Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [existlist] No creation

Expand Messages
  • Mattlzpf@aol.com
    ... language we use to describe cosmic origins. Creation implies creator and the facts simply do not support such ideology. Even more, the fact that we
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 23, 2003
      >>>>Our hangover from mystical thinking is no more shown than in the
      language we use to describe cosmic origins. Creation implies creator
      and the facts simply do not support such ideology.>>>>

      Even more, the fact that we require a subject for every predicate
      shows that we demand an origin of all that is around us.

      >>>>The belief that
      the initial entity in this universe is by definition the creator is
      also a giant leap of stupidity. The initial entity was hyperthermal
      energy.>>>

      hahahaa. Is that a joke, because it really is hilarious


      >>>>>Energy and mass are interconvertable and as the energy
      cooled, subatomic particles condensed out of it. There was no
      intelligence, just the reactions of sub atomic physics. It happned
      because the energy was present. Where did the energy come from? We do
      not know that and there is nothing visable to instrumentation before
      the big bang.>>>>> . . . .[and it goes on and on]

      Thank you Bill Nye. Perhaps you could explain the randomness of the
      universe that has up until now, been so unexplicable. I don't believe anybody
      in this group is looking for an argument for or against God. Although, one
      thing should give you comfort enough in your cave of apparent impiety, neither
      God nor science will explain our universe--thankfully because "it may be beyond
      our capabilities of the human brain."

      --MATT_C


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.