Is the god of the gaps a sound argument?

[Difflugia]

But a intelligent engineer can preset the dials to get the results that he wants.

An "intelligent designer" in the way Christian apologists define one can do anything at all. It's taking "I don't know" and assigning it to a god. Like I said, if you don't understand why that's insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

Do what you gotta do.

A number of posters, particularly in the Science and Religion forum, repeatedly offer what they think are arguments against scientific principles and present them as evidence for their particular conception of a god. This is informally known as "the god of the gaps."

Is the god of the gaps argument logically sound? If not, what changes must be made to such an argument to rescue it?

[POI]

If you are trying to sell me on the idea that reptiles evolved into birds, which is a process that can only occur via sexual reproduction... Then that is no different that a dog giving birth to a cat.

I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. I'm asking. You hint at an answer, but you really don't give a clear one. Is it your belief that 'evolutionists' believe that a dog gave birth to a cat?

Bro, to be honest, the ToE is that from Satan. I truly believe it is. I could go deeper, but I'll leave it there for now. PM me if you want to discuss..and we'll keep the conversation private.

There is no need to keep it private. This is why I created an 'evilution' thread. One in which you completely aborted, only AFTER things were going to get real, with hard evidence to refute your standing position. So I guess calling it 'evil' is a great protective mechanism to remain in the position you are currently in.

That's where you find yourself once you tackle the deeper questions in life...to the root, to the source, to the origins.

MY POINT is that you would, at bear minimum, find yourself re-translating Genesis out of logical necessity. And this is, in all honesty, where some logical folks just toss Christianity in the waste bin and explore other options. It has NOTHING to do with (the existence or the non-existence) of 'origins',

I'll believe what I have evidence for.

Correction. You will continue to believe what you currently believe --- because you refuse to allow in any new evidence which aligns with what evolutionary biology actually proposes.

We'll cross that bridge when it comes. Accept Christ first.

I cannot accept something based upon blind faith.

So many options to choose from.

Well, I see three options available. And you continue to rock the double-downed strawman option.

Kindly provide the link to the Evilution thread and the post you'd like me to respond to. A deal is a deal. A compromise of historic proportions.

Rather than giving you the link, where you could respond anywhere, within that thread, kindly address the video from post 118 (i.e.):



*********************************************************

Here is the link for the KCA: viewtopic.php?t=42143

So we are clear, even if you were somehow able to DEMONSTRATE a source, this demonstrated source does not logically lead to Christianity. But, I will still offer my gratitude in DEMONSTRATING a source. Let the fun begin.....

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not trying to "sell" you anything.

Then we simply disagree on what "sell" means in this context.

Because that's exactly what you're doing as far as I can tell

I'm asking. You hint at an answer, but you really don't give a clear one.

Is it your belief that 'evolutionists' believe that a dog gave birth to a cat?

I will say it again; one more time for you and louder for the people in the back.

If you BELIEVE, that REPTILES evolved into BIRDS...and/or that whales were ONCE land DWELLING animals..

Then, to me..

Those beliefs are the SAME, as the belief in DOGS giving birth to CATS.

Now, I was clear, I was concise.

And I'm not repeating myself again.

There is no need to keep it private.

Yeah, it is..when you've got people getting their feelings hurt and reporting your posts.. there's absolutely a need to keep it private.

But whatever, it is what it is.

This is why I created an 'evilution' thread. One in which you completely aborted, only AFTER things were going to get real, with hard evidence to refute your standing position. So I guess calling it 'evil' is a great protective mechanism to remain in the position you are currently in.

There is evil, and there is satanic.

at bear minimum, find yourself re-translating Genesis out of logical necessity. And this is, in all honesty, where some logical folks just toss Christianity in the waste bin and explore other options. It has NOTHING to do with (the existence or the non-existence) of 'origins',

I have my opinions on you guys as well, pertaining to how you all suppress what is clear evidence for a creator.

So, nice to know your opinion.

Correction. You will continue to believe what you currently believe --- because you refuse to allow in any new evidence which aligns with what evolutionary biology actually proposes.

Ok, that's what I do. Go with that.

I cannot accept something based upon blind faith.
That's completely fine with me.

You reject my religion (Christianity), and I reject yours (evolutionary biology).

Well, I see three options available. And you continue to rock the double-downed strawman option.

Opinions.

Just like I am of the belief that you all continue to commit..

1. Circular reasoning.
2. Taxicab fallacy.
3. Genetic Fallacy.
4. Fallacy of Composition.
5. Red Herring fallacy.

That is just five.

Would you like the list to go on and on and on with some of the fallacious reasoning I've seen on here?

Rather than giving you the link, where you could respond anywhere, within that thread, kindly address the video from post 118 (i.e.):

Timestamp?

Here is the link for the KCA: viewtopic.php?t=42143

So we are clear, even if you were somehow able to DEMONSTRATE a source, this demonstrated source does not logically lead to Christianity. But, I will still offer my gratitude in DEMONSTRATING a source. Let the fun begin.....

A source for/from what?

[POI]

If you BELIEVE, that REPTILES evolved into BIRDS...and/or that whales were ONCE land DWELLING animals.. Then, to me.. Those beliefs are the SAME, as the belief in DOGS giving birth to CATS.

Please watch the 4-minute video.

Yeah, it is..when you've got people getting their feelings hurt and reporting your posts.. there's absolutely a need to keep it private. But whatever, it is what it is.

For the record, I do not report you. I was just reported once, when responding to one of your posts. When discussing religion and politics, things are bound to offend someone. It is the risk we take in broaching such environments. But I get it... You think 'evilution' is the work of the devil. Okay... You might NO LONGER think that after you knew what evolutionary biology actually proposes.?.? The 4-minute video would be a descent start.

There is evil, and there is satanic.

No there isn't. There is instead fact and there is fiction. Evolutionary biology is a fact, as it is a theoretical science, to the same level of cell theory, gravitational theory, or the germ theory of disease. Like I've been stating, I accept all theoretical science. This is why I do not currently accept abiogenesis.

I have my opinions on you guys as well, pertaining to how you all suppress what is clear evidence for a creator.

My point is not opinion. You already agreed. Evolution being true forces an alternative viewpoint on Genesis. You either adapt, (or), reject it entirely.

We'll see what you can do in the KCA thread.

Just like I am of the belief that you all continue to commit..

LOL! Sure, when you take things out context and/or incorrectly rubberstamp, you can claim all sorts of stuff.

Timestamp?

The entire video is under 4 1/2 minutes long. Patience is a virtue. Heck, I recommend watching it more than once.

A source for/from what?

If you win the KCA thread.... And guess what, I'm rooting for you. But I've studied this topic and I highly doubt you'll present anything new.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you BELIEVE, that REPTILES evolved into BIRDS...and/or that whales were ONCE land DWELLING animals.. Then, to me.. Those beliefs are the SAME, as the belief in DOGS giving birth to CATS.

Please watch the 4-minute video.

Either..

1. I watch and respond directly to the video and in that case I shall not participate in the day-to-day Evilution thread.

or..

2. I participate in the day-to-day Evilution thread without watching or responding directly to the video.

Or.

3. I don't watch or respond to the video, but respond to your arguments regarding points made in the video.

I personally like #3 option better. But it's obvious we don't think the same.

So, take your pick, because you're only getting 1/3.

Sorry if the whole "take your pick" thing come across as brash or cocky, but I'm 100% certain that merely watching a video won't change my stance on evolution and I don't like wasting unnecessary time.

For the record, I do not report you. I was just reported once, when responding to one of your posts.

Yeah, and you know full well that none of your comrades here will report you if you questionably break one of the forum rules, so you know it had to be me who did.

I did so, because apparently you were going to be allowed to make personal comments towards me with impunity.

A post of mines was reported and I got dinged for making "personal comments".

Yet, you did the same exact thing to me and nothing gets said or done about it.

If I do it to you, it gets blasted on the 5:00 news.

If you do it to me, everyone turns a blind eye to it like it never happened.

It's time we started playing ball fair.

When discussing religion and politics, things are bound to offend someone. It is the risk we take in broaching such environments. But I get it...

I don't get offended easily...unless it is just blatant and utter disrespect.

You think 'evilution' is the work of the devil. Okay... You might NO LONGER think that after you knew what evolutionary biology actually proposes.?.? The 4-minute video would be a descent start.

3 options^.

No there isn't. There is instead fact and there is fiction. Evolutionary biology is a fact, as it is a theoretical science, to the same level of cell theory, gravitational theory, or the germ theory of disease. Like I've been stating, I accept all theoretical science. This is why I do not currently accept abiogenesis.

Opinions.

My point is not opinion. You already agreed. Evolution being true forces an alternative viewpoint on Genesis. You either adapt, (or), reject it entirely.

And as I said in response to this, if you found persuasive evidence that Christianity is true, then you may very well abandon your belief in evolution and adopt the Genesis creation account.

So, I fail to see why you think this hypothetical "if" game is such a groundbreaking point.

We can play the "if this, then that" game with virtually anything in life.

We'll see what you can do in the KCA thread.

Impending doom for some folks.

The entire video is under 4 1/2 minutes long. Patience is a virtue. Heck, I recommend watching it more than once.

Is that your pick of the 3?

If you win the KCA thread....

"If".

Since this is a 100% certain homerun for me, I find "if" quite offensive.

And guess what, I'm rooting for you. But I've studied this topic and I highly doubt you'll present anything new.

Question.

BW responded to that thread.

Do you share BW's sentiments?

I ask that my response to BW also be my response to the OP?

Cool?

[POI]

1. I watch and respond directly to the video and in that case I shall not participate in the day-to-day Evilution thread.

or..

2. I participate in the day-to-day Evilution thread without watching or responding directly to the video.

Or.

3. I don't watch or respond to the video, but respond to your arguments regarding points made in the video.

I personally like #3 option better. But it's obvious we don't think the same.

So, take your pick, because you're only getting 1/3.

Sorry if the whole "take your pick" thing come across as brash or cocky, but I'm 100% certain that merely watching a video won't change my stance on evolution and I don't like wasting unnecessary time.

It may not change your stance. But you will then know what telomeres and centromeres are. You will also finally know what the significance of what chromosome #2 plays, and its reference to the GNOME. Things you admitted you do not currently know.

4. Watch and respond to the video in post 118 of the "evilution" thread, as a starting point. After you gain some new knowledge about the discoveries evidentially made in biology, this may lead to tying up some (or many) other loose ends accordingly in that thread. Please start by responding in that thread, post 118 -> (viewtopic.php?t=41715&start=110).

Yeah, and you know full well that none of your comrades here will report you if you questionably break one of the forum rules, so you know it had to be me who did. I did so, because apparently you were going to be allowed to make personal comments towards me with impunity. A post of mines was reported and I got dinged for making "personal comments". Yet, you did the same exact thing to me and nothing gets said or done about it. If I do it to you, it gets blasted on the 5:00 news. If you do it to me, everyone turns a blind eye to it like it never happened. It's time we started playing ball fair.

Or maybe just do not issue personal attacks in which break the rules and gets you reported? I did it that one time, and my deepest apologies are in order.

I don't get offended easily...unless it is just blatant and utter disrespect.

And again, my apologies are offered for the time you reported me.

And as I said in response to this, if you found persuasive evidence that Christianity is true, then you may very well abandon your belief in evolution and adopt the Genesis creation account.

No. If I was persuaded by the case for a postmortem Jesus, I would be confused about some of the claims in Genesis. I've already told you this.

So, I fail to see why you think this hypothetical "if" game is such a groundbreaking point. We can play the "if this, then that" game with virtually anything in life.

Because knowing what many theists know about the evidential backing of evolutionary biology forces their hand to NO LONGER accept Genesis in the exact way you do. Meaning, Adam and Eve were not created from 'dirt' and 'ribs' a few thousand years ago.

Impending doom for some folks.

I already have the popcorn ready.

Since this is a 100% certain homerun for me, I find "if" quite offensive.

Wow, that sounds really good. I can't wait. I hope you at least present something I haven't already heard before? I'll keep my fingered crossed.

I find "if" quite offensive.

Hmm... Does this mean I should expect another warning coming my way?

Question. BW responded to that thread. Do you share BW's sentiments? I ask that my response to BW also be my response to the OP? Cool?

Honestly, I'm almost indifferent to either conclusion (prime mover vs not). Why? As I've stated many times now, actually demonstrating a 'prime mover' seems quite benign, as this agency likely is impersonal, and at best, set all natural law into motion and is indifferent to the rest. It would be little different than discovering intelligent life, billions of light years away, in some very remote galaxy on some random planet. Maybe they created us and then went back to their planet? In regard to BW's response, I do not know if he is right here or not? But I thanked him for his response none-the-less. Think of it this way....

I honestly do not KNOW if our universe is eternal or finite? So really, we have two sides.... You vs. other. In this, think of the gumball machine analogy. A bunch of gumballs are in the gumball machine. None of us truly know if the number of gumballs in the machine are odd or even. You assert odd, and the other asserts even. I remain logically agnostic because I have not actually counted the gumballs to demonstrate the real answer. As I keep telling you, until anything is demonstrated, it is illogical to fully believe it. Thus, until you can not only demonstrate a god, but anything supernatural at all for that matter, I find you may have a lot of work ahead of you. Good luck! Once a god has been demonstrated, I will add god into the list of options as a "universe starter."

[SiNcE_1985]

It may not change your stance. But you will then know what telomeres and centromeres are. You will also finally know what the significance of what chromosome #2 plays, and its reference to the GNOME. Things you admitted you do not currently know.

4. Watch and respond to the video in post 118 of the "evilution" thread, as a starting point. After you gain some new knowledge about the discoveries evidentially made in biology, this may lead to tying up some (or many) other loose ends accordingly in that thread. Please start by responding in that thread, post 118 -> (viewtopic.php?t=41715&start=110).

With all due respect, #4 isn't one of the options.

So, if you refuse to choose between 1-3, I'll just go with my original plan to be active in the thread.

I'm not watching any videos, so if you want to continue wasting time by pressing that issue..then your determination is something that needs to be studied.

Or maybe just do not issue personal attacks in which break the rules and gets you reported?

The official ruling was a personal "comment", not a personal "attack".

Those two aren't necessarily the same thing.

But the point is, had you made that same comment towards someone, it wouldn't have gotten reported like mines did.

I did it that one time, and my deepest apologies are in order.

Apology for what?

And again, my apologies are offered for the time you reported me.

You are apologizing for me, reporting you?

No. If I was persuaded by the case for a postmortem Jesus, I would be confused about some of the claims in Genesis. I've already told you this.

Too many unnecessary hypotheticals.

Moving along.

Because knowing what many theists know about the evidential backing of evolutionary biology forces their hand to NO LONGER accept Genesis in the exact way you do. Meaning, Adam and Eve were not created from 'dirt' and 'ribs' a few thousand years ago.

That is still a hypothetical "if".

I'd rather stick with "Since".

"Since" we know that there is no evidential backing of evolutionary biology, we ain't gotta worry about no "ifs".

Wow, that sounds really good. I can't wait. I hope you at least present something I haven't already heard before? I'll keep my fingered crossed.

I doubt I'll present something you've never heard before, but perhaps I can present it from a different angle.

Hmm... Does this mean I should expect another warning coming my way?

Exactly.

Honestly, I'm almost indifferent to either conclusion (prime mover vs not). Why? As I've stated many times now, actually demonstrating a 'prime mover' seems quite benign, as this agency likely is impersonal, and at best, set all natural law into motion and is indifferent to the rest. It would be little different than discovering intelligent life, billions of light years away, in some very remote galaxy on some random planet. Maybe they created us and then went back to their planet? In regard to BW's response, I do not know if he is right here or not? But I thanked him for his response none-the-less. Think of it this way....

I honestly do not KNOW if our universe is eternal or finite? So really, we have two sides.... You vs. other. In this, think of the gumball machine analogy. A bunch of gumballs are in the gumball machine. None of us truly know if the number of gumballs in the machine are odd or even. You assert odd, and the other asserts even. I remain logically agnostic because I have not actually counted the gumballs to demonstrate the real answer. As I keep telling you, until anything is demonstrated, it is illogical to fully believe it. Thus, until you can not only demonstrate a god, but anything supernatural at all for that matter, I find you may have a lot of work ahead of you. Good luck! Once a god has been demonstrated, I will add god into the list of options as a "universe starter."

3 things in life that are certain..

1. Death

2. Taxes

3. Not getting a simple yes/no answer from POI, to a simple yes/no question.

It was a yes or no question, and you ran wild with it.

I'll just address both separately.

Jesus Christ.

[POI]

I'm not watching any videos

Then you cannot address the meat and potatoes of the thread in which you stated you would engage. This is essentially a breach of contract. Without knowing what evolutionary biology proposes, you will merely continue in your false premise strawman tactics. Further, I'm not in the business to teach you. The video is a quick and easy-to-follow visual aid to get you up to speed. But since you refuse, this means you are not in the pursuit of truth after all.

Those two aren't necessarily the same thing.

You can split hairs however you like. Stay cordial and you should not encounter any problems.

Apology for what?

For the response you reported. I labelled you "ill-equipped." You reported it. My bad.

Too many unnecessary hypotheticals. Moving along.

I disagree entirely. I find that it would be impossible to hold to the position you currently hold about parts of Genesis, unless you are instead uniformed about what the evidence actually demonstrates. Which makes me wonder where you collected your data on the topic of evolution? But it seems you view this entire topic as taboo anyways, being you label it 'evil' and all. Hence, likely the reason you would never explore it further anyways..

"Since" we know that there is no evidential backing of evolutionary biology, we ain't gotta worry about no "ifs".

Since you refuse to watch the video, I can understand why you might state this.

I doubt I'll present something you've never heard before

Yea, I doubt it too. Which is disappointing. I would love to receive new information. It's too bad you refuse new information, regarding evolutionary biology.

but perhaps I can present it from a different angle.

You will likely be doing not much more than gold plating a turd. But again, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Exactly.

Doh!

Not getting a simple yes/no answer from POI, to a simple yes/no question. It was a yes or no question, and you ran wild with it.

I pride myself in full transparency. Love it or hate it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then you cannot address the meat and potatoes of the thread in which you stated you would engage. This is essentially a breach of contract.

Option 3: I said I'll address the video through the points that you make in your arguments about the video.

So, nothing in the contract stated it is mandatory to watch any particular video.

Without knowing what evolutionary biology proposes, you will merely continue in your false premise strawman tactics.

Um, no. I know what evolutionary biology proposes, and I reject the claims being made.

Plain and simple.

You do the same thing with Christianity.

You want me to watch a video that will more than likely be filled with convoluted bio-babble.

When you take away the fluff and feathers (bio-babble), the simplistic theory is that long ago, crazy macro-level changes were occuring in living organisms...changes that were never conveniently observed and never will be.

I reject that (those) claims at its core, and no video that attempts to explain what it means in any shape or form will get me any closer to thinking it is a viable option to explain the origin of species.

Further, I'm not in the business to teach you. The video is a quick and easy-to-follow visual aid to get you up to speed. But since you refuse, this means you are not in the pursuit of truth after all.

The only truth I know is Jesus (John 14:6).

Let God be true and all men liars.

You can split hairs however you like. Stay cordial and you should not encounter any problems.

As long as everyone's uncordial-ness is treated the same, there shouldn't be any problems.

And the fact that more often than not, this isn't the case; that's the problem.

For the response you reported. I labelled you "ill-equipped." You reported it. My bad.

Apology accepted, but not needed.

It wouldn't have even been an issue, had I not got dinged for the same exact thing not too long before.

I disagree entirely. I find that it would be impossible to hold to the position you currently hold about parts of Genesis, unless you are instead uniformed about what the evidence actually demonstrates. Which makes me wonder where you collected your data on the topic of evolution? But it seems you view this entire topic as taboo anyways, being you label it 'evil' and all. Hence, likely the reason you would never explore it further anyways..

Opinions.

You can have the last word there.

Yea, I doubt it too. Which is disappointing. I would love to receive new information.

Yeah, but the fun and entertaining part of it is, the fact that you know what's coming well ahead of time, yet you are still no more prepared for it than if you knew nothing about it at all.

That, my friend, is the power of the argument...the power of truth..and ultimately, the power of God.

It's too bad you refuse new information, regarding evolutionary biology.

Dogs produce dogs.

Why do I need new information, when I am reminded every day at the zoo, farm, and backyard of the old information.

You will likely be doing not much more than gold plating a turd. But again, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

You will pay dearly for that statement.

I pride myself in full transparency. Love it or hate it.

You saying you take "pride" in being a full trans parent?

Hey, I'm not here to judge folks on what they do in their personal lives.

I do have reservations on raising children in such households.

But I just let go and let God, ya know.

[POI]

Option 3: I said I'll address the video through the points that you make in your arguments about the video. So, nothing in the contract stated it is mandatory to watch any particular video.

I already did that long ago. I asked what you knew about studies found about Chromosome #2 in humans, centromeres and telomers, and the GNOME. And you stated you weren't aware. Illustration from the video would quickly get you up to speed. Your unwillingness to be taught easily, based upon a technicality, is telling.

Um, no. I know what evolutionary biology proposes, and I reject the claims being made.

Then you are currently objectively incorrect. Without knowing the above, this is logically impossible.

You do the same thing with Christianity.

Which major branch do I study for truth, the Catholics, Protestants, or the Orthodox? Rhetorical Q BTW.

You want me to watch a video that will more than likely be filled with convoluted bio-babble.

In regard to the video, poisoning the well will do yourself no favors here.

When you take away the fluff and feathers (bio-babble), the simplistic theory is that long ago, crazy macro-level changes were occuring in living organisms...changes that were never conveniently observed and never will be.

Incorrect. We can both observe them, as well as we can repeatedly test them. The video explains.

I reject that (those) claims at its core, and no video that attempts to explain what it means in any shape or form will get me any closer to thinking it is a viable option to explain the origin of species.

Not with that attitude

As long as everyone's uncordial-ness is treated the same, there shouldn't be any problems. And the fact that more often than not, this isn't the case; that's the problem.

I don't think simply issuing a report always warns the intended recipient. The moderator also has to agree. Just remain civil and you'll be fine. It's like one complaining that they get more speeding tickets than another. If you do not speed, then you, yourself, do not have to worry about speeding tickets. Be not concerned of what preferential treatment you believe others receive. FYI, I used to engage in a theistic apologetics forum, until they finally banned me. They also conveniently shut down the apologetics section too, at the same time of banning me, but I digress.

It wouldn't have even been an issue, had I not got dinged for the same exact thing not too long before.

Did you get this advice from Jesus? Quite the contrary. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek. Do two wrongs make a right? It's funny how you, quoting Bible verses and all, only like to abide by the rules which are convenient for you.

Yeah, but the fun and entertaining part of it is, the fact that you know what's coming well ahead of time, yet you are still no more prepared for it than if you knew nothing about it at all.

Then I guess you are insinuating that I am already convinced, but instead are a liar or in denial to the conclusion that a 'prime mover' exists?

That, my friend, is the power of the argument...the power of truth..and ultimately, the power of God.

As long as you also completely avoid receiving new critical information about evolution.

You will pay dearly for that statement.

LOL! I already told you prior, I'm honestly indifferent, and I already told you why. Also remember that it is not logical to infer a conclusion which has not first been demonstrated. This is why it is not logical to infer a god. Naturalism/material has. God, or anything supernatural for that matter, have not. Demonstrate God, or the supernatural, and then you can have the luxury in adding these options in as a viable conclusion. Do not instead place the cart before the horse.

[SiNcE_1985]

I already did that long ago. I asked what you knew about studies found about Chromosome #2 in humans, centromeres and telomers, and the GNOME. And you stated you weren't aware. Illustration from the video would quickly get you up to speed. Your unwillingness to be taught easily, based upon a technicality, is telling.

Again, your determination here
needs to be scientifically studied.

Then you are currently objectively incorrect. Without knowing the above, this is logically impossible.

Without power from the Heavens above, existence is futile.

Which major branch do I study for truth, the Catholics, Protestants, or the Orthodox? Rhetorical Q BTW.

?

Incorrect. We can both observe them, as well as we can repeatedly test them. The video explains.

A reptile evolving into a bird. Have you observed this?

Not with that attitude

I'm just driving home the point that you don't seem to grasp.

I don't think simply issuing a report always warns the intended recipient. The moderator also has to agree.

Point?

Just remain civil and you'll be fine. It's like one complaining that they get more speeding tickets than another. If you do not speed, then you, yourself, do not have to worry about speeding tickets. Be not concerned of what preferential treatment you believe others receive. FYI, I used to engage in a theistic apologetics forum, until they finally banned me. They also conveniently shut down the apologetics section too, at the same time of banning me, but I digress.

"Be not concerned of what preferential treatment you believe others receive".

In other words..

"Shut up, fall in line, and continue to be mistreated".

Did you get this advice from Jesus? Quite the contrary. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek. Do two wrongs make a right? It's funny how you, quoting Bible verses and all, only like to abide by the rules which are convenient for you.

I did turn the other cheek...but this has been occuring numerous times.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not continue getting hit over and over again.

Then I guess you are insinuating that I am already convinced, but instead are a liar or in denial to the conclusion that a 'prime mover' exists?

Reading comprehension.

No, that's not what I was insinuating.

Never mind my intended point, since you botched it that bad.

As long as you also completely avoid receiving new critical information about evolution.

Bruh, repeat after me..

DOGS...PRODUCE...DOGS.

Now, let's say it together...

DOGS...PRODUCE...DOGS.

Do you copy?

LOL! I already told you prior, I'm honestly indifferent, and I already told you why. Also remember that it is not logical to infer a conclusion which has not first been demonstrated. This is why it is not logical to infer a god. Naturalism/material has. God, or anything supernatural for that matter, have not. Demonstrate God, or the supernatural, and then you can have the luxury in adding these options in as a viable conclusion. Do not instead place the cart before the horse.