Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. —the United Nations
Bellator Christi evangelical Christian blog: Dr. John Lennox explains it this way, “could God have created a world without suffering? Yes, He could have, but you and I would not live in it because, it would empty the world of something most precious to our humanity, and that is the capacity to love, and our capacity to love, hinges on our capacity to choose. In any possible world in which there is no free will, love can never truly exist because love, requires freedom.”
Gary: Ten thousand children die of starvation every day. 10,000! Dying of starvation is a slow, very painful experience. As a non-Christian, non-religious person, I would give up my ability to love and my free will in exchange for these ten thousand children not starving to death. Would you be willing to do that, dear Christians?
According to your holy book, your God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the very essence of what is good and just. Yet he allows 10,000 little children to slowly starve to death each and every day, week after week, month after month, year after year, century after century… And you tell us that the reason your God allows 10,000 little children to starve to death each and every day is because their ancient ancestors ate some of his forbidden fruit??? Is that just? Come on, dear Christian. Open your eyes! Your god is either the epitome of evil or your god does not exist.
Bellator Christi blog: the best possible world God could have created is a world in which free will exists, and the possibility to freely choose and to freely reject.
Gary: No, in the best possible world, little children are not punished with starvation for the sins of their ancient ancestors.
Your world view is sick, my Christian friends. Who today would starve a child for the sins of his parents or grandparents? No one with any ounce of decency. So why does your god do it? No, your God is not good. The next time you sit down for dinner with your children and ask Jesus to bless your food, think of all the little children he is allowing to starve to death that day.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
The problem of harm. This is such a worn out, over-used cop-out. Suffering caused by mankind, inflicted upon mankind, is not a legitimate basis for comparison to try and judge God’s goodness, just as the historic existence of Jack the Ripper was not a reflection upon the character of the European people.
LikeLike
The extent of your brainwashing is remarkable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary, you may fool others, but not me. Mankind has all the power in his own hands to keep stuff like that from happening. Blaming God for the evils of men, THAT is a level of brainwashing that you’re trying to aim at me. Why doesn’t someone do something about the governments that allow their kids to starve to death like that? I mean, let’s put the blame where it belongs before trying to shove it off onto someone else. You have no idea what you’re talking about when demanding that a loving God would not allow such. YOU have never lived under the slavery of not being able to make your own choices for good or evil. The day you live under that kind of robotic control over your choices, which is a level of slavery never before seen on this earth, and THEN you can come back to the side of freedom and we’ll see what you would say then. Until then, you’ve got nothing but whining and complaining against a God sho has given to you freedom of moral agency.
LikeLike
I would be more than happy to give up my free will if it meant that 10,000 children would not starve to death each and every day. What about you, JR? Would you be willing to make that sacrifice?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I would not trade freedom for stopping everyone else from choosing their own moral path. Why would you ask such a thing, trying to base it on saving the lives of others? Enslavement in exchange for saving lives? You have never experienced what it’s like being a slave, contrasted with the freedom to choose your own moral way of live…or immoral. To say that God should stop all evil, you’re forcing your own will upon all others. That indicates a level of monstrosity for which you have no idea what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
But if you give up free will , so will everyone….
LikeLike
That makes no sense.
Why did your god need little mini-hims in the first place? Bored or just sadistic, like the little boy who enjoys torturing little animals and watching them suffer.
LikeLike
You seem to be saying that God is the champion of free will–is that right?
Remember that God is the one who stands idly by while the victims of rape and murder get their free will trampled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s even more interesting when people complain about God allowing rape and murder, and yet they never seem consider, or even talk about the alternative! They seem to be saying that they would rather we ALL live under the slavery of forced morality rather than free moral agency! If you’re going to misdirect your anger at God for the allowances in the freedoms we have, then at least admit that you prefer slavery to freedom, which is a personal choice, not one that the Sovereign over all creation chose! It’s also a fallacy to claim that God is idle! That smacks of human pride of the worst sort!
LikeLike
Question, Swordsman: do you believe that the animals in the Garden of Eden were content prior to “the Fall”?
LikeLike
I don’t care if the animals in the garden were content or not. You’re avoiding my observation. Care to take a crack at it? Do you or do you not value YOUR moral freedom? Do you REALLY prefer moral slavery? Is that what you want? Let’s talk about the two alternatives…the ONLY two available in any given scenario! What’s your pick?
LikeLike
“Let’s talk about the two alternatives…the ONLY two available in any given scenario! What’s your pick?”
Uh … I pick God being able to create a perfect, non-coercive, totally moral society. It’s called “heaven.” Or was this a trick question?
You’re determined to force our sucky life here on earth into a God mold, but God is just an answer looking for a solution. Much easier: drop the God hypothesis, and nothing is unexplained.
LikeLike
God mold? Can’t figure out what that is. God’s being sovereign doesn’t introduce any molds of conformity when there’s total freedom all around us. Evil is simply the price for freedom. Those who don’t like that have a cliff, high building, rope or something to end it all if it’s so bad that they can’t take it. Getting depressed because of the reality of evil, which is only temporary, over against the reward yet to come, those who make foolish choices have that on their own heads.
LikeLike
“God mold? Can’t figure out what that is.”
By “God mold,” I meant forcing your explanation of how things work into one that includes a God (whether that helps the explanation or not).
“God’s being sovereign doesn’t introduce any molds of conformity when there’s total freedom all around us. Evil is simply the price for freedom.”
Are we free in heaven? And is evil the price for freedom in heaven?
“Those who don’t like that have a cliff, high building, rope or something to end it all if it’s so bad that they can’t take it.”
Remember that it’s YOU who has a hard time imagining an atheistic worldview. Atheists are mature enough to handle the truth.
LikeLike
“Remember that it’s YOU who has a hard time imagining an atheistic worldview. Atheists are mature enough to handle the truth.”
What truth? How do they ascertain empirical, objective truth? What’s the acid test?
LikeLike
“What truth? How do [atheists] ascertain empirical, objective truth? What’s the acid test?”
We have disciplines like the courtroom or the laboratory where we can weigh truth claims. We’re imperfect, but that’s how, for example, we’ve figured out the technology that allows us to communicate with computers.
We don’t have much trouble with objective truth claims like “2 + 2 = 4.” It’s the claim of objective moral claims (like “abortion is always wrong” or “slavery is always wrong”) where Christians often get into trouble. Do you claim that objective moral claims exist? I’ve seen no reason to believe this.
LikeLike
Excellent point, Bob.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your answer suggests that you believe that the animals in the Garden prior to “the Fall” could be content. After all, no one was trying to kill and eat them; they were not plagued by disease (or flies). They did not need to eat or drink to survive. They could play. That is what their life consisted of: play. You suggest that it is possible that these animals at play all day were content…yet they had no free will, right? A lion roaming through the grasses in the pre-sin era could not elect through his own free will to kill Adam or another animal, right? Of course not. He was a “slave”. He had no free will. But you admit that this slave without a free will could be content.
So being a “slave to the will of one’s maker”; to exist without a free will—and to be content (happy)—are not mutually exclusive as you and many Christian apologists want us to believe.
So why couldn’t humans be content to spend all their day playing, relaxing, spending time with family…but without a free will??
To answer your question: I would prefer to happily play all day without a free will and without fear of pain, injury, starvation, or death than to have a free will and experience misery and suffering as the overwhelming majority of humanity has experienced during the last 100,000 or so years.
LikeLike
“It’s even more interesting when people complain about God allowing rape and murder, and yet they never seem consider, or even talk about the alternative! They seem to be saying that they would rather we ALL live under the slavery of forced morality rather than free moral agency!”
Forced morality? Everyone in heaven is moral—is THAT “forced morality”?
I’m assuming not. I assume that everyone in heaven is both moral and not a robot. God’s figured it out somehow.
But then if he’s got this figured out, why isn’t that the system here on earth? Why is God furious at our immorality when he could just have made everyone in heaven?
LikeLike
Nope. I never said Heaven was a place of forced morality. I was addressing people who whine and complain about the evils in this world without realizing that the only alternative in this world is forced morality.
LikeLike
“I never said Heaven was a place of forced morality.”
Then we agree–God is able to create a place (1) that is perfectly moral and yet (2) no one is coerced to be moral. It’s called heaven.
Why God didn’t give life here on earth these properties is a puzzle. It’s almost like he doesn’t even exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Then we agree–God is able to create a place (1) that is perfectly moral and yet (2) no one is coerced to be moral. It’s called heaven.
Why God didn’t give life here on earth these properties is a puzzle. It’s almost like he doesn’t even exist.”
Actually, no. The presence of evil in this world serves a purpose that atheists don’t like, and that’s their problem. That evil will not exist in Heaven, and has no purpose there because those who go there are already tested and true, and the evil forces will be in another place other than Heaven.
None of us has been to Heaven yet, and so we cannot explain from the standpoint of an experiential grounding as to what it is like in Heaven, nor the defining character of that existence. Therefore, assuming into the mix the idea of forced versus unforced morality in Heaven is a moot subject.
What we CAN address from an experiential standpoint in this world is the fact that evil is present with us, and the only way to keep from giving in to that evil would be forced morality in this world, which is a slavery that no atheist has ever experienced, and I dare say would not WANT to experience.
Trying to do a comparative parallel between what is real in this world and what is real in Heaven, that’s the fallacy of placing them together as if they are comparable, and they are not.
LikeLike
But you have not explained why your god needed humans to have a free will. The Bible itself suggests that animals can be content without a free will, so why couldn’t the first humans be content without a free will?
The evidence suggests that the reason humans were given a free will was not for their benefit but for the benefit of your deity. Why did your all-good, all-knowing, perfect deity need humans to have a free will? And, why did your deity feel it necessary to stick the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil right smack dab in the middle of the Garden, forcing his little mini-hims to pass by it each and every day, to be tempted by its alluring fruit? And while we are on the topic, why did your god allow an evil, deceitful, slick-tounged serpent into the Garden to climb up into the tree—the tree with the forbidden fruit which he had placed smack dab in the middle of the Garden forcing them to walk by it every day—to tempt the humans even more?!! Is it possible that your god wanted the first humans to fail??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natural disasters kill an average of 60,000 people per year globally, and cause horrible suffering for those who manage to survive. Floods, hurricanes, tornados, volcanos, extreme heat and cold, wildfires. Why would a loving God allow this immense suffering?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can’t believe I left out earthquakes…death toll 3800 and rising from today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why would a loving God allow this immense suffering? Oh … doncha’ know? It’s because MAN is so EVIL that Gawd has to eliminate a few every so often to balance things out. (Or something like that.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t forget: something, something…free will…something, something…mysterious ways.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You seem to pride yourself in thinking you know what all others believe and follow. I will leave you to wallow in your sewer of assumptions since you didn’t even ask.
LikeLike
No, I don’t know what all others think and believe. But you yourself have referenced the “evils of men.” And isn’t it the underlying belief that one of the primary reasons for believing in a supernatural entity is to cleanse one’s self from evil?
LikeLike
I can appreciate and understand the atheist take on all that. To the atheist, something like those things, and others, snuffing out their lives seems like the utter end. The problem with atheism is that the religion of atheism is a dead end; leading nowhere. So, yes, you’re stuck with your dilemma since you refuse to consider anything outside the small little box of atheism.
LikeLike
“The problem with atheism is that the religion of atheism is a dead end; leading nowhere.”
Ah, the “Atheism makes me sad, so therefore it can’t be accurate” hypothesis. I was wondering when we’d get that.
LikeLike
But if the atheist is right, that death is the end of one’s existence, then all human belief systems regarding mortality/immortality, including Christianity, are “dead ends”, right?
LikeLike
“But if the atheist is right, that death is the end of one’s existence, then all human belief systems regarding mortality/immortality, including Christianity, are “dead ends”, right?”
Very true indeed, Gary. However, the key in your observations is that pesky little “if”. The atheist is still stuck trying to figure out how nature allegedly brought about the complexities in such things as the 3.4 billion letter word that is our DNA, and how it all came about by mere chance.
Look at just the word “prayer.” In any six letter word, there are 191,102,976 possible combinations to reach that one, correct spelling of that word, and here are people claiming to be atheists, and thus believing in the impossibility of a 3.4 billion letter word coming about by mere chance…one that can replicate and form living organisms capable of rational thought and reason.
They clearly are mathematically challenged beyond reason.
LikeLike
“The presence of evil in this world serves a purpose that atheists don’t like, and that’s their problem.”
Atheists don’t have much of a problem facing reality. The Christian has the bigger challenge. God is just a solution looking for a problem. You’ve got to explain why God’s perfect plan looks like the clusterf*** that is life on earth. Give me God’s omni powers–heck, give YOU God’s omni powers, and society would look a lot better than this. Maybe God is just a 3rd grader from an alien world, and this is the best he could come up with.
The atheist can easily explain evil in this world: s**t happens, and there is no god. Reality has no interest in whether you’re happy or not. Evolution explains why life is the way it is.
“That evil will not exist in Heaven, and has no purpose there because those who go there are already tested and true”
Huh?? You are improved by the crucible of life and then you’re in heaven, and then you never do anything wrong? You’re perfect? Yes, the trials of life can improve us (that’s how the ATHEISTS see things), but we are certainly not perfect. A trillion years in heaven stuck with the knuckleheads that you live with now—does that sound like paradise?
“assuming into the mix the idea of forced versus unforced morality in Heaven is a moot subject.”
YOU seemed quite happy to evaluate it.
“What we CAN address from an experiential standpoint in this world is the fact that evil is present with us, and the only way to keep from giving in to that evil would be forced morality in this world, which is a slavery that no atheist has ever experienced, and I dare say would not WANT to experience.”
And I keep coming back to God being able to create a perfect, evil-free world … and yet he chose not to. Some “perfect plan.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Atheists don’t have much of a problem facing reality.”
I’m sure they believe that about themselves.
“The Christian has the bigger challenge. God is just a solution looking for a problem.”
I’m sure the atheist believes that about God, but it fails to grasp all that God said about Himself and His creation.
“You’ve got to explain why God’s perfect plan looks like the clusterf*** that is life on earth.”
That’s an impossible task to think that someone else must explain what originates only from your own imaginations.
“Give me God’s omni powers–heck, give YOU God’s omni powers, and society would look a lot better than this.”
More assumptions that have no empirical foundations upon which to rest.
“Maybe God is just a 3rd grader from an alien world, and this is the best he could come up with.”
Like panspermia? Really?
“The atheist can easily explain evil in this world: s**t happens, and there is no god.”
That’s just pragmatism, which may be self-satisfying in its inability to grapple with reality, but it misses the mark entirely.
“Reality has no interest in whether you’re happy or not. Evolution explains why life is the way it is.”
Perhaps within your microcosm, but not out here in the macrocosm.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t your god, Yahweh, heal amputees?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bob said: “Atheists don’t have much of a problem facing reality.”
SM said: “I’m sure they believe that about themselves.”
Well, it’s only the Christians who are wringing their hands about the impossible-to-accept characteristics of atheism.
“I’m sure the atheist believes that about God, but it fails to grasp all that God said about Himself and His creation.”
You really going to go with “You gotta believe my holy book”?
Bob: “You’ve got to explain why God’s perfect plan looks like the clusterf*** that is life on earth.”
SM: “That’s an impossible task to think that someone else must explain what originates only from your own imaginations.”
I rub your nose in the bizarre consequences of your religion. Don’t shoot the messenger.
“Like panspermia? Really?”
You don’t like panspermia? Cool, perhaps I can help. First explain it, and then tell me what’s wrong with it.
Bob: “The atheist can easily explain evil in this world: st happens, and there is no god.”
SM: “That’s just pragmatism, which may be self-satisfying in its inability to grapple with reality, but it misses the mark entirely.”
How? St does happen, and wringing one’s hands about how unfair it is if justice isn’t served in this life, or how it you can squint to find a place for God makes no sense.
“Perhaps within your microcosm, but not out here in the macrocosm.”
Oh? Explain why evolution doesn’t work, backing it up with evidence from the consensus view of biology.
LikeLike
“Well, it’s only the Christians who are wringing their hands about the impossible-to-accept characteristics of atheism.”
Although this is proverbial, don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. You must have a very active imagination to think that any of us are wronging our hands over anything to do with the irrationality of atheism.
“You really going to go with “You gotta believe my holy book”?”
Nope. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that you believe in the impossible. Gary posted an article advising that atheists avoid the question for the origins of life, because that author knew good and well that the origins of life question is the one that they can’t brush aside with any formidable answers…other than to rely on the magic of time and chance, neither of which is a force capable of writing any functional combination of a 3.4 billion letter word we call DNA, RNA or anything else that is known by science to comprise the building blocks of life. So, the religion of atheism is not at all as intellectual as they would like to think.
“I rub your nose in the bizarre consequences of your religion. Don’t shoot the messenger.”
The only nose rubbing I see going on is atheists rubbing their own noses in the quagmire of trying to blame God for babies starving. Mankind has the ability to keep that from happening. Instead, mankind is to blame for it, and atheists think it reasonable and logical to try and cast that blame on God? That’s nothing but blame shifting that simply doesn’t work! That like the punk kids blaming everyone for the life choices THEY made for themselves, and them blame the neighbor for the outcomes of poor decision-making on their own part!
Come on! You people can do better than that! Stop pretending everyone else is so stupid to believe your sniveling about God allegedly being the culprit for what mankind does on his own to one another!
“You don’t like panspermia? Cool, perhaps I can help. First explain it, and then tell me what’s wrong with it.”
HAH! You don’t even know what that stupid theory is? Wow. What a hoot! If you’re so intellectual, then you should already know its prime weakness, in that dare we do digression in that framework, it falls apart miserably because it still leaves wide open the origins of life question that atheists love to try and do the shuck and jive dance to try and avoid!
“How? St does happen, and wringing one’s hands about how unfair it is if justice isn’t served in this life, or how it you can squint to find a place for God makes no sense.”
You can dance to that tune all you want, thinking that we’re wring our hands over anything. That may appease your own indifference to reality, but suffice it to say that we are content in what we know, and that will prove out in the end.
“Oh? Explain why evolution doesn’t work, backing it up with evidence from the consensus view of biology.”
If you knew anything about logic, then you would know that demanding others prove a negative is a fundamental fallacy. Nobody has yet proven that evolution works at all. That idiot Dawkins tried to claim that because there is a law of gravity, and everything had to have come about on its own, and therefore creation creating itself! Wow! Never mind that he never substantiated that claim, just thinking about it gives one a headache trying to ever see how that mechanism is even possible to bring itself about, much more that it could create everything from nothing!
Nice try, gramps. You don’t seem to have made your case, but that’s ok. It was flawed from its inception, so there really isn’t anything for me to defend against. You do indeed fancy yourself having surmised that any of us are wringing our hands over anything you have claimed. Please, stop impressing yourself. I beg you. It’s too comical. I don’t like going to this level of debate, but you simply haven’t said a credible thing in relation to our position, other than to assume wringing of hands. We’re quite content, just as you are content. That’s contentment.
LikeLike
“You have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that you believe in the impossible.”
[Argument needed here]
“Gary posted an article advising that atheists avoid the question for the origins of life, because that author knew good and well that the origins of life question is the one that they can’t brush aside with any formidable answers”
I’m an atheist. Abiogenesis is a question in the area of biology. I have no obligation to have an explanation for abiogenesis or indeed any of the many other unanswered questions within science. Surely your argument isn’t “Science has unanswered questions; therefore my own particular supernatural beliefs must be true.”
“the magic of time and chance, neither of which is a force capable of writing any functional combination of a 3.4 billion letter word we call DNA”
I already responded to this with a link to an article in my blog. It spanks the Design Argument thoroughly. Don’t bring up how marvelous DNA is without responding to that article, please.
“The only nose rubbing I see going on is atheists rubbing their own noses in the quagmire of trying to blame God for babies starving.”
I agree—crazy, right? A loving God and babies starving … it’s contradictory nonsense! The simple response here is to stop trying to shoehorn the God hypothesis into problems it can’t answer.
“Mankind has the ability to keep that from happening.”
Well, yes and no. Mankind can do an imperfect job, but I think I see what you’re saying. You’re right that if anything can fix the world’s problems it’s human society. God sure as heck ain’t doing anything about them.
“Instead, mankind is to blame for it, and atheists think it reasonable and logical to try and cast that blame on God?”
No, that’s not what’s happening. Atheists simply point out the flaws in Christian arguments. In so doing, they may assume a Christian claim, take it for a test drive, and see where that takes them. (Spoiler: it takes them over a cliff.)
“That’s nothing but blame shifting that simply doesn’t work! That like the punk kids blaming everyone for the life choices THEY made for themselves, and them blame the neighbor for the outcomes of poor decision-making on their own part!”
You say that there’s no God to fix our problems but that we have to? Amen to that.
Bob: “You don’t like panspermia? Cool, perhaps I can help. First explain it, and then tell me what’s wrong with it.”
MJ: “HAH! You don’t even know what that stupid theory is? Wow. What a hoot!”
I know very well what panspermia is. I’m just wondering if you do. That’s why I insisted that you explain it yourself first. That way, I can point out your errors first. That usually answers Christians’ incredulity at scientific hypotheses.
“If you’re so intellectual, then you should already know its prime weakness, in that dare we do digression in that framework, it falls apart miserably because it still leaves wide open the origins of life question that atheists love to try and do the shuck and jive dance to try and avoid!”
Less bravado, please, and more clear explanations. I can help with your misunderstandings, but first you need to clearly explain panspermia as you understand it and then make clear the problems as you understand them.
If your point is that “panspermia says that life on earth came from some other planet; therefore, we’ve answered abiogenesis” is stupid, I agree. No one says that … except you lot. That’s why I want to see you explanation first.
“Nobody has yet proven that evolution works at all.”
I agree. Science doesn’t do proof—you’re thinking of math or logic.
“That idiot Dawkins tried to claim that because there is a law of gravity, and everything had to have come about on its own, and therefore creation creating itself! Wow!”
You don’t like Dawkins. Uh, OK. Now explain why life is the way it is. (Listing problems you lifted from Answers in Genesis isn’t helpful. It’s best to skip why you think evolution is wrong; instead, identify and explain the theory you think is right.)
“It was flawed from its inception, so there really isn’t anything for me to defend against.”
Evolution is the consensus view of those qualified to have a view. That’s enough for me. If you insist on an explanation for evolution, I applaud your determination. Get a textbook on evolution.
LikeLike
(adding a couple of thoughts to the Gary conversation)
“The atheist is still stuck trying to figure out how nature allegedly brought about the complexities in such things as the 3.4 billion letter word that is our DNA, and how it all came about by mere chance.”
You’re adorable when you wrestle with things you don’t understand. But here’s a tip: if you want to be taken seriously, you need to understand the domain.
No, evolution isn’t “mere chance.”
Evolution isn’t an atheist thing, it’s a science thing.
And no, neither the atheist nor the biologist are stuck. Evolution nicely explains why life is the way it is.
The Design Argument (“life looks designed”) fails. I explain why here:
https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/5-ways-the-design-argument-fails-creationism-bible-christianity/#:~:text=How%20do%20we%20attack%20the%20Design%20Argument%3F
“Look at just the word “prayer.” In any six letter word, there are 191,102,976 possible combinations to reach that one, correct spelling of that word”
Which is analogous to nothing interesting within evolution. Again: learn about evolution from a biologist, not Answers in Genesis or some other biased source.
LikeLike
Impressive looking links to articles that do nothing but try to side-step the life origins questions with non-provable criteria doesn’t bolster your case. The fact that YOU can’t defend what you believe with a rational explanation, that speaks loud volumes to the weaknesses in your position.
LikeLike
“Impressive looking links to articles”
Just to be clear, I wasn’t assigning homework by tossing out a random article I like but rather giving you an article I wrote that responds to DNA and the Design Argument.
“that do nothing but try to side-step the life origins”
Uh … that article doesn’t side-step abiogenesis; it ignores it completely. Read it. It responds to the claim that DNA alone is so marvelous that it shows that life must’ve had a supernatural origin. Fact is, DNA alone defeats the Design Argument.
Maybe you should explain abiogenesis as you understand it. That might ensure we’re all on the same page.
LikeLike
“Fact is, DNA alone defeats the Design Argument.”
Ok, I’m all ears, so to speak.
LikeLike
Bob: “Fact is, DNA alone defeats the Design Argument.”
SM: “Ok, I’m all ears, so to speak.”
I told you that I already gave it to you.
https://onlysky.media/bseidensticker/5-ways-the-design-argument-fails-creationism-bible-christianity/#:~:text=How%20do%20we%20attack%20the%20Design%20Argument%3F
LikeLike
The ” DNA has junk” argument has been through the ringer, and is still a matter of debate among some, and the atheistic gang will not let it go until it runs its course, just like the historic belief that the appendix being a useless organ left over from evolution. Another wet-behind-the-ears argument that has been debunked.
Got anything else of merit? You still have not explained how a 3.4 billion letter word can possibly come about by mere chance. You can[t have a cell without DNA, and vice versa, so that article is of no real value when given the logical conclusions.
Got anything else? Is that it? I mean, that article may seem lie the whole world to you, but it doesn’t have much of any substance that leads to the conclusion you so desire.
LikeLike
“Got anything else of merit?”
I do—you can respond to my debunking of the Design Argument, which includes the “DNA has junk” argument.
Oh, hold on—you’ve already dodged that one several times, without admitting that you have nothing in response.
So, no, I don’t have anything else. I just have the one argument that you keep running away from. It’s still standing.
“You still have not explained how a 3.4 billion letter word can possibly come about by mere chance.”
You’re right. I don’t have any argument that says that DNA comes about by chance. Once you can clearly state an argument that evolution does make, then you can try your luck making an argument against it. But right now, you’ve got nothing’. Again.
LikeLike
Well, I would say that Cristina Sisu, at Burnel University, London, knows FAR more about that so-called “junk” DNA than you or any of your cohorts. So, on that basis I had already answered your inquiry by pointing out that it rests only upon the strength of the unknown, and no more.
You see, I wanted to avoid the fallacy of appeals to authority, but since you appear to be fixated on that, here is what was stated in a more balanced article that at least calls into question assumptions on BOTH sides of the issue:
“Slowly, slowly, slowly, the terminology of ‘junk DNA’ [has] started to die,” said Cristina Sisu, a geneticist at Brunel University London.
Scientists casually referred to “junk DNA” as far back as the 1960s, but they took up the term more formally in 1972, when the geneticist and evolutionary biologist Susumu Ohno used it to argue that large genomes would inevitably harbor sequences, passively accumulated over many millennia, that did not encode any proteins. Soon thereafter, researchers acquired hard evidence of how plentiful this junk is in genomes, how varied its origins are, and how much of it is transcribed into RNA despite lacking the blueprints for proteins.
Technological advances in sequencing, particularly in the past two decades, have done a lot to shift how scientists think about noncoding DNA and RNA, Sisu said. Although these noncoding sequences don’t carry protein information, they are sometimes shaped by evolution to different ends. As a result, the functions of the various classes of “junk” — insofar as they have functions — are getting clearer.”
So, if your argument had some substance to it rather than to rely so heavily on the weaknesses in current understanding and the low volume of understanding that still surrounds DNA coding and about the human genome, et al, then perhaps there would be SOME concessions to your viewpoint, but as it is, you’re relying on armchair expertise, which is like saying that it ahs to be true since it was on the internet. When I go into the science journal knowledge base, what I have read thus far about the alleged “junk DNA” seems to align with that article at the following site:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-complex-truth-about-junk-dna-20210901/
Just putting you on notice that I’m not relying only on one article, but on a host of journal articles that exist that call into the question the initial beliefs about DNA dating back to the 60’s. There are still many pier reviews to be performed through this quagmire of sophistication, but at least I see the weak foundations that undergird your arguments from the perspective your armchair experts.
LikeLike
“I had already answered your inquiry by pointing out that it rests only upon the strength of the unknown, and no more.”
<sigh> There are four parts to my argument in the article I pointed you to. Please respond to each.
“I wanted to avoid the fallacy of appeals to authority”
And yet you just pointed to Dr. Sisu, who you cite as an authority. If I used an appeal to authority, you’ll have to point it out. I missed it.
“the functions of the various classes of “junk” — insofar as they have functions — are getting clearer.”
If you have responses to the four parts of my argument, you’d probably present them. I see nothing beyond a “Well, let’s not get hasty about dismissing as irrelevant certain parts of DNA!”, which I agree with.
LikeLike
I appealed to that article with stated reluctance. Why, then, try to pull this switch-around on me? Trying to turn the table is clearly a tactic. Come on! There is nothing of any real substance in your article to address. How does one address non-substantive claims to which any real address can be made? My initial inquiries to you also went unanswered, only with you then pointing me to that article, as if I should try to argue your inferior points with something that would be a rebuttal of almost nothing substantive?
In case you missed the point, I still do not want to continue with appeals to authority because I cannot give to you the user name and password account access to get you that access to the journal database that some of these armchair experts of yours may at times access, and others not.
You believe what you believe, and I’m content with that. You can call it “science” if you want. That’s fine. Pretending as though you and your buddies are not approaching all this with your own bias, looking for what seems to fit the bill of the result you want, no thanks. I’ve read journals on this stuff with an eye toward reading them for what they say, and letting it all lead me where it will, and what I have seen thus far contradicts your thesis. Nuff said for that, unless you can answer my initial inquiries in language that everyone here can understand without being obscene and foul. That only is a low intelligence approach to any conversation, and I would hope that you are above that.
LikeLike
Pretending as though you and your buddies are not approaching all this with your own bias, looking for what seems to fit the bill of the result you want …
Isn’t this what everyone does?? Do you think you’re exempt?
LikeLike
I am indeed exempt! You really do like spouting offensive jargon as if others are at your level of bias or lower yet. As a scientist, I look at the research, the results, and what passes through pier review. Therein is why I call into question YOUR claims of “consensus.” Heck, if we blindly give in to claims of “consensus” every time someone throws that out there as a battering ram to silence all others who DARE to oppose their ideologies, it would be a free-for-all battle field with everyone shooting even those of their own camp! It would be chaos!
Suffice it to say that your IF your f-bomb claim to “consensus” were legit, then we would have something to discuss. I’m not here to take away anyone’s right to use that battering ram, even illegitimately as you have done, but at least I can tell you that it doesn’t work with me because I know that it’s an argument from silence because there is NO consensus in the direction you would like to believe it exists on this topic.
LikeLike
“if we blindly give in to claims of “consensus” every time someone throws that out there as a battering ram to silence all others who DARE to oppose their ideologies …”
I realize you were arguing with someone else, but speaking just for myself: the idea of scientific consensus isn’t to silence the debate. It’s simply to say that there are those scientists qualified to have an opinion in a field that is counted toward a consensus and people like me who are outsiders to that field. No one tallies my opinion for the consensus. I have the humility to always accept the scientific consensus (where there is one) as the best provisional statement we have so far of the truth.
That said, I don’t think the scientific consensus entered into our debate much.
LikeLike
There is “consensus” among all those who believe the earth is flat. Not at all a remarkable claim, but there are those who make it. Atheistic geneticists have a consensus among themselves that it all happened by chance, although they can’t point to any other mechanisms as the means by which the complexities came about from non-order. Again, VERY unremarkable, especially given that time and chance are not forces by which the massive amount of data necessary for life can arise, nor from which the energy and data can be injected.
Dawkins, being the moron that he is, when he posited the idea that because there is a law of gravity, the universe HAD to have created itself from nothing. Once we get past all the brain farts over that one, we’re left with trying to harmonize that fantasy with reality, and it only elicits more brain farts…
LikeLike
“Atheistic geneticists …”
What does atheism have to do with anything?
“Atheistic geneticists have a consensus among themselves that it all happened by chance”
Wrong. Again.
I get a little frustrated going over the same ground. You have your conclusion, and you have no interest in facts or ideas that would take you from that—is that right? Sounds like I’m wasting my time, and any new information I’d be offering you, you’d ignore–is that right?
“Dawkins, being the moron that he is, when he posited the idea that because there is a law of gravity, the universe HAD to have created itself from nothing.”
Citation needed. I doubt Dawkins said this.
Seems like your argument is, “Wow, this sounds crazy to me, so therefore the person who said it was a moron.” If there’s more substance to it than this, show us.
LikeLike
“offensive jargon”??? I asked two questions. Neither one included any kind of offensive language. If you felt what I wrote was “offensive,” that’s on you.
In every disagreement, there are two sides — and BOTH sides have biases. To deny that is ill-conceived (foolish) because at the core of ANY disagreement is the fact that each person sees things from different perspectives.
LikeLike
“Why, then, try to pull this switch-around on me? Trying to turn the table is clearly a tactic.”
I offered a thorough rebuttal to the Design Argument. There’s no point in moving on until you respond to that.
“In case you missed the point, I still do not want to continue with appeals to authority”
Who’s making an appeal to authority fallacy? If it’s me, show your work.
“Pretending as though you and your buddies are not approaching all this with your own bias, looking for what seems to fit the bill of the result you want, no thanks.”
I’m biased, you’re biased, we’re all biased, no problem … is that your point? Again, show me that I’m biased.
I do indeed think that you’ve got a conclusion you like, and you’re simply rearranging arguments so you can keep holding it.
“what I have seen thus far contradicts your thesis”
Cool. I’m eager to hear your rebuttal. I’ll know you’re making an honest attempt when I see the point-by-point rebuttal. Tip: if I don’t see a list with 4 items, I’ll know you’re again trying to ignore my argument.
LikeLike
Pro tip: don’t go to Christian Creationist sites for arguments against evolution. They’re lying liars who don’t have truth as their agenda, and they make you look like a fool when you simply parrot their arguments. Go to a science-based site to find the science-based argument.
And, to some extent, this is a science-based site. The author and commenters don’t need doctorates in biology or other relevant fields to have a solid foundation from which to speak. Have a little humility. We often understand the science-based arguments and would be happy to explain them to you.
LikeLike
“Pro tip: don’t go to Christian Creationist sites for arguments against evolution. They’re lying liars who don’t have truth as their agenda, and they make you look like a fool when you simply parrot their arguments. Go to a science-based site to find the science-based argument.
And, to some extent, this is a science-based site. The author and commenters don’t need doctorates in biology or other relevant fields to have a solid foundation from which to speak. Have a little humility. We often understand the science-based arguments and would be happy to explain them to you.”
That is some tip! Wow, one side calling the other side “liars.” How novel is that…?
Please, let’s spare each other the antic games, shall. we, and with appeals to authority? That’s like saying, “MY dad can beat up YOUR dad!” My reliance has been steeped moreso in secular journals in that field of study from people who DO have PhD’s, so you can also spare me the suggestion that I rely on lower level people who don’t do the research at the level of those who ARE classified as the resident experts WITH PhD’s!
LikeLike
“Please, let’s spare each other the antic games, shall. we, and with appeals to authority?”
Yet again, you don’t understand the bigly words you’re using. Look up the “appeal to authority fallacy” before you use it again. If I cite anything as an authority, it’s the scientific consensus.
Frankly, I’m feeling a bit foolish at the moment. I tried a peace offering to help you understand the science behind the ideas you bring up, but of course you crapped on that idea. My bad! I guess this conversation won’t rise much above schoolyard taunts.
LikeLike
Do you REALLY know what consensus is? There is NO consensus behind the “junk DNA ” argument. That is NOT science. It’s just a blind claim that has no other extravagance to it other than to make one fell good about what is utterly false! I am convinced of that because of my having read actual SCIENCE journals. Making false claims of consensus is not at all impressive. They honestly admit that there is much more work to be done, where you, on the other hand, have settled on what seems to make your case plausible, and then call that SCIENCE? Come on! You’re not talking to a blithering idiot who sits around dreaming up things that seem credible to his personal presuppositions!
I don’t see any reason to continue this back-n-forth bantering. I understand your position better than you realize, but I’m just not buying it, and that analysis has the basis of admissions from top level scientists in the field. What more can be said?
LikeLike
“There is NO consensus behind the “junk DNA ” argument.”
Is there consensus that the DNA that codes for atavisms (legs on a snake or a tail on a human, for example) is not part of the DNA that codes for the basic body plan?
Is there consensus that the DNA of the Amoeba dubia (which is 200 times more than that in a human) is not all necessary for the amoeba’s basic body plan?
“They honestly admit that there is much more work to be done”
You’re saying that biologists have much to learn about the value and purpose of some seemingly useless sections of animal DNA? Yes, I agree. (What’s that—the **third** time I’ve agreed with this point?)
LikeLike
Biologists are not geneticists. They are not origin of life experts. Yes, it’s true that there are those out there who poopoo abiogenesis, but they are not experts in every field that is relevant to the overall understanding, and they too bring to the table their own bias.
LikeLike
The topic is not abiogenesis. The topic is why one version of the Design Argument (“DNA alone defeats evolution!”) fails.
You have nothing to offer in this discussion–is that right? If so, just make that public, and we can set this argument aside.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is no expert consensus on the origin of the universe, therefore it is entirely possible that a supernatural being used supernatural powers to create the universe. The big question is: who was this supernatural creator? Do you have any solid, irrefutable evidence that the creator was your god, Jesus of Nazareth?
LikeLike
Creationists like yourself seem unable to view periods of time longer than your own attention span. Atheists are not claiming that DNA developed overnight. Scientists estimate it took hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionary change takes time, usually A LOT of time. But not every evolutionary change takes millions of years. The fact is, I can demonstrate the process of evolution with one easy example: dog breeding.
Scientists believe that dog breeding began about 20-30 thousand years ago. We started with a wolf and ended up with a Chihuahua (and a lot of other dog breeds). Dog breeding proves that evolution does occur.
Your logic is faulty, Swordman. Let’s look at your above statement, remove the concept of DNA and replace it with the concept of dog breeding:
“The atheist is still stuck trying to figure out how nature allegedly brought about the complexities in such things as the huge variation in the size of dogs. How does one get a tea cup Chihuahua from a huge wolf, as science claims? Did a female wolf pop out a litter of wolf pups one day and one of them was a Chihuahua???”
So how did we go from a wolf to a teacup Chihuahua?
Answer: Human selection. Humans selected the traits they wanted and bred dogs who had those traits to have offspring with those traits. For example, the first “pet” wolf gave birth to a litter of wolf pups. The owner of the pet wolf liked the smallest of the pups and those that were all white in color. A year later, he bred two of these smaller, white pups to create a litter of small, white pups. Human selection, not chance!
Mother Nature also “selects”. The members of a bug species which are brown with black spots living in a pine forest are going to have a much better chance of surviving and passing on their genetic material than members of their species which are white. The white bugs are easier for birds and other predators to detect (and eat) when resting on the brown trunk of a pine tree, whereas their brown and black bug brothers and sisters are camouflaged. That is how Mother Nature “selects”. No one is taking a box of tickets, shaking the box, and then blindly drawing out a ticket. That is chance. Evolution is the process of organisms evolving traits, habits, colors, and other physical features which help them survive long enough to pass on their genetic material. It has very little to do with chance. Small changes can evolve over short periods of time. Large changes usually take a lot of time, often hundreds of millions of years.
LikeLike
“not every evolutionary change takes millions of years”
My favorite example is nylon-eating bacteria. The Creationist has the tough job of claiming that this bacteria makes nyonase (nylon-eating enzyme) all along. Evolution explains it much better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your so called “gOD” in the Bible killed 2,476,633 people (IF You believe what that book called THE BIBLE says) while Satan killed 10…..NOT including the DEICIDE of the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah. I AM a Bible Scholar and I GUESS you certainly ARE NOT. So…….WHY do you stick up for a 2 faced LYING murderer……..google YAHWEH IS YALDABAOTH. Who is really ENLIL.
LikeLike
I guess your God could be being scapegoated if it wasn’t for the fact, his Son, your Savior, tells us he cares for human beings more than he does sparrows (which is, admittedly, not much at all), that he is concerned to the extent that he numbers each and every hair on individuals’ heads (Matthew 10:29-30). This must be before he allows so many of them to die of starvation and in natural disasters.
The evidence is that God does not care. He doesn’t care if you’re a child born into poverty who then dies a slow, miserable, painful death through malnutrition. He doesn’t care if you’re caught up in a natural disaster like the recent earthquake in Turkey (which, according to some Christian nutjob, was God’s response to Sam Smith’s performance at the Grammies) in which your entire community and you yourself are wiped out. He doesn’t care if you die of a nasty virus, which ultimately he’s responsible for, as millions, including Christians, did during the pandemic. He doesn’t care that you die, when or how horribly. He – just – doesn’t – care, period.
Jesus, as he was about so much, was plain wrong about his Father’s caring. The real world does not and will not match up with this early Christian fantasy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With great power comes great responsibility, yet in their apparently infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent wisdom, God could not conceive of a world where children do not die in huge numbers from hunger every day?
It’s not a cop-out to point out how this is horrendously flawed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you saying that human evil prevents God from doing simple provision? Their suffering is never ἄνευ God. God must actively deny his providence to starve them. Nothing else can stop God except God, from feeding his children. Nothing. That’s the point of the verse. God is claiming control, and has full control. If human evil stops God, then he isn’t God.
LikeLike
This was a reply the wrong comment.
LikeLike
Oron61 said this “Are you saying that human evil prevents God from doing simple provision? Their suffering is never ἄνευ God. God must actively deny his providence to starve them. Nothing else can stop God except God, from feeding his children. Nothing. That’s the point of the verse. God is claiming control, and has full control. If human evil stops God, then he isn’t God.'”
No. Human evil is the prime REASON those kids are starving. Humanists are always quick to try and lay the blame at the feet of God for the evils that mankind creates! The claim that mankind is basically good, that’s yet another humanistic invention, because the leaders in those countries are very aware of the problem, and they don’t see it as their responsibility to DO something about it!
What country is populated by suffering humanity that doesn’t have a government overseeing it all? There are humanitarian organizations all over the world seeking to help, and when their food and water is stolen by that country’s government for its own troops and government officials, blaming God is nothing but an exercise in futility.
LikeLike
If God is all-powerful, they can snap their fingers and end world hunger in an instant, along with creating conditions for paradise on earth. They are meant to be omnipotent, yet cannot figure out how to do this?
LikeLiked by 2 people
They/he doesn’t want to end world hunger (17,000 children less than 5 years old die of starvation every day) because he is punishing us for our ancient ancestors’ forbidden fruit eating.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary said: They/he doesn’t want to end world hunger (17,000 children less than 5 years old die of starvation every day) because he is punishing us for our ancient ancestors’ forbidden fruit eating.
Do you have an actual question, because that’s not a real question, but rather an accusation more than it’s a question, and it’s leading!?!
LikeLike
I wasn’t speaking to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary quipped: I wasn’t speaking to you.
Well, Gary, I understand your not wanting to let me into the conversation when the fallacies are pointed out in your questions and answers. That’s one way to avoid discomforts.
LikeLike
You are more than welcome to join the conversation. I am responding to your accusation that I did not ask you a question but made a statement. I wasn’t speaking to you!
LikeLike
Gary stated: You are more than welcome to join the conversation. I am responding to your accusation that I did not ask you a question but made a statement. I wasn’t speaking to you!
I was speaking generally about your question being more of an accusation and also leading rather then it being just a question. Doesn’t matter to whom it was directed. The fallacies were evident for all to see. That’s all I was pointing out.
LikeLike
LMFAO….Your gOD murders, in the worst way, kids for what YOUR ancestor did thousands of years ago? YOU ARE DELUSIONAL…..BTW….Your name GARY means HE WHO CARRIES A SPEAR……
LikeLike
swordman said: “Human evil is the prime REASON those kids are starving.”
And then there’s “natural” evil—cancer, tsunamis, drought, and so on. Is it OK to blame God for this?
“Humanists are always quick to try and lay the blame at the feet of God for the evils that mankind creates!”
Sure, mankind is pretty flawed. Whose fault is that?
“The claim that mankind is basically good, that’s yet another humanistic invention, because the leaders in those countries are very aware of the problem, and they don’t see it as their responsibility to DO something about it!”
Pick a problem in society: lack of jobs, lack of clean water, drugs, etc., etc. I agree that humanity needs to do more, that our track record is mixed. But that’s a heckuva lot more than God has ever done!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Human evil is not a prime reason, unless human evil is prime over God’s idleness. We who are created sinners, are not to be expected to suddenly stop being sinners and become perfect in logistics, expecially if God’s own can’t do it either. If the church cannot cure the famines that the bible EXPLICITLY says are acts of God, how could the not-church be blamed for your failure to do something you won’t do? Mankind does not create evil; mankind is created evil, by your god, every generation, and his church has utterly failed to cure it in 2000 years. If God did not will it, it would not happen. Standing by idly while someone is being harmed is against the Law (Leviticus 19:16). Idly watching a baby die of exposure is evil. The easier it is to care for the baby, the more evil it is to idly watch. For God, it is infinitely easy. Even pagans understand simple decency of this sort. How low you hold God’s character that he cannot match his own standards, nor heal the lame and the blind as he did before, thag we, whom he created sinners from the womb, are kinder than he!
LikeLike
Excellent!
LikeLike
Out of sight … out of mind.
Oh, and it’s sooo much easier to blame “evil man” rather than admit that “God” is nothing more than a pleasant diversion to the actual atrocities of life.
LikeLike
Man IS evil. Blaming God is a cop-out, especially for those who claim He doesn’t exist. If you think he isn’t then tell that to the home invader after he breaks through your front door when you’re asleep, and has a knife at your throat. Are you then going to tell him, “Oh. You’re such a nice and good human being…” Be sure and clean yourself up before coming back to tell me all about what wonderful people they all are.
LikeLike
Would you be willing to give up your free will, Jr., if it meant saving the lives of 10,000 starving children each and every day?
LikeLike
The reason I ask is that I would bet that most decent people would give up their free will if it prevented 10,000 children from dying of starvation each and every day. And if that is true, then we have to ask, why is your god so insistent on human beings having a free will?
LikeLike
Give up their freedom? Really, Gary? Well, it would be interesting if that were even possible, but given that it isn’t, you remain free to make you own choices. You have no idea what it would be like to trade away your freedom for a world of your own making, thinking that you have the higher road of understanding on how to formulate a perfect world. Your ideal of a utopia would be an even more horrid world to live within. You can assume a superiority in your ideals, but blessedly, they will only remain your ideals. Forcing your sense of good on all others isn’t a utopia at all, no matter how many people are dying. I would venture to say that your utopia would be an existence that not even you would enjoy for any lasting amount of time.
LikeLike
Nope. Giving up free will isn’t a legitimate trade-off or saving lives. Your view of death and suffering is totally bereft of any depth of understanding. Those who have no hope for living on after this life are the ones who clamor endlessly about the horrors of death and suffering. That’s just your lot. You won’t accept anything else, so it really matters not one bit to wrestle this topic in such an atmosphere of stoic indifference to a more holistic vantagepoint.
LikeLike
You are not thinking rationally.
LikeLike
Gary, and you think YOU are the rational one here? Is that all you have in your arsenal? Just generalized and empty accusation?
Think about what you’re saying! YOU sound like you’re willing to take away the freedoms of BILLIONS of other people to save a few thousand? Who made you God?
Dude, you appear to have no clue how to rationalize to the logical conclusions of what you’re positing. For you to think that YOU are qualified to determine the right and wrong of deaths at the expense of freedom to billions of other people is a level of arrogance that’s almost unfathomable!
LikeLike
God as a champion of free will? Tell that to the victim of rape or murder whose free will was violated.
But, hey–the rapist and murderer didn’t have their free will violated, so it’s all good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then we should have a system that punishes and puts to death those who rape others, and THEN there would far fewer of them. The false claim that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime, that’s just pure BS!
LikeLike
Completely off topic. I take it then that you have no response to my comment, “God as a champion of free will? Tell that to the victim of rape or murder whose free will was violated.”
LikeLike
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all humans are evil. That is a fallback statement to the fairy tale put forth in that ancient book that so many seem to believe is true. However, I do think humans are essentially self-centered — and those that provide help and assistance to the out-of-sight/out-of-mind communities are a rare breed.
While I acknowledge that some of the fairy-tale believers fall into this group, I do not believe it is a qualifier.
LikeLike
Swordman: “Man IS evil. Blaming God is a cop-out”
I’m amazed at how many Christians are quick to say that God’s greatest creation is actually crap. You worship your savior with that mouth?
But if it’s crap, I think we should figure out where they came from and blame that.
LikeLike
Your attempt at recrafting my words to try and twist them back upon me is a wasted effort, and it’s intellectually dishonest.
LikeLike
Then correct me. Show your original statement, then show what it meant, then show where I got confused.
LikeLike
You need only go back and read them.
LikeLike
I gave a simple path by which you could show the correct interpretation of what you said, and you couldn’t do it. I guess it confused us both.
LikeLike
Trying to have a rational conversation with “Jr.” is like trying to catch a greased pig, Bob.
LikeLike
I’m figuring that out! Thanks for the confirmation. I’ll reset my expectations.
It is surprising though that people like that stick around.
LikeLike
I’m sure he feels it is his duty to defend Jesus from the attacks of hell-bound atheistic sinners like you and me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
The created complaining about how the Creator runs things….in a blog….instead of being focused on feeding the hungry…not at all a surprise in today’s world!
LikeLike
Hi Emmet. If your god is the creator, you are correct, he can do whatever he wants and establish whatever rules he wants. But that doesn’t mean we can’t label him as cruel and heartless for not preventing 10,000 little children from starving to death each and every day.
What evidence do you have that your god, Yahweh/Jesus the Christ, is our creator, Emmet?
LikeLike
Labels only stick when they are true, Gary. Your subjective set of rules for measuring Deity is meaningless since you don’t have the perspective of Deity. You remain just another complainer against a God who refuses to be subject to His subjects.
LikeLike
Swordman: the ball’s in your court. It’s not the skeptic’s obligation to prove that God doesn’t exist but the believer’s obligation to show that he does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You REALLY need to get a grip on what was actually said. I never said the skeptic must accept the existence of God. That’s in individual journey. Interestingly, not one skeptic can show how nature ever had the ability to form molecules into the one and only combination, out of a set of combinations at the magnitude of 1X10^79 billionth. Do you know how big a number that is. By comparison, you should win the lottery at least 1X10^79,000.
In case you are mathematically challenged, the universe, as we know it right now, can hold 1X10^128 electrons…the smallest known atom with a quantified mass.
LikeLike
“you should win the lottery at least 1X10^79,000.”
Are you saying that the odds of any given Powerball (say) ticket has a chance of winning of 1 in 10^79000? You need to try again.
LikeLike
I figured you were mathematically challenged. That’s very typical of most in modern culture. Nothing to be ashamed about. That’s the fault of failed public schools.
LikeLike
In other words, you don’t know what the heck you were talking about either. Gotcha.
LikeLike
Your prideful retorts are wasted. You don’t understand the math of magnitudes, and so you remain clueless.
LikeLike
Yeah, that must be it. What a shame that I don’t have someone to teach it to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can always go to the library and educate yourself, or go to school. That’s what it takes to learn something like math. Most people prefer their gaming and palm gods (also known as cell phones) rather than to better themselves through educating themselves to eradicate their ignorance.
LikeLike
Speaking about educating oneself: From which university did you graduate, Jr.?
LikeLike
Huh? What’s the relevance of 10^79000000000?
“I never said the skeptic must accept the existence of God.”
And I never said you did. Maybe read more slowlier, for comprehension? I said that “it’s not the skeptic’s obligation to prove that God doesn’t exist.”
LikeLike
For now satwn
LikeLike
i made a misspelled sorry for now Satan has contrip
LikeLike
i am sorry having trouble sayan
LikeLike
what I am trying to say is for whennow Satan has control of the world God gave Adam and eve control when they sinned control went over to satan
LikeLike
Read Job chapter 1. It makes clear that Satan works for God.
LikeLike