The point is that whatever we imagine is just that, imagination. Even when we say a Creator Caused the universe and life this does not supply anything tangible as to what this Creator might be, or any aspect of its nature. It is clearly nothing whatsoever human like or a spirit person as some would have you believe.
It is totally unknowable, so it doesn't matter what we imagine.
We have to completely move away from any religious description of God. That is not to say that God is not also the province of religion as it is with science.
So we don't know the nature of the Causer but we do know the effect and we can then extrapolate an understanding from the effect that the Causer is something far greater than Creation itself.
So the correct position is - ''we do not know'' We in fact do know enough to say that the totality of the universe, life and sentience are not the effects of random events. They are not self-perpetuating or self-generating from the outset because that contradicts the laws of science.
The incorrect position is....''well, it must be the work of a Creator.'' Far too black and white which is not the scientific approach. Evidence in the form of the effect, that is an entire functional universe and the supreme order of forces, life and sentience direct us to suggest that a vastly greater organising principle or force must exist. Such a force is beyond human understanding and is outside physical reality. This is logic. You can't paint yourself into a painting. The Creator is extraneous and not an aspect of Creation and therefore can't be proved by from within physical reality.
