Okay, Steve, how 'bout you stop toying with me and just give me "the hardest of [your] questions" and I'll get around to it when I get the chance. I've got a lot of other stuff going on right now and I'm pretty stressed, so I'd like to speed this process up a little bit. You've obviously got a specific issue in mind that you're wanting to bring up, so go for it. By the way, I'd like to transfer these conversations to my blog as much as possible (your creationist bashing, Ray Comfort ridicule, and insulting descriptions of God on your blog tend to stress me out).You just don't know how to have fun. Ray "Bashes" us every day on his blog, but we can't return the favor? According to the Geneva Convention, that violates the rules of engagement.
OK, so here's my hardest question:
Why does God maul children with bears?
For example, why did God kill 42 children for saying to Elisha to "Go on up baldhead"?
He could have just spanked them, but mauling them with bears was somehow necessary.
So tell me, why does God kill children like that?
If you can somehow convince me that mauling children with bears is justified, then I will become a Christian, I give you my word.
PS. I'm going to do like Jesus said, sell all my possessions and follow Him if mauling children is justified. I'm waiting, with anticipation of the answer to this question...
10 comments:
I answered your question, Steve, now answer mine: How did matter originate from non-matter?
matthew,
Matter did not originate from non-matter. Also, this is not a good question, this is a ridicule statement.
You see? The problem is that you religious folk THINK you know everything because "it is written in the Bible." In other words, since you think the Bible is divine, you think you got the advantage of "true knowledge." While those of us, thinking beings, know we do not have all the answers, but we also know you do not have them either. You just have THE ILLUSION of having all the answers because of the books (the bible). That is no true answer, just a series of stories written with various purposes according to the times and whatever. But not true answers anyway. Humans wrote that.
You see? Even if we cannot answer anything, it does not mean you have true answers, you just have illusory ones. That makes you think we are at a disadvantage, but not so.
G.E.
The question was directed at Steve because he already told me that matter had a beginning. The rest of your comment is hateful rambling and isn't worthy of a response.
Matthew,
Regarding the origin of matter you stated;
"Since it is impossible to reach the end of an infinity, and we have clearly reached the current moment, time must have a beginning. I never insinuated that this proved anything about God (way to change the subject), merely that your theory about the origin of matter is faulty."
So if it doesn't prove anything about God, why is it important?
Because when I said it I assumed you had an alternative explanation in mind. I don't like to leave questions unanswered. Doesn't it bother you? Because it bothers me.
Okay, I'll tell you what: You don't have to give me a naturalistic explanation, just show me where there's room for a naturalistic explanation (without eternal regression or violation of thermodynamics, of course, as we've already established) and we'll call it good enough. It's less fun this way, and doesn't really answer the question, but if you can do that then I'll stop buggin' you with this question.
"I hate to say this, but you have failed my hardest question."
A better place to continue this debate would be for you to tell me when and where you have observed a non-naturalistic phenomenon.
It just doesn't happen as far as I know. There are certainly good hoaxes out there, but there isn't any good evidence that such things occur, so I am inclined to believe that the origin of matter has a naturalist explanation.
A better place for you, you mean... Steve, you claim the origin of matter is naturalistic, but I'm still waiting for you to show me where there is room for that.
The reason this argument doesn't "prove anything about God" is because there's a difference between the broad "supernatural" and the more specific "Goddidit", so if you're worried about being defaulted into Christianity, you can rest assured that isn't what's going on here. Show me how naturalism is possible in this case, that's all I'm asking for.
By the way, you wanted an example of unnatural phenomena. In my opinion the origin of matter was unnatural, and you don't seem to be offering any alternative.
The burden of proof is on you Matthew, not me. You are the one who proposes a violation of the observable laws.
Everything we see around us has a naturalistic explanation. Naturalism happens everyday, every second, of every time you open your eyes (and close your eyes for that matter). Why is it SOOO strange that it happened for this phenomenon as well? That's silly.
The burden of proof is on you my friend, since you propose something that has never been observed.
Allow me to make myself abundantly clear:
What I am proposing is that between the fallacy of eternal regression and the laws of thermodynamics, naturalism becomes impossible in the case of the origin of matter. The burden of proof WOULD lie with me if I had something to prove. But I don't. I have something to disprove, and I hypothesize that I have done so. I'm merely asking you to check my work. Show me the gap in my theory that allows room for naturalism to take the wheel, and then we can move on.
The ball's in your court.
Post a Comment