Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 195
  • Darwins +111/-1

Isn't this just another spin on the equivocations so beloved by the theists, new-agers, and other peddlers of woo?

On one hand we have energy as the ability to do work on an object, subject to and constrained by natural laws. Yet, on the other hand, we have this imagined and magical form of "energy" that exists in some alternate reality, which is [magically] claimed to not be subject to any law that we understand. Somehow, by misusing the same word, we are supposed to accept that the later is the progenitor of all matter and energy as we know it. And why and how is that? Because the theist says so, it's the same word, and the believer wants and needs it to be true.

It's just silly.
Changed Change Reason Date