"...the more we study the universe, the more we realize it is amazingly designed for life on Earth..." Um... no. Not at all. _Almost all_ of the universe is either _not needed_ for life on Earth or is _actively hostile_ to life on Earth. _All_ that would be required for life on Earth to exist is a planet of vaguely similar composition, and a star within tens of millions of miles of where ours is in comparison to its output (meaning a bigger star and a further distance would _also_ work). Other stars, planets, the moon, asteroids, comets, etc, are all unneeded. "...and we got really [x3] lucky..." If you roll a 100-sided die and get 100, that's lucky. If you roll it 5 times and get a 100 once, that's... less lucky. If you roll it _10,000_ times and manage to get 100 at least once in there, that's not 'lucky', that's _expected._ Depending on what you mean, keep in mind that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or more planets in the observable universe, and _1_ of those has conditions that support life. Well... yeah, of course. With that many possibilities, it would be astonishing if there were _not_ planets that can support life. If you mean the universe 'as a whole', the problem here is we have _no idea_ how many 'universes' there have been, so we can't tell if _our_ universe is 'unlikely' or 'inevitable'. "...the universe has a beginning..." Maybe. Maybe not. There are models of physics where it doesn't. Perhaps the cosmos is, itself, eternal with a quantum field that always had and alaways will exist spitting out things like what we see of the universe every so often. Or maybe we live in a four-dimensional block universe, where past, present, and future are all equally real. Like a movie on BluRay. The whole thing _already exists,_ but from the inside it _seems like_ time passes (to those 'inside the movie') even though any event is just 'where on the BluRay one happens to look'. "...how amazingly fine-tuned the universe is for life to happen here on Earth..." It seems it is, but is it really, or are we just measuring the same thing in two different ways and being shocked that you can't change one unit of measure while having it all work out as it did before, or else unaware of that universe-generating thing that would make a universe like this inevitable? We don't know, nor do we have a way (for now) to work out an answer. Moreover, the universe can't be shown to be fine-tuned _for life_ as opposed to, say, for black holes. "...DNA is the biological system that carries all the information about how a living thing will look and function..." Sort of. There are systems _external to_ DNA (epigenetics) that have some say in the matter as well. "...but [DNA] is able to hold mind blowing amounts of this information..." Well, in the case of humans, it's less than Windows 10. "...we may think that a modern hard-drive can store a lot of information, but DNA is much smaller and can store far more information..." Depends on what you mean. For a given volume? Sure. Still, human DNA has about 3 billion 'chem-bits' (ACGT characters). To do that in binary (like a computer), you need double the number. So 6 billion 'bits' is the computer equivalent of human DNA. That's a 6GB drive. I have a 250GB drive in my laptop, and keep chafing at the restriction of being stuck to something so small. "...but coded messages..." Kinda. It's a nifty analogy, but it's not _quite_ accurate. It's, ultimately, chemistry and nothing more (as far as anyone can tell). "...we know that information always comes from a mind..." False. Minds _put_ information _onto_ things. Consider the age of a tree. That's a piece of information, but a mind isn't required for that age to be what it is. The layout of sand dunes in a desert at some particular time is information, but that layout is _there_ whether some mind puts the 'information' of it on that desert or not. DNA does not 'contain information' in that way, it's a chemical that does what it does, and would do so whether any mind was present or not (so far as anyone can tell). Moreover, to refer to DNA as 'information' in _that sense_ leaves you with the _really weird_ idea that there are _onions_ that have 'more information' in them than humans do. Same with rice. Thinking of DNA as information _like that_ is _really_ not useful. "...if you came across this information on a beach..." Imagine, instead, you came across a bunch of what look like random scratches, but they happen to have been scrawled in there by aliens in their own language, what could you say about it? ... Nothing. This is why thinking of 'information' in that way doesn't work. "...would you think the waves and wind produced this information..." Probably not given that we observe how wind and waves leave things and notice that the scratches in the sand are 'different from that'. In fact, the way you can tell it was 'designed' has _not one thing_ to do with any sort of 'information' content, but instead with a _contrast._ Since those marks are 'not natural', you conclude 'design'. The _problem_ here is that DNA _is_ natural, so the contrast you used to detect the design/information there _does not exist_ for DNA.
"Perhaps the cosmos is, its self, eternal with a quantum field that always had and always will exist..." My favorite thing here is you're discrediting the idea of God by providing an alternative that the universe has no beginning while simultaneously presenting your own uncaused creation in a context that implies it's somehow more rational despite being utterly baseless. You basically described God, but with language you prefer since you don't feel conviction of sin. Hardly anyone talks about the alternative universe models you presented for a reason. Everything you mentioned regarding DNA is painted so painfully and poorly to try and give an impression that DNA isn't something you should be shocked at for being an "accident". DNA is only about 3.4 billions base-paired nucliotides long which is approximate to 3.4GB, but that small amount of data is *incredibly unknown* in just the values function. We have a very small understanding, but most of it is still unknown to us despite decades of specific research on it. Not to mention there's more than just ACGT. We have AA'CC'GT, A-methylated and C-methylated (bisulfide sequencing). We know hilariously little. It would be like understanding a few bits of data in a 16 byte code. This isn't even touching floating proteins or mitochondrial organelles and a myriad of other complications. The 3.4 billion nucleotides are barely understood as is. We can go a little further with DNA encoded proteins being similar to an object-oriented programming language, but on a far, far, *far* bigger scale. The encoded proteins even function as a pump at the end of electronic transport train to create energy for cells. You could go further and discuss the interactions between such things along with various motors, transporters, and other order structures that all work together to make life. The entire human genome only takes up about 900MB of storage. It's the small size combined with the *sheer complexity* that you conveniently (purposefully) omitted is what makes it mind blowing and difficult to accept as a giant whoops and to proclaim it just kinda accidentally happened. The beautiful organization of life, how fractals in the physical world follow the purely mental concepts of math/numbers, and philosophical arguments that have only been bolstered by our observation of our universe's beginning and study of our bodies is what leads credence to God. Look up the Mandelbrot Set graphed into a computer for fun too. It really boils down to you not liking the idea that you're going to be held accountable to an almighty God so you'd rather convince yourself he doesn't exist. I'll just wait for the likely inevitable "keep chasing fables" retort as you literally substitute God with something you created that, in your mind, should have equally small reason to believe. I pray you get to know Jesus Christ as your savior and you realize, like everyone else, you're a sinner.
@@quentoncollins8861 *My favorite thing here is you're discrediting the idea of God by providing an alternative that the universe has no beginning while simultaneously presenting your own uncaused creation in a context that implies it's somehow more rational despite being utterly baseless.* Are you suggesting quantum fields have not been detected? Or that quantum particle production and annihilation hasn't been observed? *You basically described God, but with language you prefer since you don't feel conviction of sin.* What I described has no intelligence, so is not a god. If whatever caused the universe to be as it is lacks thoughts, intelligence, memory, intent, then it is _not_ a god, no matter what _other_ properties ascribed to a god it might have. That's like saying a rock is a human because they're both material. Being material is _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to be human. Similarly, being eternal and powerful are _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to be a god. *Hardly anyone talks about the alternative universe models you presented for a reason.* Yes, and that reason is a lack of evidence. Which is why I reject them. And I reject a god for the same reason. That's why I said 'perhaps'. And it's why I presented a model _beyond_ the quantum field. I didn't, here, present the idea of a magic immaterial rock or universe-farting pixies, but either of those fit the bill without being a 'god' either, and there's no evidence for those _either,_ and so I reject them, too. *Everything you mentioned regarding DNA is painted so painfully and poorly to try and give an impression that DNA isn't something you should be shocked at for being an "accident".* Mostly because we don't know how DNA arose in the first place, so we can't tell if it's 'astonishing' or not. The fact that any _particular_ DNA chain exists _now_ is not at all astonishing, the hard part is working out how the _first_ DNA came about. Once you've got DNA replicating imperfectly, everything else is free. *DNA is only about 3.4 billions base-paired nucliotides long which is approximate to 3.4GB, but that small amount of data is incredibly unknown in just the values function.* Well, human DNA is. There are living things with _hundreds_ of times the number of base-pairs that we have while being things like rice and onions and so on. That's part of what makes it pretty clear it's _not_ 'intelligently designed'. Imagine if Windows 10 took up ten times the space on a hard drive and practically none of that extra stuff _did_ anything, ever, for the specific computer it was on. Is DNA like that? A lot of it seems to be, huge sections of it just 'shut off'. *We have a very small understanding, but most of it is still unknown to us despite decades of specific research on it.* Sure. We don't know a lot of things. So how can you declare you 'know' that a god did it when you don't understand it? Isn't that _literally_ the god of the gaps? *It's the small size combined with the sheer complexity that you conveniently (purposefully) omitted is what makes it mind blowing and difficult to accept as a giant whoops and to proclaim it just kinda accidentally happened.* Which I don't claim that it is. But to declare it deliberately designed because you don't understand it is a fallacy. We don't understand so god was the way we used to think about lightning, earthquakes, tornadoes, and so on. Why think _this_ is any different? *It really boils down to you not liking the idea that you're going to be held accountable to an almighty God* Nah, you know there isn't a god, but you're so afraid of death you're desperate to find any excuse to believe, so you'll take anything you don't understand and twist it into 'god did that' just to bolster your notion that there's a cosmic wizard that will make this alright and somehow you'll survive. ... I mean, if you _want_ to play this arrogant game where we _tell the other person_ what's in _their mind,_ I can play, too, jerk. *I pray you get to know Jesus Christ as your savior and you realize, like everyone else, you're a sinner.* You mean I have your made-up disease and so need your made-up cure? Pfft, nah, I'll base what I believe on evidence, thanks.
@@robindude8187 I don't think you understand what God of the gaps is. If I see a lighting strike and then claim it must be God because I don't understand it then sure, but with what we know about DNA the idea of it occurring from a chance universe, ironically, takes as much faith if not more than belief in God at this point because of how complex *what we know* is. And it's not just complex - it's also hyper *efficient* I never claimed anything about quantum fields, but what I did claim is you see God as unreasonable - but then you substitute him for your own unreasonable uncaused creation that has no evidence for its existence, while believing it to be more rational because you don't like the idea of being accountable for your actions in life by God. And you're comitting the fallacy fallacy. Your rock example shows you don't even understand what I was talking about. I've also already explained why studying DNA (and other things) is very different to just concluding it must be God because we don't understand something. There's 0 arrogance here. You really just don't like the idea of a God making you accountable for your actions. At the heart of it all is always a moral problem. As the Bible says - you'll deliberately forget, seeing your consciousness with a hot iron. You getting *this* offended by the proclamation is just reinforcing it. There's not even a point of contending with this further. You'll just come up with a rescue device, substitute God with something more unreasonable while believing you're wise in the process of doing it, and then intentionally ignore the highly intelligent design in the subjects you're studying. You know in your heart deep down you're a sinner and this is why you vehemently struggle to deny God. For you love the wages of unrighteousness and have no pleasure in the light. God bless and I hope one day you can set aside your preconceived notions.
@@quentoncollins8861 *If I see a lighting strike and then claim it must be God because I don't understand it then sure, but with what we know about DNA the idea of it occurring from a chance universe, ironically, takes as much faith if not more than belief in God at this point because of how complex what we know is. And it's not just complex - it's also hyper efficient* It comes down to 'you do not know how it came about, so it must be god'. Complexity is not how we detect design or intelligence. It takes _no faith_ to _reject_ the god hypothesis as, at present, unconfirmed. *but then you substitute him for your own unreasonable uncaused creation that has no evidence for its existence, while believing it to be more rational* The _only_ extent to which it is _any_ more rational than a god is that we have _detected_ quantum fields, but have not detected a god. Both an invisible stalker _and_ an inside job might account for an assassination, and the inside job is more rational because we've detected 'visible people who have betrayed those they work for' in the past, making an invisible stalker _less_ reasonable by definition. Your asinine supposition as to any motives I might have is just you being a jerk. *And you're comitting the fallacy fallacy.* To commit the fallacy fallacy I must say that you are wrong (ie that your position is false) _because_ of your fallacy. I'm not. I'm saying your position has not been _demonstrated_ because of your fallacy and as such I reject it _because_ it hasn't been demonstrated. *There's 0 arrogance here.* Keep telling yourself that, jerk. *There's not even a point of contending with this further.* Agreed. *You know in your heart deep down you're a sinner* Go blow it out your ass, jerk. You're just sucking your imaginary god's cock and trying to pretend you're superior because you're just too scared to deal with reality as it is. It's obvious, and you're pathetic. Feel free to add anything else if you like, I'm done talking to you, cretin.
"...the more we study the universe, the more we realize it is amazingly designed for life on Earth..."
Um... no. Not at all. _Almost all_ of the universe is either _not needed_ for life on Earth or is _actively hostile_ to life on Earth. _All_ that would be required for life on Earth to exist is a planet of vaguely similar composition, and a star within tens of millions of miles of where ours is in comparison to its output (meaning a bigger star and a further distance would _also_ work). Other stars, planets, the moon, asteroids, comets, etc, are all unneeded.
"...and we got really [x3] lucky..."
If you roll a 100-sided die and get 100, that's lucky. If you roll it 5 times and get a 100 once, that's... less lucky. If you roll it _10,000_ times and manage to get 100 at least once in there, that's not 'lucky', that's _expected._
Depending on what you mean, keep in mind that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or more planets in the observable universe, and _1_ of those has conditions that support life. Well... yeah, of course. With that many possibilities, it would be astonishing if there were _not_ planets that can support life.
If you mean the universe 'as a whole', the problem here is we have _no idea_ how many 'universes' there have been, so we can't tell if _our_ universe is 'unlikely' or 'inevitable'.
"...the universe has a beginning..."
Maybe. Maybe not. There are models of physics where it doesn't. Perhaps the cosmos is, itself, eternal with a quantum field that always had and alaways will exist spitting out things like what we see of the universe every so often. Or maybe we live in a four-dimensional block universe, where past, present, and future are all equally real. Like a movie on BluRay. The whole thing _already exists,_ but from the inside it _seems like_ time passes (to those 'inside the movie') even though any event is just 'where on the BluRay one happens to look'.
"...how amazingly fine-tuned the universe is for life to happen here on Earth..."
It seems it is, but is it really, or are we just measuring the same thing in two different ways and being shocked that you can't change one unit of measure while having it all work out as it did before, or else unaware of that universe-generating thing that would make a universe like this inevitable? We don't know, nor do we have a way (for now) to work out an answer.
Moreover, the universe can't be shown to be fine-tuned _for life_ as opposed to, say, for black holes.
"...DNA is the biological system that carries all the information about how a living thing will look and function..."
Sort of. There are systems _external to_ DNA (epigenetics) that have some say in the matter as well.
"...but [DNA] is able to hold mind blowing amounts of this information..."
Well, in the case of humans, it's less than Windows 10.
"...we may think that a modern hard-drive can store a lot of information, but DNA is much smaller and can store far more information..."
Depends on what you mean. For a given volume? Sure. Still, human DNA has about 3 billion 'chem-bits' (ACGT characters). To do that in binary (like a computer), you need double the number. So 6 billion 'bits' is the computer equivalent of human DNA. That's a 6GB drive. I have a 250GB drive in my laptop, and keep chafing at the restriction of being stuck to something so small.
"...but coded messages..."
Kinda. It's a nifty analogy, but it's not _quite_ accurate. It's, ultimately, chemistry and nothing more (as far as anyone can tell).
"...we know that information always comes from a mind..."
False. Minds _put_ information _onto_ things. Consider the age of a tree. That's a piece of information, but a mind isn't required for that age to be what it is. The layout of sand dunes in a desert at some particular time is information, but that layout is _there_ whether some mind puts the 'information' of it on that desert or not. DNA does not 'contain information' in that way, it's a chemical that does what it does, and would do so whether any mind was present or not (so far as anyone can tell).
Moreover, to refer to DNA as 'information' in _that sense_ leaves you with the _really weird_ idea that there are _onions_ that have 'more information' in them than humans do. Same with rice. Thinking of DNA as information _like that_ is _really_ not useful.
"...if you came across this information on a beach..."
Imagine, instead, you came across a bunch of what look like random scratches, but they happen to have been scrawled in there by aliens in their own language, what could you say about it? ... Nothing. This is why thinking of 'information' in that way doesn't work.
"...would you think the waves and wind produced this information..."
Probably not given that we observe how wind and waves leave things and notice that the scratches in the sand are 'different from that'. In fact, the way you can tell it was 'designed' has _not one thing_ to do with any sort of 'information' content, but instead with a _contrast._ Since those marks are 'not natural', you conclude 'design'. The _problem_ here is that DNA _is_ natural, so the contrast you used to detect the design/information there _does not exist_ for DNA.
"Perhaps the cosmos is, its self, eternal with a quantum field that always had and always will exist..."
My favorite thing here is you're discrediting the idea of God by providing an alternative that the universe has no beginning while simultaneously presenting your own uncaused creation in a context that implies it's somehow more rational despite being utterly baseless. You basically described God, but with language you prefer since you don't feel conviction of sin. Hardly anyone talks about the alternative universe models you presented for a reason.
Everything you mentioned regarding DNA is painted so painfully and poorly to try and give an impression that DNA isn't something you should be shocked at for being an "accident". DNA is only about 3.4 billions base-paired nucliotides long which is approximate to 3.4GB, but that small amount of data is *incredibly unknown* in just the values function. We have a very small understanding, but most of it is still unknown to us despite decades of specific research on it.
Not to mention there's more than just ACGT. We have AA'CC'GT, A-methylated and C-methylated (bisulfide sequencing). We know hilariously little. It would be like understanding a few bits of data in a 16 byte code.
This isn't even touching floating proteins or mitochondrial organelles and a myriad of other complications. The 3.4 billion nucleotides are barely understood as is. We can go a little further with DNA encoded proteins being similar to an object-oriented programming language, but on a far, far, *far* bigger scale. The encoded proteins even function as a pump at the end of electronic transport train to create energy for cells.
You could go further and discuss the interactions between such things along with various motors, transporters, and other order structures that all work together to make life.
The entire human genome only takes up about 900MB of storage. It's the small size combined with the *sheer complexity* that you conveniently (purposefully) omitted is what makes it mind blowing and difficult to accept as a giant whoops and to proclaim it just kinda accidentally happened.
The beautiful organization of life, how fractals in the physical world follow the purely mental concepts of math/numbers, and philosophical arguments that have only been bolstered by our observation of our universe's beginning and study of our bodies is what leads credence to God. Look up the Mandelbrot Set graphed into a computer for fun too.
It really boils down to you not liking the idea that you're going to be held accountable to an almighty God so you'd rather convince yourself he doesn't exist. I'll just wait for the likely inevitable "keep chasing fables" retort as you literally substitute God with something you created that, in your mind, should have equally small reason to believe.
I pray you get to know Jesus Christ as your savior and you realize, like everyone else, you're a sinner.
@@quentoncollins8861
*My favorite thing here is you're discrediting the idea of God by providing an alternative that the universe has no beginning while simultaneously presenting your own uncaused creation in a context that implies it's somehow more rational despite being utterly baseless.*
Are you suggesting quantum fields have not been detected? Or that quantum particle production and annihilation hasn't been observed?
*You basically described God, but with language you prefer since you don't feel conviction of sin.*
What I described has no intelligence, so is not a god. If whatever caused the universe to be as it is lacks thoughts, intelligence, memory, intent, then it is _not_ a god, no matter what _other_ properties ascribed to a god it might have. That's like saying a rock is a human because they're both material. Being material is _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to be human. Similarly, being eternal and powerful are _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to be a god.
*Hardly anyone talks about the alternative universe models you presented for a reason.*
Yes, and that reason is a lack of evidence. Which is why I reject them. And I reject a god for the same reason. That's why I said 'perhaps'. And it's why I presented a model _beyond_ the quantum field. I didn't, here, present the idea of a magic immaterial rock or universe-farting pixies, but either of those fit the bill without being a 'god' either, and there's no evidence for those _either,_ and so I reject them, too.
*Everything you mentioned regarding DNA is painted so painfully and poorly to try and give an impression that DNA isn't something you should be shocked at for being an "accident".*
Mostly because we don't know how DNA arose in the first place, so we can't tell if it's 'astonishing' or not. The fact that any _particular_ DNA chain exists _now_ is not at all astonishing, the hard part is working out how the _first_ DNA came about. Once you've got DNA replicating imperfectly, everything else is free.
*DNA is only about 3.4 billions base-paired nucliotides long which is approximate to 3.4GB, but that small amount of data is incredibly unknown in just the values function.*
Well, human DNA is. There are living things with _hundreds_ of times the number of base-pairs that we have while being things like rice and onions and so on. That's part of what makes it pretty clear it's _not_ 'intelligently designed'. Imagine if Windows 10 took up ten times the space on a hard drive and practically none of that extra stuff _did_ anything, ever, for the specific computer it was on. Is DNA like that? A lot of it seems to be, huge sections of it just 'shut off'.
*We have a very small understanding, but most of it is still unknown to us despite decades of specific research on it.*
Sure. We don't know a lot of things. So how can you declare you 'know' that a god did it when you don't understand it? Isn't that _literally_ the god of the gaps?
*It's the small size combined with the sheer complexity that you conveniently (purposefully) omitted is what makes it mind blowing and difficult to accept as a giant whoops and to proclaim it just kinda accidentally happened.*
Which I don't claim that it is. But to declare it deliberately designed because you don't understand it is a fallacy. We don't understand so god was the way we used to think about lightning, earthquakes, tornadoes, and so on. Why think _this_ is any different?
*It really boils down to you not liking the idea that you're going to be held accountable to an almighty God*
Nah, you know there isn't a god, but you're so afraid of death you're desperate to find any excuse to believe, so you'll take anything you don't understand and twist it into 'god did that' just to bolster your notion that there's a cosmic wizard that will make this alright and somehow you'll survive. ... I mean, if you _want_ to play this arrogant game where we _tell the other person_ what's in _their mind,_ I can play, too, jerk.
*I pray you get to know Jesus Christ as your savior and you realize, like everyone else, you're a sinner.*
You mean I have your made-up disease and so need your made-up cure? Pfft, nah, I'll base what I believe on evidence, thanks.
@@robindude8187 I don't think you understand what God of the gaps is. If I see a lighting strike and then claim it must be God because I don't understand it then sure, but with what we know about DNA the idea of it occurring from a chance universe, ironically, takes as much faith if not more than belief in God at this point because of how complex *what we know* is. And it's not just complex - it's also hyper *efficient*
I never claimed anything about quantum fields, but what I did claim is you see God as unreasonable - but then you substitute him for your own unreasonable uncaused creation that has no evidence for its existence, while believing it to be more rational because you don't like the idea of being accountable for your actions in life by God.
And you're comitting the fallacy fallacy. Your rock example shows you don't even understand what I was talking about. I've also already explained why studying DNA (and other things) is very different to just concluding it must be God because we don't understand something.
There's 0 arrogance here. You really just don't like the idea of a God making you accountable for your actions. At the heart of it all is always a moral problem. As the Bible says - you'll deliberately forget, seeing your consciousness with a hot iron. You getting *this* offended by the proclamation is just reinforcing it.
There's not even a point of contending with this further. You'll just come up with a rescue device, substitute God with something more unreasonable while believing you're wise in the process of doing it, and then intentionally ignore the highly intelligent design in the subjects you're studying.
You know in your heart deep down you're a sinner and this is why you vehemently struggle to deny God. For you love the wages of unrighteousness and have no pleasure in the light.
God bless and I hope one day you can set aside your preconceived notions.
@@quentoncollins8861
*If I see a lighting strike and then claim it must be God because I don't understand it then sure, but with what we know about DNA the idea of it occurring from a chance universe, ironically, takes as much faith if not more than belief in God at this point because of how complex what we know is. And it's not just complex - it's also hyper efficient*
It comes down to 'you do not know how it came about, so it must be god'. Complexity is not how we detect design or intelligence. It takes _no faith_ to _reject_ the god hypothesis as, at present, unconfirmed.
*but then you substitute him for your own unreasonable uncaused creation that has no evidence for its existence, while believing it to be more rational*
The _only_ extent to which it is _any_ more rational than a god is that we have _detected_ quantum fields, but have not detected a god. Both an invisible stalker _and_ an inside job might account for an assassination, and the inside job is more rational because we've detected 'visible people who have betrayed those they work for' in the past, making an invisible stalker _less_ reasonable by definition. Your asinine supposition as to any motives I might have is just you being a jerk.
*And you're comitting the fallacy fallacy.*
To commit the fallacy fallacy I must say that you are wrong (ie that your position is false) _because_ of your fallacy. I'm not. I'm saying your position has not been _demonstrated_ because of your fallacy and as such I reject it _because_ it hasn't been demonstrated.
*There's 0 arrogance here.*
Keep telling yourself that, jerk.
*There's not even a point of contending with this further.*
Agreed.
*You know in your heart deep down you're a sinner*
Go blow it out your ass, jerk. You're just sucking your imaginary god's cock and trying to pretend you're superior because you're just too scared to deal with reality as it is. It's obvious, and you're pathetic. Feel free to add anything else if you like, I'm done talking to you, cretin.