This is redundant. A god who is omnipotent and omniscient would have no rules to follow. Regardless, If there were rules, he would not be breaking them. If you believe in the bible, it says that the god revealed himself to a number of people. He could simple appear during a world wide telecast and say, 'Here I am!'.
That is not true. There are things which an omniscient being can not do. For example, learn.
He certainly could appear. In fact, I believe he will. But at that time it will be too late. If Jesus were to appear to you on TV right now, would you accept Him as Savior, or cry,"Fake, Haxors!"?
@Intrepidman If there are things he cannot do, this means he is not omnipotent. This begs the question, how much power does he really have? As for Christ, knowing what I know of his origins, no. I would not believe it. Both the Christ and the god were taken from stories and characters from older Pagan religions.
False. adjective 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God . 2. having very great or unlimited authority or power. Omnipotent does not mean the ability to that which is self-contradictory.
Why did you suggest that He appear before you on TV if you would not believe it anyway? Should He show up just for your amusement?
@Intrepidman It would be amusing, yes. However, if he had that power, we would not be having this conversation. I am putting forward the idea that the god simply doesn't exist at all, thus there is nothing with those powers, which is why no one has it in 2000 years.
@Intrepidman Yes, Intrepid, that is my one, singular reason why I don't believe in your god... because he's not on TV.... Please tell me your not serious.
@Intrepidman Yes, though not necessarily the TV bit. The dude hasn't shown himself for 2000 years, and that was to a bunch of people who thought the world was flat. Now that there is photography and video and the internet,... it would be a good time to show up. That is not my main reason, though, just a point. My main reason is the whole 'one and only god' thing. He isn't. He was a war god in a Pagan religion. The whole story was made up later.
But you yourself said that even if He showed up today on your TV you wouldn't believe it anyway. It would not make any difference. Where is your evidence for your Pagan war god claim?
@Intrepidman I said I wouldn't believe for two reasons. There have been many to say they are gods, or Jesus, some of which are on Thorazine to this day. Also, there is no reason for a god's existence since we have pretty much figured out how things come about without one. Look up "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" in google for the Pagan reference.
@skywize Also, there is a video series on YouTube called A History Of God. The first video in the series named "3.3.3 Atheism - A History of God part 1 (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)" references the same.
1) The presence of counterfeits does not preclude the existence of the genuine.
2) There are some guesses as to how the Universe could exist without a Creator, but nothing conclusive that I am aware of. Further, even if one could explain how the Universe could exist without a Creator that does not eliminate the Creator as the imitator.
3) Abraham was certainly a Pagan initially, what of it?
@Intrepidman 1. Jesus would be the counterfit as he is one of the latest in the series of marter profits born of a virgin around Solstice. Yahweh would not be a counterfeit as he is simply one of the gods. Going back to the beginning of time to prove a god's existence is a cop out, and redundant. There is nothing wrong with Pagans or their gods, it is written that Yahweh is 'the' god, the one and only, which is obviously a lie.
Jesus was not born during the Solstice, but in the Aug-Sept time frame. Further, just because something came first does not make it the genuine article, or the presence of a great number of similar things invalidate the genuine. When the movie 2012 came out there was a flurry of quickly made movies that came out hoping to cash in on the advertising for the real 2012.
@Intrepidman The question, then, must be; how do you know which is the genuine article? They cannot all be correct. Yahweh cannot be one of many gods, but be the only god. If there is a genuine god out of all of this, then what leads you to the decision? It cannot be said that the bible says so, because lots of holy books from lots of different religions say the same thing.
@Intrepidman 1) I personally think a creator would be more inclined to be hands on, not writing things down for posterity, but actively participating.
2)Whatever documentation would likely change over time as humans evolved, and understood more.
3)Agreed.
4) I don't do drugs.
5) I don't think there is a single religion on the planet that has no falsehoods. Also remember to the primitive mind, what we think of now to be metaphor was likely literal.
then it is possible for the primitive mind to think of metaphor as literal. (or for the modern mind to interpret the metaphor as literal). That does not render the documentation false. If the Bible said that the Jews would never return to Israel, the Bible would be false, since the Jews have returned. (Which was predicted) :)
@Intrepidman Sorry, 480 characters is not much to be clear. What I was referring to was things such as heaven being on pillars. Also, if you really think about it, everything the holy books say might have been exactly how they perceived it, but not how it actually happened.
@Intrepidman Pillars being a description of a person, I believe, is unlikely given the timeline, but that was only one reference anyway. Your original version of #4 was fine, I was trying to be funny... I lack the ability, lol. Yes, I agree with the list, but I would add that a proof should have evidence in a number of places. But yes, the list is quite reasonable.
Why would pillar being a person be unreasonable? It says they are astonished. At this point I'm only attempting to determine which of all the possible holy books could be the right one.
One thing I've noticed with some textual critics is that they use red herrings and strawmen a lot. I hope you are not one of those people. It makes an intelligent discourse very difficult.
If my list is reasonable, that pretty much limits our search to the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran.
@Intrepidman I will drop the pillar bit, I guess it's neither here not there. I have no remaining knowledge of the Torah, and I am just learning the Koran now. Remember, there is another possibility, that there simply isn't a plausible religious text. This is why I became a Pagan when I was 15, and began studying other faiths. I found no truth in monotheism.
@Intrepidman Fair point... Perhaps I should have said substantial? Reasonable?... How about sound? In other words, one of those three may be correct, or none of them, or any other may be correct. You could choose any god, or the absence of a god. I, for instance, have not chosen 'not to pick' a god. I have decided that none exist to choose from. An absence of choices.
That's cool. I just was saying how I picked. I think it's a good way to pick, if one feels that there is God(s). IMHO, 2 are correct, while the 3rd is suspect. As to reasonable, by what measure? I look at it this way. To a 2 year old, many things their loving parent do is unreasonable. God(s) is at least that much wiser than a parent to their child, therefore, are we really able to judge what is reasonable for God(s)?
@Intrepidman I think yes. I believe it comes back to the observer or controller question. A child may not have the capacity to judge, but a parent would try and teach it's child. A parent can tell a child not to touch the flame. Now, (I doubt I can make this clear...) Does the parent assume the child's judgement, and not give reason for this command? Or does the parent explain what will happen? Or... does the parent say it is forbidden by law? (yeah... nope, I couldn't do it.)
f you had a child, and they were about to cause themselves ETERNAL TORTURE--wouldn't you stop it? Even if it violated their "free will"?
God makes up the rules--right? There are many instances where he has violated "free will". There are many things that happen to us that are not our will. So of course he violates free will when it suits him, and if he is truly "all powerful" then we have NO free will--he has all of it, since he can veto anything we will at any time.
The whole non-violation of free will arguement is such rhetorical b.s. if god cared so much about the importance of free will in as much as the so called choice( see threat) of hell or heaven. wheres the third choice? infact, why does there need to be a hell at all if that is your arguement. god in infinate power could very well create an equal heaven that god simply did not interact with if all it was was a choice to be with god or not. hell is your own bloodlust seeking vengence.
God is certainly more powerful than Satan. He allows Satan to do stuff within limits. Just like I am more powerful than you on my page. I allow your abusive comments. I could just delete them. Just because I don't doesn't mean that I'm less powerful than you.
I'm glad that you and "Theoreticalbullshit" have so many philosophical differences. Otherwise I couldn't tell you two apart. The two of you look so much alike.........not much fun being made fun of is it?
So miracles would be a violation of that rule. Right? Only god decides what kind of culture you are born into. That plays a big part in your choosing of a deity. Not fair and a lack of free will. It is much easier to choose jesus when you are born into a christian family as opposed to being born into a muslim family. Who decides where you are born?
this anology makes no sense to me, what would playing by the rules imply. what does training to the maximum imply. these things seem irrelevant. if we train to the maximum (god doing everthing in his power) but still lose (the devil winning us over) then that would imply that the devil is more powerful.
Yeah, no analogy is perfect. Basically the point I was trying to get across is that rules prevent the exercise of power. God could certainly force each and every one of us unto heaven. That is within His power. However, one of the rules that God has put on Himself is that He won't do that. He does provide us with the ability to choose Him. Or, did I just confuse the matter further?
One2426 let me help explain the analgogy so u can understand it better. First of all we don't lose in the end if we believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God because we end up in heaven. Second, the world is ruled by the devil himself and the Bible tells us that so we will suffer and it may seem like hell on earth at times but that is what comes with this life ruled by satan. God can perfom miracles and still be by the rules becaue he wrote the rules. If u are still confused please write back.
you know wut god culd do that wuld get everyone in the world to believe in him? perform a legit miracle. something like part the sea...or make all hungry babies in the world NOT hungry...or simply make food fall from the sky without hitting anyone, all the while, call down to us with an authorative voice saying that he the christian god is doign all these. wouldnt you say that this would be sufficient? why be so mysterious? why be so unclear? why make room for ppl's different interpretations?
why should god perform legit miracles for every single generation because eventually people will die or forget, OR RECORD THEM IN A BOOK LIKE THE BIBLE WHERE HE DID ALL THESE THINGS!
Shibatom let me give you examples from the Bible of miracles that didn't change people's minds. When Moses went to the top of the mountain and came down the people were worshiping the idle even though they could see the firy clouds that was God. Adam and Eve talked to God and could see him and they still committed the sin. Satan and his Angels were in the spiritual world with God and they still turn on God. So when u say a specific miracle and people would believe sadly that wouldn't matter.
God breaks rules all of the time throughout the bible. Have you even read it? His big one of "thou shalt not murder"? He breaks that a WHOLE lot of times as he calls for the deaths of countless people and cities. He breaks his own rules all over the place. The alleged miracles? I'm certain it's impossible to sastisfy 4000 peoples hunger with a couple of fish sandwiches without sprinkling a little bit of rule-breakage in there. He's been wrong in it too fyi.
That kind of logic would only work if the people believe there is a heaven, yet refuse to go to it. I don't believe in a heaven. How am I supposed to accept something that I believe doesn't exist?
The argument is that he has done everything that can be done without removing free will of the individual. Technically, this doesn't necessitate removal of omnipotence for the argument to work. Isn't it nice that he hasn't sent a bunch of Christians to come over to your house every hour of every day? That would suck.
You played right into the conundrum set up by TBS. In order to rationalize it, you had to remove the characteristic of omnipotence from god. That was exactly his point, either god is omnipotent, or he does not do everything he can to get people into heaven.
This is redundant. A god who is omnipotent and omniscient would have no rules to follow. Regardless, If there were rules, he would not be breaking them. If you believe in the bible, it says that the god revealed himself to a number of people. He could simple appear during a world wide telecast and say, 'Here I am!'.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
That is not true. There are things which an omniscient being can not do. For example, learn.
He certainly could appear. In fact, I believe he will. But at that time it will be too late. If Jesus were to appear to you on TV right now, would you accept Him as Savior, or cry,"Fake, Haxors!"?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman If there are things he cannot do, this means he is not omnipotent. This begs the question, how much power does he really have? As for Christ, knowing what I know of his origins, no. I would not believe it. Both the Christ and the god were taken from stories and characters from older Pagan religions.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
False. adjective 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God . 2. having very great or unlimited authority or power. Omnipotent does not mean the ability to that which is self-contradictory.
Why did you suggest that He appear before you on TV if you would not believe it anyway? Should He show up just for your amusement?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman It would be amusing, yes. However, if he had that power, we would not be having this conversation. I am putting forward the idea that the god simply doesn't exist at all, thus there is nothing with those powers, which is why no one has it in 2000 years.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
Are you saying that since God has not chosen to appear on TV that means He does not exist?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman Yes, Intrepid, that is my one, singular reason why I don't believe in your god... because he's not on TV.... Please tell me your not serious.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
Whether or not that is your singular reason or not, I don't know. I would guess probably not. But is that A reason you believe He does not exist?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman Yes, though not necessarily the TV bit. The dude hasn't shown himself for 2000 years, and that was to a bunch of people who thought the world was flat. Now that there is photography and video and the internet,... it would be a good time to show up. That is not my main reason, though, just a point. My main reason is the whole 'one and only god' thing. He isn't. He was a war god in a Pagan religion. The whole story was made up later.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
But you yourself said that even if He showed up today on your TV you wouldn't believe it anyway. It would not make any difference. Where is your evidence for your Pagan war god claim?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman I said I wouldn't believe for two reasons. There have been many to say they are gods, or Jesus, some of which are on Thorazine to this day. Also, there is no reason for a god's existence since we have pretty much figured out how things come about without one. Look up "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" in google for the Pagan reference.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize Also, there is a video series on YouTube called A History Of God. The first video in the series named "3.3.3 Atheism - A History of God part 1 (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)" references the same.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
1) The presence of counterfeits does not preclude the existence of the genuine.
2) There are some guesses as to how the Universe could exist without a Creator, but nothing conclusive that I am aware of. Further, even if one could explain how the Universe could exist without a Creator that does not eliminate the Creator as the imitator.
3) Abraham was certainly a Pagan initially, what of it?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman 1. Jesus would be the counterfit as he is one of the latest in the series of marter profits born of a virgin around Solstice. Yahweh would not be a counterfeit as he is simply one of the gods. Going back to the beginning of time to prove a god's existence is a cop out, and redundant. There is nothing wrong with Pagans or their gods, it is written that Yahweh is 'the' god, the one and only, which is obviously a lie.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
Jesus was not born during the Solstice, but in the Aug-Sept time frame. Further, just because something came first does not make it the genuine article, or the presence of a great number of similar things invalidate the genuine. When the movie 2012 came out there was a flurry of quickly made movies that came out hoping to cash in on the advertising for the real 2012.
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman The question, then, must be; how do you know which is the genuine article? They cannot all be correct. Yahweh cannot be one of many gods, but be the only god. If there is a genuine god out of all of this, then what leads you to the decision? It cannot be said that the bible says so, because lots of holy books from lots of different religions say the same thing.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
You are entirely correct. I had the same questions when Atheism no longer made sense to me. So, I composed a list.
1) God(s) would have had something written down.
2) It would have been preserved intact.
3) The language(s) it was written in would still be spoken today.
4) God(s) would be no part of our space-time domain.
5) It would not have things that were flat-out false. (hyperbole, sarcasm, allegory, and idioms allowed, but no endless turtles, Atlas's, etc.)
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman 1) I personally think a creator would be more inclined to be hands on, not writing things down for posterity, but actively participating.
2)Whatever documentation would likely change over time as humans evolved, and understood more.
3)Agreed.
4) I don't do drugs.
5) I don't think there is a single religion on the planet that has no falsehoods. Also remember to the primitive mind, what we think of now to be metaphor was likely literal.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
That, of course, was not mean to be an exhaustive list. So,
I agree on what you said about 1) (how God(s) participate is up for debate)
2) While the documentation itself would remain intact, our understanding of it would improve, not change.
4) It should have said 'not part of our space-time domain' apologies.
5) Not taking about religion at this point, only the documentation. But, if God(s) wrote (or inspired to write) the documentation,
Cont.
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@skywize,
then it is possible for the primitive mind to think of metaphor as literal. (or for the modern mind to interpret the metaphor as literal). That does not render the documentation false. If the Bible said that the Jews would never return to Israel, the Bible would be false, since the Jews have returned. (Which was predicted) :)
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman Sorry, 480 characters is not much to be clear. What I was referring to was things such as heaven being on pillars. Also, if you really think about it, everything the holy books say might have been exactly how they perceived it, but not how it actually happened.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
Where does it say that heaven rests on literal pillars? Or are you referring to Job 26:11?
The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his rebuke.
Definition:
2) One who occupies a central or responsible position: a pillar of the state.
Back to my list, would you say that my list is reasonable?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman Pillars being a description of a person, I believe, is unlikely given the timeline, but that was only one reference anyway. Your original version of #4 was fine, I was trying to be funny... I lack the ability, lol. Yes, I agree with the list, but I would add that a proof should have evidence in a number of places. But yes, the list is quite reasonable.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
Why would pillar being a person be unreasonable? It says they are astonished. At this point I'm only attempting to determine which of all the possible holy books could be the right one.
One thing I've noticed with some textual critics is that they use red herrings and strawmen a lot. I hope you are not one of those people. It makes an intelligent discourse very difficult.
If my list is reasonable, that pretty much limits our search to the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran.
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman I will drop the pillar bit, I guess it's neither here not there. I have no remaining knowledge of the Torah, and I am just learning the Koran now. Remember, there is another possibility, that there simply isn't a plausible religious text. This is why I became a Pagan when I was 15, and began studying other faiths. I found no truth in monotheism.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
What definition of plausible are you using?
believable: believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof
2. persuasive: having a persuasive manner in speech or writing, often combined with an intention to deceive
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman Fair point... Perhaps I should have said substantial? Reasonable?... How about sound? In other words, one of those three may be correct, or none of them, or any other may be correct. You could choose any god, or the absence of a god. I, for instance, have not chosen 'not to pick' a god. I have decided that none exist to choose from. An absence of choices.
skywize 2 months ago
@skywize,
That's cool. I just was saying how I picked. I think it's a good way to pick, if one feels that there is God(s). IMHO, 2 are correct, while the 3rd is suspect. As to reasonable, by what measure? I look at it this way. To a 2 year old, many things their loving parent do is unreasonable. God(s) is at least that much wiser than a parent to their child, therefore, are we really able to judge what is reasonable for God(s)?
Intrepidman 2 months ago
@Intrepidman I think yes. I believe it comes back to the observer or controller question. A child may not have the capacity to judge, but a parent would try and teach it's child. A parent can tell a child not to touch the flame. Now, (I doubt I can make this clear...) Does the parent assume the child's judgement, and not give reason for this command? Or does the parent explain what will happen? Or... does the parent say it is forbidden by law? (yeah... nope, I couldn't do it.)
skywize 2 months ago
f you had a child, and they were about to cause themselves ETERNAL TORTURE--wouldn't you stop it? Even if it violated their "free will"?
God makes up the rules--right? There are many instances where he has violated "free will". There are many things that happen to us that are not our will. So of course he violates free will when it suits him, and if he is truly "all powerful" then we have NO free will--he has all of it, since he can veto anything we will at any time.
DandAinTac 8 months ago
The whole non-violation of free will arguement is such rhetorical b.s. if god cared so much about the importance of free will in as much as the so called choice( see threat) of hell or heaven. wheres the third choice? infact, why does there need to be a hell at all if that is your arguement. god in infinate power could very well create an equal heaven that god simply did not interact with if all it was was a choice to be with god or not. hell is your own bloodlust seeking vengence.
Ihatemelee 9 months ago
Which rules does god have to follow? Is there something higher then god?
7894561237531591 2 years ago
Where is a scriptural response? There no biblical bases for any of this.
psk6565 2 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
You may call me anything you wish. It matters not. Just don't call me late for dinner.
Intrepidman 3 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
You seem to have a lot of anger. Life is short, why waste it?
Intrepidman 3 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
You want to try to get it right again? Third time's the charm! :)
Intrepidman 3 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
LOL, misuse of 'your' (should be you're, a contraction of 'you are')
Homophobic comment.
I think you meant to say, "God didn't give you MANY brain cells."
Intrepidman 3 years ago
You didn't have many friends during high school, did you? Loser.
screech519 3 years ago
Let's see.
Own my own business, check
Married 16 years, check
Son is Airborne in Iraq, check
Own my own house, 2 cars, and 2 motorcycles, one of which is brand new, check
Go on rides with 10-30 friends every weekend, check.
Most importantly, a relationship with the Creator of the universe, check.
.
Not making videos in my mom's basement, check
Intrepidman 3 years ago
Comment removed
screech519 3 years ago
God is certainly more powerful than Satan. He allows Satan to do stuff within limits. Just like I am more powerful than you on my page. I allow your abusive comments. I could just delete them. Just because I don't doesn't mean that I'm less powerful than you.
Intrepidman 3 years ago
I'm glad that you and "Theoreticalbullshit" have so many philosophical differences. Otherwise I couldn't tell you two apart. The two of you look so much alike.........not much fun being made fun of is it?
dave4248 3 years ago
So miracles would be a violation of that rule. Right? Only god decides what kind of culture you are born into. That plays a big part in your choosing of a deity. Not fair and a lack of free will. It is much easier to choose jesus when you are born into a christian family as opposed to being born into a muslim family. Who decides where you are born?
Igotnogod 3 years ago 2
this anology makes no sense to me, what would playing by the rules imply. what does training to the maximum imply. these things seem irrelevant. if we train to the maximum (god doing everthing in his power) but still lose (the devil winning us over) then that would imply that the devil is more powerful.
one2426 3 years ago
Yeah, no analogy is perfect. Basically the point I was trying to get across is that rules prevent the exercise of power. God could certainly force each and every one of us unto heaven. That is within His power. However, one of the rules that God has put on Himself is that He won't do that. He does provide us with the ability to choose Him. Or, did I just confuse the matter further?
Intrepidman 3 years ago
One2426 let me help explain the analgogy so u can understand it better. First of all we don't lose in the end if we believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God because we end up in heaven. Second, the world is ruled by the devil himself and the Bible tells us that so we will suffer and it may seem like hell on earth at times but that is what comes with this life ruled by satan. God can perfom miracles and still be by the rules becaue he wrote the rules. If u are still confused please write back.
kperson101101 3 years ago
you know wut god culd do that wuld get everyone in the world to believe in him? perform a legit miracle. something like part the sea...or make all hungry babies in the world NOT hungry...or simply make food fall from the sky without hitting anyone, all the while, call down to us with an authorative voice saying that he the christian god is doign all these. wouldnt you say that this would be sufficient? why be so mysterious? why be so unclear? why make room for ppl's different interpretations?
shibatom 3 years ago
why should god perform legit miracles for every single generation because eventually people will die or forget, OR RECORD THEM IN A BOOK LIKE THE BIBLE WHERE HE DID ALL THESE THINGS!
one2426 3 years ago
Shibatom let me give you examples from the Bible of miracles that didn't change people's minds. When Moses went to the top of the mountain and came down the people were worshiping the idle even though they could see the firy clouds that was God. Adam and Eve talked to God and could see him and they still committed the sin. Satan and his Angels were in the spiritual world with God and they still turn on God. So when u say a specific miracle and people would believe sadly that wouldn't matter.
kperson101101 3 years ago
Analogies are not your strongpoint.
God breaks rules all of the time throughout the bible. Have you even read it? His big one of "thou shalt not murder"? He breaks that a WHOLE lot of times as he calls for the deaths of countless people and cities. He breaks his own rules all over the place. The alleged miracles? I'm certain it's impossible to sastisfy 4000 peoples hunger with a couple of fish sandwiches without sprinkling a little bit of rule-breakage in there. He's been wrong in it too fyi.
relic1076 3 years ago 8
insane. the question is if the claims are actually true or not.
You're just jumping ahead and starting from the assumption that God and heaven definitely does exist. Wrong, wrongity wrong.
memblor 3 years ago 4
That kind of logic would only work if the people believe there is a heaven, yet refuse to go to it. I don't believe in a heaven. How am I supposed to accept something that I believe doesn't exist?
korwinblue 3 years ago
The argument is that he has done everything that can be done without removing free will of the individual. Technically, this doesn't necessitate removal of omnipotence for the argument to work. Isn't it nice that he hasn't sent a bunch of Christians to come over to your house every hour of every day? That would suck.
incredinex 3 years ago
You played right into the conundrum set up by TBS. In order to rationalize it, you had to remove the characteristic of omnipotence from god. That was exactly his point, either god is omnipotent, or he does not do everything he can to get people into heaven.
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago 2
yeah, I did. Oops.
Intrepidman 3 years ago
I admire your willingness to admit your mistake, kudos for honesty.
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
Thanks
Intrepidman 3 years ago