At the end of the day we have only one of 3 options I listed. The only 3 possible options, all others fall into one of the three. So I can choose to be like you and not pick one or I can pick one, either way any one of them that ends up being the truth is nonsensical and irrational so you believe in something nonsensical and irrational too.
I actually do pick an option, although it's not really one you list in your "three possibilities": I believe, based on the evidence available to us as of recently, that the current scientific understanding of the Big Bang is roughly correct; it may require polishing and tweaks, but I think that the basics are there. So I believe that there was a "beginning" and that there will be some "end". I put the words in quote because I believe that the words imply temporal and causal notions and since time is a property of the Universe, those words only have meaning within the Universe.
So in my view while time is both finite and infinite, depending on how you look at it. Let's imagine an observer O:
- To an imaginary O outside the Universe and able to somehow perceive and measure the time dimension of our Universe separately from the Universe itself, there would be a "limited" and finite amount of time.
- To an imaginary O inside the Universe, however, time is infinite and would appear as never-ending; assume that O cannot die and simply counts time to determine if it is finite or infinite. O will count time forever, and will never know that time has ended, even if he is the last thing contained in the Universe to be destroyed during the "end" right before the Universe (and therefore time).
Notice that our imaginary observer could detect the beginning
of time whether he is inside or outside the Universe. It should be obvious that this is the case when O is outside the Universe. But what about inside? Assume, again, that the observer "blips" into existence along with the Universe. Then the beginning of time is the time at which the observer's counter is 0.
Now about the purpose of postulating a God? well, I don`t know if I would put it that way, but anyhow makes no difference, I will explain since you asked. I sense the presence of the Holy spirit and I am as sure of that as I am as sure as I am looking at my computer screen. Now for some strange reason if it ends up that I am really not looking at my computer screen then my brains playing tricks with me I guess.
Fair enough. I am sure that a personal revelation is powerful thing, and you've experienced something which you interpret as such, good for you. But that cannot be used as proof or evidence of anything in a rational debate on the subject for reasons I would hope are obvious.
Let me ask you a follow-up: On a purely rational and scientific level, do you see why "god" isn't an answer and doesn't help us in any
way? How does it help to say, for example, that the Universe requires
a creator if you then rush to add this creator does not require one?