by AK - Jeff 35 Replies latest jw experiences
To me it seems that Big Bang means we understand all and creation means there are things we can not conceive.
To me it means just the opposite. Accepted Big Bang theory states that we probably will never discover what came before the singularity.
Creationism attempts to "understand" all by just lumping all the unknown into the name of an "infinitely eternal creator".
OTWO
the believer contradicts himself when he insists that everything had to have a creator, yet the creator was always there.
That's a strawman. Most believe every created thing had to have a Creator. A better way of stating it would be: Everything with a cause had to have a first cause
To me it means just the opposite. Accepted Big Bang theory states that we probably will never discover what came before the singularity.
Creationism attempts to "understand" all by just lumping all the unknown into the name of an "infinitely eternal creator".
Balance of opposites
God lit the fuse then ran like hell.
Why would one kind of knowledge be more "fun" than the other? I'm not sure why someone would think hard science isn't fun enough. How else can you blow shit up? LOL
Some people just find certain things more interesting than others.
Everything with a cause had to have a first cause
So god caused the universe to come into existence, something cause him to want to do it, his existence caused him to have desires. What cause his existence?
Creationism attempts to "understand" all by just lumping all the unknown into the name of an "infinitely eternal creator".
Die, blasphemer! ;)
I think we have to come to a point where we say to ourselves that something always existed.
Why could not that something be energy ?
Balance of opposites
Except that one seeks ignorance under the guise of knowledge and the other accepts where ignorance is and seeks to know more.
OTWO
the believer contradicts himself when he insists that everything had to have a creator, yet the creator was always there.
That's a strawman. Most believe every created thing had to have a Creator. A better way of stating it would be: Everything with a cause had to have a first cause
Part of my point is that believers want to have the word "creator" or "creation" or "created" in their argument. To talk in terms without that is not their style.
Except that one seeks ignorance under the guise of knowledge and the other accepts where ignorance is and seeks to know more.
If you are alluding that someone who beleives in God is "satisified" with God being the answer to everything and not asking anymore questions, I disagree with that and History has shown that to not be the case.
Believers are always trying to uderstand and "quantify" the nature of God, something far more vast and hard to understand than just the "mere"universe.
Believers also have a thrist for science and knowledge, as in the case of sceintific believers of the past and those in the present.
Sure there has always been an element of "It is enough to know God", or an element that advocated "don't ask", but the truth is, though vocal, they are the minority.
T-Duality
Aahh
