Wesley Huff

I think it, yes, it is.

I think probabilistically though,

With how the description of creation and the human condition and what we see within history, I think, personally, the God of the Bible is the most reasonable explanation.

Especially when we're comparing it to other religious worldviews.

I think the simulation theory is an interesting one.

Or, you know, the string theory, multiple universes.

I just think that those are almost like we're walking around the question.

We're circling around the question and it's not actually answering the question.

We still need a God.

Yeah.

And who created him?

Right.

I mean, philosophically, it's a category error because all things that have a beginning have a creator.

And philosophically, the God of the Bible is an entity that ontologically didn't have a beginning.

So if we're talking about an unmoved mover—

right, in the kind of Aristotelian categories of philosophy, God didn't have a creator because God is the author of creation.

It's kind of like asking, what does blue smell like?

Right.

No, I think – I mean those are attempts probably inadequately to express aspects of how we would visually –

communicate who God is, I think that probably misses the mark more than it actually gets at what and who God is.