle Ages.