1) The source of the universe.

2) Close your eyes. Imagine if the universe had never been created, imagine nothingness. No consciousness. Dreamless sleep without awakening.

Any theory of the begining has to defy science, I suppose.

I find it helpful to think "why not?" instead of "how?"

1) The source of the universe.

2) Close your eyes. Imagine if the universe had never been created, imagine nothingness. No consciousness. Dreamless sleep without awakening.

Any theory of the begining has to defy science, I suppose.

I find it helpful to think "why not?" instead of "how?"

Why would a theory of the beginning have to defy science?

Why would a theory of the beginning have to defy science?

Not defying science, human comprehension.

1. We are animals.

2. There are other animals, capable of understanding less than us.

3. Therefore we can conclude we do not have the ultimate mind and our understanding is limited.

I believe that this inhibits us from understanding spontaneous creation (the cause of the universe) and the concept of infinity (the universe could exist 'forever').
Therefore, we turn to religion. God concepts.
It is humankind's desperate attempt to pull existence into a realm that we can understand.

Not defying science, human comprehension.

1. We are animals.

2. There are other animals, capable of understanding less than us.

3. Therefore we can conclude we do not have the ultimate mind and our understanding is limited.

I believe that this inhibits us from understanding spontaneous creation (the cause of the universe) and the concept of infinity (the universe could exist 'forever').
Therefore, we turn to religion. God concepts.
It is humankind's desperate attempt to pull existence into a realm that we can understand.

While the observation is probably valid, I don't think your logic works there.

I think it's possible for human sciences to describe these concepts, but it's beyond human minds to fully grasp them. Maths can describe infinity very well, how it applies and where to, but we can't think it in and of itself.

While the observation is probably valid, I don't think your logic works there.

I think it's possible for human sciences to describe these concepts, but it's beyond human minds to fully grasp them. Maths can describe infinity very well, how it applies and where to, but we can't think it in and of itself.

It can only describe it within the context of being human and having a reality engineered for hunter/gathering.
We can understand how it relates to things we want to do. But we cannot understand infinity, grasp or comprehend it in it's entirety, like a higher mind could.