Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The miracle of God creating the first chicken with eggs inside it

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

From my own prolonged thinking, I concluded that God miraculously created the first chicken with eggs already inside it.

What about you atheists, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


I say:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).

You say:
I’ve answered your question.


Now, I tell you again:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).


In concise words means not more than 35 words, else you are into malingering.







yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.


---------------------


DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.

-----------------------

DocSavage · M
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.
DocSavage · M
[@yrger/bonehead
What’s the matter, too few brain cells to make it pass 35 words ? I noticed you’re down from 50. You’re sinking fast.