tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3216936569451935179..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: This speck of dustRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49271808494272468162016-11-03T19:08:31.206-04:002016-11-03T19:08:31.206-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12683834382403764262016-11-03T18:06:23.823-04:002016-11-03T18:06:23.823-04:00Also, might I add, Dickie D ought to remember this...Also, might I add, Dickie D ought to remember this - along with his 'blind, pitiless' universe from his River out of Eden - the next time he attempts a moral argument against God and Christianity. Consistency, dear Dickie, consistency.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5170599601869084052016-11-03T11:31:58.040-04:002016-11-03T11:31:58.040-04:00Which reminds me of another point I intended to ma...Which reminds me of another point I intended to make, but it slipped my mind. Dawkins stresses how supposed incongruous it would be for God to come to our planet to rid the universe of sin. But suppose we're the only intelligent creatures in the universe. Or suppose we're the only fallen creatures in the universe. Naturally, God would zero in on our planet. For that matter, if there were other fallen creatures in the universe whom God redeemed, why assume we'd know about it? Indeed, that would be distracting information. (I'm omitting angels from my comment because the physical universe isn't their natural abode).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78302749019148235472016-11-03T07:50:32.754-04:002016-11-03T07:50:32.754-04:00Indeed. Dawkins just assumes and asserts this whil...Indeed. Dawkins just assumes and asserts this while offering no argument telling us *why* this is problematic. I am not sure if this type of assertion originated with Dickie D, but, like much atheistic silliness, it has taken on a life of its own. Only recently I saw another atheistic 'meme' on Facebook attempting to mock this, with pictures accompanied by the words:<br /><br />1. 'God's favorite galaxy'<br />2. 'God's favorite star'<br />3. 'God's favorite planet'<br /><br />When presented with this, one feels compelled to ask, 'So what's your point?' '*Why* is this so unbelievable and problematic?' As Steve has alluded to, a God who cares only about the 'bigger picture', and not about finer details like human beings and their purpose and progression, would be far less superior to a God who takes an interest in *all* of His creation.<br /><br />Why would a 'hands-off,' indifferent God - no less indifferent than the universe He created, be superior? Where's the argument? <br /><br />Dickie D and his disciples have it back to front. Kicker.<br /><br />Whenever I see/hear this objection it strikes me as somewhat like the sibling who lashes out in jealousy at their brother/sister because an Aunty takes a special interest in them. <br /><br />Bottom line is this is a stupid objection with no good reason behind it.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.com