http://i.giphy.com/DmOZT1DuII28E.gif
The existence of the Universe is a miracle. It demands an explanation. That makes for awkward dialogue for people who don’t believe in miracles.
Smart Person: “There is no God.”
Moron: “There must be a God. The Universe didn’t make itself.”
Smart Person: “Ha Ha Ha! You’re a moron!”
Moron: “Educate me. How did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “You’re such a moron!”
Moron: “I believe you. How did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “I hope you don’t have contact with children!”
Moron: “The Universe. How did it get here?”
Smart Person: “You probably think Jesus was an actual person too!”
Moron: “I do. And…”
Smart Person: “Ha Ha Ha! You’re delusional.”
Moron: “Right. You’ve said that. How did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “Well, it certainly wasn’t God! Â Ha Ha Haaaaa!”
Moron: “Right. How did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “Your superstition doesn’t explain anything!”
Moron: “I know. How did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “Religion just oppresses people!”
Moron: “Indeed.”
Smart Person: “And it kills people! Religion kills people!”
Moron: “I see. So how did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “Stop dodging my question!”
Moron: “You didn’t ask a question.”
Smart Person: “Why would I ask you a question? You’re a moron!”
Moron: “Agreed. How did the Universe get here?”
Smart Person: “I’m done wasting my time with you.”
Moron: “So can we say God made the Universe?”
Smart Person: “There is no God. Moron!”
Moron: * … *
Smart Person: “And quit stealing money from people!”
60 Responses
The man known as Jesus of Nazareth existed and there is more supporting evidence for the historicity of the Bible than many other books and antiquities. The Bible used as a historical document has a better chance of explaining the Universe and our “reality” than ‘science.’
History documents the reality of the past. You are stating that “history suggests that a natural explanation will be found…” but you will be hard pressed to come up with a ‘scientific’ natural explanation. If you were to use mathematics… statistics and probability suggest we will be waiting for a very, very long time for “time to tell” your beliefs.
http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/
Prediction:
Now John Zande will have to jump in and explain to you that “Biblical Archaeology” isn’t an actual field…
Or he’ll just copy and paste a chunk of his self-published book. 🙂
Well, I’d prefer that he just start by explaining how Ark’s scientific theory of “History-suggests-that-a-natural-explanation-will-be-found,” thingy works.
There is, without a doubt, more extra-biblical and even eye witness accounts of the existence of Jesus AND his resurrection, that it’s not even worth arguing. If someone is so academically addled and logic impaired that they can’t bring themselves to admit that better minds than him have pretty much admitted Christ existed… then little ol’ me can’t possibly help.
True.
Paul himself wasn’t able to convince everyone.
Ark’s issue isn’t one of “too little evidence.”
On what basis do you consider the universe a miracle?
It does not have a natural explanation.
How do you know?
Based on what information?
Based on the lack of existence of a natural explanation.
Do you consider a ”lack of” to therefore imply there is no evidence or that evidence just has not been discovered yet?
There is no explanation currently. The future is unknown to me. As of this moment, the Universe is a miracle.
So therefore, are you saying that anything that is currently unexplained should be considered a miracle?
For instance…?
The comment is self-explanatory, surely?
No. It isn’t.
The Universe has no natural explanation. What other things fall into that category? Surely you have something in mind when you asked the question.
The Universe has no natural explanation.
The universe may currently have no natural explanation.
Why would you believe this situation will remain like this indefinitely?
You didn’t answer my question.
I am trying to establish how you can determine that the universe has no natural explanation.
You have not offered an answer.
It’s been awhile. You seem to have forgotten how we do things here.
Present a natural explanation for the Universe. Otherwise, you agree with me that a natural explanation does not currently exist.
Otherwise, you agree with me that a natural explanation does not currently exist.
This is very much like a caveman stating that no natural explanation currently exists for rain or volcanoes or large rocks falling out of the sky.
Is this truly how you wish to be perceived, simply because there is currently no confirmed natural explanation for the universe?
You don’t have a natural explanation for the Universe either. So welcome to the Caveman Club, Ark.
Absolutely!
I am perfectly happy with the ”Caveman” label in this regard.
and have no issue not having a natural explanation for the universe … yet.
And when we consider the number of things in the past that did not have a natural explanation but now do why would you believe that universe will not have a natural explanation in the future?
I never said the universe will not have a natural explanation in the future.
Excellent! So we agree then, that for now, it is merely a question of waiting until a natural explanation is provided.
Under these circumstances, do you not consider the title of the post a little misleading?
No. We do not agree.
I am not waiting for a natural explanation. As I wrote, the Universe is the product supernatural activity. That’s why it is a ‘miracle’. So the title is not misleading at all.
Your faith is that a natural explanation will be discovered in the future. A ‘science of the gaps’ religion.
Ah, fair enough. My mistake. So exactly how do you know it is the product of supernatural activity?
Exactly the same way you know it is the product of natural activity.
Sorry, you’ve lost me.
I don’t know, I merely believe that there is currently no evidence t0 suppose that the reason will be anything but natural.
You are claiming you know its origins are supernatural , but based on what?
Surely all you have is faith?
All you have is faith as well.
Your faith is that a natural explanation will eventually be discovered. As we’ve agreed, there is no evidence to indicate that the Universe brought itself into existence.
So we remain two cavemen scratching our heads in wonderment.
Absolutely!
So you have no more to go on than I do.
You can keep believing in the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth being the creator of the universe and I’ll just wait and see.
Absolutely!
You have no more to go on that I do.
You can keep believing that if you wait long enough you’ll see. That is faith as well.
Agreed! However, history suggests that a natural explanation will be found. Also, with no evidence whatsoever for the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth you have all your work before you, don’t you?
Speaking as one with extensive moronic experience…..why do all the smart people have such a fixation with the God the morons love?
Perhaps a smart person could explain. Or call me stupid. I’m bored, so either one will do I suppose.
JZ, who is smarter than God, is taking a long time to tell me whether or not Yhwh exists.
If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect he is embarrassed.
Hmm…ya think?
So, why did your god, an aseitic being, Yhwh, create this artificial world?
Because he wanted to.
He wanted to break what was already perfect?
Interesting.
Of course, by the narrative, he created this artificial world after Creation had already failed.
So, was creating this world, then, an incompetent blunder, or was it deliberate?
You wrote a whole book about this.
Please copy and paste whatever useless point you’re trying to make.
I believe you are the one, John Branyan, trying to make a point.
Please answer the question:
I believe, I already made my point.
Paste an excerpt from your book!
Speak the mind of God!
No, you have made a point.
Evidently, you’re embarrassed here, so let me walk you through it.
As a maximally good, aseitic being, everything was once part of perfection. That’s what aseity means. There was no-thing that was not already perfect.
To argue otherwise is to concede Yhwh was not, in fact, perfect.
Creation, therefore, destroyed this eternal harmony, this purity, and by this fact alone, the act of Creation can only be called maximally evil.
You yourself have already admitted this fact.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/JB1_zpslaihzkrj.png
So, the very act of creation separated things from the perfect goodness.
Creation expelled goodness and cast it into a state of imperfection, and that is evil.
Of course, the narrative you’re pushing here takes on even more awkward problems in that Lucifer—Yhwh’s most perfect creation—had already failed, which was itself inevitable given Yhwh had created imperfection.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to mean Yhwh consciously flung man into an already corrupted Creation, and that, too, is evil.
This then leaves two options, the first you have already conceded to be true (given the narrative), but I don’t think you’re particularly comfortable with that admission:
So, which one is it, John?
Why did Yhwh create this artificial world?
Can you please address the question/s without the typical John Branyan Diversion Song and Dance.
Atta Boy!
I knew that was gonna happen.
You’re smarter than God, JZ. So it goes without saying you’re smarter than me!
Fair enough, you’re embarrassed,
I understand.
Curious, why do you even pen such posts if you can’t defend the story?
Why open yourself up top such enormous and demoralising embarrassment?
Strange behaviour.
Not embarrassed.
You understand nothing.
You played the role of the Smart Person perfectly.
Not embarrassed or demoralised?
Great, then address the questions put to you…
I don’t possess the mind of God.
Doesn’t embarrass me to confess that.
But John, you’ve already admitted the act of creation was evil.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/JB3_zpspuzuquu2.png
The question then standing before you, staring you in the face, is:
So, which one is it, John?
Why did Yhwh create this artificial world?
Of course, there is a third option: Yhwh is thoroughly and hopelessly incompetent, but I don’t think you want to entertain that possibility.
Yhwh doesn’t even exist, does he?
OK, I can see this isn’t going anywhere.
You’re embarrassed (perhaps even ashamed) that you can’t rationally defend the story you’re trying to push.
I get it.
John, be sure to take care with those stunning contradictions you’re juggling… you might cut yourself.
Does Yhwh exist?
The creator Yhwh. Does he exist?
Or are you too embarrassed to answer this?
Maybe he prefers to call God “Frank.”
Wrong heathen.
I call him Frank. I think God would be okay with JZ doing the same…
Or maybe “Lo.”
Or even “The Owner of All Infernal Names.”
God could figure it out.
Does Yhwh exist, JZ?
OK, I can see this isn’t going anywhere.
You’re embarrassed. That’s understandable.
See you next time!
I’m sitting right across from him, JZ. You’re right! He’s red faced and sweating. Embarrassed.
He’s looking around for a place to run…
Lol!
Anyone who has been following your comments for awhile knows YOU’RE the one who has reason to be embarrassed. Your trap questions don’t actually catch anything here. Maybe that’s why you won’t respond to me?
Embarrassed?
Here’s a picture of something that someone obviously spent a lot of time creating.
Don’t they know it’s going to fall eventually? Why would they waste their time making something temporary (and, therefore, imperfect?)
Are they incompetent, or was this display deliberate?
https://goo.gl/images/0SSCMd
You’ve already tried to have this conversation here before, JZ.
You’ve been told #1 you’re asking the wrong person. I can tell you definitively that my dad isn’t God.
And #2. Every parent in the world brings children into the world KNOWING they will suffer. My husband and I have helped create life three times now. Deliberately. They’re imperfect. But worth it.
And that pretty much sums up the comment section on your blog!