B
Beryllos
Guest
I still can’t make sense of it.
The first half is elementary physics, and it says nothing of creation. The author seems to assume (or declare) that there is no such thing as creation, that all that exists has simply existed forever in one form or another. The proposition is laid out but not well defended in this essay.
The second half, beginning with “Understanding our lives and the cosmos,” is, to me, incomprehensible. The language of being vs. non-being was discussed briefly in another thread of yours today, and putting that together with this, I can only say that the author’s understanding of God is quite a lot different from mine.
The first half is elementary physics, and it says nothing of creation. The author seems to assume (or declare) that there is no such thing as creation, that all that exists has simply existed forever in one form or another. The proposition is laid out but not well defended in this essay.
The second half, beginning with “Understanding our lives and the cosmos,” is, to me, incomprehensible. The language of being vs. non-being was discussed briefly in another thread of yours today, and putting that together with this, I can only say that the author’s understanding of God is quite a lot different from mine.

Last edited: