₦airaland Forum

hahn:
"God did it" is a non answer. It is not a fact only an assumption share by you and many other people. But it's all good

If I see a painting , you hahn did and I ask you , who did it ? What would be your reply ?

KingEbukasBlog:
If I see a painting , you hahn did and I ask you , who did it ? What would be your reply ?

Well, it did it.

If we both happened to be walking pass a store and saw a painting and you asked me, who did it and I said, "my uncle did it" and I can't even prove to you that I have an uncle, no pictures of the uncle or any of his previous works. What will you say when I tell you not to bother but "believe" my uncle did it?

hahn:
Well, it did it.

If we both happened to be walking pass a store and saw a painting and you asked me, who did it and I said, "my uncle did it" and I can't even prove to you that I have an uncle, no pictures of the uncle or any of his previous works. What will you say when I tell you not to bother but "believe" my uncle did it?

No obviously

But one thing is sure ,the painting was done by someone right ?'

And then someone placed the painting in the store right ?

KingEbukasBlog:
No obviously

But one thing is sure ,the painting was done by someone right ?'

And then someone placed the painting in the store right ?

Of course. Someone painted it and someone put it up there.

But does me saying it's my uncle that did it, despite the fact that I and no one in my family have ever seen my uncle in person, serve as provof that my uncle actually did it?

hahn:
Of course. Someone painted it and someone put it up there.

But does me saying it's my uncle that did it, despite the fact that I and no one in my family have ever seen my uncle in person, serve as provof that my uncle actually did it?

Then your uncle should re-do the painting and I will witness or experience the event . So if another person sees it i'd support your claim that your uncle did it .

KingEbukasBlog:
Then your uncle should re-do the painting and I will witness or experience the event . So if another person sees it i'd support your claim that your uncle did it .

Aha! But you first have to prove he didn't do it

Now, let's imagine I tell you my uncle sat down in our house and painted it, even though I nor anyone in my family has ever seen it before, and everyone in my family agrees.

Then johnydon22 tells you my uncle did it in his own house by just looking at the canvass and that the painting appeared by itself.

The ifeness says that my uncle arrived on a space ship and dropped the painting on earth.

The plaetton says that my uncle took a canoe to the moon and brought the painting to earth.

Then frank317 says my uncle lived in the clouds and had a fight with his wife then the painting fell on earth.

Then sonoflucifer says my uncle brought the painting after a long and tormenting journey in hell.

Then geesampower says my uncle did the painting on the sun

Teempakguy says my uncle wore a bikini and brazilian hair while he did the painting

Shollyps says my uncle sat down on a star while he made the painting

Menesheh says my uncle did it upside down in a thong while fire came out of his head

Meanwhile, none of these people have ever seen my uncle, cannot prove he even exists and neither can I nor any of my family members. But we all agree he did it even though our accounts differ.

Can you prove my uncle didn't actually make the painting?

hahn:
Aha! But you first have to prove he didn't do it

Now, let's imagine I tell you my uncle sat down in our house and painted it, even though I nor anyone in my family has ever seen it before, and everyone in my family agrees.

Then johnydon22 tells you my uncle did it in his own house by just looking at the canvass and that the painting appeared by itself.

The ifeness says that my uncle arrived on a space ship and dropped the painting on earth.

The plaetton says that my uncle took a canoe to the moon and brought the painting to earth.

Then frank317 says my uncle lived in the clouds and had a fight with his wife then the painting fell on earth.

Then sonoflucifer says my uncle brought the painting after a long and tormenting journey in hell.

Then geesampower says my uncle did the painting on the sun

Teempakguy says my uncle wore a bikini and brazilian hair while he did the painting

Shollyps says my uncle sat down on a star while he made the painting

Menesheh says my uncle did it upside down in a thong while fire came out of his head

Meanwhile, none of these people have ever seen my uncle, cannot prove he even exists and neither can I nor any of my family members. But we all agree he did it even though our accounts differ.

Can you prove my uncle didn't actually make the painting?

What kind of puerile analogy is this ? The point is the painting was done by someone which is your uncle . I witnessed a re-do of the painting and can support your claim that its your uncle's painting . Stop obfuscating issues , makes you look desperate

KingEbukasBlog:
What kind of puerile analogy is this ? The point is the painting was done by someone which is your uncle . I witnessed a re-do of the painting and can support your claim that its your uncle's painting . Stop obfuscating issues , makes you look desperate

My uncle did the painting. The fact that the painting is there is proof that he did it and he doesn't need to do it again to prove anything to you. He's a great painter and created that masterpiece.

You can't prove otherwise

hahn:
My uncle did the painting. The fact that the painting is there is proof that he did it and he doesn't need to do it again to prove anything to you. He's a great painter and created that masterpiece.

You can't prove otherwise

God created the universe . The fact that the universe is there is proof that he did it and He does not need to do it again to prove anything you . He's a great designer and created that masterpiece

You cant prove otherwise

hahn:
Aha! But you first have to prove he didn't do it

Now, let's imagine I tell you my uncle sat down in our house and painted it, even though I nor anyone in my family has ever seen it before, and everyone in my family agrees.

Then johnydon22 tells you my uncle did it in his own house by just looking at the canvass and that the painting appeared by itself.

The ifeness says that my uncle arrived on a space ship and dropped the painting on earth.

The plaetton says that my uncle took a canoe to the moon and brought the painting to earth.

Then frank317 says my uncle lived in the clouds and had a fight with his wife then the painting fell on earth.

Then sonoflucifer says my uncle brought the painting after a long and tormenting journey in hell.

Then geesampower says my uncle did the painting on the sun

Teempakguy says my uncle wore a bikini and brazilian hair while he did the painting

Shollyps says my uncle sat down on a star while he made the painting

Menesheh says my uncle did it upside down in a thong while fire came out of his head

Meanwhile, none of these people have ever seen my uncle, cannot prove he even exists and neither can I nor any of my family members. But we all agree he did it even though our accounts differ.

Can you prove my uncle didn't actually make the painting?

damn, so many uncles...

KingEbukasBlog:
God created the universe . The fact that the universe is there is proof that he did it and He does not need to do it again to prove anything you . He's a great designer and created that masterpiece

You cant prove otherwise

So, you agree that what I wrote up there makes sense, right? Yes or no?

KingEbukasBlog:
God created the universe . The fact that the universe is there is proof that he did it and He does not need to do it again to prove anything you . He's a great designer and created that masterpiece

You cant prove otherwise

Mshikewetteereniwasde created the universe. And if you didnt pronounce the name right on first try, that is the only proof that he created the world.

1 Mainiterns 2:56 for as a proof, I shall curse the unbelievers who dare to speak my name, they shall stutter and swallow before they pronounce my holy name. Ramen.


Shout out to Thoniameek. hope ur having a great weekend.

sonOfLucifer:
damn, so many uncles...

Actually, it's just one uncle we're talking about. Just different versions

BETATRON:
you're correct man
If adam and eve actually had no knowledge of good or evil why should God punish them "not just them but their "offsprings,,
What we see here is a god disobeying the divine justice himself.as you correctly asked "why should he put the tree there" since He has infinite knowledge he should know that adam and eve will eat the fruit "so why did He place it there?" Is it that He is longing to punish man or what?
Its either this god is a tyrant or has no infinite knowledge" which ever way He cannot be a God

If you understand the personality of God you will not ask this question. God didn't make robots, he made gods. He mad people that can make choices of their own. If you are familiar with the story of Job, God tested him because of the devil "the accuser" Why should he put the tree there? To keep them grounded, to make them aware of his authority. Ordinarily Adam and Eve will not have eaten the fruit, they had other fruits there and were never hungry, but the devil(a malfunction creature, constantly moving around and looking for whom to devour) tempts Eve to eat it.

sonOfLucifer:
Mshikewetteereniwasde created the universe. And if you didnt pronounce the name right on first try, that is the only proof that he created the world.

1 Mainiterns 2:56 for as a proof, I shall curse the unbelievers who dare to speak my name, they shall stutter and swallow before they pronounce my holy name. Ramen.


Shout out to Thoniameek. hope ur having a great weekend.

All hail Mshikewetteereniwasde!

sonOfLucifer:
Mshikewetteereniwasde created the universe. And if you didnt pronounce the name right on first try, that is the only proof that he created the world.

1 Mainiterns 2:56 for as a proof, I shall curse the unbelievers who dare to speak my name, they shall stutter and swallow before they pronounce my holy name. Ramen.


Shout out to Thoniameek. hope ur having a great weekend.

Yeah, I am..... How about you?


Still obsessed with the non-existing?

johnydon22:
[b]Lets check the story well..

Adam and eve knew nothing like right or wrong, they had no advanced knowledge of things before eating the fruit..

(Going by the story)
-If they didn't eat the fruit, we would probably be walking around unclad without knowing right from wrong or why lightening flash because we have no knowledge advanced enough for that..

Thats a cool story..

-So eve ate the tree of knowledge and by that one act her eyes were opened to the door of knowledge
(And God was mad?
why?
He needs robots and not people with knowledge?) Then why put the tree there.?

- Here God was against Knowledge but the snake whispered the first few words of learning into eve's ears, showed her the path to knowledge, the ability to understand which God didn't want her to know in the first place.

Who really is the Villain here.?

- According to the story Adam and Eve had no knowledge of Good and evil before eating the fruit meaning Eve didn't even know she was committing evil by eating the fruit but she was punished for her naivety.

I wonder how Eve could be out witted by a snake if she really had real homo sapiens brain, showing Eve was just a moroni_c pound of flesh walking around..

- God knew he didn't want the fruit eaten but he just had to put the fruit in front of them..
(I got rat poison biscuit, i know it's not good then i place it in front of my children and tell them not to eat it and get angry when they do?... Who dah fvck was supposed to be blamed..

Me or my children..

- And nobody is remembering there was a tree that could give eternal life.. (Immortality ) Cool story..

-Going by the omniscient principle, God knew before hand they would eat the fruit then was angry they did even though he put the tree there..

-It takes a special kind of crazy to believe such tales but well when a whole bunch of people believe it, we call it religion but if it were one person we would say he is crazy.

I think any right mind would agree that we must all Question the idea of a God who creates faulty humans then blames them for his own mistakes and still bears a grudge till now even on innocent children..

Such grudge bearing supreme being is not only childish but stark absurd..

Nobody was born a sin or sinner, somebody fvcking lied, its high time people realized that... [/b]

lol,every generation have a trace,the story look like a false story 2 u because it sound weird to your human mind.What Adam and Eve did was an act of disobedient which to God is a rebelous act,God initial plan for man was for man to reference him with worship,fellowship with him and remain in his plan for our creation but their disobedient change the initial plan.This is the very reason why God sent his only begoten son to die for us so through him we can reconcile with our creator.I don't want to start quoting bible references so that i won't sound religious but irrespective of that it is obvious that every thing operates on principals,rules whether existing or non existing.Have you ever ask yourself of all the words a child hear and learn the first set of word he or she uses is the abusive word.Why?Nothing absolutely exist on is own without a maker right or wrong?The fact and ideas ruling and governing the world today was laid down by people,we only key in,modify and reprogress.God is a mystery this is the very reason while human keep searching for his understanding and existence.The research and invention of today is the search of God wisdom yet that same human wisdom still remain passive and imperfect.While do human die it shows that here is not our perfect home and also defile the science that state that human is independent.If i may ask have you experience christ in your life?I will start taking science serious the day human becomes immortal."mind you excessive analyses lead to paralysis"Thanks.

RomanZeus:
You are Eve. You have been warned not to eat from
the tree of knowledge. would you heed the warning or nah?

If this question is asked in light of the actual event, then it wouldn't make sense, as eve, like me, would heed the warning and not eat the fruit. she heeded the warning, until she was deceived by the false words of the serpent. In this case, I will heed the warning. Simply because I trust God.

hehehe. you need to see how i was laughing yesterday when i read this. especially when i imagined the smug look on your face when you were posting rubbish. not only did you quote everything out of context, you also proved that most theists and creationists are complete morons. let's not waste much time on this.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. Job 1:6-7

this is not the satan i'm talking about. this one is an angel of god and his son. the hebrew word for him is hassatan. which means the accuser. not the fallen one which is implied in the new testament.

2. Isaiah 14:12-14

again, this is not reffering to satan at all. but instead to a man. who is the king of babylon. and the word lucifer was used for him. lucifer is NOT satan. . it's not even a name. it's simply a hebrew translation of "morning star." here is the same text, starting from verse three, downwards. in a different translation.

3 On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury[a] has ended!
5 The Lord has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
6 which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
8 Even the junipers and the cedars of Lebanon
gloat over you and say,
“Now that you have been laid low,
no one comes to cut us down.”
9 The realm of the dead below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones—
all those who were kings over the nations.
10 They will all respond,
they will say to you,
“You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us.”
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[b]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.
16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:

so what the hell is your problem? must you force meanings into things that have none?

3. Ezekiel 28:12-18

again, here, your foolishness is readily apparent. in verse 12, it is as clear as night and day that the whole bullshit you posted was meant for the king of tyre and not some devil somewhere. Go and sleep. you are not intelligent enough to understand your own bible.

4. Zechariah 3:1-2

again, this is the same Hassatan, the accuser, which was mentioned in job. in the hebrew bible, satan is a noun from a verb which means to obstruct. hassatan simply means the satan. which means the adversary. if you actually took time to study judaism, which your paltry religion stemmed from, you won't be here spewing bullshit about their religion. in fact, the word, satan, is used to describe men and has been used to describe people who were the enemies of israel. which your bibles cleverly mistranslated as adversary.
why don't you take a trip to the wikipedia article on satan, eh? perhaps that might prevent you from making blunders like this in the future.

Hell

1. Daniel 12:2

seriously? you seriously think this is hell? how does shame and everlasting contempt compare with fiery furnace and lake of fire? again, you are grasping at straws here.

So please have you started your Psalm 23 recitation ? Its day 1 already

i think you should spend more time actually understanding your ridiculous holy text filled with blunders more. i can already recite psalm 23 at the back of my head.

Joshthefirst:
If this question is asked in light of the actual event, then it wouldn't make sense, as eve, like me, would heed the warning and not eat the fruit. she heeded the warning, until she was deceived by the false words of the serpent. In this case, I will heed the warning. Simply because I trust God.

no you wouldn't . . . you're an adult. she wasn't. if we are to actually ask this in the light of the actual event, it would go more like this,

"you are a six year old kid, you have been warned to not eat the fruit, then someone else comes with a superior reasoning. that proves that it is okay to eat the fruit. meanwhile, you have only being warned once. and the warning came from another human being who claimed God told him so. would you eat the fruit?"

KingEbukasBlog:
Then your uncle should re-do the painting and I will witness or experience the event . So if another person sees it i'd support your claim that your uncle did it .

PERFECT!

using this same analogy, God MUST come down and recreate a small version of the universe before i believe that he is the one who created the universe.

Teempakguy:
PERFECT!

using this same analogy, God MUST come down and recreate a small version of the universe before i believe that he is the one who created the universe.

You do realise that even after the comment you quoted, bubu still didn't realize I was referring to his god in an analogy. I'm still waiting for his reply to my last question though

hahn:
So, you agree that what I wrote up there makes sense, right? Yes or no?

Kingebukasblog, what's your answer to this question?

hahn:
You do realise that even after the comment you quoted, bubu still didn't realize I was referring to his god in an analogy. I'm still waiting for his reply to my last question though

of course he won't.

they, just like their sky daddy, always disappears in face of logic.

Teempakguy:
no you wouldn't . . . you're an adult. she wasn't. if we are to actually ask this in the light of the actual event, it would go more like this,

"you are a six year old kid, you have been warned to not eat the fruit, then someone else comes with a superior reasoning. that proves that it is okay to eat the fruit. meanwhile, you have only being warned once. and the warning came from another human being who claimed God told him so. would you eat the fruit?"

This is not in light of the actual event, as you seem to have deliberately chosen to misrepresent the account given in the bible.

Adam and Eve weren't six year olds. The Serpent didn't come with any form of superior reasoning, neither did he prove anything, he only came with lies, and deception. Eve knew God, and the voice of God always came down in the cool of the day to have fellowship with them. It wasn't just Adam that warned her, God must have too.

A test came up, and Eve chose to be deceived by the serpent. I do not know what I will choose in that situation. But the good news is that this issue is irrelevant, as while the first Adam failed, a second Adam has come, superior to the first, and he has ended any events of any fall forever, having passed his own test. I am born after that second Adam. So I'm the very aura of invincibility, because of his sacrifice.

hahn:
You do realise that even after the comment you quoted, bubu still didn't realize I was referring to his god in an analogy. I'm still waiting for his reply to my last question though

Actually, King Ebuka has already made his solid point, which your analogy doesn't refute in any way. If there's anyone here being thick headed and I'd.iotic, its you and your friends. His point, which you actually conceeded to(thus indirectly renouncing your atheism), was that AS FAR AS THE PAINTING EXISTS, A CREATOR FOR THE SAID PAINTING EXISTS, BE IT YOUR UNCLE, OR WHOMEVER(I assume you and your friends are atheists.)

You didn't even realize that you and King had already logically agreed on the common premise of the fact that a painter for the painting clearly exists as far as the painting exists. Lol.
You, my friend, agreed to the existence of a creator.

Take a look at what you said:

hahn:
Of course. Someone painted it and someone put it up there.
But does me saying it's my uncle that did it, despite the fact that I and no one in my family have ever seen my uncle in person, serve as provof that my uncle actually did it?

These hastily said bolded words imply the direct opposite of your atheistic beliefs(I assume you're an atheist). In other words, you have simply stated here that you believe in a creator. (Assuming you're honest and you stick to your own analogy).

As a result, King replied you..

KingEbukasBlog:
God created the universe . The fact that the universe is there is proof that he did it and He does not need to do it again to prove anything you . He's a great designer and created that masterpiece
You cant prove otherwise

I'm sure he thought he had ended the argument with this reply. He thought you coherent and intelligent enough to realize that the above reply was exactly what you had agreed to. He will be disappointed when he comes back to see you and your friends spouting nonsense again.

So you agreed to the existence of a creator by your very own analogy, that makes you not an atheist. Who the creator is(which uncle) is another issue. But for this argument, we have all agreed to his existence. I expect a thank you for all the time I used up to teach you and your foolish friends the implications of your very statements.

Joshthefirst:
Actually, King Ebuka has already made his solid point, which your analogy doesn't refute in any way. If there's anyone here being thick headed and I'd.iotic, its you and your friends. His point, which you actually conceeded to(thus indirectly renouncing your atheism), was that AS FAR AS THE PAINTING EXISTS, A CREATOR FOR THE SAID PAINTING EXISTS, BE IT YOUR UNCLE, OR WHOMEVER(I assume you and your friends are atheists.)

You didn't even realize that you and King had already logically agreed on the common premise of the fact that a painter for the painting clearly exists as far as the painting exists. Lol.
You, my friend, agreed to the existence of a creator.

Take a look at what you said:
These hastily said bolded words imply the direct opposite of your atheistic beliefs(I assume you're an atheist). In other words, you have simply stated here that you believe in a creator. (Assuming you're honest and you stick to your own analogy).

As a result, King replied you..


I'm sure he thought he had ended the argument with this reply. He thought you coherent and intelligent enough to realize that the above reply was exactly what you had agreed to. He will be disappointed when he comes back to see you and your friends spouting nonsense again.

So you agreed to the existence of a creator by your very own analogy, that makes you not an atheist. Who the creator is(which uncle) is another issue. But for this argument, we have all agreed to his existence. I expect a thank you for all the time I used up to teach you and your foolish friends the implications of your very statements.

oh yes! A painter exists for every painting. But how does this show that the universe was designed?

Teempakguy:
chapter and verses please?

the reference in isaiah is ridiculous. for several reasons.

1. the verse clearly implies that whoever it was they were talking about came about AFTER the creation stories. when there were many kingdoms and people. in verse 12, in the last line, it says, you who once laid low the nation.

2. the verse was NOT talking about satan. it was talking about the king of babylon. it is supposed to be a taunt that the israelites were supposed to use against the king of babylon when "the lord" must have defeated him. check verse 3 and keep reading till you finish the chapter (chapter 14) and come and show me where isaiah said he was talking about satan.

the reference in job is not the satan in the new testament. he is an angel of the lord in the that book. a son of God in fact.

seriously, don't you guys ever read your bibles?

It is seriously unfortunate when you go about spouting in ignorance. You should be too ashamed to show yourself on this thread after he showed you the scriptural references clearly but its obvious you're not.

Keep in mind that Satan is plainly referred to as the accuser in the bible.

Joshthefirst:
Actually, King Ebuka has already made his solid point, which your analogy doesn't refute in any way. If there's anyone here being thick headed and I'd.iotic, its you and your friends. His point, which you actually conceeded to(thus indirectly renouncing your atheism), was that AS FAR AS THE PAINTING EXISTS, A CREATOR FOR THE SAID PAINTING EXISTS, BE IT YOUR UNCLE, OR WHOMEVER(I assume you and your friends are atheists.)

You didn't even realize that you and King had already logically agreed on the common premise of the fact that a painter for the painting clearly exists as far as the painting exists. Lol.
You, my friend, agreed to the existence of a creator.

Take a look at what you said:
These hastily said bolded words imply the direct opposite of your atheistic beliefs(I assume you're an atheist). In other words, you have simply stated here that you believe in a creator. (Assuming you're honest and you stick to your own analogy).

Ok. So, was I supposed to say the painting magically appeared?

As a result, King replied you..


I'm sure he thought he had ended the argument with this reply. He thought you coherent and intelligent enough to realize that the above reply was exactly what you had agreed to. He will be disappointed when he comes back to see you and your friends spouting nonsense again.

So you agreed to the existence of a creator by your very own analogy, that makes you not an atheist. Who the creator is(which uncle) is another issue. But for this argument, we have all agreed to his existence. I expect a thank you for all the time I used up to teach you and your foolish friends the implications of your very statements.

What's up with you and insults?

Anyways, you didn't get it either. I said my uncle did it and I have never seem him before. Just like you say god did it but have never seen it before

10 other people agree that my uncle did it but have different descriptions of him. Just like there are different religions with different versions of god even though no one has seen it.

Conclusion: None of us know who did it. We agree that my uncle did it but we end up describing the creator and creation in different ways because it's all a figment of our imagination. And because we don't know who did it we have decided to come up with the "his uncle did it" answer which is infact a non answer.

Just like when you say "god did it". It doesn't mean that's true but that's the only excuse you can come up with to excuse your ignorance. It's a non answer. Simple

timonski:
oh yes! A painter exists for every painting. But how does this show that the universe was designed?

I was going by the very analogy he gave. It's implications are obvious.

Aside his self-crucifying analogy, The universe is a work of sustainined force, knowledge, energy and art. It implies a maker. It implies ITS maker.

hahn:
Ok. So, was I supposed to say the painting magically appeared?




What's up with you and insults?

Anyways, you didn't get it either. I said my uncle did it and I have never seem him before. Just like you say god did it but have never seen it before

10 other people agree that my uncle did it but have different descriptions of him. Just like there are different religions with different versions of god even though no one has seen it.

Conclusion: None of us know who did it. We agree that my uncle did it but we end up describing the creator and creation in different ways because it's all a figment of our imagination. And because we don't know who did it we have decided to come up with the "his uncle did it" answer which is infact a non answer.

Just like when you say "god did it". It doesn't mean that's true but that's the only excuse you can come up with to excuse your ignorance. It's a non answer. Simple

No. Whether we see or know the uncle or not is not the point you agreed to. What you agreed to is that someone did it. Simple. You may not know him, and you may not have seen him, but its obvious someone did it, because as you said, it did not magically appear out of nowhere(your very words are driving the point home even more. I advice you to calm down and choose your words carefully if you want to help your atheistic position and not insult it)

The universe did not magically appear out of nowhere, just as something as base and common as a painting can't magically appear from nowhere.
Our complex inhabitable and even beautiful cosmos has a builder.

hahn:
What's up with you and insults?

This isn't me insulting you. It's me being very annoyed that you would gang up and insult someone who has made very valid points in the face of your own misunderstanding and your self-indicting premises.