Hi there,
So just to be competitive for a moment, what about the utility of believing in "the Unknown"? The concept of the unknown is true for most of what we know about the Universe; the more a species can account for the unknown in different ways: the stronger that species gets, as a unit. This same concept, is as powerful as the telling of it - it is as if in the beginning God screamed "It is Unknown!" -- and everything He Created cried with Him. We can suppose that there are some causes to the Universe which are uniform, but many many others we have no answer for.
If there is work, to be done, without knowing all there is to know, believing in the Unknown is the quickest way to put focus on that work. Evolution, simply accounts for too much. It describes functional recommitment, but confuses its motive and therefore misses out on the flourishing of being correctly astute to a diminishing desire for everything - in principle for everything to be part of the known. This is lead astray, when it comes to be an account of those things known, that are for work - they are in principle assumed to be known for Evolution (if you try that with your wife, you will be in plenty of trouble, let me tell you).
If the work itself, comes to be unknown, knowing it might have evolved in the past, is no solution - you cannot squeeze out an evolution and have it complete the work. Thus to the one believing in the Unknown, there may be unknowns that pertain more to the Universe and unknowns that are less - which any scientist worth his salt, will tell you is half the battle: knowing the limit of the known. Starting with knowns, on the other hand, leaves you with almost no clue, how they work together. So even at step two, the differences in favour of siding with the Unknown are two to none.
Then there is the question of how you did the work of the known, give or take the Unknown at all. If you want to rest, you don't recount all the little evolutions you went through to add up the known that you did, you simply rest on the fact that you did the work, whatever the Unknown was. But here is the rub, every time you finish your work with so many knowns accounted for, there is the possibility that you confuse them with the unknown, the unknown you don't believe - that means starting again, simply for the fact that you did not credit the unknown with an unknownness that would become the more unknown: you didn't credit the unknown with the consistency evident in its being the Universal Unknown, that is, more unknown that its being known to be universal.
And that means you can't be surprised!
So yes, there are advantages to choosing unknown Evolution, if not simply the Unknown - advantages which the Unknown God makes clear.
So just to be competitive for a moment, what about the utility of believing in "the Unknown"? The concept of the unknown is true for most of what we know about the Universe; the more a species can account for the unknown in different ways: the stronger that species gets, as a unit. This same concept, is as powerful as the telling of it - it is as if in the beginning God screamed "It is Unknown!" -- and everything He Created cried with Him. We can suppose that there are some causes to the Universe which are uniform, but many many others we have no answer for.
If there is work, to be done, without knowing all there is to know, believing in the Unknown is the quickest way to put focus on that work. Evolution, simply accounts for too much. It describes functional recommitment, but confuses its motive and therefore misses out on the flourishing of being correctly astute to a diminishing desire for everything - in principle for everything to be part of the known. This is lead astray, when it comes to be an account of those things known, that are for work - they are in principle assumed to be known for Evolution (if you try that with your wife, you will be in plenty of trouble, let me tell you).
If the work itself, comes to be unknown, knowing it might have evolved in the past, is no solution - you cannot squeeze out an evolution and have it complete the work. Thus to the one believing in the Unknown, there may be unknowns that pertain more to the Universe and unknowns that are less - which any scientist worth his salt, will tell you is half the battle: knowing the limit of the known. Starting with knowns, on the other hand, leaves you with almost no clue, how they work together. So even at step two, the differences in favour of siding with the Unknown are two to none.
Then there is the question of how you did the work of the known, give or take the Unknown at all. If you want to rest, you don't recount all the little evolutions you went through to add up the known that you did, you simply rest on the fact that you did the work, whatever the Unknown was. But here is the rub, every time you finish your work with so many knowns accounted for, there is the possibility that you confuse them with the unknown, the unknown you don't believe - that means starting again, simply for the fact that you did not credit the unknown with an unknownness that would become the more unknown: you didn't credit the unknown with the consistency evident in its being the Universal Unknown, that is, more unknown that its being known to be universal.
And that means you can't be surprised!
So yes, there are advantages to choosing unknown Evolution, if not simply the Unknown - advantages which the Unknown God makes clear.
