Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[FallentoReason]

I don't see any other alternative? I'm not sure what a god that has laws governing it means. I don't think any theist would pose that as an option.


Sure, why not?

The alternative is a logical God of real substance that produces the Logos, unfolding all it's inherent qualities from a unified infinite state to a differentiated finite state by creating space within itself, starting "time". Our time down here.

I don't know *how* it would pragmatically create a universe, but that's beside the point.

If you have a God that can create any universe it wants, and composes this one, retaining the power to change any part of it willy nilly...it paints the subjective nature of God in a very negative light as many atheist here have been detailing.

Nowhere have I said it would change an already existing universe.

But if you have an objective God that unfolds the space for a universe and lofts it's own inherent qualities as the forces/fields/conditions within it...then it says nothing about the subjective nature of God, the universe could have worked out no other way, it behaves naturally and orderly because it was produced naturally and orderly. It wasn't created, it was procreated. The operation is more fundamental than special mental planning.

This is borderline pantheism. I don't see any reason why a god has to lay itself down as the physical laws. Having a creative god which creates something aside from itself isn't a worry. For the set of all possible universes, it has to eventually choose to make one of them, and that chosen universe is what it is.

Put another way: who's to say that a universe can't exist without gravity? Who knows, maybe there's a set of laws that creates a perfectly coherent universe that has no notion of gravity, or even Newtonian physics. Our minds are too small to even begin comprehending what that could be like, but it doesn't mean it's logically incorrect.