lenina
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- dont know
I have a conundrum:
Why is it that when it comes to the science of nature, people use discoveries as evidence that God doesn't exist, cuz somehow knowing how something is done proves that it's not complicated, and if something isn't as complicated as we thought, well then a greater being may not have created it. I don't see why one conclusion should lead to the next. But anyways it's used as a justification to sin.
But then when it comes to the science of human beheviour, discoveries of the complexities of human psychology are also used as evidence that God doesn't exit, cuz somehow we are just sooo much more complicated than the basics of human nature laid out in religious texts. Again, it's really just justifying all different kinds of sinning.
Hmm, when i lay it out like that, guess it's not that complicated after all.
Why is it that when it comes to the science of nature, people use discoveries as evidence that God doesn't exist, cuz somehow knowing how something is done proves that it's not complicated, and if something isn't as complicated as we thought, well then a greater being may not have created it. I don't see why one conclusion should lead to the next. But anyways it's used as a justification to sin.
But then when it comes to the science of human beheviour, discoveries of the complexities of human psychology are also used as evidence that God doesn't exit, cuz somehow we are just sooo much more complicated than the basics of human nature laid out in religious texts. Again, it's really just justifying all different kinds of sinning.
Hmm, when i lay it out like that, guess it's not that complicated after all.
Last edited: