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.
Calling it unknown physics is just as arbitrary as calling it God. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, I wasn't a snob about what you decided to use for your imprecise nomenclature, so I won't just accept you being a snob about mine.
Just be more imaginative, imagine expanding the umbrella of the term physics from reality based physics into also covering the metaphysical and it's all peachy again.
You are still hung up on the physical world. That’s what I’m trying to point out. A physical entity cannot have been the origin of a physical universe. Even “metaphysical” still exists within the realm of the physical.
The only logical conclusion is something not physical created the universe. It’s an inescapable reality.
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.
Calling it unknown physics is just as arbitrary as calling it God. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, I wasn't a snob about what you decided to use for your imprecise nomenclature, so I won't just accept you being a snob about mine.
Just be more imaginative, imagine expanding the umbrella of the term physics from reality based physics into also covering the metaphysical and it's all peachy again.
You are still hung up on the physical world. That’s what I’m trying to point out. A physical entity cannot have been the origin of a physical universe. Even “metaphysical” still exists within the realm of the physical.
The only logical conclusion is something not physical created the universe. It’s an inescapable reality.