a simple question atheists can't answers?

?

2011-12-13 19:22:35 UTC

ORIGIN OF THE DRAWING:

1. We know that humans exist.

2. We know that humans sometimes draw pictures.

3. We know that chickens exist.

4. That picture resembles a chicken.

5. We have never seen pictures of that type that were not created by humans.

6. Humans generally must see (or imagine) things before they can draw accurate depictions of them.

7. It is reasonable to claim that a human drew that picture of a chicken, after having seen a chicken.

Q1: Who created the chicken?

1. Not known whether it is a depiction of a real chicken, or simply a drawing of an imaginary chicken.

2. Chickens are created through sexual reproduction, subject to evolution by natural selection (parents pass on genes + genetic mutations passed on from previous generations, etc.).

3. Therefore, the chicken probably derived through sexual reproduction.

?

2011-12-13 19:16:13 UTC

I was lead to believe I would look at a logical, well-thought out argument for the existence of God.

But I was presented with a picture of a chicken as the reason for God's existence.

Painters draw paintings. The painting, by the definition of the word, assumes it was painted. Life does not inherently need an analogous painter. Life can come about without the need of a fictitious being.

arai

2016-11-13 04:29:54 UTC

because of the fact the present concept is going, the super Bang became a singularity (no Singularity isn't a synonym for God), like whilst in arithmetic we've asymptotes! As for why it occured, i could say (and that's a evaluate debate) its with the aid of 2d regulation of Thermodynamics, entropy can consistently advance (or stay a similar)! consequently the super bang could desire to consistently have occurred. Now you're approximately to declare, 'properly it did no longer could desire to take place too, so how do you clarify that whether it isn't the hand of God?(or another appendage)' the elementary answer is (and be at liberty to kick your self for the shortcoming of logic- that isn't quantum concept), because of the fact we are here! The 'danger' as you assert, got here to be, and now looking back, its purely a psychological phenomenon that makes you think of the previous became nevertheless 'open to talk'! As for the evolution allusion, i would not have adequate space to checklist each and every of the fossils... purely messing with ya- i don't be responsive to all of them (maximum of them unquestionably- in all danger ninety 9.9% whilst rounded to a single decimal place!), and would not prefer to be responsive to (till I have been given extremely some money for understanding or some thing..) My purpose of residing is to hunt for the actuality. Antonio's is to... oh i don't be responsive to- per danger I should not be so bigoted as to set him one and you may enable him choose extremely? Or could you extremely have the 'marketing campaign against Antonio'? (whoa there, purely making a factor, do no longer rush into it- i think of he's catholic or some thing...) As for the Bible being real or no longer; Asimov's commencing place and Earth speaks of the real Earth, now i think its all real and we finally end up as gay as Gaia? (however the 2d commencing place bit became cool) i'm no longer specific in case you do misunderstand evolution, so I won't hassle with information, its some thing like, 'attempt some random opportunities around the board, stop ones that did no longer artwork, pursue ones with skill, and repeat cycle'- like how some AI structures artwork!!

kitty in the sink

2011-12-13 19:15:27 UTC

Your first two sentences in the conversation are simply not true. Mieke Roth, a professional science illustrator created those drawings. I have no reason to doubt that is true, and I have even less reason to accept the statement that the drawing "came to existence without an painter or an artist." It would be a scientific impossibility.

Or are you saying God doesn't exist because you didn't see it?

>

Whos yer Daddy

2011-12-13 19:22:05 UTC

Chopping someone down to your level and blindsiding them with with copious amounts stupidity doesn't mean you win an argument. The average person can make an educated guess where the picture came from; from an artist. At one point in time, people didn't understand the process how lightning and thunder came to be, so they invented a God, Thor, to explain the source. If people don't understand something's origin, a god did it.

Lemme ask you something. Begin by replacing God with transsexual garden gnomes in your argument. Now ask yourself this. Would that be proof to you that transsexual garden gnomes exist?

2011-12-13 19:19:21 UTC

Apparently, genius, you don't quite realize that chickens reproduce...drawings don't. Therefore, your whole rant fails.

You claim that this is a question "atheists can't answers" - that's because this is a superlatively stupid rant... the only other possible reason you might not have gotten any answers is because the atheists who tried couldn't stop laughing at the stupidity long enough to answer.

?

2011-12-13 19:09:46 UTC

The flaw in your argument (well, one of many, and the one I'm choosing to comment on) is in assuming that a real chicken is somehow 'greater' than a picture of a chicken. Define your terms. What do you mean by 'greater'?

Also, you're an idiot.

2011-12-13 19:12:37 UTC

I'm sure very young children are impressed by this logic,

but no, it's not logic, you are ignorant and not worth an adult talking to.

but don't worry you'll grow up someday

and then you'll realize that this kind of crap that they teach you at sunday school is written just to impress children and the weak minded.

2011-12-13 19:09:39 UTC

A painting or drawing is not made of living matter. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

If you think that counts as winning, good for you.

_fatguy

2011-12-13 19:12:00 UTC

what created the creator? if you say he/she/it/flying spaghetti monster were uncreated, then how come the same rules you've applied in your question don't apply?

~

brightness is light, but it need a source. you cannot have brightness without a light source.

2011-12-13 19:07:45 UTC

you are not even close to being intelligent.

let's ASSUME everything you said here was correct (which, one would need to be a total idiot to do).

That STILL does not prove there was a god, nor the specific god of the Christians.

2011-12-13 19:14:10 UTC

HI, I know that your good hearted, and your trying to convince them, which you should, or atleast try. But here its very hard. Its no point trying to argue with them, because no mattter what its no use. I mean if it was like in reality and you met them on a street it would be different. And they get annoyed by it as well., and start calling you some mean names. Alot of them are so skeptical and no offense but stubborn as ever. So theres no point trying to explain. You should explain it to an atheist you actually meet face to face. Becuase its very hard doing it on here. I know you are very good at heart for trying to convert them/ Believe me ive tried and its hard, cuz its like they wont listen, and they arent open to accept it or let god in. You should do it face to face. That would be more convincing.

Chris

2011-12-13 19:11:35 UTC

the down side to this is the painting is man made and the chicken is not.

2011-12-13 19:08:54 UTC

Honestly....this is so stupid I can't even follow it.

We see natural processes at work. There is no need to introduce magic into the mix.

Ms V-

2011-12-13 19:10:16 UTC

So you want us to think the pic just appeared? rofl.. seriously. This is nonsense.

2011-12-13 19:12:36 UTC

That wasn't even good enough to be called pathetic ;)

~

interested1208

2011-12-13 19:08:53 UTC

*facepalm*

IMHO