Hey, all. I don’t usually post self-gratifying posts (zero until this one), nor do I try to pick on any one person in my main articles. But this is just utterly ridiculous. I’ll post the conversation:
Yes, John just said that. I couldn’t have made this any easier. And we all know he’s just “lyin’ for Jesus”, because if I proposed two propositions for any other thing he would have been fine saying there were two. Car damaged from deer strike or Thor’s hammer? Two propositions. Food eaten by the kids or aliens? Two propositions. Someone got the job because well qualified or screwed the boss? Two propositions. I don’t care how ridiculous or unbelievable any of the propositions are, it’s a simple matter of adding one plus one.
John isn’t a complete moron, because he may have sensed that the next question I would have asked is “how can we determine which proposition is true?” Naturally, his religiously suppressed brain did not allow him to even allow for the consideration of any proposition he didn’t like, so he literally had to say that 1 + 1 = 1!
This is what religion does to your brain. Stay off religion, kids. It makes you stupid.
The Spartan Atheist
The Spartan Atheist 
So, if I understand you correctly, your god is basically just an explanation for anything you can’t explain.
You’re therefore explaining something with another thing that has no explanation. We understand egg with reference to chicken, but you’re saying egg with reference to “mystery”. All you did was push the mystery one step back by including the chicken. But you didn’t actually explain anything.
I’d also like to note that this definition of “god” is so watered down, so un-precise, it could potentially be anything. Using your definition, god could be the god of Christianity, or any of the Hindu gods, the Norse gods, Greek gods, aliens, an all-powerful evil wizard, or nature doing nothing supernatural whatsoever.
Hell, I’ll show you Evolution, and it matches your definition of “god”. If you care to, I’d be happy to confirm your definition of god by doing just that.
“All you did was push the mystery one step back by including the chicken. But you didn’t actually explain anything.”
Wrong. I explained it with “God”.
How do you explain it without God?
Yes, you explained it with “god”, but you haven’t defined your god other than the thing that explains other stuff. Explaining something with an unknown is not explaining something, it’s deferring.
You call yourself a Christian, I see, and yet you are avoiding defining “god” by any of the biblical attributes. You have deferred to an unknown, which as I already noted, is such a watered down definition that the Theory of Evolution fits your definition. And again, if the Theory of Evolution is your god, I’ll gladly concede.
I did define God.
You didn’t answer my question. How do you explain chickens and eggs without God? (Please remember the Theory of Evolution doesn’t address the origins of life.)
Short answer, John? I don’t know.
Longer answer, evolution explains how chickens as a species came into being from earlier reptiles. But if you’re asking about abiogenesis, there are some very interesting results that scientists have done in the lab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
So between your god, any other gods, aliens, some other means, and abiogenesis, only one has any evidence. Is it the correct answer? I’m not sure. But it does account for your chicken.
Why is your uncertainty better than my uncertainty?
Oh, that’s easy. Because you’re claiming you are correct without any evidence at all. I’m claiming cautious interest but uncertainty with some evidence.
I’m being uncertain. You’re being unjustifiably certain.
Actually, I haven’t claimed anything with certainty.
You, on the other hand, have stated with certainty that evolution explains chickens. There is no evidence that chickens evolved from reptiles.
John, you liar. I claimed that evolution provides an account for chickens. You asked me to provide an account for chickens without god, and I did so.
So god, and evolution. One is wrong for sure, both could be wrong. How do we find out? Evidence.
And I just spent the last hour reading most of your “evidences” that contain no evidence whatsoever.
I’d say good try, but actually it was a pretty poor attempt. Then again, you said you would provide evidence for something for which there is no evidence. So…… you have that going against you.
“So god, and evolution. One is wrong for sure…”
That is called a statement of certainty.
I’m not the liar.
Are you saying that chickens BOTH evolved over millions of years AND poofed into existence as is?
No.
I’m saying they can’t exist without an explanation.
Neither chickens nor eggs are self-explanatory.
Yes, John. I said that. I not only said that, I offered two possible, contradictory and incompatible possibilities. One is GOD. The other is evolution. Are you following me so far?
Yes, Spartan, I’m following you. I explained that evolution doesn’t account for the origins of life. Are you following me?
Completely. But we weren’t talking about the origins of life, we were talking about chickens.
So, given two possible explanations for chickens, poofed or evolved, we indeed have two options, of which if one is correct, the other can not be correct. Still following?
Restating your faulty “two options” doesn’t magically make it valid.
Evolution is NOT an explanation for life OR chickens. Still following?
John, I don’t care if you believe it or not, or if evolution is even true or not at this point. I have presented two possible explanations for chickens. One is god. The second is evolution. Can you agree I literally typed two things?
Spartan, you have presented one possible explanation and one ridiculous statement. Evolution isn’t an explanation. Sorry if you don’t believe it.
Call it ridiculous, call it implausible, call it poppycock. There are two propositions on the table, are there not?
No. There is one proposition.
The fact that you can’t come up with another is strong evidence for God.