Blasphemous?
Out of context: Reply #255
- Started
- Last post
- 282 Responses
- detritus0
ONE MORE TIME.
We have not been around for long enough to know all the answers. That's it. That's the single-only point I want to make to you.
In your answer, you're still assuming that contemporary science is wholly right - I don't.
Your assumptions..
- all matter and energy had a beginning
Did they? Whither Quantum foam?
- information was present at the beginning
Was it? We don't even know what the beginning was!
- all of life is run off of an algorithmic code (DNA)
Is it? Ours is, probably.. but beyond that?I'd love for you to point out to me articles that exactly specify the above assertions - given the mess we're getting into with the preliminary poking of the quantum world, it is nothing short of arrogance of you to state anything like the above with any level of certainty. This is why science relies on theoretical frameworks rather than The Word, because the more we know, the less we understand and the more careful we have to be.
With regard to the self-completing circularity of your stance, if it all comes back to The Word, what other term best describes your position? Where does that place the billion or so souls who choose to prefer the The Word of the Vedas?
A religionist you most are - who here more than you espouses the constancy of any given theology? None.
Really though - PLEASE, JUST ONCE - involve yourself in something other than a religious debate, it really is tiresome and dull and you make me hate myself for getting involved in this endless, inconclusive morass.