The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Esquilax]

Really? In case I haven't made myself clear (which I have) I believe the WHOLE Bible, that clear enough?

In another thread, fairly recently, you were asked directly whether you believed that Noah's Ark was a real thing, and your answer was, and I quote, "It was just an example..."

Don't blame me for your reactions to straight questions.

Anytime anyone has asked me a yes or no question I have always gave a yes or no answer, show where that hasn't been the case. Ont the other hand I Just asked you guys to answer a yes or no question, and not one of you has answered, so who's dodging?

Yes, you asked a yes or no question in which there are more than just the two answers, which is perfectly in keeping with the profound intellectual dishonesty you've shown so far, but that doesn't obligate us to dance to your falsely dichotomous tune.

To refresh your memory

are you saying that it is impossible for a planetary body to shift in its orbit? A yes or no answer will suffice.

In addition, I suppose it's theoretically possible to shift the moon's orbit; however, the event would be highly unlikely. Despite already showing that this is impossible as an explanation for the Biblical deluge, you tacitly suggest that a second equally unlikely event must have taken place to restore the moon to its original orbit. You see, your proposal rapidly becomes silliness.

Do you actually think this works out in your favor? Seriously? When we know the biblical flood didn't happen due to a planetary body shifting its orbit, because we have good evidence that it didn't happen at all, you really think bringing up this irrelevant nonsense is going to help you? Like I said the first time you brought this up, "is possible" is not the same thing as "has happened," and it's utterly breathtaking that you're persisting with this intellectually vapid argument.

In case you haven't heard, the universe, according to "science" was created from a huge series of "highly unlikely" events.

Yeah, and if you don't think they're possible, that's an argument against them, eh? You're like a walking embodiment of the argument from incredulity fallacy, sometimes.

As far as my proposal being "silliness", I going to list three scenarios, Pick the one that is least silly according to what you know to be possible/impossible.

1. The universe created itself.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
3. The universe has always existed.

Do you really want to add that "what you know to be possible" criteria in there? Because, you know, as far as we can tell it's impossible for intelligent beings to create universes, we've got no evidence for that. I know you baselessly privilege the second option, as though somehow "magic man dun poofed der universe into existence!" isn't a silly idea, but when you actually think about it, proposing a being that exists outside of reality, with universe creating properties, isn't any less ridiculous than the other- grossly oversimplified- strawman possibilities you propose. You just happen to like it better, but that's not an argument for it.

Incidentally, there's a fourth option too, which is to honestly admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be. It means we don't have to pretend that a book of ancient fairytales is "WHOLLY" true; having a wrong answer is not superior to admitting there isn't an answer yet.