Because all people would ultimately have done the same thing as Adam and Eve, God has two choices: 1. Don't make people, and avoid giving them the opportunity to select the good or the bad; 2. Make people, and give them the opportunity to select salvation or not.  There's no such thing as two choices when your omnipotent. There are only infinite choices. Unless of course your god (the Jesus thingymajig one) isn't omnipotent, which renders it another one of these silly false ones. Why do you keep contradicting yourself. Now you suggest that the Almighty is omnipotent, and yet He can't make it so that He has only two choices. Oh dear you are getting yourself in a pickle this evening.  He (according to you) has only two choices, meaning he narrowed them down from all the other infinite ones. Do you even know what the word omnipotent means?  |
|
|
|
Because all people would ultimately have done the same thing as Adam and Eve, God has two choices: 1. Don't make people, and avoid giving them the opportunity to select the good or the bad; 2. Make people, and give them the opportunity to select salvation or not. There's no such thing as two choices when your omnipotent. There are only infinite choices. Unless of course your god (the Jesus thingymajig one) isn't omnipotent, which renders it another one of these silly false ones. |
|
|
|
|
The only way to fight this nonsense is to educate people about encryption and how to use it correctly.
Easier said then done. Most people aren't interested. I speak from experience.
|
|
|
|
If God is so great and really exist why he does not stop all the nature disasters and let people die because they have nothing to eat?
This list could be endless i personally do not believe in god
You answered your question yourself. Here's what I mean. Imagine that you were rich. You found a beggar on the street who was near starvation. You took him home in your Rolls, you fed him, you gave him new clothes, you gave him his own house to live in, you bought him some land where he could grow his own food, you gave him gardening equipment, you gave him a harem with some of the most beautiful gracious women around, you gave him, The list could be endless. Then, the former beggar said, i personally do not believe in the rich guy who gave this all to me. How would YOU feel?That's an extremely good analogy. I would feel extremely used and angry, and certainly wouldn't repeat my generosity. However..... Old BADlogic hasn't been playing fair ball with us. What he conveniently failed to mention was that the rich guy was omnipotent, meaning he knew exactly what the beggar would do, even before the beggar was born. The rich person could of snapped his fingers and never let the beggar be born. But he didn't. Why? Because he was quite happy how it would all turn out. He was quite happy the beggar would eventually never believe in him. If he wasn't he would never let it happen. Oh ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake, it was a delibrate deceitful omission by BADlogic. It was certainly not an oversight on his part that the key component that decides if his analogy was a good one or a traincrash fireball failure was missing. It was a traincrash fireball of failure. (The same as 99% of his other analogies and arguments.)  No, no, don't forget! Free will and all that crap, right? That's why non-believers exist! That's why they absolutely deserve to burn in hell, which wouldn't affect you because your soul doesn't have nerves. Best you don't mention the freewill thing around BADlogic. Sore subject for him. He's still smarting from that one. We don't even have free will.
Even the giving of free will to mankind...
We MAY have free will
|
|
|
|
running down and wearing out? humanity's castles made of sand, sure, but nature is an eternal blossoming flower. constantly growing and healing this planet.
the universe is as you see it. logical thinking will not bring you an understanding of nature's incomprehensible infinitely fractaling nature. for one to see oneness with the endless miracle of nature, one must step away from linear logic. only by living with nature's nurturing energy can we heal into our natural state of being.
religion is not the preface of god. nature is divine, religion is governing the minds of many. men are organic beings of nature, don't be duped to ignore the miraculous divinity of nature because of rulers who seek self worship, that is exactly the type of mind frame they seek to impose on you!
Hello dank how you been? Not seen you around for a while since you was banned. |
|
|
|
If God is so great and really exist why he does not stop all the nature disasters and let people die because they have nothing to eat?
This list could be endless i personally do not believe in god
You answered your question yourself. Here's what I mean. Imagine that you were rich. You found a beggar on the street who was near starvation. You took him home in your Rolls, you fed him, you gave him new clothes, you gave him his own house to live in, you bought him some land where he could grow his own food, you gave him gardening equipment, you gave him a harem with some of the most beautiful gracious women around, you gave him, The list could be endless. Then, the former beggar said, i personally do not believe in the rich guy who gave this all to me. How would YOU feel?That's an extremely good analogy. I would feel extremely used and angry, and certainly wouldn't repeat my generosity. However..... Old BADlogic hasn't been playing fair ball with us. What he conveniently failed to mention was that the rich guy was omnipotent, meaning he knew exactly what the beggar would do, even before the beggar was born. The rich person could of snapped his fingers and never let the beggar be born. But he didn't. Why? Because he was quite happy how it would all turn out. He was quite happy the beggar would eventually never believe in him. If he wasn't he would never let it happen. Oh ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake, it was a delibrate deceitful omission by BADlogic. It was certainly not an oversight on his part that the key component that decides if his analogy was a good one or a traincrash fireball failure was missing. It was a traincrash fireball of failure. (The same as 99% of his other analogies and arguments.) |
|
|
|
|
Let's hope someone takes the kettle off the stove before it boils dry and melts.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh it'll gonna get much worse than this. Whilst everyone is focusing on these silly hashtags and pointless words like "solidarity" and "shoulder to shoulder", the terrorists are already plotting their next attack.
|
|
|
|
My question is, why are you promoting something that nobody knows if factual, and especially when there is strong evidence that it is not factual? Oh, that's right. You are Fluffer Overblow. *sign* The thread topic is asking the age of the earth. If nobody was allowed to say anything unless it was 100% factual, nobody would able to make any posts. Be a pretty dull thread. However, until another theory comes along with more evidence than what we have now, old earth is simple the best we have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the evidence is certainly conclusive, and nothing yet has even come close. Old earth won't be losing any sleep over young earth, any time soon. Maybe 4.54 billion year old earth theory is wrong. Maybe it's trillions of years old! Bible history is documented eye-witness reports. No theory needed. Eye-witness beats theory, hands down. The earth and universe is less than 7,000 years old. *yawn* Where you've gone so wrong is start from the premise that your interpretation of the Bible is the literal description how the universe began, and then proceed to hammer your square peg into round holes. Then when it doesn't fit, you blame the hole, not the peg. Almost childlike in behaviour. |
|
|
|
My question is, why are you promoting something that nobody knows if factual, and especially when there is strong evidence that it is not factual? Oh, that's right. You are Fluffer Overblow. *sign* The thread topic is asking the age of the earth. If nobody was allowed to say anything unless it was 100% factual, nobody would able to make any posts. Be a pretty dull thread. However, until another theory comes along with more evidence than what we have now, old earth is simple the best we have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the evidence is certainly conclusive, and nothing yet has even come close. Old earth won't be losing any sleep over young earth, any time soon. Maybe 4.54 billion year old earth theory is wrong. Maybe it's trillions of years old! |
|
|
|
Reality lool big big big and again big lol lol lol and only lol lol lol and lol.God didnt create gay pupils.Pupils created gay marriages and that stupid things.God create woman pussy for boy dick and he didnt create boy dick for boy mouth or ass because God isnt stupid like some pupils to create that and that isnt natural.Gay pupils must visit doctor.I prefer doctor called Adolf Hitler.
So why did your god create gayness then..If so powerful i am sure he could of prevented gayness?..Because no such thing as god dumb shits.. If everybody followed your gods law I would not be speaking to you now on the internet.. Too think the same as everybody else NOT MUCH CREATION CAN HAPPEN..This is why the earth throws different humans out..So you dumb fuckers can have a life? Without the gayness a lot of creations would never of been thought up.. Also if you truly believe earthquakes are to punish gays..Then go and kill yourself because you a waste of human space for being a backward dumb fucker.. AND NO I WONT STOP SWEARING WHEN I SPEAK TO BACKWARD FUCKERS LIKE YOU .. HOW CAN HUMANS BE SO FUCKING STUPID? Stay in your own SHITTY LANDS YOU BACKWARD MONKEYS And when i say monkeys ..I mean primitive man.. devil created gayness, not God. Err, yeah but God created the devil, knowing full well the devil would create gayness. Yet still went along with it. In simple terms, God chose to create gayness via the devil. Your logic, not mine. |
|
|
|
^ If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused. The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth. You are confused  You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here. Please continue... Let's hear what you got to say. can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself... I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't. If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth. Your point? Young Earth: 14 500 000 results, not 50. Old Earth: 42 800 000 results, not 100. = You are wrong. *sign* I dispair sometimes, I really do. |
|
|
|
^ If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused. The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth. You are confused You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here. Please continue... Let's hear what you got to say. can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself... I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't. If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth. Your point? Assuming you are being truthful with your numbers^, all this proves is that there are more propagandists out there than truth tellers. *shrug* If you can't even look at the other side of the argument in case there something there that frightens you, what's the point? You've made up your mind. You've submitted to misinformation sites like "creation.com", designed purely to mold you like soft candle wax, into the shape they want, their way, by their rules. That's the foolish path you've chosen, burdened with the consequences it carries. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
^ If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused. The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth. You are confused You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here. Please continue... Let's hear what you got to say. can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself... I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't. If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth. Your point? |
|
|
|
^ If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused. The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth. You are confused You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here. Please continue... Let's hear what you got to say. |
|
|
|
^ If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused. The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth. |
|
|
|
So much hate in the world.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
