I commented on your note as well, but I wanted to come here and commend you on the structure of your prompt.
So often, we go to AI looking for it to confirm what we already think. Your prompt is objective and encourages AI to do it's own critical thinking and reasoning.
While people can argue with AI's conclusion, it can't be placed on you for leading the horse to water.
Not argument. As i said before: You claim that the chain of causes must necessarily end at the "infinite and uncaused," but why? We can continue it to infinity without ever coming to a "first" element. Within our universe, we do not observe anything "infinite and uncaused." Everything that exists arose as a result of the interaction of initial conditions and the laws of physics. After the Big Bang, the development of the universe proceeds naturally without any visible intervention from the outside. If we are talking about the causes of the Big Bang, are we really obliged to assume intervention? Why can't this process be part of larger processes, for example, the cycles of birth and death of universes?
The quantum fluctuations you mentioned are capable of creating matter. For example, in the process of Hawking radiation, virtual particles that appear near the event horizon of a black hole can become real: one particle falls beyond the event horizon of the black hole, and another is "released," becoming real.
Your statement that "everything was created by God" is not supported by any arguments. Where did it come from? What is its basis? On the contrary, the development of nature and living organisms is well explained by the laws of physics and the theory of evolution. No one "sculpted" a man from clay, just as no one created a woman from his rib.
According to current models, the Universe can be infinite. Its flat topology allows this, therefore, both matter and energy in it can also be infinite.
Then the pasta monster is also a God who has the same qualities as the God of the bible, but he decided to create a body for himself, just like the biblical God. This means that the pasta monster is a true God.
My friend, you keep undermining your own arguments.
You want to extend causality infinitely without coming to a "first" element... yet you realize that there is nothing infinite or uncaused within our universe. You realize that everything arose from the Big Bang, a finite beginning -- not one that you can extend backwards infinitely, but one that occurred at a specific time a finite number of years ago.
Do you see your own contradiction?
You say we can go backwards in time without getting to a first element, then you talk all about the first element, and how everything came from this first element, which you have called the Big Bang.
You can't have it both ways, my friend.
If you want to appeal to the first element, the Big Bang, then you can't say that it doesn't exist.
Likewise, you can't appeal to the universe being infinite while also appealing to the first element, the beginning of the universe a finite time ago. The universe can't be both infinite and finite, my friend.
Kyle, you realize that your main mistake is that you are reducing everything to the fact that the factor of the appearance of our Universe must be God. Do you realize that there is zero reason to believe so? It could just be a phenomenon or process that we have not yet investigated and science has not discovered, it does not necessarily have to be some kind of entity.
I don’t think a pastor, a hired hand to care for the sheep of the Good Landlord and His Son, needs to consult a machine to validate the Son's identity and promote the machine. Even the enemy knows our Lord is God and is coming soon. Watch out, and do not be deceived.
Certainly, i’m not using a machine to tell me that God exists! I’ve known this for decades. Having a relationship with God does not require a machine.
I’ve written on this blog and many other places continually about God, both proving that He exists and showing why it matters.
These two Grok posts are a fun confluence of technology and apologetics. I didn’t expect Grok give such an answer when I put in the prompt, and my delightful surprise at reading its answer is what prompted me to share it.
In the field of evangelism, new tools are popping up all the time. Technology is providing more and more ways to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. I’m simply happy at discovering a new tool!
My friend, there is every reason to believe it is God.
Why?
Simple deductive reasoning. Whatever created the universe:
- Has to be powerful enough to create the universe. That’s omnipotence.
- Has to know how to create a universe. That’s omniscience.
- Has to be infinite, in order to be the source of everything finite. That’s eternal.
- Has to be orders of magnitude above us. That’s holiness.
Something that’s omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and holy? That’s God.
Your other assertion, that it might be “a phenomenon or process that we have not yet investigated and science has not discovered,” is nothing but blind faith.
You are operating on blind faith.
Not science.
Not reason.
Blind faith.
You are operating on the blind faith that we MIGHT discover something that we have no idea about, and this thing we MIGHT someday discover MIGHT not be God.
Meanwhile, all the evidence and all the reasoning from that evidence points straight to God.
1.Okay, let's play with your logic: If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you're going to say that God is "uncaused" and "eternal," why not then assume that the universe itself (or its underlying reality, e.g., the quantum vacuum) might be uncaused? Modern cosmology (e.g., the Hawking-Hartle model) assumes that time began with the Big Bang. If there was no time "before" the universe, then causality in the usual sense may not apply. So the idea of a "first cause" outside of time and space is not necessary.
2. 1. Whatever created the universe may simply be powerful enough to do so, rather than being "omnipotent" in the absolute sense. For example, a physical process (say, a quantum field fluctuation)
2. Knowledge is a property of conscious beings. Why would the cause of the universe have to be conscious? Physical laws operate without "knowledge"—gravity does not "know" how to attract. To attribute consciousness to a cause is an unwarranted leap.
3. Eternity: If a cause is timeless, it is not necessarily "infinite" in human terms. Quantum mechanics allows for events without temporal sequence (e.g., the spontaneous appearance of particles).
4. Holiness: This is a subjective quality that does not follow from logic. Being "above us" does not mean being morally perfect or holy—it may simply be an ontological difference (e.g., how we are "above" bacteria).
3. The assumption that the cause of the universe is a physical process that we have not yet discovered is not based on blind faith, but on the inductive method. Science has historically explained phenomena (thunder, the movement of stars) that were once attributed to gods in terms of natural laws. Why should the beginning of the universe be an exception?
4. Theories like "Universe from Nothing" (Alexander Vilenkin) suggest that the universe could have arisen spontaneously through quantum fluctuations under conditions where classical causality does not operate.
I would be interested to see your debate with a professional physicist and a scientist, and if he could simplify it with arguments. Since I am an ordinary person who does not have high knowledge, but at least I have basic logic.
You said: “1.Okay, let's play with your logic: If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?”
I never said everything needs a cause.
I said everything that BEGINS to exist needs a cause. Why? Because it’s going from NOT EXISTING to EXISTING. Something needs to make that happen.
But if something is in the perpetual state of ALWAYS EXISTING, nothing needs to make that happen. It just is.
You said: “If you're going to say that God is "uncaused" and "eternal," why not then assume that the universe itself (or its underlying reality, e.g., the quantum vacuum) might be uncaused?”
Because the universe isn’t infinite.
Eternal and infinite and uncaused are all the same thing. To be one is to be the other.
But our universe isn’t infinite. It’s finite, in every aspect. There isn’t a single infinite property to our universe.
Because our universe is finite, it can’t be eternal. It can’t have always existed, because everything about it and everything in it BEGAN to exist. You already mentioned the Big Bang, from which our universe sprung. Our universe BEGAN to exist, which means it is not infinite. It needs a cause — something to MAKE it BEGIN.
You said: “Modern cosmology (e.g., the Hawking-Hartle model) assumes that time began with the Big Bang. If there was no time "before" the universe, then causality in the usual sense may not apply. So the idea of a "first cause" outside of time and space is not necessary.”
No, that’s not what it means.
Imagine turning on a video game. In the video game world, time BEGAN when you pressed “Start.”
But your time existed outside of the video game before you started it, and your time continues even after you shut off the game.
Our universe’s time began at the Big Bang, but that says nothing about things that exist outside of it.
You said: “2. 1. Whatever created the universe may simply be powerful enough to do so, rather than being "omnipotent" in the absolute sense. For example, a physical process (say, a quantum field fluctuation)”
At that scale, it’s meaningless to distinguish.
Any entity powerful enough to create our entire universe is functionally omnipotent — possessing power greater than anything in the universe, because its power created the universe.
You said: “2. Knowledge is a property of conscious beings. Why would the cause of the universe have to be conscious? Physical laws operate without "knowledge"—gravity does not "know" how to attract. To attribute consciousness to a cause is an unwarranted leap.”
Physical laws only exist within a created universe.
There’s no such thing as physical laws that exist without a universe. As such, it’s meaningless to try to posit physical laws outside of the universe that created the universe. It’s a contradiction; such a thing can’t exist.
Why do I appeal to consciousness? Because creation always requires a consciousness.
Every painting requires a conscious painter.
Every sculpture requires a conscious sculptor.
Every song requires a conscious song writer.
Creation is a conscious act.
You said: “3. Eternity: If a cause is timeless, it is not necessarily "infinite" in human terms. Quantum mechanics allows for events without temporal sequence (e.g., the spontaneous appearance of particles).
Again, quantum mechanics only works WITHIN A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE. It is non-sensical to speak of them existing outside a universe.
Further, not having a temporal sequence is not the same as infinite. Spontaneous appearance is a FINITE event, occurring WITHIN A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE. It’s finite because it happens at a set moment in time, even if you want to say there was no cause before it. It’s still finite.
You said: “4. Holiness: This is a subjective quality that does not follow from logic. Being "above us" does not mean being morally perfect or holy—it may simply be an ontological difference (e.g., how we are "above" bacteria).
Right. That’s why I said it was “orders of magnitude above us.” I didn’t say anything about morals. I was speaking of ontological differences.
You said: “3. The assumption that the cause of the universe is a physical process that we have not yet discovered is not based on blind faith, but on the inductive method. Science has historically explained phenomena (thunder, the movement of stars) that were once attributed to gods in terms of natural laws. Why should the beginning of the universe be an exception?”
Because there is no physical process outside the universe.
That’s why it’s such a unique question.
Finding physical solutions to physical questions within a physical universe makes perfect sense.
But trying to assert a physical answer in a realm where nothing physical exists is non-sensical.
You said: “4. Theories like "Universe from Nothing" (Alexander Vilenkin) suggest that the universe could have arisen spontaneously through quantum fluctuations under conditions where classical causality does not operate.”
Again, quantum fluctuations only occur WITHIN an established universe. They cannot be the SOURCE of the universe, because they can only occur WITHIN it, after it has already been created.
You said, “I would be interested to see your debate with a professional physicist and a scientist, and if he could simplify it with arguments. Since I am an ordinary person who does not have high knowledge, but at least I have basic logic.”
1. Okay, let's accept your clarification: everything that comes into existence needs a cause. But why do you assume that the universe "came into existence" in the sense of going from "not existing" to "existing"? Modern cosmology (e.g., the Hawking-Hartle model) does not view the Big Bang as a "beginning from nothing" but as the initial boundary of space-time. If there was no time "before" this, then there is no point in talking about a "transition" because there was no "before". In that case, the causality you are applying (something "doing" something else) may be human intuition, not a reality outside the universe.
Why does "always existing" have to be God, and not, for example, a basic reality (say, a quantum field or a multiverse) that does not "come into existence" but gives rise to our universe? You are simply claiming that it is God, without any evidence that this is the only possibility.
2. You are confusing "finiteness" in space or time with "necessity of a cause." Yes, our universe has a beginning in time (about 13.8 billion years ago), but that doesn't mean it can't be part of a larger reality that itself doesn't "begin." For example:
The multiverse hypothesis (from the inflationary cosmology of Andrei Linde) suggests that our universe is one of many that arise in an eternal inflationary field. This field doesn't "begin" to exist, but gives rise to finite universes like ours.
In quantum cosmology, "eternity" may not be linear. If the space-time of our universe is a closed system (like a sphere), then an "external cause" is not needed, because there is no "outside" in the classical sense.
3. Your video game analogy suggests that there is an "external time" and a "player" (consciousness), but that is just a guess. There is no evidence in cosmology that there is time or space in the usual sense "outside" the universe. If the Big Bang is the limit, then "before" is not "another time" but the absence of time. In quantum mechanics, events can occur without temporal sequence (such as tunneling), so "something that does" the universe need not be within your causal logic.
4. This is a semantic game. "Powerful enough" does not equal "omnipotent." For example, a supernova explosion is "powerful enough" to create elements like iron, but it is not omnipotent—it is limited by the laws of physics. If the cause of the universe is an energy or process (say, a vacuum fluctuation), it may be "sufficient" for the Big Bang, but not have the capacity for other actions, as the idea of God's omnipotence requires.
5. Your example is based on human experience, but it is not a universal law. In nature, "creation" occurs without consciousness:
Clouds "create" rain through physical processes.
Stars "create" planets through gravity and accretion.
Crystals are "created" through molecular interactions.
Why must the cause of the universe be conscious if we see complex structures arise without intention? You make the leap from "cause" to "conscious creator", but this does not follow from logic - this is your interpretation.
6. You claim that there are no physical laws outside the universe, but this is an assumption, not a fact. Quantum cosmology (the theory of Vilenkin or Linde) assumes that a basic reality (such as a quantum vacuum or an inflationary field) can exist outside our universe and give rise to it. These "laws" do not depend on our space-time - they may be more fundamental. You say this is "nonsense", but why? Science already suggests the existence of realities that we do not directly observe (dark matter, dark energy).
7. Okay, but why does "ontological superiority" mean God? Bacteria are ontologically below us, but we are not "holy" in relation to them. Something may be "higher" than the universe (for example, a multiverse or an abstract law), but that does not make it divine or holy in a religious sense.
I commented on your note as well, but I wanted to come here and commend you on the structure of your prompt.
So often, we go to AI looking for it to confirm what we already think. Your prompt is objective and encourages AI to do it's own critical thinking and reasoning.
While people can argue with AI's conclusion, it can't be placed on you for leading the horse to water.
Thanks! You’re right that AI prompt writing is definitely a learned skill.
Brilliant!
May I repost with attribution?
Phil
Reimagine.Network
Of course!
I had a similar prompt in ChatGPT with a similar outcome.
Not argument. As i said before: You claim that the chain of causes must necessarily end at the "infinite and uncaused," but why? We can continue it to infinity without ever coming to a "first" element. Within our universe, we do not observe anything "infinite and uncaused." Everything that exists arose as a result of the interaction of initial conditions and the laws of physics. After the Big Bang, the development of the universe proceeds naturally without any visible intervention from the outside. If we are talking about the causes of the Big Bang, are we really obliged to assume intervention? Why can't this process be part of larger processes, for example, the cycles of birth and death of universes?
The quantum fluctuations you mentioned are capable of creating matter. For example, in the process of Hawking radiation, virtual particles that appear near the event horizon of a black hole can become real: one particle falls beyond the event horizon of the black hole, and another is "released," becoming real.
Your statement that "everything was created by God" is not supported by any arguments. Where did it come from? What is its basis? On the contrary, the development of nature and living organisms is well explained by the laws of physics and the theory of evolution. No one "sculpted" a man from clay, just as no one created a woman from his rib.
According to current models, the Universe can be infinite. Its flat topology allows this, therefore, both matter and energy in it can also be infinite.
Then the pasta monster is also a God who has the same qualities as the God of the bible, but he decided to create a body for himself, just like the biblical God. This means that the pasta monster is a true God.
Hello Alejandro,
Thanks for writing.
My friend, you keep undermining your own arguments.
You want to extend causality infinitely without coming to a "first" element... yet you realize that there is nothing infinite or uncaused within our universe. You realize that everything arose from the Big Bang, a finite beginning -- not one that you can extend backwards infinitely, but one that occurred at a specific time a finite number of years ago.
Do you see your own contradiction?
You say we can go backwards in time without getting to a first element, then you talk all about the first element, and how everything came from this first element, which you have called the Big Bang.
You can't have it both ways, my friend.
If you want to appeal to the first element, the Big Bang, then you can't say that it doesn't exist.
Likewise, you can't appeal to the universe being infinite while also appealing to the first element, the beginning of the universe a finite time ago. The universe can't be both infinite and finite, my friend.
Pick one.
Kyle, you realize that your main mistake is that you are reducing everything to the fact that the factor of the appearance of our Universe must be God. Do you realize that there is zero reason to believe so? It could just be a phenomenon or process that we have not yet investigated and science has not discovered, it does not necessarily have to be some kind of entity.
I don’t think a pastor, a hired hand to care for the sheep of the Good Landlord and His Son, needs to consult a machine to validate the Son's identity and promote the machine. Even the enemy knows our Lord is God and is coming soon. Watch out, and do not be deceived.
Hello my friend,
Certainly, i’m not using a machine to tell me that God exists! I’ve known this for decades. Having a relationship with God does not require a machine.
I’ve written on this blog and many other places continually about God, both proving that He exists and showing why it matters.
These two Grok posts are a fun confluence of technology and apologetics. I didn’t expect Grok give such an answer when I put in the prompt, and my delightful surprise at reading its answer is what prompted me to share it.
In the field of evangelism, new tools are popping up all the time. Technology is providing more and more ways to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. I’m simply happy at discovering a new tool!
I felt your excitement, but I would be very cautious with AI. It is from the enemy for the “I’m Christ” movement.
Hello Alejandro,
Thanks for replying.
My friend, there is every reason to believe it is God.
Why?
Simple deductive reasoning. Whatever created the universe:
- Has to be powerful enough to create the universe. That’s omnipotence.
- Has to know how to create a universe. That’s omniscience.
- Has to be infinite, in order to be the source of everything finite. That’s eternal.
- Has to be orders of magnitude above us. That’s holiness.
Something that’s omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and holy? That’s God.
Your other assertion, that it might be “a phenomenon or process that we have not yet investigated and science has not discovered,” is nothing but blind faith.
You are operating on blind faith.
Not science.
Not reason.
Blind faith.
You are operating on the blind faith that we MIGHT discover something that we have no idea about, and this thing we MIGHT someday discover MIGHT not be God.
Meanwhile, all the evidence and all the reasoning from that evidence points straight to God.
1.Okay, let's play with your logic: If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you're going to say that God is "uncaused" and "eternal," why not then assume that the universe itself (or its underlying reality, e.g., the quantum vacuum) might be uncaused? Modern cosmology (e.g., the Hawking-Hartle model) assumes that time began with the Big Bang. If there was no time "before" the universe, then causality in the usual sense may not apply. So the idea of a "first cause" outside of time and space is not necessary.
2. 1. Whatever created the universe may simply be powerful enough to do so, rather than being "omnipotent" in the absolute sense. For example, a physical process (say, a quantum field fluctuation)
2. Knowledge is a property of conscious beings. Why would the cause of the universe have to be conscious? Physical laws operate without "knowledge"—gravity does not "know" how to attract. To attribute consciousness to a cause is an unwarranted leap.
3. Eternity: If a cause is timeless, it is not necessarily "infinite" in human terms. Quantum mechanics allows for events without temporal sequence (e.g., the spontaneous appearance of particles).
4. Holiness: This is a subjective quality that does not follow from logic. Being "above us" does not mean being morally perfect or holy—it may simply be an ontological difference (e.g., how we are "above" bacteria).
3. The assumption that the cause of the universe is a physical process that we have not yet discovered is not based on blind faith, but on the inductive method. Science has historically explained phenomena (thunder, the movement of stars) that were once attributed to gods in terms of natural laws. Why should the beginning of the universe be an exception?
4. Theories like "Universe from Nothing" (Alexander Vilenkin) suggest that the universe could have arisen spontaneously through quantum fluctuations under conditions where classical causality does not operate.
I would be interested to see your debate with a professional physicist and a scientist, and if he could simplify it with arguments. Since I am an ordinary person who does not have high knowledge, but at least I have basic logic.
Hello Alejandro, thanks for responding.
You said: “1.Okay, let's play with your logic: If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?”
I never said everything needs a cause.
I said everything that BEGINS to exist needs a cause. Why? Because it’s going from NOT EXISTING to EXISTING. Something needs to make that happen.
But if something is in the perpetual state of ALWAYS EXISTING, nothing needs to make that happen. It just is.
You said: “If you're going to say that God is "uncaused" and "eternal," why not then assume that the universe itself (or its underlying reality, e.g., the quantum vacuum) might be uncaused?”
Because the universe isn’t infinite.
Eternal and infinite and uncaused are all the same thing. To be one is to be the other.
But our universe isn’t infinite. It’s finite, in every aspect. There isn’t a single infinite property to our universe.
Because our universe is finite, it can’t be eternal. It can’t have always existed, because everything about it and everything in it BEGAN to exist. You already mentioned the Big Bang, from which our universe sprung. Our universe BEGAN to exist, which means it is not infinite. It needs a cause — something to MAKE it BEGIN.
You said: “Modern cosmology (e.g., the Hawking-Hartle model) assumes that time began with the Big Bang. If there was no time "before" the universe, then causality in the usual sense may not apply. So the idea of a "first cause" outside of time and space is not necessary.”
No, that’s not what it means.
Imagine turning on a video game. In the video game world, time BEGAN when you pressed “Start.”
But your time existed outside of the video game before you started it, and your time continues even after you shut off the game.
Our universe’s time began at the Big Bang, but that says nothing about things that exist outside of it.
You said: “2. 1. Whatever created the universe may simply be powerful enough to do so, rather than being "omnipotent" in the absolute sense. For example, a physical process (say, a quantum field fluctuation)”
At that scale, it’s meaningless to distinguish.
Any entity powerful enough to create our entire universe is functionally omnipotent — possessing power greater than anything in the universe, because its power created the universe.
You said: “2. Knowledge is a property of conscious beings. Why would the cause of the universe have to be conscious? Physical laws operate without "knowledge"—gravity does not "know" how to attract. To attribute consciousness to a cause is an unwarranted leap.”
Physical laws only exist within a created universe.
There’s no such thing as physical laws that exist without a universe. As such, it’s meaningless to try to posit physical laws outside of the universe that created the universe. It’s a contradiction; such a thing can’t exist.
Why do I appeal to consciousness? Because creation always requires a consciousness.
Every painting requires a conscious painter.
Every sculpture requires a conscious sculptor.
Every song requires a conscious song writer.
Creation is a conscious act.
You said: “3. Eternity: If a cause is timeless, it is not necessarily "infinite" in human terms. Quantum mechanics allows for events without temporal sequence (e.g., the spontaneous appearance of particles).
Again, quantum mechanics only works WITHIN A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE. It is non-sensical to speak of them existing outside a universe.
Further, not having a temporal sequence is not the same as infinite. Spontaneous appearance is a FINITE event, occurring WITHIN A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE. It’s finite because it happens at a set moment in time, even if you want to say there was no cause before it. It’s still finite.
You said: “4. Holiness: This is a subjective quality that does not follow from logic. Being "above us" does not mean being morally perfect or holy—it may simply be an ontological difference (e.g., how we are "above" bacteria).
Right. That’s why I said it was “orders of magnitude above us.” I didn’t say anything about morals. I was speaking of ontological differences.
You said: “3. The assumption that the cause of the universe is a physical process that we have not yet discovered is not based on blind faith, but on the inductive method. Science has historically explained phenomena (thunder, the movement of stars) that were once attributed to gods in terms of natural laws. Why should the beginning of the universe be an exception?”
Because there is no physical process outside the universe.
That’s why it’s such a unique question.
Finding physical solutions to physical questions within a physical universe makes perfect sense.
But trying to assert a physical answer in a realm where nothing physical exists is non-sensical.
You said: “4. Theories like "Universe from Nothing" (Alexander Vilenkin) suggest that the universe could have arisen spontaneously through quantum fluctuations under conditions where classical causality does not operate.”
Again, quantum fluctuations only occur WITHIN an established universe. They cannot be the SOURCE of the universe, because they can only occur WITHIN it, after it has already been created.
You said, “I would be interested to see your debate with a professional physicist and a scientist, and if he could simplify it with arguments. Since I am an ordinary person who does not have high knowledge, but at least I have basic logic.”
I would challenge that assumption.
1. Okay, let's accept your clarification: everything that comes into existence needs a cause. But why do you assume that the universe "came into existence" in the sense of going from "not existing" to "existing"? Modern cosmology (e.g., the Hawking-Hartle model) does not view the Big Bang as a "beginning from nothing" but as the initial boundary of space-time. If there was no time "before" this, then there is no point in talking about a "transition" because there was no "before". In that case, the causality you are applying (something "doing" something else) may be human intuition, not a reality outside the universe.
Why does "always existing" have to be God, and not, for example, a basic reality (say, a quantum field or a multiverse) that does not "come into existence" but gives rise to our universe? You are simply claiming that it is God, without any evidence that this is the only possibility.
2. You are confusing "finiteness" in space or time with "necessity of a cause." Yes, our universe has a beginning in time (about 13.8 billion years ago), but that doesn't mean it can't be part of a larger reality that itself doesn't "begin." For example:
The multiverse hypothesis (from the inflationary cosmology of Andrei Linde) suggests that our universe is one of many that arise in an eternal inflationary field. This field doesn't "begin" to exist, but gives rise to finite universes like ours.
In quantum cosmology, "eternity" may not be linear. If the space-time of our universe is a closed system (like a sphere), then an "external cause" is not needed, because there is no "outside" in the classical sense.
3. Your video game analogy suggests that there is an "external time" and a "player" (consciousness), but that is just a guess. There is no evidence in cosmology that there is time or space in the usual sense "outside" the universe. If the Big Bang is the limit, then "before" is not "another time" but the absence of time. In quantum mechanics, events can occur without temporal sequence (such as tunneling), so "something that does" the universe need not be within your causal logic.
4. This is a semantic game. "Powerful enough" does not equal "omnipotent." For example, a supernova explosion is "powerful enough" to create elements like iron, but it is not omnipotent—it is limited by the laws of physics. If the cause of the universe is an energy or process (say, a vacuum fluctuation), it may be "sufficient" for the Big Bang, but not have the capacity for other actions, as the idea of God's omnipotence requires.
5. Your example is based on human experience, but it is not a universal law. In nature, "creation" occurs without consciousness:
Clouds "create" rain through physical processes.
Stars "create" planets through gravity and accretion.
Crystals are "created" through molecular interactions.
Why must the cause of the universe be conscious if we see complex structures arise without intention? You make the leap from "cause" to "conscious creator", but this does not follow from logic - this is your interpretation.
6. You claim that there are no physical laws outside the universe, but this is an assumption, not a fact. Quantum cosmology (the theory of Vilenkin or Linde) assumes that a basic reality (such as a quantum vacuum or an inflationary field) can exist outside our universe and give rise to it. These "laws" do not depend on our space-time - they may be more fundamental. You say this is "nonsense", but why? Science already suggests the existence of realities that we do not directly observe (dark matter, dark energy).
7. Okay, but why does "ontological superiority" mean God? Bacteria are ontologically below us, but we are not "holy" in relation to them. Something may be "higher" than the universe (for example, a multiverse or an abstract law), but that does not make it divine or holy in a religious sense.