"And so the ‘closest’ I will come to theism is the anthropic view that we are the ‘children’ of this non-sentient "God"-universe, born quite literally of its stardust..."
If we follow the logic of the above statement then it follows that we too are accused of being of the same nature (i.e. non-sentient).
I disagree with the logic of the above statement because: ... The creator must be of a different nature from the things created because, if the creator is of the same nature as they are, the creator will have to be temporal and therefore need a maker. It follows that "nothing is like the creator." If the creator/maker is not temporal then the creator/maker must be eternal. But if the creator/maker is eternal, the creator/maker can not be caused, and if nothing causes the creator/maker to come in to existence, nothing causes the creator/maker to continue to exist, which means that the creator/maker must be self sufficient. And, if the creator/maker dose not depend on anything for continuance of the same creator's/maker's existence, then that existence can have no end: The creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "The Creator is therefore the first and the last."
Would you please take a look at this previous posted topic and give me your response?
There are only three ways of how life came to be: