This one:
Well the absolute (God) was at some point subject to the same train of reasoning. And your own worldview, if predicated by any concept of 'beginning' starts with not your own unique inquiry but an accepted theorem. How are they different?
You replied saying you "just don't know" what happened at the beginning. You wimp out by saying "you would probably go for the big bang theory" if the choice was that or creationism. So you would at some level accept the big bang theory, for example. Then answer my question above.
I agree with you on the nonsensical stance of your ex literalist beliefs.
My point is that you accept many things without personal inquiry possible. Yet at the same time you criticise me who tries to logically substantiate everything I state which makes me align with all Christians, the Church fathers and the authors of the bible as holding an unreasoned position??
Well the absolute (God) was at some point subject to the same train of reasoning. And your own worldview, if predicated by any concept of 'beginning' starts with not your own unique inquiry but an accepted theorem. How are they different?
You replied saying you "just don't know" what happened at the beginning. You wimp out by saying "you would probably go for the big bang theory" if the choice was that or creationism. So you would at some level accept the big bang theory, for example. Then answer my question above.
I agree with you on the nonsensical stance of your ex literalist beliefs.
My point is that you accept many things without personal inquiry possible. Yet at the same time you criticise me who tries to logically substantiate everything I state which makes me align with all Christians, the Church fathers and the authors of the bible as holding an unreasoned position??
