yes, and also he is the armchair
yes, and also he is the armchair
let’s not get too extreme here
you tell me, since you said you’d rather not help at all
If only there was a way of helping without being condescending or immediately assuming oneself to be more knowledgeable or capable on a topic with nothing to base it on other than physical appearance.
Some shows I really enjoyed in recent years:
They’re in no particular order, and I’m sure I’m forgetting a lot, but I definitely think all of the above are must watch.
The human is primed for tribalism and these parties are exploiting that bug to offer the always-attractive solution of “this group of people is to blame”. This time, it’s Muslims and generally immigrants.
Lift just one side so your buttocks spread, then reach from the side to wipe. All the while, the seat carries (most of) your weight.
Well, it’s fun if anything :). Nobody actually believes in god for rational reasons.
The argument we were discussing was that god was either evil (as in not good) or not omnipotent.
Whether humans must be evil due to free will is another discussion entirely, and I would propose that free will is never entirely free and always limited by our perception and understanding of the world. If evil didn’t exist, you would be as free to be evil as you are to ignore gravity. Also, most religions believe in a paradise free from evil, so does that mean you lose your free will once you enter?
Yes, exactly. If there is a god, they definitely either aren’t omnipotent, or they aren’t good according to our definition of being good (as they ignore our unnecessary suffering).
Don’t see how that’s what I proposed as good. As time wouldn’t exist for god (implication of being omnipotent), there’s no reason that suffering ever existed in the first place - no need to change anything on a running system.
By that logic, you could say that eliminating cancer is exterminating humanity as is, and thus evil.
An omnipotent god could alter nature in a way that makes us able to enjoy good without needing to suffer. If they can’t, they’re not omnipotent. If they don’t want to, they’re letting us suffer unnecessarily, and they’re not good.
So many fruits in the berrum family, can’t believe they even had to google that question…
A four sided triangle is a verbal misconstruct, because we chose those names to represent different objects - nothing to do with what god can or can’t do. They could make all of us believe that four-sided polygons are called triangles, which fulfills the requirement you propose. On the other hand, free will can’t “require” suffering, because a requirement would mean there is a rule god can’t break, which would mean they are not omnipotent.
Still, the (theoretical) fact remains that god knows about the suffering and lets it happen. Whatever the goal is, if he’s omnipotent he should be able to reach it without having suffering. If he can’t, he isn’t omnipotent. If he doesn’t want to, he’s not good.
assuming you’re right, he either can’t or doesn’t want to create that world without human suffering. Remains either evil or not all powerful.
why not? you can choose to eat a banana or an apple, both perfectly non evil
Didn’t see any reason not to sign this, so I did. Let’s see if anything happens.
Good to hear that the early 40s are not that bad. I’m 31 now and that ensures me I have at least 20 more good years.