<<We already know the universe had a beginning some eons ago...>>
This is my fault, i phrased my question wrongly. What i really want to know is:
Why is it the existence of a universe and the laws of nature necessitate a creator (you ask "who created these laws"), but the existence of that creator does not necessitate another, even greater, creator (you don't ask "who created the creator of these laws")?
That's the reasoning flaw i was alluding to.
<<This is exactly my point, understanding and comprehending God remains outside and far beyond all human efforts...>>
Which means you can't possibly know anything about God, not his nature, what he wants from mankind, or even if he exists. It's beyond our comprehension.
<<for a quick example, if you went back in time to the 1880's and tried to explain faxes and email to a pony express rider>>
If i did that, the pony express rider would rightly conclude that faxes and email don't exist.
Maybe in the future we'll have different ideas and information about God. But now, how are we any different than that hypothetical rider? Using your analogy, wouldn't we be right to conclude God doesn't exist?
Steve |
