@chaney3 saidI realize that this is your belief, but I find the idea that the 'creator being' and 'the laws of physics' are one in the same to be more credible.
If a 'creator being' created the laws of physics, then that same being can alter those same laws.
'The laws of physics' are not "laws" per se but are instead descriptions of the reality of the universe.
If the reality of the universe is something that was in fact created, then 'the laws of physics' represent the reality of the creator being and his work.
If the creator being is real, then 'the laws of physics' describe the reality of creation and therefore provide the evidence that establishes that he is real.
The notion that a creator being can do anything or whatever humans can imagine he can do does not strike me as persuasive or credible.
Such credibility as there is ~ with regard to the existence of a creator being ~ is derived from 'the laws of physics', to my way of thinking, speculative as I admit it is.
-Removed-KellyJay has frequently talked about how "absolute truth", applicable to everybody, is encountered when his personal opinions about the universe coincide with his personal opinions about religion. That's how he decides what the objective "north star" is for everyone else.
@kellyjay saidHow has "the number of absolutes at least risen to two"?
If that is what you think then it seems that others here disagree since the number of absolutes has at least risen to two, and I'm sure it will climb.
What are you using as your definition of "absolutes"?
@fmf saidThat is the only 'horn' upon which one would self-implale - Euthyphro's Dilemma.
I agree. If there is a "creator being", then the laws of physics are presumably the manifestation of his nature and capacity ~ as well as the reality that he has created.
@kellyjay saidYou are repeatedly wrong . There is only one absolute in the universe .
If that is what you think then it seems that others here disagree since the number of absolutes has at least risen to two, and I'm sure it will climb.