A great piece by a great man

[Khairan]

That's exactly where my argument is going.\"Standard physical rules of time, space, and causality do not apply to Him, and as such questions of God's beginning and end are irrelevant.\"

We are bound by these physical laws, and hence, we cannot go beyond the our physical boundries and assume that a metaphysical entity created everything that we see around us.

Dude, this is along the lines of the "How do you know invisible massless pink monkeys aren't playing water polo in your backyard?" argument. Of course there is an element of faith involved in believing in God -- that goes without saying. But this belief is not an arbitrary assumption. First, obviously religious people believe that the idea of God's existence comes from the fact that God does, in fact, exist. Beyond that however, no one is "assuming" that God created what we see. At this point, this is morphing into the rather pointless debate of "how do we know God exists" -- we're all familiar with the pro and con arguments, so there is no need to rehash them here.I will say that, despite my faith, I've always found the agnostic position to be the more "scientific" view point. But that's neither here nor there.