I know what you are saying, James, but you are trying to understand God using your finite thinking. Belief in God is the lesser of two absurdities, humaly thinking. The fact that there was no beginning is ncomprehensible, yet of necessiy it must be.
I say that it takes much more faith to believe that life, consciousness, vision, hearng, sexuality, feeling, circulation, digestion, excretion, etc, etc. can NOT come into existence without the Creator. You believe that it can. The onus is upon you to prove that phenomena which appear to be miraculous are in fact natural. Just a couple questions: Where would bees be without their hives? How does a spider live without a *pre-existing* ability to spin webs? I think that your belief that some undirected evolutionary process begat such marvels is suspect, to say the very least. Bob
And you are not?
Belief in God is the lesser of two absurdities, humaly thinking Why?
The fact that there was no beginning is ncomprehensible, yet of necessiy it must be
But the idea that God is without beginning and without end is comprehensible!? Why?
Where would bees be without their hives? How does a spider live without a *pre-existing* ability to spin webs? I think that your belief that some undirected evolutionary process begat such marvels is suspect, to say the very least. Bob
This is a typical god-of-tha-gaps approach: if we can't explain something (knowledge gap), the answer is God did it! Inability to epxlian something (yet) doesn't prove God did it.
The only difference between the two gaps is that one (naturalistic) will tend to seek the answer, while the other will not. The former favors progress; the latter doesn't. Would you rather submit to medical science (imperfect as it may be) or have some shaman/priest/voodoo doctor etc. chase the "demons" out of your body? Would you rather fly than simply accept that "God didn't intend for us to fly; else he would have given us wings."