The first image of a black hole
Scientists today revealed the first image ever captured of a black hole, featuring a “ring of fire” that borders an abyss measuring 25 million miles across.

We’ve just moved one step closer to solving the mysteries of the universe.

This morning, representatives from the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration revealed the first image ever taken of a black hole. This incredible scientific achievement – decades in the making – was announced at simultaneous press conferences in cities around the world.

The highly-anticipated image shows a supermassive black hole that sits at the heart of the Milky Way. It features a bright orange and red outer circle, known as the “ring of fire,” which borders an abyss measuring 25 million miles across.

The black hole itself is extremely heavy; according to NASA, it weighs roughly four million times the mass of the sun. It’s not all that far away from us either – just 26,000 light-years (or 152,844,260,000,000,000 miles) away from Earth. While that may seem like a huge number, it’s actually fairly close when compared to other known sites in the universe.

What is a Black Hole?

A black hole is a point space that is so dense it creates what’s called a “gravity sink,” which forcibly sucks in everything around it. Black holes come in several different types, but they are typically formed when a large star dies and its core collapses in on itself. Thousands may exist in the Milky Way alone, but experts can only guess as to the exact number.

Why Are These Pictures Such a Big Deal?

We’ve known about black holes for a long time – how they work (generally), what causes them, and even where some are located. However, up until now, scientists have been unable to actually capture one on camera. That’s because they’re extremely difficult to photograph; the intense gravitational pull created by black holes doesn’t just suck in solid matter, it draws in any surrounding light, too – creating serious barriers to capturing an image.

So, if you’re wondering why the newly-revealed image appears slightly out of focus – that’s why. Scientists relied on a global array of telescopes, all working in tandem, to piece together a workable image. Given the challenges, it’s remarkable the Event Horizon team was able to produce a photo at all.

What else is out there waiting to be discovered?

Exploring the Universe

While it’s certainly exciting to lay eyes on an actual black hole for the first time, this discovery is much more than a pretty picture – it could also have serious implications when it comes to our understanding of space and the universe around us. Black holes have long been a potent source of mystery, an imposing symbol of just how small and helpless we are compared to the vast power of the universe.

By finally laying eyes on one, humanity has taken another meaningful step toward deconstructing the secrets of the stars. We may have many questions left to answer, but thanks to a steady stream of technological developments we’re making tangible progress each year. At this rate, who knows what exciting discovery might come next?


  1. Katelynne Victoria Shouse says:


  2. Hank Stanco says:

    God certainly does know how to mesmerize his children.

    1. Lionheart says:

      It’s a Black Hole Hank that’s more than likely been around for billions of years, along with billions of other incredible awe inspiring celestial objects, well before any mythical gods edict to remove foreskins off penis’s.

      1. Hank Stanco says:

        Just because we’ve only known God for a few thousand years doesn’t mean he wasn’t always there.

        I’m curious Li Li, do you believe the Big Bang, two atoms smashing against each other, created this vast universe?

        1. Lionheart says:

          You are quite right. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t there, and it doesn’t mean he was.

          There’s a Nobel prize waiting for the first person to prove its existence. Are you up for it?

          As for the Big Bang, we do know all celestial objects are moving away from what appears to be a central point in the universe, which has caused the thoughts of a Big Bang, but in reality we don’t really know for sure. You are in the same boat I guess, because you don’t have any concrete evidence your god, or any man made god is real.


          1. Carl Elfstrom says:

            God can only be proven to those who believe in it. It can also be an inner feeling, or knowing, of which it seems cannot be described in words, or in any other way. Some people have been blessed with that knowing, and others haven’t. And the reason for that seems just as unexplainable as God. I suppose we’d have to use more of our brains than is possible to figure it out. And if God, The All,’or whatever you want to call it wanted us to be that smart we would be. It’s apparent to me that The All made us to have such limited intelligence at this point in time, when The All created everything, with one big bang. I am only sure of two things. The universe is mental, and only mind creates. Maybe eventually, as our species evolves, it will be God’s Will for us to use our entire brains so we’ll know everything (having God consciousness), in a million years or so. However, since all we ever have is the present moment, I’d rather sit back, chill out, smoke another almost legal joint, and listen to the song In The Year 2525 one more time, and not be at all concerned with what’s going on in the universe, or the fabricated fables of the science fiction community called astronomers, for which we only have computer generated images to thank, and explain why they wasted all those millions of dollars, on supposed research.

          2. kim says:

            Reality is intuitively and universally acknowledged and is also acknowledged to be absolutely and infinitely singular (for example…big bang theory). why is that? Because it is hardwired into the human genome to intuitively acknowledge reality far beyond our limited perception. Nobody says reality doesn’t exist because “it just does”. Yet nobody can prove that it does and you’ve just admitted you don’t know what reality is in its entirety which is quite correct. This is in actuality an unrecognized and intuitive acknowledgement of “God”. Another acknowledgement is that “Truth” is universally acknowledged to exist without any proof whatsoever and is acknowledged to be absolutely and infinitely singular by all. Yet by some leap in logic atheists claim God doesn’t exist when in fact they acknowledge Him by acknowledging that reality and truth exist. The contrived discrepancy is proof that atheism is a religion and it’s “god” is reality and/or truth.

          3. Lionheart says:

            Thank you Kim and Carl for brightening my day. I really was needing a good laugh today and you both provided it.

            Carl, there is no proof of anything when someone just believes in it. God, fairies, the tooth fairy, Zeus, leprechaun’s, unicorns, Sasquatch et al cannot be proven to those that just believe in it, unless of course they are schizophrenic. To those, many strange things are real to them. If you and Kim fit that medical criteria I give my humble apologies and suggest there is help, but it isn’t in any church.

            As for Kims fallacious straw man comments implying that reality is “an unrecognized and intuitive acknowledgement of “God” and that “no one can prove reality”, is farcical to say the least. The reality is that I exist, and this blog exists, and to prove it, you are now reading my comments on this blog. You are not reading Gods comments, these are mine. If your God can comment, perhaps he’d like to add a phrase or two at the end of mine. My comments consist of 6 paragraphs. if you see 7 or more, God added them.

            Truth can be backed up with evidence. It’s true that I am responding to you in this blog. It is evidenced by you reading it. Truth is demonstrable! I am demonstrating this blog exists by you reading my comments. All this is truth! As for your god, which I suggest is mythical until you can prove the truth of its existence, remains a myth, along with all those other myths I quote above. Even your omnipotent mythical god obviously doesn’t have the power to demonstrate it exists, if it did it would be able to do so.

            The reason this earth has so many religions/gods is because of the gods inability to show itself and claim to be the one and only god. It should be capable of doing it, if it’s the same god of the Old Testament because it’s done it before, if you want to believe those fables.

            As you can plainly see, truth and reality have no relationship at all to any god, fairy, et al until their existence can be proven. Until then they remain all myth, and only in your head, which takes me right back to peoples medical conditions of false truths in their heads. Schizophrenics will always try to prove the truths in their head, especially when it comes down to mythical gods, because most can’t live without it. They remain shackled to those thoughts because they cannot conceive there is no God. It actually frightens them, so believing in it helps them through life.

          4. Lori says:

            Lionheart, I can totally respect where you’re coming from. Kim….not so much. What was that? I agree with all you say. Reality is all things tangible. And yes, beyond that everything (god/religion) comes from somewhere inside our heads. There’s nothing wrong with that if it is used it to help us get through life in a constructive way, but when we start thinking that everyone should have the same created images, that’s where we get into trouble. It is amazing how many people think that they are the holders of some kind of truth. They are living with a very unhealthy state of mind. Belief is and should be a very personal thing and only shared on a level of conversational expression of where we’re coming from, not by inflicting it and attempting to recruit others to our own beliefs. It’s a prime statement of insecurity within themselves.

          5. Lionheart says:

            Lori, I totally agree with you. If someone “needs” religion to get through life, no matter how crazy some of the doctrine is, I say go for it, as long as no others are harmed by their beliefs.

        2. Hank Stanco says:

          Actually Lion, I do. When you can answer the question, ‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’, then I will start to listen to your argument.

          1. John A Anderson, CD, CIF Mons ON says:

            Archeopteryx came first. Bird-like dinosaur.

          2. Hank Stanco says:

            Well John in that case, which came first, the dinosaur or the egg?

          3. Lionheart says:

            Your straw man approach doesn’t answer the question. You either have real demonstrable evidence for a god, any god, that will win you the Nobel prize for 2019, or you don’t.

          4. Carl Elfstrom says:

            Personally, I don’t care about what anyone believes in, or if they believe in anything at all, and get the impression that our creator, whatever it happens to be, feels the same way, and is too busy with more important things than us insignificant, little, human beings to waste his breath justifying him/herself to us, or convincing us to believe in it. And believe it or not, I’ve taken psychiatric and psychological evaluations of which have indicated that I am not mentally ill, but you arent worth wasting my time to prove it to, sir, even though I have otherwise always thought highly of your comments ,sir. And no, us Pagans and Wiccans don’t believe in the biblical conception of God, or any of the fairytales that book contains. As a matter of fact, we don’t believe in dogma at all, and never seek to convince anyone that our path is the right path for all, for we know it is only the right path for us, the chosen few, who are called to it, by nothing you will ever be convinced of. Blessed be!

          5. Hank Stanco says:

            Ah. Well, Lion, I must assume you say that you cannot answer the question.

            It is hardly a straw man approach. Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid forms of determining a conclusion.

            If it was good enough for Aristotle and Aquinas, it’s good enough for me.

          6. John Owens says:

            ARCHEOPTERYX was a hoax.

          7. Lionheart says:

            Hank, you are frantically skirting around my initial question, by asking your own question to avoid attempting to answer the one I set you, which we both know, you have no answer. This is a typical reply by people who want to divert the initial question, hoping it will go away.

            I have no answer about chickens and eggs, just as you have no answer as to how to prove god exists. However, whatever the answer is, I do know chickens and eggs exist and that proof can be demonstrated just by a trip to a store, or chicken farm, which is more than your god can demonstrate to prove he’s real, so perhaps that make chickens and eggs greater than your god.

            But, if you really do have proof of your god, the world, and the Nobel Prize, awaits to see your overwhelming conclusive evidence (just like the chicken and egg). I really do hope you have the answer because it will greatly help mankind rid itself of all false gods, false religions, and rid itself of all atheists. Imagine it Hank….your name will be known for eternity. You will forever be known as “Hank, the man who saved the world by proving god is real”.

            What’s the betting your reply will again be about chicken and eggs, or another nebulous question? 🤣


          8. William Waugh says:

            The egg came first. Bringing forth the first chicken. The parents of the first “chicken eggs”, were not necessarily chickens as we know them. …this was solved a long time ago! We have been breeding animals and plants for “many moons” now. Rumours and riddles like this continue to flustercate those not accustomed to thought patterns that extend past payday, let alone a whole quarter! Jeez—-wheeze!!!!!!

          9. John Owens says:

            Lionheart and Hank, to the question of chicken or egg–it would have to depend on, which chicken, and which egg. The very first chicken eggs HAD to have come from a chicken. If they had come from anything else, there would be no chickens. Chicken eggs only come from chickens, and chickens come from chicken eggs. After the first few had hatched though, the rest of the chickens came from eggs. From whence came the first two chickens? That is the question that evolutionists do not want to answer, but obviously, if they’d come from anything besides chickens, there STILL wouldn’t be any chickens. Good thing, because we can’t eat archeopteryx eggs.

  3. kim says:

    I’m a scientist myself and new data is always interesting. But I’m also a religionist and know the maker of such things can as easily unmake them once their purpose is completed.

    2 Peter 3:10
    But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth ALSO and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

    1. Paul Wheeler says:

      You are NOT a scientist. A scientist, unlike you, researches for absolutes. You, Kim, as you have proven with your post, are a philosopher. For you, science is ancient and should achieve unity with nature and spirit. Hence, you buy into the tale of Noah’s ark. People who believe that such a thing as a great flood and God sending a male and female from all species to live together on this “cruise of life” are not willing to think for themselves of the scientific fact that this could never happen. Of course, you will come up with something that is not fact to make yourself feel good about your belief, but you will stop short of further thought because you don’t want the scientific truth to be realized.

      1. kim says:

        oh, there’s no doubt I’m a scientist. A career one too. And, I’ve researched an absolute….ie/an absolutely singular God (of gods) and patriarchal Father which means that there are none before Him and none after (He exists in eternity). He exists as an absolutely singular Being over all and as the originator of all.

        Isaiah 57:15
        For thus saith the high and lofty ONE that inhabiteth eternity, whose name (namesake…Son) is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place………….

        1 Corinthians 15:28
        And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son ALSO HIMSELF be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (EVER and ONLY the Father) may be ALL in ALL (ie/the only true God as Jesus proclaimed).

        John 17:3
        And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (Father) the ONLY true God, and Jesus, the Christ (NOT “god”) whom thou hast sent.

        Jude 1:4
        For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace (delay in judgment) of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the ONLY Lord God (Father), and (ALSO) our Lord Jesus Christ.

        1. Lionheart says:

          That’s some very strange scientific research quoting paragraphs from a book. Obviously as a scientist, I’d very much like to see your research paper on determining your absolute of a singular god. It obviously doesn’t rely just on ancient writings. So how and where did you determine your factual and demonstrable evidence from to validate your position?


          1. kim says:

            Ever hear of the big bang theory as the origin of the cosmos? I know of no theory that postulates a big TRI-bang. Science postulates an absolute singularity without any reference to a “book”. It is scientifically intuitive.

          2. Lionheart says:

            I understand that Kim. Currently, science, as I’m sure you are aware, tends to point towards the Big Bang within the cosmos primarily because current factual data supports all cosmological objects moving away from a central location within the cosmos. This is not scientific intuition, because it’s supported by data. However, as far as I’m aware, and please correct me if I’m wrong, there is no factual data whatsoever of god, or any god.


          3. kim says:

            there is also scientific data for the existence of God. First, the earth exists in an otherwise dead universe. The probability of life at such an almost infinitely small point of singularity in an otherwise dead universe is almost infinitesimally small. Second, the universal acknowledgement of God (or a god) is hardwired into the human genome from as far back as history can observe. There has never been a people who did not intuitively acknowledge that God (or a deity) exists. Third, there are valid records of humanity encountering God. These cannot be discounted simply because we live in an age between interventional events. Fourth, particle physics has proven that a “god” particle exists (Higgs boson). And that that is a force acting upon this particle that can only be currently explained as the “will” of God (or a diety) that maintains the existence of all matter (ie/the creation). If such a force of “will” were to be removed, all matter would simply cease to exist like smoke from an extinguished candle. Ignoring such intuitive and scientific data is simply not possible.

          4. Lionheart says:

            Kim, the details you list is not evidence of god, or any god. That’s like me saying that fairies are the answer to your points 1 through 4. Could fairies exist, and be the answer? Until I see the evidence, I very much doubt it.

            Man has always questioned the meaning for life ever since man created the Sun god. All they knew was that this red disc came up from the east in the morning and went down in the west at night. As long as they worshipped it, they felt it would guarantee the disc coming up each day to give them light and heat. The more scientific man became the more the god creation changed. Very possibly Thor was next to answer the thunder and lightening issue. Roll the years forward and man is now into Higgs boson particle physics to try and create some sort of logic to say a god exists.

            Reality is, there is still no proof any god does exist no matter how you look at it until he physically shows himself. Stories that he showed himself once thousands of years ago is like me saying my great grandparents saw a flying saucer, so because they wrote down details of their experience it must be real. I’ve been to Las Vegas and seen David Copperfield perform miraculous stunts of levitation. Were they real? Of course not! Would it convince you that it was real? I’m starting to think it would.

            I’m amazed, if you really are a scientist, that you are so easily swayed into making scientific decisions without evaluating real factual evidence. Which Universities teach that? Clearly you are not into forensic science.


          5. Hank Stanco says:

            Oh please Lion. I already gave you the story of Albert Einstein. He was the one that said if the universe was created by the smashing of two atoms then it must have a creator.

            I see you have yet to respond to my comment. Because you can’t.

            Once again, unless you are arrogant enough to criticize Albert Einstein, there has to be a creator. Period.

            Now I’ll expect some foolish response that there is no evidence of a single god:

            You talk in circles.

          6. Lionheart says:

            Sorry to disappoint you Hank but I’ll go with a more modern day physicist in Stephen Hawking, a former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge.

            To quote him:

            “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

            “God is the name people give to the reason we are here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”

            “Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ [which he once said] is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

            A truly brilliant mind and physicist of modern day, Hank. So, if you are arrogant enough to insist on going with someone born in the 19th Century (1879), that’s fine by me.

            Modern day science still hasn’t proved your god Hank, no matter how you look at it, and who you want to believe in a weak attempt to prove your god is real. Sorry, but I still don’t see your name being submitted for a Nobel prize.


          7. Hank Stanco says:

            There you go again Lion.

            You chose an atheist who comes up with a theory that proves his atheism. Nice job at google and paste.

            Perhaps you should use your own research.

            Both Hawking and DeGrasse were taken to task over the Spontaneous Creation Theory as they could not prove its possibility with any mathematical formula.

            Unlike the Big Bang Theory, the Spontaneous Creation Theory has no scientific evidence to back it up.

            Big problem with the theory. Something cannot be created from nothing.

            Nice try though. Google again for another quote.

          8. kim says:

            I gave evidence of why the intuitive acknowledgement of God’s existence is logical relative to rejection of non-existence based on no evidence whatever. Science rejects non-existence by postulating a theory of existence then proceeds to find proof in the same way. Until such proof is found, a scientific theory is not rejected.

            As for fairies and Thor. These are mythological tales. Tales which originated from actual men and events that took place prior to the flood and which were carried through by survivors of the flood to become the “gods” of myth for subsequent civilizations. So, you might say that Thor was at one time a real person. Same for fairies. There’s more to the story that includes eugenics based on men who lived for many thousands of years and who interbred with hundreds of subsequent generations of their own progeny to produce warriors. These acts actually led to God having to flood the world in order to save mankind from genetic extinction. The Bible describes Noah as a man “perfect in his generations” for a reason.

          9. Lionheart says:

            Actually Hank, you are wrong yet again. I got his quotes from his book “The Grand Design” which of course you won’t have, but I’m no different to you getting your quotes from a book called the Bible. You Christians do it all the time…right?

            You choose a theist to try and prove your argument, I choose an atheist. At the end of the day, no one has sufficient evidence to prove a god exists any more than fairies do.

            Your name is still not on the Nobel prize for proving god exists no matter how many times you reply to my statements on this blog in disagreement.


          10. Lionheart says:

            Kim, yes Thor and fairies could be mythological tales, just like your god. All could be correct, and all could be false. No one really knows Kim because there is not sufficient evidence to prove they exist no matter how much you want to spin it. The proof of that is in the huge number of religions, many with different gods, on the face of our earth.

            If your god was really concerned about that, your omnipotent god would have corrected the problem by now, but clearly he doesn’t have the power, because he either doesn’t exist, or he couldn’t care less. My assessment is, it obviously doesn’t exist any more than unicorns do.

            If it really does exist I call upon it to show up to allow us to stop arguing about it. If you reply here, before it does, then I assume it is either not interested in making its presence known, or doesn’t exist.

            What’s the betting it doesn’t show up? I think you know that right? But I’m sure you’ll have some apology for it not showing up, or will make some weak and vain attempt to show that it already has.


          11. Hank Stanco says:

            Yes Lion, I quoted the entire story of Einstein and George LaMaitre from the Bible.

            Likewise, the five proofs of God’s existence by Thomas Aquinas never came from his work known as the Summa Theologica, but from those silly Bible quotes.

            And neither of those examples has anything to do with the fact that the theory of Spontaneous Creation is laughable.

          12. Lionheart says:

            Hank, it’s no more laughable than the thought that your omnipotent god came from nowhere, now is it?

            If you try and tell me your god has always existed, which would also be laughable, then I will tell you the cosmos has always existed. Neither can be proved.

          13. kim says:

            Lion…let me correct you…Thor and fairies ARE mythological. Not “could be”. As for the extremely diverse religions, that was actually predicted by Jesus and is just another part of the evidence that the Bible record is more than just an ancient “religious” book.

            Luke 21:8
            And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name (ie/as “brothers” or “brethren” meaning “Christians”), saying, I (Jesus) am the Christ (actually true); and the time (of my return) draweth near (false): go ye NOT therefore after them.

  4. Minister Dem says:

    This is very cool and a nice break from all the hate.

    1. Lori says:

      Yup, but some on this blog always have to add the hell fire and brimstone to something that is so incredibly beautiful and mysterious. Why? It is cool, just for the sake of being among the many cool thing of creation. Bright blessings

  5. minister james says:

    Fabulous image/visual analogy, expanding our knowledge of the universe a bit more. fyi: the image is an amazing, viewable construct derived from the radiotelemetry it was detected with-in other words this is a depiction of a radio signal image-your eyes cannot see this particular representation from our planet with the most powerful optical telescope, or even if approaching it in a spacecraft. Remember, our eyes only see a limited spectrum of visible light-much as our brains only perceive a limited spectrum of the universe…and may we all find a better day.

  6. Catherine Ohrin-Greipp, MSW, ADS, OM says:

    Peter, the guy who wrote the above quote, must have been hallucinating on some plant back in the day to write such fear mongering words. So true Lori. Why is it that these kind of people are seemingly focused on destruction and fear rather than awe of beauty of what we as humans can actually see and experience including love?

    1. John A Anderson, CD, CIF Mons ON says:

      because the easiest way to control people is through fear, unfortunately. Love attracts them, but fear keeps them under control.

      1. Carl Elfstrom says:

        The only hallucinogen I’ve read about them using in the Bible is Mandrake. They talked about using it in Genesis. It’s legal in this country. I bought some from Azuregreen, but haven’t used it yet. I bet auch better hallucinogen, which always produces a good trip, is acid mixed with ecstasy, in the form of a yellow butterfly.

    2. Lori says:

      Catherine, I believe they’re stuck in their brainwashed minds. The doom and gloom has been drummed into their heads and instead of breaking out of it, they just go with it. They try to pass it on, which just turns others, not into the brainwashing, off. and John….you’re so right about the control and fear. The world hold so much beauty. Too bad they’re so hell bent on focusing on the negative.

  7. Hank Stanco says:

    The answer Lion, is in the question.

    When George LaMaitre, proffered the Big Bang Theory, his friend Albert Einstein, an atheist, panicked.

    Einstein understood that if the universe had a beginning, it had to be created by a creator.

    Einstein publicly regarded his friend a a poor mathematician and an even poorer physicist. But math doesn’t lie.

    Einstein tried for three years to disprove his friend Lamaitre and even came up with his own theory known as the Cosmological Constant. But Einstein’s math couldn’t prove his own theory.

    After three years of attempts to disprove the Big Bang Theory, Einstein admitted to the National Academy of Sciences that his friend Georges LaMaitre, a Catholic priest from Belgium, was absolutely correct.

    Einstein acknowledged the Big Bang Theory was the only reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe.

    Einstein also became a deist, a believer of a God that created the universe.

    Centuries earlier, Thomas Aquinas came to the same conclusion through a theological perspective.

    Aquinas came up with five proofs that God exists. One of these was know as the uncaused cause. Aquinas used the example of an Oak tree.

    When an Oak tree matures, it drops acorns to the ground which in turn grows to drop more acorns to grow more trees. The cycle goes on and on. The tree causes the acorns which fall to the ground. The acorns cause the growing of more trees.

    One could go as far back as he would like and the cycle would be the same.

    But there must have been a first cause, either the tree or the acorn, had to be created to start and continue the cycle. The tree or the acorn had to be caused by something first…the uncaused cause.

    So there are two men, the world’s foremost theologian and foremost scientist, who each has come to the conclusion that the universe was created by a more intelligent being, a God.

    Unless one is so arrogant to think he is more knowledgeable than Aquinas or Einstein then my question is sound.

    So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    1. Lionheart says:

      🤣🤣 It’s exactly as I suspected, not only can you not prove a god exists, you attempt to use Aquinas and Einstein’s theory, to try and prove it, which of course they don’t.

      If there really was a god, one would have thought it would show itself much like it is supposed to have shown itself as listed in the Old Testament. We all know it’s not going to happen don’t we, and for the obvious reason, it doesn’t exist, unlike the egg, which will come first before any chicken on my breakfast menu in the morning 😇. Whichever came first they both exist. 🥚 🐓 unlike your god.

      I guess your name will not be on the Nobel prize after all, or even Aquinas or Einstein’s.

      Happy Easter. It’s chocolate egg time.


  8. John Owens says:

    Maybe if we had really high resolution, we could see all that’s where the common sense and decency of liberals went.

    1. Lionheart says:

      It’s very possible where Hillary’s emails reside 😜


Leave a Comment