"Okay, then give just an idea of what else could have causes the universe. It doesn't have to be an explanation or a scientific theory, just a general posibility of what else could have cause the universe"

You don't seem to understand the nature of ignorance... (which one might suggest was ironic)

"2. What do you mean by that?"

You cannot claim as evidence for your theory of creation that other explanations have been flawed. When someone says "This theory must be true because all the others have been disproved", they don't actually provide evidence for their theory- which may well be disproved tomorrow.

"3. That makes no sense. The matter is what makes up the universe. In fact, I could say: How did the matter that makes up the universe get here by itself?"

Go argue that one with Bertrand Russell. The need for a cause has only been proven on a very limited scale. There is no evidence that universes, or singularities, need causing.

"4. When did I ever mention an infinite regression of causes? I explained why God couldn't have been created."

You necessarily refute it, otherwise, I can say that an infinite regression of causes caused the universe as it is now.

"5. Time began at the moment God created the universe. The creation of the universe was contained within the first unit of Planck Time."

This is flawed. The creation of something necessarily precedes it, hence the claim that you cannot have creation without time.

"6. Not a good analogy. I woudn't call the marble simpler, because there are many questions about how the marble got there, why the (still millions of) sand grains are on top of it, and more."

And this is different how? How did God come to be, or why *is* God? Why did God create a universe? Why like this? The "why is it as it is?" question is made more acutely difficult by having a sentient being. Also, how can God be sentient without time? How can a timeless God act within time?

" It has a creation story that is very close to what actually happened"

Not really... it doesn't go into much detail, and the sequence is wrong too!

"In Isaiah, it mentions the Earth is round. Most people at that time thought that the Earth was flat. How did Isaiah know it was round?"

Eclipses proved to the Greeks that the earth was round. Similarly, ships rising from the horizon provide excellent evidence of the curvature of the earth. Also, the quotation is, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:", which is actually perfectly consistent with a circular disc earth, which was what most people thought at the time. It could also be poetic language.

Looking at other celestial bodies shows that they "hangeth over nothing"... why not the earth? "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing," is nigh on gibberish anyway.

Finally, I am pretty sure a lot of inaccurate science could easily be found in the bible if I could be bothered to look.