Replies

I know what you are saying, James, but you are trying to understand God using your finite thinking

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."

My thinking is absolutely finite. The existence of God forever in the past is incomprehensible, as is the idea of matter and energy having no beginning.
And you are so wrong about theists not being curious about the “how”, every bit as much as atheists. We believe that God has revealed His universe to us, and it is human nature to thirst for knowledge. I'm tired of Darwinists pretending that there are no assumptions made in naturalistic theory. You ASSUME that eyes,ears, kidneys, livers, hearts, brains, muscles, blood vessels can miraculously form through random mutations, billions of them, yet you cannot reproduce such phenomena! You can't even create life from inanimate matter... Bob