idiotic....

Name calling; So I assume you mean my/parts of the evidence is bad; ergo idiotic

yeah i agree i shouldnt have said that XD. BRO i got a bit annoyed cuz fsm is.... too cartoonish (FOR ME) thats why XD forgive me.

God is considered to be the ultimate cause

An Claim; lets see how you substantiate this claim 

when we consider something God, we say it created and owns everything we see, it is all powerful .(omnibenevolent and all good isnt always the case) etc etc. 
God by definition means general definition: a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god",  main religious definition : the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.  
its logical to me, if something or someone is the reason to our cause, or is worshipped by us, it means we consider him or it all powerful... meaning that there is noone more powerful than him..... if there is, then we will consider that being which is supereme than our current God, the God...... so there can only be one God, therefore, God has to be all powerful, and the ultimate cause for everything we see directly or indirectly. 

, the one that caused everything.

this implies that beginning of the universe/s; we don't have evidence of a total start since we cannot extrapolate before big bang where general relativity breaks down; and the B-Theory  is the consensus among cosmologists/physicist; which basically means time is an illusion thus no beginning

i havent yet claimed how universe begun yet.... i am claiming that the universe cannot be begun or caused by something material  as material things have limitations, if you find material things which go beyond the limitations, say break the law of conservation of energy, and if you find an actual material infinity, then we can talk about God being the way we think . God, if not all powerful and the supreme being WHO CAUSE EVERYTHING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, is just a living being like us, just way more powerful. these are my thoughts 

so God basically created the dimensions His mind cant be of 11th dimension hyperspace resonance strings..... 

• an non sequitur; in other other words illogical this statement does not follow through logically...
• and why is god a Male I ask? Weird eh unlike my god The Flying spaghetti Monster who is neither female or male or other genders/genderless... an true equalist representative  how does that not follow? the statement implies that, God by definition is creator of everything, directly or indirectly, so God has created dimentions, hence God's true entirety, His, Hers, its' raw form has to exist before and beyond the creations. atleast give the reason of why it sounds illogical, then we can go further. 
• its, i think, 2 reasons..... not again i am too quasiliterate on the topic, but, i am learning.... the reasons of me syaing Him, HIM is that in Christianity, islam, hinduism (i was born hindu) etc religions, women are considered nice caring loving etc (given that every indivisual has their own personality) basically, while not to be taken literally, submessive, whilst men are considered agressive? or i cant find the proper word.... so thats why, to declare God as our authority, out of respect, love passion, etc, we call God Him, mostly. this, in no way means women are considered, or have low significance, or cant express their nature if they are agressive by nature.... the thing is before we fell, everyone was nice to eachother so there was no problem like this. 

due to people that exist, i cant tell if ur joking or are serious.... please confirm. 

an ad hominem without any subtance behind them; you haven't refuted any of the evidence bible thumper

Bible thumper? new word to me lol.  what im saying is you havent given any credible reaons to believe in existence of noodle monster... so wut do i do? i told you why the 11th dimention thing is wrong. 

not to make my point more clearer, i will copy paste something i wrote a while back, pls give your thoughts :-

say that 1st  ever cause or say 1st ever thing to exist was "x". Now, it could have been either material or immaterial.

Now, apparently, there are following  possiblities:-

1) x was madeup of material, i.e ‘x’ was material non-living thing

2) x was material living being

3) x was immaterial non-living thing

4) x was immaterial living being.

supposing that "x" was material, would lead us to that, x being material non-living thing begun to exist, has to have a cause, but that can’t be because x is referred to as the 1st ever cause or  1st ever thing to exist, that means  meaning, no cause or thing can exist before it. so x can’t have a cause, it has to be causeless. 

Now if we suppose that x was material, and causeless, it leads us to that, as there was nothing before the 1ST  ever cause, that there was no space for the material "x" to exist. that means when we say that there is a possibility of x to be material and exist causelessly, we contradict the logic as material, to exist, needs space.... and there was no time before "x" so there can’t be space before x too, because space and time can’t exist independently. Even if we say that “x” was material and begun to exist causelessly at the same time, it can’t be because “x” would need space to exist so space and time have to be created 1st. meaning space has to be created, or be in existence 1st…. before “x”.

Now what if empty space itself is “x”?

That, apparently, would mean that empty space, causelessly existed, (it cannot have energy or anything material in it) but where did the matter, energy or stuff came into existence from?

So as space has to exist in order for something material to exist, now, if some energy comes into existence, without any cause (as perfectly empty space cant cause anything) it would mean that energy was created, hence breaking the law of conservation of energy.  So this, I think, tells us that x cant be material and non-living, or, for that matter, living being as well, because material living or non-living, both need a cause preceeding them, and cant exist causelessly as law of conservation of energy will be broken., which rules out 2) as well

Which bring us to 3)….. that “x” was an immaterial non-living thing. Now, from my understanding, something immaterial can be causeless as it wont break any laws and stuff. But, can what is immaterial, be a thing? No in my openion as a “thing” means something material…. So x being immaterial cant be a non-living “thing” and there exists no non-living being, perhaps.

Which takes us to the 4) that x is an immaterial living being…… which, in my openion, has 0 flaws in it. This theory that x is an immaterial living being, who, caused the universe we see. 

my point is about the 1st ever existing thing, being material or immaterial.... the convo goes further once we settle this thing. 
if you say there there might exist some matter that can break the laws, then 1st find it, then use it as an argument lol. 
also please clarify how or why do you think my argument is wrong.