Since you seemed to completely miss the point, I'll repeat it, and not mix it up with anything else.
You cannot conclude anything about how a created universe would operate without making assumptions about the creator, its methods or its purposes. Thus, it simply does not follow, without other ancillary assumptions, that
RAZD writes:
Whatever "laws\forces" exist within the created universe would be ones used ("put in place") by god/s for the created universe.
RAZD writes:
Are you saying that whatever is created just happens to operate by some previously existing external "natural laws\forces" that somehow exist now within the created universe and that the god/s would be\are absolutely powerless to control, change or modify them to make their creation function?
I'm not saying anything about what a creator might make or what it might be like, because I don't think it's possible to do that without assuming things about the creator.
You are making tacit assumptions about a created universe so that your conception of what a creator would produce is consistent with what we see. If you do not see the error in this process, it's beyond my ability to explain it to you.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
™ Version 4.2
(1)
