😂 You’re asking, “Why would the creator have a son and not a daughter?” as if that somehow discredits the physics. It doesn’t. What it does reveal is that you’ve dropped the scientific argument and reached for a caricature of theology you don’t actually understand in attempt to discredit me without engaging the argument.
First: you’re assuming biological categories apply to a creator of the universe. In Christian theology, “Son” is not a biological label, it’s a metaphysical relation, not chromosomes or reproduction. Treating it as literal mammalian biology isn’t a clever argument; it just shows you’re arguing against something you haven’t taken five minutes to understand. If your goal was to undermine my reasoning, all you’ve done is undermine your own credibility.
Second: you’re confusing symbolism with mechanism. Every domain that encodes meaning: mathematics, logic, computer science all use figurative language that no one mistakes for physical anatomy. We talk about “child processes,” “parent directories,” “orphan blocks,” “sibling nodes.” No one thinks computers are reproducing. You accept metaphor everywhere else, but suddenly pretend not to understand it here because it’s a convenient way to dodge the actual argument in attempt to discredit me.
So let’s be clear, you have no rebuttal only a deflection. It wasn’t even a good one; you should try ad hominem next time 😂.
Instead of engaging the physics on the table, you reached for a theological strawman you don’t have the background to even parody correctly. All that does is highlight that you have no technical counterargument left. Rekt!
