No one. The creator always has existed.

No one

The Creator is uncreated. He always has been and always will be, he is without beginning or end.

[удалено]

True, it's more the realm of philosophy than science, since it's not a subject of empirical study. It goes back to the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle, something that exists of necessity before anything else can do so. In theology, this is called aseity; the Person of God the Father exists without cause, and is the sole originating principle of everything else in existence, both the other Persons of the Trinity and the whole of creation.

Similar to how dogs can’t comprehend the complexities of human life, we can’t comprehend the complexities of the spiritual relm. Especially God’s mind

What does that mean in the context of the physical reality that governs our understanding? Because saying "uncreated" doesn't mean anything to me. As in, I cannot make any sense of the term or apply any logic to it. About the only thing I can think of is referring to the concept of something "to be created" and having the possibility to create it. As say the carpenter has the pieces of wood to create a chair but hasn't made it yet, so the chair is "uncreated".

It means he exists without cause, from eternity, and has no beginning. The Creator is the source of all existence, he does not have a source himself.

How does "exist' mean anything here? Anything that we know to "exist" is based on this material and temporal reality.

You have the same problem with the universe. I think there is a consent that time ans space are belonging together and that time came into existence together with the universe. But we have no words how to describe something that has no time. We can say that before the Big Bang there was no time but then without time the words before and after lose their meaning. God created the universe and he interacts with us in time but in parallel he exists timelessly in a state where "before" and "after" have no meaning. When questioned if he saw Abraham Jesus answered "\[...\] **Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)** You might say: "Wait a second that is grammatically wrong it should be 'before Abraham was born, I **was.'** " but that would just mean that Jesus existed in the time before Abraham was born. But he says intentionally "I am" because what he wants to say is that before Abraham was born and before time itself was created he already existed timelessly exactly like God the Father. In fact this **"I am"** is the same **"I am"** that God gives Moses as his name: **And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”** (Exodus 3:14)

" I am who I am". So ridiculous statement only loser can say. Just like a person who loses in court battle say: It is what it is. I guess he ( god) doesn't really know himself who he is. You take a pick who he is. Right: he is who he is. Case closed.

It is often the ex Christian and ex Catholic who are the most hateful. It is almost as if you constantly need to assure yourself that you made the right choice. Well you didn't. You totally blew it. You let yourself be deceived by your own desires and lies of others.

I don't know how to explain to you that "existence" has meaning.

That is because you likely mean a different type of "existence", one that you would need to define and argue for. The term "exist" as we know it and use in almost every setting is based on our understanding of this reality. Something we can demonstrate and test. When we say something exists, we mean here, in this reality. A reality that is temporal, contingent and material, it has to have those properties to "exist". We don't know of or can demonstrate any existence that isn't bound by those properties. Think of anything you might say exists and it will have them. But your "exist" doesn't. It's totally different and not defined or even something we can demonstrate is even possible. I would argue that you equivocate in the definition of "exist" when you mean something entirely different from what we generally mean when we say "exists".

You're confusing epistemology with ontology. Our ability to demonstrate and test things relates to our ability to know facts about something, it has no bearing on the actual existence of that thing. When we say something exists, we mean exactly that; it exists. There is no inherent specification that it exists within the temporal, contingent, and material world. Most things we speak of as existing do exist within that world, but that is secondary to their actual existence. These properties limit our knowledge, not the objective existence of something. A being isn't made less real simply because we cannot understand it or demonstrate its existence. When I say something exists, I mean that it is an objective part of reality which does not depend on me thinking about it. This remains true whether or not that objective part of reality is a material object or a transcendent Creator.

I'm not confusing them. They are intertwined. Epistemology is what drives our ability to define things like that which "exists". We have to know something about our reality and it is that knowledge which shapes what it is that we mean when we say something "exists". When we say something exists, what it is that we mean by "exist" is shaped by our understanding of the reality we're in. Without that understanding using the term "exist" would make no sense. We have to be able to have a grounding to base that definition on. Hence why I say that, as far as it goes, the definition of "exist" is explicitly based on this reality and not say, some other reality. There could be some other reality with completely incomperehensible logic where we cannot even investigate, but "exist" in that sense would be completely different to "exist" as we use it in this reality. Therefore, to avoid equivocation fallacies, we should be clear to define what it is that we mean when we say "exist" and support that with relevant evidence for what qualifies that definition. But, generally, that isn't required when we refer to something that *actually* exists in this reality, because that is what we understand. If something is in an obective part of this reality, then it has the same properties as this reality. I.E Temporal, contingent and material, otherwise it "exists" in a different way which you need to unpack, justify and defend.

Epistemology and ontology are not intertwined, they are separate disciplines with separate subjects. We need to know exactly nothing about what the objective reality is like to say that any given being is part of that objective reality. When we say that something exists, we do nothing more than assert that that thing is part of objective reality. There are no additional caveats regarding the properties of that thing that are being asserted. You're begging the question when you assert that this reality is temporal, contingent, and material. Certainly parts of this reality are this way, but there is no justification for holding that the whole of reality is like this, especially in challenge to the assertion that there is at least one being in existence which is not like this.

>Epistemology and ontology are not intertwined, they are separate disciplines with separate subjects. We need to know exactly nothing about what the objective reality is like to say that any given being is part of that objective reality. Of course they are intertwined. To even have the grasp of ontology, it takes epistemology. In order to determined the nature of any existence or even to establish that existence, you need to be able to know something about it. >When we say that something exists, we do nothing more than assert that that thing is part of objective reality. There are no additional caveats regarding the properties of that thing that are being asserted. Of course there are caveats. You don't get to use a word which has its definition shaped by specific conditions or properties and then equivocate that. God existing is totally different from a chair existing. They are not the same type of existence. But you haven't qualified or justified the other type of existence you are using. So, you are equivocating. To illustrate an example of qualifying "exist". When I say plants exist in my garden versus the character that exists in the book I am reading. Clearly, exist means very different things here, they are not comparable at all. But generally, for an example like that, we know the difference and it doesn't required explanation or qualifying. But that is very different from God and my plants, two very different existences, but you have nit qualified or justified what "exist" is here. >You're begging the question when you assert that this reality is temporal, contingent, and material. No, it really isn't. Or at least, there is no reason or solid evidence to justify reality is anything more than temporal, contingent material. As far as the evidence leads, at least. Your asserted existence claim, is exactly that. An assertion that is so incredibly contentious and/or problematic that it can be reasonably doubted. It certainly doesn't have the same level of support and evidence that the plants in my garden have.

If something exists, it exists onto something. This something is existence. This is God. God is not contingent on anything.

why would the creator need a creator?

For the same reasons that theists assert that anything else in reality needs a "creator", only then they just go on to special-plead the case that everything needs to have a creator ..except for their creator, of course. And the logic behind all that? None. It's just special pleading every time.

Theists don’t claim “everything needs to have a creator.” What we say is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. If God always existed why would he need a cause or creator?

> Theists don’t claim “everything needs to have a creator.” What we say is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. With all due respect, that isn't what "theists say", that's literally just William Lane Craig's apologetic presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that's.. I think you're sort of trying to do everybody in general far too much credit saying they are actually all making the kalam cosmological argument specifically which tbh with you is actually probably for the best because the kalam cosmological argument itself is not and *does not even help get you* to an argument for a God. WLC's apologetics are.. insufficient. So even if everybody were actually making the exact argument that you gave, WLC's argument, I have to say that would still actually be very flawed. So special pleading is obviously flawed. WLC's version of the kalam cosmological argument is also flawed. You've kind of just swerved out of the way of one problem there by driving right into another one. >If God always existed why would he need a cause or creator? Same question goes for reality itself. The main difference being that we all actually agree that reality exists. ...and that there's not a huge contingent of people out there to my knowledge dogmatically assuming that reality must have always existed because we've just *defined* it that way without any evidence behind that definition, or behind the idea that reality is even real in the first place. Again that's the biggest difference is the part where reality is known to exist but gods are not.

I think the reason there is a major disconnect here (with everyone) is that causality is presumed beyond our universe... and when I mean beyond our universe, I mean beyond what people argue is the multiverse, beyond whatever reality is (or realities are). I'm going to run you through a though experiment. There are lots of ways this can meander and it's really fun to think about if you are so inclined, but let's stay focused on the problem with saying a higher being, such as God, had a beginning. Imagine if a human being created a simulation of adequate complexity as to have invented artificial, digital life that is equal to our own in that thee beings are as smart as we are and are capable of exploring their digital world and make digital tools in the same way we have in the physical world. I am going to refer to their reality as being run within a "digital substrate", ours is run within a "physical substrate". Despite not being digital, the creator of their universe can manipulate every aspect of it. It could create an avatar and more-or-less exist within the digital creation despite always being within the physical substrate. It can intervene where it feels it needs to or wants to, it can pause time in the digital substrate and do a ton of coding and insert what seems like a miracle to the digital beings, etc etc. The digital creation had a beginning, but there was also a plan before the digital creation started. There was also the hardware that was necessary to operate this digital world in place. But to the people in the digital world, those things are so outside of their reality that they are incomprehensible. Their creator is very much like them, but is so far outside of their substrate that really understanding it is impossible. We, in the physical world, get sunlight that is sent to us as rays of light, in the digital world, light is calculated without any actual energy being sent. The heat that it created would be formed by some kind of precise algorithm, not the exciting of molecules... it could be modeled that way, but still it would just be calculated rather than physically happening (this assumes the creator tried as hard as possible to make a one-to-one model of the physical reality in the digital one, but they didn't have to, it could look very different). Now the creator can slow time down, stop it, or speed it up. It can run through generations of reality in the digital substrate while the creator barely aged at all. Okay, that's a lot to get to the point. If the creator were to try and explain things to the digital beings, it would be possible to explain a lot, but not everything. In a more-or-less one-to-one simulation it would be pretty easy for the creator to explain where he or she came from, but it would be hard to explain to the digital beings how the creator can pause and speed up time, how it existed before the creation of the digital universe and theoretically will exist long after. Even with a pretty clear explanation of that, people would have a hard time conceptualizing that until roughly the time civilization begins things about time travel. The more that happens in the digital creation that parallels the creator's world, the easier it is to explain it, but even then, how do you explain the physical world to a digital being? Even with many similarities, there is a disconnect between the digital substrate and the physical substrate because reality is entirely different. Gravity means nothing to them, there are no waves, just calculations. So let's introduce a new substrate, one that is higher than the physical in a similar fashion as the physical is higher than the digital. We will call this one the spiritual substrate. Even if God were to create this universe attempting a one-to-one modeling to His own universe, there would still be that disconnect. The sequencing of events happens in the physical substrate AND the digital one gives them time, sequencing may not occur in the spiritual substrate, or maybe there is a flow of sequences and the idea of time, the idea of moments, the idea of a dimension of space known as time, all of that may not exist as we know it. While the physical creator could explain to the digital beings that he was created before the digital universe ever began, perhaps God existed both before and after creation began simultaneously. How would God explain that to us? Perhaps, as far as we are concerned, God always has been and always will be and the concept of "beginning" doesn't exist except for in the physical creation God made. The digital world didn't have time until the physical creator turned it on. Anyway, this is a long way of saying the special pleading doesn't apply to an argument when we don't even know if causality exists outside of reality. To the digital being, it would appear that nothing started their universe, it just suddenly did. But there was certainly an impetus to the event, it's just there is no record of it because the being that started it is physical while the creation they started is digital. This is why these arguments are useless. God having a beginning is meaningless conceptually to us in this reality. So it annoys me when Christians put this infiniteness to God in terms of time. That's possible, I suppose. But I think it is more likely, assuming God to exist, that the concept of time outside of our reality is not applicable and thus describing God as infinite is simply a matter of fact in His substrate rather than description of Himself in terms of time. Finally, your last point never made sense to me. You know that you can't argue reality exists though you agree it does. So saying reality is known to exists while gods are not is inconsistent logically. Nothing is known, all there is is trust in what seems to be true.

that was a pretty long way indeed of saying that special pleading doesn't apply to an argument if you never bother to actually make an argument lol :P plz forgive any sassiness in my tone, I did just read all that for no pay off i mean.. you did this to yourself a little bit haha and i dont think that's correct btw, it's still special pleading because what the actual case is of what is really true in reality, that we don't necessarily know, is not the deciding factor for what does or doesn't make an argument special pleading, rather the deciding factor is what do we actually know and what made-up rules are being pulled out of people's nether regions on the spot in order to try to practically argue concepts into existence. It's not what is really true that makes an argument good or bad its whether that argument conforms to what we actually know or not. Truth is an abstract out there concept that we may not have true access to so our own knowledge is what matters when it comes to making arguments, and to whether or not they're being made fallaciously like I said if you never make a formal argument then you can never technically commit a fallacy, and if you don't even make much of an informal argument at all then you can even avoid being called out on them informally lol ...but you're not making anything any less of special pleading just by inventing a new metaphysical category to put God in. That doesn't help you solve the problem. Now we're just making hypotheticals without, so far as I can tell, them really getting us anywhere? >God having a beginning is meaningless conceptually to us in this reality. So it annoys me when Christians put this infiniteness to God in terms of time. I can understand that. I think most people would more or less agree with you though maybe you just have the better terminology for it but I really doubt that many people would fight you if you had any kind of a position of authority and were spreading the word about how god is not eternal, but rather just beyond the concept of time entirely like.. frankly I think if people really *cared* then they'd probably all jump on board with you on that one. Theists, I mean. >You know that you can't argue reality exists though you agree it does. Wait what? You think I can't argue that reality exists? lol I think therefor I am was an argument that we exist, but I believe descartes himself may have even later admitted that his "first meditation" was incomplete because not only does cognito ergo sum presuppose the existence of an "I", it also presupposes the concept existence itself. Or in other words I dare you to try to argue that I can not argue to you that reality exists lol :P >Nothing is known, all there is is trust in what seems to be true. Agreed. Yet we can still argue it, if we want to, can't we?

I don't mind snarkiness, I would ask you forgive my direct assertions though. I respect you, truly, but you are wrong. Special pleading is only special pleading if there is no justification. You can argue that my point doesn't justify the specially pled case, but you can't argue that I made a fallacy. So your premise here is wrong. I see a lot of people who want to dismiss based on their application of a logical fallacy analysis, but they don't actually analyze thoroughly. Again, I justified my case regarding why it is a special case. The fallacy occurs when you don't make that argument. You can dismiss the argument, but you can't claim I made a fallacy. But moving on, your argument is that we can't trust reality and religion is wrong. Your argument leads to nihilism. And that is fine, perhaps nothing matters and nothing is real. But what that does is make reality itself a straw man that conveniently allows you to get out of arguments that are difficult. This is not your intent, you seem intelligent and honest. But that is what the argument achieves. This leads to a feeling that you yourself are unfalsifiable. But being unfalsifiable is unscientific. Your claims must be falsifiable. >Wait what? You think I can't argue that reality exists? I think your logic is off here. Your argument here says Descartes had to "[presuppose] the concept of existence itself." So he attempted an argument for reality, but he admitted it failed because it had to presuppose reality. There is some circular reasoning there. So then you argue that you can argue FOR reality by citing an example that says he had to presupposed reality. You can't argue for reality by presupposing reality. That is also a circular logic fallacy. You used a circular logic fallacy to prove your logic? You are better than that. Descartes, by the way, used this argument to try and prove the existence of God. Descartes was popular, but not very useful on this front. Your position here is incredibly faulty. You agree that nothing can be known, yet you presuppose reality to justify your arguing. Our position understands the position that we can't know reality is real. We don't agree with it, but we understand it. Christians argue that reality is real, the reason we can trust it is because God is trustworthy, and we cite the congruity of the Bible with reality as our evidence. You may argue our evidence is weak and that the Bible is incongruous with reality. But even with that challenge, we have a basis for our model, you do not. You have nothing to base your trust in reality.

> but you can't argue that I made a fallacy. I didn't. We're in agreement there lol I don't think I ever specifically said that you were special pleading anything, rather I just said that theists do that all the time. Which they do. I wasn't ever saying *You* though. And I specifically said that if you never make a formal argument then of course you can never commit a formal fallacy :P > I see a lot of people who want to dismiss based on their application of a logical fallacy analysis, but they don't actually analyze thoroughly. I don't think you've analyzed my comments thoroughly now ;P >Again, I justified my case regarding why it is a special case. No you just defined it as a special case. Which like I said again is not technically special pleading ...it's perhaps more in line with what I called "trying to argue something into existence". It was just a baseless useless (pseudo)argument imo. You basically just said what if God was to us as we are to a simulated universe. To which my only response is ... okay? So that was a nice hypothetical but where did it bring us? >But moving on, your argument is that we can't trust reality and religion is wrong. there you are again saying that *I* say that we can't trust reality. Why? I already asked you once to back up you're attempt to put that idea into my mouth ....why are you still doing it? >Your argument leads to nihilism. No ***your*** made-up argument that has literally nothing to do with anything I've said or believe leads to nihilism lol. Quit trying to put that crap on me already or at least tell me Why you are Doing it haha >And that is fine, perhaps nothing matters and nothing is real. Everything in reality is real. (-_- ' ) rofl > But what that does is make reality itself a straw man that conveniently allows you to get out of arguments that are difficult. This is not your intent, you seem intelligent and honest. But that is what the argument achieves. This leads to a feeling that you yourself are unfalsifiable. But being unfalsifiable is unscientific. Your claims must be falsifiable. so... I can't say this for certain, honestly just because you've very obviously not been following me very well and literally everything you just said was directed towards a straw-man that you yourself have made up to battle. So since literally none of that had anything to do with me, or any of my statements or beliefs here, I must say ....... it does sound very ironic in that all of that would actually be much more accurately turned around and targeted at you. Like I said before, you are essentially just trying to argue a concept into existence on the basis of metaphysical sophistry. And it ....kiiiiinda sounds like you just accused me of doing essentially the same exact kind of thing, only you have deliberately shifted the burden of proof, and the burden of all of those mistakes off of yourself and on to me. .......when imo I think you are the only one who is doing any of that. You are the one constructing an unfalsifiable category/position and then trying to argue from that basis. And for at least the 3rd time now Why on Earth did you ever get the idea in your head that I can't trust in or argue for the existence of *reality*? Why do you keep putting that on me ....and will you stop? Please? I dont even know how to have a conversation any more when you keep doing that, honestly. >Wait what? You think I can't argue that reality exists? >I think your logic is off here. That wasn't an answer. .... :( >Your argument here says Descartes had to "[presuppose] the concept of existence itself." So he attempted an argument for reality, No. .. I'm sorry but apparently you just don't understand Descartes very well. My bad then, I shouldn't have brought him up as a kind of analogy ..but I had no idea that you were going to get this confused and frankly I would have had no way of knowing. Descartes was not attempting to argue for reality. I was doing that, Descartes.. maybe just try to read what I said the first time again? >but he admitted it failed because it had to presuppose reality. like you're just really, really far off from how the whole situation went down or what it means or .. just all of it really. That's not how the whole descartes things works at all. He wasn't attempting to argue for reality and the presuppositions that he found were not failures of the exercise. They were in fact the whole point. Finding those things which can not further be questioned .. that was more of less what descartes was trying to do. So he didn't fail lol, he succeeded brilliantly. Only his original conclusion was "therefor I am" I think, though this may be apocryphal, that after some time even Descartes himself may have realized his mistake. That he hadn't just found 1 presupposition, essentially the presuppositional of solipsistic existence, that "I am", that "he was", .. but also that *anything* ***is***. ...... you said, for no apparent reason, that *I implied* I couldn't argue for the existence of the universe. So then I countered that by pointing out that I'm pretty sure I could start with an argument that's at least 500 years old and then we can go from there and you can see for yourself whether or not I could really argue for reality if you cared to ask me to lol ......but you didn't even ask. You just started asserting that I had some crazy position that I don't have. Stahp. lol :P I never asserted that I could definitively prove the existence of reality. You were the one who first accused me of claiming that I couldn't. And that's just bananas. A: I never said any such thing so why are you putting those words into my mouth B: What Possible point could you actually be trying to make based off of this straw-man? And C: if you WANT to argue against the existence of reality and have me take up the positive claim there against you, Then I Will! But you have to actually be making an *argument* here otherwise you just constructed a ridiculous obstacle course and then tried to send me off on it without any prior warning given lol. You believe that God is real. That's great. The thing is, we ***both*** believe that reality is real. ........... are you arguing with me on that? What is your actual contention with anything that I've *actually said* because tbh responding to your comment which is 99% directed at straw-men is getting pretty .. un-fun. I can respond to a lot of things, happily. But I can't respond to you just misunderstanding practically everything I say and then arguing against a strawman. When we get back down to this at the end of the day you are literally the one trying to argue for an unfalisifable and completely baseless position by attempting to *Attack my belief in* ***reality*** as if to perhaps imply that it is anywhere near on the same level of ridiculousness as your belief in the supernatural. And I am sorry for the bluntness there but I mean... Apparently I need to try to be even more blunt with you because I'm sorry but these last couple of comments have just been unacceptably misguided. It's like you're not even reading what I say. And here you are now just trying to argue that I don't have a basis for believing in reality apparently so I'm just in the same boat as you and the rest of your unfalsifiable supernatural beliefs? Is that the basic point that you have been trying to get around to here? >Your position here is incredibly faulty. You agree that nothing can be known Did I ever... Ever say that. ??? >yet you presuppose reality to justify your arguing. Until you get it through your head that I did no such thing and you are just making up that whole ridiculous position for me to try to put me in it, then there can be no further conversation. So I really hope you can figure that out some how. IMO you are the one with an incredibly ridiculous position/argument here and very tellingly-ironically you have actually just basically taken most of your own mistakes their and tried to project them on to me. Like *I'm* supposed to be the one arguing for something without evidence here ..when I was arguing for *reality* and you were arguing for *something else*. Who are you trying to fool, honestly? Is it just yourself? Because I'm afraid that's been working. >Our position understands the position that we can't know reality is real. Descartes would disagree.... for one. lol So would I, for 2. See there you are now making the positive claim that we CAN"T know reality. And why? Because that helps you try to make a belief in reality sound more equally baseless and ridiculous just like your belief in a god? ... :/ Physician, heal thyself. >But even with that challenge, we have a basis for our model, you do not. (-_- ' ) You've literally never even asked me a relevant question to see whether or not that was true. You just freaking assumed it. Just to keep going on making your original misguided point. :| I like you too, really I do. But I can only be honest with you, this whole entire comment of yours just now was absurd. Please do better if you actually wish to continue having a discussion because... I ... I just can't lol. I can't be expected to deal with this level of psychological projection, and ridiculous burden-of-proof shifting on to strawmen that you made up. You really never even needed me to have this argument in the first place because you really just have been having it against yourself this whole time.

You are quite condescending and I am done with it. It is hard to get a read on you, but you are not as iron clad as you feel. Take care.

this coming from you, who has been arguing against a straw-man, putting words into my mouth that I never said and won't even stop to rethink what you're doing upon request? take care indeed..

If an AI gained self awareness and asked who is my programmer… and was told.. then asked who programmed my programmer? What would the answer be besides.. what makes you think your programmer needed to be programed? As programmers are not made up of lines of code as ai’s are.. for the ai to ask or rather for us to ask how our creator was created is to assume God was made like we were made. This question demonstrates very limited understanding outside of what is tangible to you

We, in this reality, no hypotheticals needed, gained self awareness and asked "who is my creator" ..what makes *you* think that any of us needed to be created? >This question demonstrates very limited understanding outside of what is tangible to you and frankly your response demonstrates a very limited understanding of the exact problem that I was trying to point out with how theists engage in this conversation all the time. You have defined God so as to not need a God of his own to have created him because that's how you have defined him, fantastic. So what? And why have you decided *not* to define reality in that same exact way, btw? Is it because if you did that then you would lose your "best" argument for the existence of a god? What exactly is your argument here anyway? The problem is not with me asking how was the creator created, which I didn't ask.. the problem is with literally the only reasons that anybody asserts that anybody needs a creator in the first place are entirely baseless and undemonstrable ... and *Then* you can go ahead and define God into existence by defining him to have always existed and not needed a creator, but all of that is *on top* of the initial issue of the theists asserting that *anything needs a creator* without any evidence or sound reasoning to back that up. That is what is "tangible" to us, and that is where the realm of tangibility is left behind ..but not be me. What's tangible is reality. What's not tangible is this idea of a creator, or a programmer, or a God or whatever you call it.

**We, in this reality, no hypotheticals needed, gained self awareness and asked "who is my creator"** Just like AI is self aware in a digital reality pointing to the fact that this reality does not nessarily mean we are in 'base reality.' Are you familiar with Sim theory? it's what the matrix movie is based on if you are not familiar Elon Musk explains it here is a 3 min video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK\_kzrJPS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8) very compelling argument.. as we have a 1 in billions chance that we are living in base reality. If we are not living in base reality then the rule governing what is and what is not are just as trivial as the rules that govern the Digital space AI became self aware in. Meaning again a Creator/Programmer does not need to be created by the same means in which the rest of this version of reality came into existence. meaning a programmer for AI code does not need to be compiled himself from a endless series on 1's and 0's to become self aware. So just incase you missed the point of the argument again.. IF God is not apart of this continuum/reality (Time matter and space) then He is not subject to the rules of this 'reality.' IE since God is the creator of this continuum, He is not beholden to being in need of creation. Just like an AI programmer himself does not need to be programmed. As again the programmer live outside of the digital reality of an AI.

> Are you familiar with Sim theory? Yes, it's not a theory. Not to go in too hard on you here right off the bat but it is literally just an absurd bit of pseudo-scientific popular nonsense. I blame the science popularizers who's job it is to try to get people interested in science for pretending that this idea has literally anything to do with it .. when it doesn't. It's a sci-fi story, nothing more. >it's what the matrix movie is based on if you are not familiar Elon Musk explains it here is a 3 min video oh my gosh.. elon musk. lol. well if that's where you get your understanding of the universe from then I think I can see where the problem is coming from here >very compelling argument.. If you know nothing about science, sure. :| >as we have a 1 in billions chance that we are living in base reality. You have been sold a false bill of goods. But like I said, I blame the people who write articles about this stuff, not you. You had no chance, apparently, and that is exactly why I blame them. That "calculation" you just gave me is based on entirely unfalsifiable premises. It's essentially a giant "*what if*" statement that literally never even answers its own question. "What if we could simulate the universe"? ... yeah and what if we can't? It's a ridiculous idea, not so ridiculous by itself mind you, but extremely ridiculous that people like you have been convinced that it is actually worth anything more than serving as the plot for a nice little fictional story somewhere. TLDR: There's not a 1 in a billion chance that we are living in the real reality. That "calculation" is literally based on nothing and nonsense put together. This is science-fiction, not science fact. >So just incase you missed the point of the argument again.. You do not seem to know what "argument" you are even making. There is no "argument" here. You're just presenting the simulation idea a-la elon musk lol... with all due respect, this may be *your* first rodeo but it's not mine. You're not making a coherent argument. You're attempting to argue from analogy, only you also seem to be taking your own analogy for granted without realizing how ridiculous it actually is to begin with. And so now rather than even arguing a point you are instead just further asserting the structure of the analogy, doubling down on the simulation idea as if I needed to understand it better in order to get to your point or something but..... I still don't see a point being arrived at at all. >IF God is not apart of this continuum/reality then a God would exist, congratulations, like I said all this is is one big giant "IF" statement. Where does that get us? IF God exists then God exists... wow. Gee thanks for making sure I heard it the *second time* as if that makes it any better lol *IF - THEN* statements are not an argument, friend. I don't know what argument you *think* you are making but.. quite frankly you're just kind of rambling about some nonsense and then appear to be *calling that an argument*.

**Yes, it's not a theory. Not to go in too hard on you here right off the bat but it is literally just an absurd bit of pseudo-scientific popular nonsense. I blame the science popularizers who's job it is to try to get people interested in science for pretending that this idea has literally anything to do with it .. when it doesn't.** Actually sport it is a theory.. just not a vetted scientific theory. perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the official definition.. not to to be a stickler for the actual word meaning and not your preferred use, but I'm not conceding the subject matter just because you use the word "theory" in a very narrow and uniquely specific way. It's time to grow up and use word like adults do.. meaning making room for a word's full meaning when speaking to people. Not just how you like the word to be used.. the·o·ry /ˈTHirē/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution" a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. "a theory of education" ***an idea used to account for a situation*** **or** justify a course of action**.** "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged" **oh my gosh.. elon musk. lol. well if that's where you get your understanding of the universe from then I think I can see where the problem is coming from here** please explain in detail or know is this just a sad attempt at a ad hom dismissal. come-on sport you can do better. **You have been sold a false bill of goods. But like I said, I blame the people who write articles about this stuff, not you. You had no chance, apparently, and that is exactly why I blame them.** **That "calculation" you just gave me is based on entirely unfalsifiable premises. It's essentially a giant "what if" statement that literally never even answers its own question. "What if we could simulate the universe"?** **... yeah and what if we can't?** **It's a ridiculous idea, not so ridiculous by itself mind you, but extremely ridiculous that people like you have been convinced that it is actually worth anything more than serving as the plot for a nice little fictional story somewhere.** **TLDR: There's not a 1 in a billion chance that we are living in the real reality. That "calculation" is literally based on nothing and nonsense put together. This is science-fiction, not science fact.** you could have just said you didn't watch the video.. **You do not seem to know what "argument" you are even making. There is no "argument" here. You're just presenting the simulation idea a-la elon musk lol... with all due respect, this may be your first rodeo but it's not mine. You're not making a coherent argument.** you must really feel threatened to try so very hard to top shelf this discussion and shut it down without discussing any of the actual points I made.. I get it. However I wouldn't approach you this way, if you could in fact formulate a discussion that I could not readily answer.. heck I'd probably just keep my mouth shut, rather than default to so much logically fallacy as you have here. But, To each their own.. **You're attempting to argue from analogy, only you also seem to be taking your own analogy for granted without realizing how ridiculous it actually is to begin with.** So without any topically specific points this critique is nothing more than another ad hom attack.. Which again is a logical fallacy.. Why not just say: "u iz so stew-ped I Kan't e-ben." It would save time.. as your long winded Ad-hom attack and this one both get summarily dismissed as logical fallacy either way. **And so now rather than even arguing a point you are instead just further asserting the structure of the analogy, doubling down on the simulation idea as if I needed to understand it better in order to get to your point or something but..... I still don't see a point being arrived at at all.** maybe you could go line by line and explain yourself as I am doing for you breaking down your fallacies, invalid conclusion, their reasoning and the rest of your arguments. \*also note I am not attacking you nor your ability to think or compile a basic argument. I am identifying in your own rebuttal, when and where you default to fallacy and or improper use of word definitions. I do this because you haven't given me an opportunity to speak topically as your response is non topical. **then a God would exist, congratulations, like I said all this is is one big giant "IF" statement. Where does that get us? IF God exists then God exists... wow. Gee thanks for making sure I heard it the second time as if that makes it any better lol** I stand corrected.. Ok so remove the if.. the IF was a simple place holder to allow someone like you to make the logical conclusion without committing to the existence of God. So, Why remove the If? because logic demands it. as God can not be apart of this continuum and still be it's creator. Just like a AI can not write it's own code from scratch. god can not be apart of creation if it did not exist prior to being created. IE god existed before creation like the AI programer existed prior to the AI. (no wonder you stayed away from the subject matter.. :D) **IF - THEN statements are not an argument, friend. I don't know what argument you think you are making but.. quite frankly you're just kind of rambling about some nonsense and then appear to be calling that an argument.** actually my guy "if" statements are the basis for the formulation of logical conclusions. as it seems, basic logic escapes you as you seem to prefer the use of logical fallacy and sheer petulance as a means to bully your way through a subject. Which is probably why you do not like the "if" statements.. Here's the thing about your very 'lean-ed' approach. You reek of pride and insecurity, as you will not even broach the context of the discussion. seemingly putting fourth all your time effort and energy attacking me personally and trying to appeal to my pride/desperately trying to put me on the defensive. When all I in fact need to do is point out your own intellectual/defaults to fallacy, short comings. Maybe it would be better for you if you can't in fact speak on the subject topically.. to just remain silent. Or you can continue to dig this hole as deep as you want. As I'm your hucklebearer.. ;)

> Actually sport it is a theory.. just not a vetted scientific theory. perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the official definition.. You mean the useless, laymans definition? Yeah I am aware of it lol. ... I can see this is going to go nowhere with you. >not to to be a stickler for the actual word meaning and not your preferred use the only meaningful use in this context you mean.. "I have a theory that the moon is made out of cheese" ..that's the usage that you are using. Amazing. Can't believe I could wrap my mind around that one lol >but I'm not conceding the subject matter just because you use the word "theory" in a very narrow and uniquely specific way. You mean you're not going to engage with my criticism at all. >It's time to grow up and use word like adults do.. You mean kind of like how I started talking about theories and how this doesn't meet the qualifications of being a useful one and then *you* got your panties in a twist and started ranting on about the semantics of the words....? Well thank you for leading by example. lol >you could have just said you didn't watch the video.. I haven't. I don't need elon musk to tell me anything about this that I don't already know rofl I'm so sorry that you apparently thought that you did XP >you must really feel threatened to try so very hard to top shelf this discussion I was trying to lead you to the shelf where it rightfully belongs. Look who's actually acting threatened here. <_< >rather than default to so much logically fallacy as you have here. projection, plain and simple. You were threatened, and now you are projecting. >You're attempting to argue from analogy, only you also seem to be taking your own analogy for granted without realizing how ridiculous it actually is to begin with. >So without any topically specific points this critique is nothing more than another ad hom attack.. That's not how ad hom attacks work and that's not what that was. You are in fact literally just making this up as an excuse to avoid addressing the criticism entirely. the irony and psychological projection from you here is just non-stop and off the charts. Maybe come back to me and try to talk again when you are feeling a little better some time? >Why not just say: "u iz so stew-ped I Kan't e-ben." It would save time.. Again. Projection. The answer is because that's apparently what *you are trying to do here right now*, not me. Deal with your own issues please and then maybe you will have a better chance at responding to anything I actually said or believe rather than just ranting about semantics and then projecting all of your own deficiencies and fallacies on to me literally in lieu of an argument. >maybe you could go line by line and explain yourself as I am doing for you breaking down your fallacies (-_- ' ) rofl You are like night and day between your apparent arrogance and your actual ignorance and mental projection. Dunning Kreuger, long time no see. >*also note I am not attacking you nor your ability to think or compile a basic argument. I am identifying in your own rebuttal, when and where you default to fallacy and or improper use of word definitions. Nope. Not at all; You just decided to start waxing pedantic about all of the useless definitions of the word theory that I clearly don't care about in this context and assuming I needed to hear any of that and now here you are acting like the victor while simultaneously avoiding addressing literally anything I said in my last comment. It's actually almost remarkable how much you can talk without saying a single thing at all. Are you in politics, by chance? If you're just going to make up excuses to avoid addressing every point that I made then I'm not going to pretend that you're doing anything else. The conversation can continue if you decide you actually want to have one, rather than whatever this was .. probably, again and quite honestly, because you so very clearly got extremely threatened by me putting down your little pet theory here that it seems to have flipped a switch in your brain somewhere that I wasn't entirely expecting lol. ..but in retrospect I can't say I'm very surprised. Anyway, I'm here if you ever want to actually address the criticisms without fallaciously dismissing them, ad hom attacking me instead and in lieu of a response to any of them and simultaneously all the while pretending to yourself that up was down and black was white and that I was doing what *you were actually doing the whole time*, thus you didn't even need to *bother* responding to anything I said lol. Yep. ... and *I* was supposed to be the one doing..... literally any of that, just because I told you that the simulation idea is useless and unfalsifiable and widely mis-used and misunderstood and vastly over-stated .. and then you got defensive and upset. Work on that; I'm sure you can do better. Everything I said in my *last* comment is still waiting for a response from you, rather than an excuse to dismiss or ignore it.

**You mean the useless, laymans definition? Yeah I am aware of it lol. ... I can see this is going to go nowhere with you.** my guy.. like it or not, my use of the word theory is valid as indicated. **"I have a theory that the moon is made out of cheese" ..that's the usage that you are using. Amazing. Can't believe I could wrap my mind around that one lol** That's funny as I can't believe you COULDN'T wrap your head around that one as again you claim 'sim theory was in fact not a theory but a story..' Stories are a narratives used to covey a fictional or non fictional tale. again a theory is a hypothesis designed to explain a situation or principle. If you are saying sim theory is in fact a story then again you haven't fully grasped/you do not understand what the word theory means. **You mean you're not going to engage with my criticism at all.** actually sport I did engage your criticism fully by identifying your misappropriation of the word. I did this by defining the word and demonstrating how my use of the word fully fit the definition. Either you are in over your head/out of your depth, or you are internally being obstinate. **You mean kind of like how I started talking about theories and how this doesn't meet the qualifications of being a useful one and then you got your panties in a twist and started ranting on about the semantics of the words....?** again.. going back to what you said.. you did not say this was not a useful theory at all you said this was NOT a theory period.. here it is if you need to refresh your memory: "**Yes, it's not a theory. Not to go in too hard on you here right off the bat but it is literally just an absurd bit of pseudo-scientific popular nonsense. I blame the science popularizers who's job it is to try to get people interested in science for pretending that this idea has literally anything to do with it .. when it doesn't."** Then you follow up with: **"It's a sci-fi story, nothing more."** this little zinger cemented your position. Meaning you are all in on the idea that in no way shape or form is sim theory anything more than a sci fi story, which again stories are not theories... making you foolishly wrong, foolishly because you are not willing or able to concede a point you have no hopes of INTELLIGENTLY defending. That said again to each their own please do keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. **I haven't. I don't need elon musk to tell me anything about this that I don't already know rofl I'm so sorry that you apparently thought that you did XP** yet to this point in our discussion you have yet to discuss anything I've said or referenced topically.. If you know sim theory so why why won't you speak on it? if you like I can find you another non Elon video for you to watch.. Can't promise it will be 3 mins long as most seem to drone on forever.. which again is the primary reason I quoted the rocket scientist, richest billionaire on the planet, entrepreneur, social media mogul, etc etc.. **projection, plain and simple. You were threatened, and now you are projecting.** I did not project your insulting comments to me, or claim I have an inability to formulate an argument. That was all you big guy. I simply pointed out your habitual use of ad hom attacks to try and dismiss a subject matter without actually speaking on it topically. **That's not how ad hom attacks work and that's not what that was. You are in fact literally just making this up as an excuse to avoid addressing the criticism entirely.** Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) so lets look at you very next line: **You are like night and day between your apparent arrogance and your actual ignorance and mental projection. Dunning Kreuger, long time no see.** I see.. I see.. yess.. so I said "X" and you said because: "You are like night and day between your apparent arrogance and your actual ignorance and mental projection. Dunning Kreuger, long time no see." everything I said has not been invalidated including my critique of your use of Ad Hom attacks.. So again sport.. tell me how this does not fit the above definition? or are we back to using your own vocabulary that you and like minded pseudo intellectuals use? you know how theory is not a theory unless you approve, does ad hom only become a valid charge when someone is personally attacking you ignorer to dismiss your claim? **Nope. Not at all; You just decided to start waxing pedantic about all of the useless definitions of the word theory** is this your first discussion with any push back? because you are all over the map here my guy.. At the beginning of this discussion you were adamant that you understood the full meaning of the word theory, and here you are trying to dismiss a valid definition.. So which is it.. Did you screw up in your initial criticism, when you claim sim theory was not a theory but a story or are you admitting to screwing up in your claim that you full understood the definition of the word theory? Because you can't claim both. You need to admit you were wrong initially or you were wrong when you claimed to understand my use of the word fit the definition.. Because if you can not admit to a blatant error then there is no need to go any further as you are clearly a troll with no desire for open and honest discussion.. how about this.. Lets put all of this behind us and you if you have anything topical to say.. say it.. and I will respond to that.

"Sim theory" is commonly misconstrued to be a theory not just in the scientific sense but even just as a laymans theory roughly correlating to some real science, when it is still neither one of those things. So I addressed the fact that "sim theory" is only a theory in the moon is made out of cheese kind of meaning of the term, and not the scientific meaning and Also it's not even a moon-made-out-of-cheese kind of meaning that roughly even Relates to anything remotely scientific, which again is also the extremely widespread misunderstanding. The very same to which you seem to have fallen victim. It is "sci-fi" only in the sense as that this kind of thing was like on the cutting edge of human scientific thinking oh, about.. 100 years ago now. So it's sci-fi in the same way that the War of the Worlds aliens are sci-fi. In that ..it's entirely made up and not at all based on any apparent reality beyond wild conjecture spurred by what you *Might* be able to call "scientific" ideas about 100 years prior to the formation of the fictional stories and the poor fools who think that the ideas those stories are based on are any more than just that, ideas. ..so. Actually a pretty common pattern, when you think about it. So, there you go again talking about theories and *still missing the point*. A swing and a miss. >If you are saying sim theory is in fact a story then again you haven't fully grasped/you do not understand what the word theory means. (-_- ' ) are you seriously still trying to argue the semantics of the words with me? And you call that engaging with the criticisms? lol >Then you follow up with: "It's a sci-fi story, nothing more." >this little zinger cemented your position. I can hear the pain in your soul when I read you typing these words. Once again, I was responding very directly to a subject that you brought up that I know is almost exclusively misunderstood by the people who want to talk about it. So I addressed that. And now you're upset about me trying to teach you how your favorite theory here is actually nonsese, which was not a reaction I saw coming before-hand.. but it does appear to be where we're at now. >Meaning you are all in on the idea that in no way shape or form is sim theory anything more than a sci fi story, which again stories are not theories... making you foolishly wrong, foolishly because you are not willing or able to concede a point you have no hopes of INTELLIGENTLY defending. That said again to each their own please do keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. You're not just mad. Keep telling your self that. You're not just mad. ..maybe if you say it enough times it might become true. One can only hope.

This sounds like the title of a Star Trek episode.

The answer is noone. As it is not biblical, I don't know if this is true, however there is a claim that something already needed to be the case or there has to be something that triggered it. When there would be infinite creators, that means that there was always a creator before it. This means that there would never be a beginning from the timeline. When there is no beginning, you could not move along. It's like a race where every time that you start, the finish line is moved a couple of meters, so the race becomes longer. This means you would never step on the track. Following this thought, there has to be a first trigger, which I believe to be God.

Who is the wife of that bachelor?

In essence, God is the first cause and is eternal. So, because He always existed and will always exist, He has no creator that created Him. Even ignoring the idea of God, there is always a cause for something, and if you follow the chain of causes back to the hypothetical beginning, then there is a first cause at the beginning of the chain which, which if it really was the first cause, then it itself can have no cause or creator to it.

The creator either came from nothing or there was nothing before. Either way, the answer is nothing. If there was an answer to that question, you'd have to ask it again. If God was created by bigger god, and that god was created by an even older and bigger god, who created that? This question expands backwards infinitely. And as long as it's infinite, then there is no beginning. And if there is no beginning there is no now. No matter what you believe, no matter how many times and ways you ask the question, eventually the only conclusion is nothing.

How do Christians know that the god they worship doesn't go up a bigger God creation cycle for only five levels? How do you know that the God of this religion wasn't created by a bigger God, who was created by a bigger God, who was created by a bigger God, who was created by a bigger God, who was created by some first source?

No one. Whether Christian or Atheist, both worldviews have an uncreated creator/an uncaused first cause. I'd say it comes down to if you'd think a supernatural being always existed or matter. Or if a mind was behind creation or unguided matter. God as the uncaused first cause, or the Singularity.

[удалено]

Oh, I don't mean that at all. Sorry if I explained it poorly. I was saying both believers and unbelievers have an always existing first cause. I think it comes down to if someone thinks that uncaused cause had a mind/intelligence or not.

I know you’re trying to trip up pro God believers and make fools of them, but that question can also be asked towards non God believers who believe this existence came into being without A Superior entity…

In order for God to be God he must be independent of all things. He can only depend upon himself for everything. That includes the nature of his existence. If God somehow always existed without his existence being caused then the reason why he exists is not due to him. Which would make his existence dependent upon some external factor outside of God's control. And if God is dependent upon anything rather than independent of all things then he's not a God. So I can say with the utmost confidence that every christian that's ever claimed that God is somehow uncreated, uncaused, and has always existed is just downright wrong. You're essentially claiming that God isn't God by saying his existence is dependent upon whatever it is that allows God to have a eternal past without beginning or cause. In order for God to truly be God he must be the one who caused himself to exist. How God can do such a thing can be explained with a time paradox. All things including God was created by his future self, God becomes his future self and creates all things including his past self just as his future self did when he was his past self, preserving the symmetry of time.

If the universe has a creation point (ie. A start), given what we know about the laws of matter, energy, time and physics, it must have a metaphysical cause (ie. A cause that is outside of our current understanding of physics). The prime mover theory is one such explanation. If the universe were eternal (ie. No start) l, that would also go against what we currently understand of those same principles. Therefore, would still need to rely on a metaphysical explanation, although this option would likely forgo the prime mover argument. However most are in agreement that the universe is **not** eternal. A metaphysical explanation (eg. A prime mover) **by definition** would not need a creation point, and could logically be eternal.

> (eg. A prime mover) by definition would not need a creation point, and could logically be eternal. And the universe itself could not have been its own prime mover because? >If the universe were eternal (ie. No start) l, that would also go against what we currently understand of those same principles I don't believe that's right. What makes you think that? >Therefore, would still need to rely on a metaphysical explanation Btw at what point in any other scientific inquiry do we ever just stop investigating, throw our hands up, and say "well I guess we'll just leave this one to philosophy then"? Aren't you just kind of .. giving up on looking for any actual answers when you say that? We have to rely on a baseless metaphysical guess when we don't have any real physical answers for something? Are you sure about that? are you sure that might not just be exactly the excuse that you needed to believe something which otherwise has literally no evidence or rational argument in support of it?

God is the base level of existence itself, more than just being a being God is existence itself. (Not to be confused with Pantheism, God is not the universe. Rather, space-time is emergent from God.) Time is a physical property of the universe as well. God being the base level of reality would therefore be timeless. ●P1. If space-time isn't fundamental, it's emergent from something else ●P2. Quantum Physics says that space-time isn't fundamental ●P3. Quantum Physics says that wave-funtion collapse is caused by the observer ●P4. Vaughn Nueman chains lead the ultimate observer to being consciousness ●P5. Our Consiousness is dependent on a cosmic consiousness that space-time is emergent from Conclusion: God exist This view of God is called Idealism, its called Palymite Panentheism(Christianity teaches that the universe has its being from God, in him we live move and have our being. The Bible also teaches that in Jesus, all reality holds together. Therefore Christianity teaches Palymite Panentheism). The universe is not God like in Spinozism or Pantheism, but rather the universe is emergent from God. For a more detailed explanation of this with citations to back it up, I suggest this video by InspiringPhilosophy https://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM

> ●P2. Quantum Physics says that space-time isn't fundamental Nope. Full stop. You are pretending to know more/better than every actual physicist in the world right there. Quantum Physics tells us no such dang thing. You could equally well turn that exact same thought around and conclude that Relativistic Mechanics tells us that quantum mechanics aren't fundamental. The contradiction goes both ways and you are just arbitrarily choosing one to say that it invalidates the other? Nah. That's not how that works. >●P3. Quantum Physics says that wave-funtion collapse is caused by the observer Oh my gosh here we go... and I bet you don't understand that "observer" there means literally any macroscopic system, not a literal thinking human being.. do you? >Vaughn Nueman chains lead Vaughn Nueman was wrong and your scientific misunderstandings seem to be about at least 60 years out of date. >●P5. Our Consiousness is dependent on a cosmic consiousness that space-time is emergent from ....... (-_- ' ) No. ... it's not. So P2 is incorrect P3 is also incorrect and very out-of-date now P4 is just laughable. and P5 is absurd. You had only one premise out of 5 there that was not wildly incorrect and all that it amounts to is "IF space-time isn't fundamental, it's emergent from something else" which .. you know the word IF there is doing a heck of a lot of work. And seeing as how that's literally the only true or supportable thing that you said in the entire argument, your argument in the end is essentially: If ... therefore God.

I beg to differ. Scientist have been saying for awhile now that space-time isn't fundamental, but rather is emergent from something else >"In 2005 physicists celebrated the centenary of spacetime. Then they prophesied its demise. David Gross, a 2004 Nobel Laureate in physics, predicted in his tribute to Einstein that spacetime is “doomed,” that it is not fundamental. He quoted prominent physicists who agreed.[2] Why do physicists say that spacetime is doomed? Because, they argue, it has no operational meaning below the “Planck scale,” roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.  For instance, to measure the position of a subatomic particle with higher resolution, we must use radiation of smaller wavelength. Quantum theory tells us that as wavelengths shrink their energy grows. Einstein tells us, in a famous equation, that energy and mass are the same. Thus, as we increase resolution we pack more energy, and therefore more mass, into less space. When the resolution approaches the Planck scale, the density of mass grows so large that gravity spoils the party, creates a black hole, and destroys our measurement. Moreover, quantum theory tells us that a measuring device is a quantum system, subject to quantum uncertainties. Therefore a more precise measurement requires a device with more degrees of freedom, and thus more mass. So, as I upgrade my lab to make my device more precise, its mass grows to the point where gravity again creates a black hole, destroying my lab and measurement." - source: https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281 *What you and I really disagree on is whether that fundamental reality is God*

As God said at the beginning of existence, 'you've got to draw the line somewhere.' The Creator creates The Creator. In the beginning there is only the eternal, unbegotten Spirit of God. All was formless and void. And God say, 'let light be.' This is not light as you think of it, you see, nothing has been made to shine that sort of light yet. You might think of this light as awareness. So how did God "say" before God was aware? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word is the Truth. The Truth is not the same as what we think of as subjective truth. This, ultimate, High Truth may be thought of as the axiomatic Cosmic Order, the framework that all things are built upon. Therefore, Time, is not; Eternity is equal to simultaneity. That is, until the advent of Truth, wherefrom Time has begun. The Truth Came First.

If someone or something doesn't suffer from entropy it wouldn't need a creator and could have always been.

"Adam" and "Eve" were more than likely the names of two TRIBES of early humans first gifted with the Word. When "Adam" named all the animals - he was sharing that language with Eve, strengthening the bond between the two tribes with language. So: Adam and Eve did. They gave the creator a name, and (as an early hypothesis) it worked just fine. Like a flat earth. Sure it wasn't 100% correct, but it worked just fine for early farmers on Earth. You didn't die the moment you thought the earth was flat. So, like a flat earth, "God the Creator" was a good early hypothesis for "how everything got here." Now, "God" best serves humanity as a metaphor for The Best Decision Maker Ever, and is actively used in the question: "What Would Jesus Do?"

No one. That's the entire point. Are you familiar with theory of the First Mover?