You respond to this argument for God
As most of you know, our mailbox is flooded. I've removed all spam and read a bunch of mail and still have 954 pieces of new mail. This includes orders, questions, people still submitting blasphemy challenge stuff, yada, yada...
Anyway I tend to notice the crazy emails, and so yesterday someone got my attention by acting like a complete asshole to me.
This is the first communication I noticed from him, or can find:
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: [General Question] Still can't answer me, eh?
> Luposian sent a message using the contact form at
> I have re-sent you the Email. I have CHALLENGED you to response (you are
> the leader of "Rational RESPONSE Squad", are you not?) and I even asked
> that you point me to whatever URL you had, for such response.
> While I would gladly prefer a one-to-one response from you (or other(s),
> if you're not up to the task), I will also accept going to a site where my
> challenge is accepted and answered.
> Don't make me have to resort to calling you a "Moooooo!"*
> *"Moooooooo!" is the sound that cows make. Therefore it could be
> considered a "cow word". If you can't figure out the wordplay... maybe
> you're NOT as smart as you pretend to be.
> Yes, I am resorting to "pushing and shoving", because I'd like to actually
> see if you (or some other atheist; but that'd be pretty funny if *you*
> to call on a lackey to answer me) can actually respond to my challenge.
> Brushing me off as not worth your time only proves you can't respond, not
> that I didn't give a good enough argument. It's very easy to act superior
> by pushing away the challenge than to answer the challenge on a
> point-by-point basis.
> Go ahead... answer my Email. Take the time to actually disprove me.
> Wherever you prefer. I'm waiting...
This was my response:
(yeah, I'm short on time, I need to make my ridicule short and sweet.)
He wrote back...
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [General Question] Still can't answer me, eh?
> The big, bad atheist Brian Sapient can't even fight against a simple Email
> from a "nobody" Christian wuss like me! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
> Guess it just goes to prove my God *IS* real, because you can't even give
> a "Rational Response" to my Email.
> And just think... the bible is "calling you out" worse than I am... the
> bible calls you a FOOL! Yes... a moronic, idiotic F O O L !
> I'm sure you know the verse, being that you were *once* a Christian (yeah,
> right... like I actually believe that).
> "The *FOOL* hath said in his heart... *THERE IS NO GOD*"
> Enjoy knowing that... I'm sure it is quite comforting.
> And, yes... you are SUCH a Cow Word. "Moooooooooooooooo!"
How bout pulling your head out of your ass and actually ask the question you
want to ask instead of whining like a 5 year old over it.
Remove head from ass.
Now, you know whats really funny? For some reason my mail program put all of his other mail in my inbox but put this one in my junk mail box. Is software really becoming that intelligent?
FEEL FREE TO RESPOND, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME.
I'M SOLELY ON OPERATION SPREAD EAGLE.
I stopped reading at "Can something come from nothing" and realized he was about to make an argument that it can't, and would then argue his god existed forever. Considering I believe the matter that comprises our Universe is eternal, and I don't believe that it came from nothing, I became uninterested in his creationist retardation in the first sentence. Ok, so I made a bunch of assumptions on his piece, based solely on his past emails and his opening sentence. I would love for someone who actually reads his arguments to assess how close I was. Unlike the emailer, I want to be shown where I'm wrong... but I'd like to test my jedi powers.
If you want to get to the bottom basis of whether or not God exists, think about this:
Can something come from nothing?
If "nothing" is there, how does nothing spontaneously create "something"?
Math is a science, is it not? Well, then...
What is 0+0?
What is 0+0+0?
What is 0+0+0+0?
As you can easily tell, as long as you have nothing, adding more nothing still adds up to nothing. You must *ADD* (create) a 1 (something), to break the cycle of 0 (nothingness). But...
What is 1+0?
What is 1+0+0?
What is 1+0+0+0?
Unless you *add* 1, you will never get BEYOND 1. Or 2 or 3 or 4, etc.
In order for "The Big Bang" theory to work, there must first be "something" (at least a 1) to "explode" from. Nothing (0) has *nothing* (0) to explode! Therefore, it's utterly impossible for "The Big Bang" to exist without matter (1), in the beginning. But 1 must also contain ALL the components necessary to continue ADDING 1 to that 1 and the 1 after it and the 1 after it and the 1 after it... ad infinitum. No scientist on earth will tell you the entire universe came from a single atom. It's absolutely impossible!
If, say for example, 1 could equal 100 at it's maximum expansion, that 1 must contain ninty-nine 1's INSIDE of it! But 1 can't contain ninety-nine 1's. That would make it 100, whether you acknowledged it or not.
Matter was *always* there? How do we know that? Were we there to see it? No. Because it happened so long ago, long before any of us ever existed. To say that it was "always there", is simply to "answer" the unanswerable, by forcing a value to it. A value we assigned to it. A value, also which, we can neither prove nor disprove was there, to begin with!
I believe the "big bang theory" is based on some sort of "cyclic universe expansion/collapse" concept. The Universe expands to a certain point and then starts collapsing, eventually reaching critical mass, and then exploding outward again... over and over endlessly.
But, if we are in the expansion phase ( I believe science has acknowledged that the universe is expanding currently), then how long before the universe starts collapsing again and then the cycle repeats?
And, if it does this over and over again (as, I believe, the theory goes), then which cycle are we in? The 1st or the 1,000,000th cycle? Have we lived once or a million times? And, at what point did it actually START for the 1st time? Because, if it's a repeating cycle, it must have a beginning. A cycle must first be started. A motorcycle engine doesn't "start" until it's inertia (science: "a body at rest tends to stay at rest") is overcome by kickstarting it (or an electric starter is employed)!
And... more importantly... did it begin as a totally condensed mass, which exploded outward, or a totally expanded galaxy, which began collapsing?
You see, you run into the "Chicken or the Egg" problem. Which was the beginning? Did the egg come first or the chicken that laid the egg? And, if the egg, then where was the chicken that incubated the egg, for it to hatch? And where did THAT chicken come from? If the chicken came first, then where was the egg that the chicken hatched out of and where is the chicken that incubated the egg? No matter which way you go, there is always something before it.
That's the way matter is. All matter has a beginning. All things that involve matter have a beginning. Everything in, on, and around earth had a beginning. Everything we see. Everything we know. There is NOTHING that we have any knowledge of, that didn't have a beginning at some point.
No matter which way you turn, you will always face "THE BEGINNING". And the bible conveniently tells us... "In the Beginning..."
Why? Because God isn't made up of matter. He is spirit. Spirit is not matter. Frankly, we don't know WHAT it is! And we never will, because we have no means to test or measure it, EXCEPT as it influences (interacts with) matter in our realm of existence!
Here's another bit for you...
We know that we can (as humans) "fairly accurately" predict the weather, correct? Why is that? Because we've seen certain *WEATHER PATTERNS* before. If you spend one day in Sierra Vista, AZ and you experience only ONE rainstorm during summer, can you predict what will happen the following day? No. If you tried, you would not be predicting, you would be GUESSING! A "guess" is based on chance or odds. A prediction is scientifically based on a pattern of events you have fairly consistent data from. A repeating set of circumstances. If you spent an entire summer, here in Sierra Vista, AZ, could you THEN predict (with a good amount of accuracy) what the following day, after one day's rainstorm, would be like? Yes! Because you now have a pattern to follow.
Having spent 10 years here, I can (with fair accuracy), from 10 years of weather pattern behavior, PREDICT that, if it starts raining at 12 noon, that it will *most likely* rain the following day at 12 noon also. The clouds will form from the same direction. As well, I have seen consistent evidence that, the harder it rains, the shorter the storm. If it pours like crazy, the storm will most likely "blow itself out" in a couple hours, at most. If it rains lightly or normally, it will usually last much longer.
Predictions, while scientific in nature, are not an ABSOLUTE science. We CAN be wrong, in our predictions. And I'm sure you are quite well aware how often our beloved weather forecasters are wrong...
Ok, we've explained something we know we can do. Now, let's take that information and apply it to a certain person in the bible.
Let's assume Jesus actually existed. I believe He did. You may or may not. I dunno. Let's assume everything the bible says happened to Him, actually did.
Now, let's go waaaay back, before Matthew, Luke, and John... before the Book of Acts and all those other books, including Revelation.
And a man is writing about what he believes he's hearing from God. Supposedly about the Son of God.... who, conveniently doesn't exist yet (as a man). And, for all intents and purposes, may NEVER exist. But he writes down what "God" tells him will happen. Every last detail.
Generations later, "Jesus" is born. And, amazingly enough, He is born WHERE it was written He would be born! And He is named Jesus/Emmanual. Years later, he is hailed as the Messiah, with palm branches and he rides a mule... EXACTLY as written, generations before. And he is arrested and beaten and crucified... EXACTLY as written! His raiment is parted and "lotted" EXACTLY as written. Finally, He dies and a soldier comes by and, seeing He's already dead, does NOT break His legs (but breaks the legs of the two thieves on either side of Him) but DOES poke a spear into his side, making blood and water gush out... EXACTLY as written would happen!
Now, even assuming Jesus Himself was doing everything, to the letter, to make Himself *LOOK* like the messiah to His followers, while He was alive, what are the odds that EVERYONE would do EVERYTHING it was written THEY would do, EXACTLY to the letter, as written? Why would the soldiers do EVERYTHING it was written they would do, knowing that it would simply confirm His Deity to His followers? They didn't BELIEVE He was the Christ! That's why they killed Him! Because they thought He was blaspheming God by saying He WAS God (Jesus said: "Before Abraham was... I AM." and other statements). They had no reason to do things that would CONFIRM his Deity. Yet they still DID.
How do you explain that? How can SCIENCE explain that? Sheer coincidence? Random chance? Numerical odds of probability? Come on, be serious!
And then, using the previous example above, how could someone... ANYONE... write about someone (or ANYONE) that doesn't yet exist, and write about things that will happen to them, if that person doesn't yet exist? Even assuming they were imagining they heard "God's voice", how could they possibly imagine up a person and invent the things that will happen to them, generations before they exist and then HAVE that person appear and those things HAPPEN to them, EXACTLY as written?
Can you explain that? Can SCIENCE explain that? I don't think so. I *REALLY* don't think so...
Why? Because PROPHECY is not based in science. It's foreknowledge of things that haven't happened yet. And that's something science CAN'T explain, because science can ONLY work with what is already KNOWN, not what isn't.
And, thus, concludes my own "scientific argument" as to the evidence of God's existence!
I look forward to your reply!