We cannot comprehend a being that is infinite because all things in our life are finite.
This could just as easily be said about the natural universe.
It stands to reason that something put the universe in motion and that something is not bound by the laws of this universe, including time and space.
Then it also stands to reason that something put the thing that put the universe in motion also needed something to put it in motion, unless you want to engage in special pleading that "well God is special and doesn't need a creator", in which case you could just as easily skip a step and say "the natural universe doesn't need a creator."
If you believe, fine. Honestly, I kind of envy you. But if you're going to throw obviously flawed reasoning at me for your beliefs, I'm going to pick it apart.
You missed my point. A creator or God or whatever you want to call it is outside of our natural universe. This creator does not have the laws of the universe apply to them because they are not bound by the laws of the universe. If they are not bound by the laws of the universe then nothing needs to have created them.
People who use the "Who created God?" argument need to understand this point. The creator has always existed. This concept is quite mind blowing because, as I said, we are bound by the finite terms and laws of our universe.
If you want to call the unknown physics of forces outside of our universe God that's your prerogative. But don't conflate that with a being who also exists within our universe and chooses prophets, sends messiahs and regularly nukes humanity from orbit for being too debauched or unfaithful. Having two homonyms with completely different meanings is just going to lead to confusion, whether that is deliberate or not.
Because calling something “unknown physics” is still missing the point. You are making the mistake of describing something as a physical manifestation when it has to exist outside the realm of the universe.
It is something beyond our understanding because our understanding is limited to this universe.
I believe that is the limitations of our mind. We cannot comprehend a being that is infinite because all things in our life are finite.
We cannot comprehend a being that is outside of time and space because we live within those confines.
The universe would not exist, Should not exist in fact, If not for an outside influence.
Even our language is insufficient to describe this influence because our language is spatial.
It stands to reason that something put the universe in motion and that something is not bound by the laws of this universe, including time and space.
This could just as easily be said about the natural universe.
Then it also stands to reason that something put the thing that put the universe in motion also needed something to put it in motion, unless you want to engage in special pleading that "well God is special and doesn't need a creator", in which case you could just as easily skip a step and say "the natural universe doesn't need a creator."
If you believe, fine. Honestly, I kind of envy you. But if you're going to throw obviously flawed reasoning at me for your beliefs, I'm going to pick it apart.
Why not assume Universe and all the stuff coming into and going out of it has always existed and always will?
You missed my point. A creator or God or whatever you want to call it is outside of our natural universe. This creator does not have the laws of the universe apply to them because they are not bound by the laws of the universe. If they are not bound by the laws of the universe then nothing needs to have created them.
People who use the "Who created God?" argument need to understand this point. The creator has always existed. This concept is quite mind blowing because, as I said, we are bound by the finite terms and laws of our universe.
If you want to call the unknown physics of forces outside of our universe God that's your prerogative. But don't conflate that with a being who also exists within our universe and chooses prophets, sends messiahs and regularly nukes humanity from orbit for being too debauched or unfaithful. Having two homonyms with completely different meanings is just going to lead to confusion, whether that is deliberate or not.
I’m going to stop you there.
Because calling something “unknown physics” is still missing the point. You are making the mistake of describing something as a physical manifestation when it has to exist outside the realm of the universe.
It is something beyond our understanding because our understanding is limited to this universe.