Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Ringtone]

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself. But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already. What supposed contradictions are you talking about? So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, yeah.

They're the gods, so yeah, they can be singular, plural, triune, whatever you want them to be... because you say so.

No, Hollie, the divinity of Christianity is not both singular and plural in being simultaneously.

 

[Hollie]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

Creationist
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “evolution just got harder to defend” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual problem for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “increasingly” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.

 

[Asclepias]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

Creationist
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “evolution just got harder to defend” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual problem for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “increasingly” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.

I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.

 

[Hollie]

Well, yeah.

They're the gods, so yeah, they can be singular, plural, triune, whatever you want them to be... because you say so.

No, Hollie, the divinity of Christianity cannot be both singular and plural in being simultaneously.

Ah. I should have known that "... because I say so" would be the explanation.

 

[Hollie]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

Creationist
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “evolution just got harder to defend” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual problem for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “increasingly” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.

I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.

I wouldn't be the one to tell you there is.

 

[Asclepias]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

Creationist
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “evolution just got harder to defend” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual problem for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “increasingly” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.

I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.

I wouldn't be the one to tell you there is.

I know. I was just agreeing with the title. The long winded explanation in the OP was of no interest to me.

 

[Ringtone]

I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.

Why is God's existence obvious?

 

[alang1216]

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself. But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already. What supposed contradictions are you talking about? So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.

Let's keep is simple:

• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?

 

[Ringtone]

Ah. I should have known that "... because I say so" would be the explanation.

No, Hollie, A = B is a contradiction, an obvious violation of the law of identity.

Hollie teaching English:

 

[Hollie]

Ah. I should have known that "... because I say so" would be the explanation.

No, Hollie, A = B is a contradiction, an obvious violation of the law of identity.

Hollie teaching English:

That's your typical sidestep, waffle, skedaddle.

Your silly cut and paste youtube videos don't hide your inability to respond with a coherent argument.

 

[Ringtone]

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself. But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already. What supposed contradictions are you talking about? So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.

Let's keep is simple:

• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?

Simple. Hermeneutics 101. All serious readers of the Bible have regarded this issue. Only the sloppiest hermeneutical treatment of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts.

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He specifies three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with them. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say that only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone. Mary Magdalene ran back from the tomb and told Peter and John that "[t]hey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him” (John 20:2).

Next.

 

[Ringtone]

Hollie teaching English:

That's your typical sidestep, waffle, skedaddle.

Your silly cut and paste youtube videos don't hide your inability to respond with a coherent argument.

The day you make a coherent argument will be the day when hell freezes over. You and Surda are kindred spirits in that regard. LOL!

 

[Hollie]

Hollie teaching English:

That's your typical sidestep, waffle, skedaddle.

Your silly cut and paste youtube videos don't hide your inability to respond with a coherent argument.

The day you make a coherent argument will be the day when hell freezes over. You and Surda are kindred spirits in that regard. LOL!

LOL!

Your responses are youtube videos. LOL!

 

[alang1216]

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself. But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already. What supposed contradictions are you talking about? So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.

Let's keep is simple:

• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?

Simple. Hermeneutics 101. All serious readers of the Bible have regarded this issue. Only the sloppiest hermeneutical treatment of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts.

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He specifies three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with them. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say that only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone. Mary Magdalene ran back from the tomb and told Peter and John that "[t]hey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him” (John 20:2).

Next.

Contradions are not an issue if you're willing to essentially rewrite the text. Below are additional contradictions but I'm sure you can rewrite those too so don't bother. You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.

The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three).

• What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
• Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
• Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
• Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
• Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
• Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.
• Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”
• Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course! She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew says that she did. But John and Luke make clear that she didn’t.
• Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.
• Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him? In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?
• Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
• Should the gospel be preached to everyone? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.” But hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5). Which is it?

 

[toobfreak]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?

You are under no obligation to think at all. So far, you're doing a great job at that. Ignorance must really be bliss--- I have no "versions" of "gods." There is only one true original cause.

 

[Hollie]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?

You are under no obligation to think at all. So far, you're doing a great job at that. Ignorance must really be bliss--- I have no "versions" of "gods." There is only one true original cause.

How convenient. I'm ignorant because I don't believe in your undemonstrated version of god. I suppose that makes you ignorant for not believing in all the other gods that have come along before your god.

How ignorant that makes you.

Your "... because I say so" claim to the "one true original cause", clashes with gods that have apparently existed before your god. To the back of the line you go.

 

[Ringtone]

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself. But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already. What supposed contradictions are you talking about? So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.

Let's keep is simple:

• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?

Simple. Hermeneutics 101. All serious readers of the Bible have regarded this issue. Only the sloppiest hermeneutical treatment of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts.

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He specifies three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with them. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say that only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone. Mary Magdalene ran back from the tomb and told Peter and John that "[t]hey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him” (John 20:2).

Next.

Contradions are not an issue if you're willing to essentially rewrite the text. Below are additional contradictions but I'm sure you can rewrite those too so don't bother. You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.

Occam's Razor, my ass. Erhman's hermeneutics incessantly confound the simple.

I didn't rewrite anything. What are you talking about? You read things into the biblical text that aren't there, more at, the one who apparently does the thinking for you reads things into the biblical text that aren't there. My refutation of your first "contradiction" stands and stays despite your refusal to read and think about the actual texts side-by-side for yourself.

There are no contradictions as Erhman alleges in the whole text as it stands today in the first place! I've read Erhman. I have always followed his reasoning, such as it is, just fine. His guff is not the stuff of rocket science. Indeed, his hermeneutics are childish. From his fallacious premise, he goes on to hypothesize that these nonexistent contradictions derive from later additions to the text.

Where do any of the accounts, including John's, say there were only so many? John's makes it clear that there were more than one! He only mentions one of them by name. Even Luke's doesn't tell us the precise number.

Your contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

Erhman is clearly wrong in this instance. What else is he wrong about?

You think I can't refute his guff point by point? LOL! Demagogues like Erhman pray on the ignorance of folks like you.

 

[Asclepias]

I was saying absolutely to the title. I dont need someone else to tell me that there is obviously a creator.

Why is God's existence obvious?

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

 

[toobfreak]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?

You are under no obligation to think at all. So far, you're doing a great job at that. Ignorance must really be bliss--- I have no "versions" of "gods." There is only one true original cause.

How convenient. I'm ignorant because I don't believe in your undemonstrated version of god. I suppose that makes you ignorant for not believing in all the other gods that have come along before your god.

How ignorant that makes you.

Your "... because I say so" claim to the "one true original cause", clashes with gods that have apparently existed before your god. To the back of the line you go.

Look you stupid bitch, you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, you can't even fucking read and now put words in my mouth for things I never said then condemn me for it with 6th grade antics. Do yourself a favor and STFU. Pick some topic you can actually talk about with some authority. You've said nothing here but to ask OTHER people questions then ridicule their answers while providing none of your own. Just because you're a jacked off idiot does not obligate me to keep responding to your ignorance.