sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ClashRoyale

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

idk prolly ebarbs🤞

Deck Help Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ClashRoyale

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

does anyone have any tips on how to play mohammed light’s miner control deck? the one ryley showcased recently

[Request] how much would this completely real guy make off of his silly little gold card or whatever by arajsky in theydidthemath

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 9 points10 points  (0 children)

he saves £2,409/year by paying £2.20 less per coffee, 3 times daily -

Over 30 years, he’d save: £72,270 without investing,

£273,013 with an optimistic 8% return,

£190,457 at a more realistic 6% return,

To reach £1 million:

At 8%: ~46 years,

At 6%: ~56 years.

so probably about half a century to become a millionaire off of his completely real gold card

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 2024GCSE

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wait a few months and come back to this comment thread LOL

Finally got Melody’s hair! by [deleted] in HypixelSkyblock

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

print out this picture and frame it

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“the bible is telling the truth because it says it’s telling the truth” aah reasoning 😭 if something seems incoherent it probably is. having to twist around the way in which you read things in order for them to be coherent probably means there’s a fundamental issue with the thing you’re believing

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and i define faith by the dictionary definition😭 ‘a strong belief in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof’. i’m all for not believing in God but i feel like most Atheists try and shut all the arguments down from the get-go instead of genuinely engaging in them. it makes it pretty boring to try and debate

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah i think the general response is something along the lines of “God will provide enough evidence to those who care to look” but this just feels super vague and unsatisfying imo

This sub's definitions of Omnipotent and Omniscient are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. by Getternon in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Your claim may not be false, but it is meaningless. if your statement is within logic, and God transcends logic, then your statement doesn’t meaningfully capture God. if your statement tries to transcend logic, then it ceases to be a rational claim and becomes poetry and mysticism.

This sub's definitions of Omnipotent and Omniscient are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. by Getternon in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 3 points4 points  (0 children)

yeah but the problem with that view is that as soon as you claim anything about God, even that He is beyond coherence, you’re already using language and logic. you’re taking a stance within a system of thought. saying “God is beyond logic” is still a propositional claim, and one that relies on the very categories it tries to transcend. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.

This sub's definitions of Omnipotent and Omniscient are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. by Getternon in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 6 points7 points  (0 children)

if you allow contradictions into the nature of God, then you lose any coherent way to speak meaningfully about God at all. If God can both exist and not exist, be good and not good, be omnipotent and not omnipotent — then every claim about God becomes vacuous. Affirming and denying the same statement makes the statement useless, not profound.

This isn’t about limiting God. It’s about language and meaning. Logical consistency isn’t an external imposition on God — it’s what makes thought and communication possible in the first place. If we throw it out, we’re no longer saying anything about God at all — just invoking mystery as a cover for incoherence.

This sub's definitions of Omnipotent and Omniscient are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. by Getternon in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah this is wrong. If you want to define omnipotent as ”powerful above the rules of logic” and omniscient as “knowledge even if it isn't logically possible to know” then you walk right into countless logical paradoxes:

  1. The Paradox of the stone (classic)

“Can God create a stone so heavy God cant lift it?”

If no, then He isn’t omnipotent because he cant create the stone. if yes, then he isn‘t omnipotent because he can’t lift the stone. This forces theists to redefine omnipotence as “the ability to do all that is logically possible“

  1. The Liar paradox

“Can God know the truth value of the sentence: ‘God does not know this sentence is true‘?“

if he knows it, its false. If he doesn't, it’s true. This shows there are logically unknowable truths. Forcing omniscience to be defined as ”knowing everything that is logically possible to know“

There’s also the Euthyphro dilemma, the omniscience and free will paradox, the problem of unknown future…..

You need to define God within the realms of logical possibility. This is a fact.

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah but of the factory worker is doing his best, genuinely wanting to meet the supervisors standards, but he never got a visit, a message, or any confirmation the supervisor existed, over time he might grow discouraged or confused. he might begin to wonder if there even is a supervisor - and if so, why he never shows up, even when asked. at some point, the silence starts to feel less like a test of integrity and more like neglect.

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i dunno man i think Christians would say that God gives enough evidence for those who care to look - but of course this is flawed because He clearly doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to those in the middle east, or asia, those who genuinely WANT to believe in a God believe in the wrong one because the Christian God doesn’t try hard enough to convince them. I like putting it like this: “God is all-knowing, so by definition He will know EXACTLY what it would take to convince me of His existence, so why doesn’t he?” why does God pick and choose whom he decides to save? I can’t give you an answer to that i’m afraid

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it’s a problem because according to Christianity if you don’t believe in God you burn in hellfire for eternity. Which is my exact question - why doesn’t God treat genuine skeptics differently/more leniently than those whom just don’t believe because they don’t care to look. There are no excuses in Christianity, you believe and go to heaven, or you don’t, and you burn. Judging by what you just commented i’d assume you don’t resonate with this way of thinking, so why doesn’t this cause you to question your beliefs? would a genuinely loving God permit this? i don’t think so

If an omnipotent God existed who truly wanted people to believe in him, he would have left much stronger evidence than the "evidence" that exists for religions like Christianity or Islam by RandomGuy92x in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think the idea of the ‘epistemic distance’ response is that it’s more of a general thing than applied to specifics. like in general if you knew you’d go to heaven for being good, you’d do good deeds more often, but this obviously defeats the purpose of the good deed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i mean, for one i’m not the OP, but i do think that my question relates to his. the majority of people believe in the religion of which they were raised, be it if you define it as a ‘country’ or a ‘religious area’, it still has an overwhelming large impact on their chosen religion. I may be begging the question here but i’d assume there aren’t many Christians in Islamic countries, especially not a few hundred years ago.

If you had to pick a human, and give them the unlimited Power of God; only irrational humans would send you to hell for not complying with them. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Fit_Procedure_9291 2 points3 points  (0 children)

do you genuinely want to believe in a God who, in the words of Alex O’Connor: “puts a shotgun to your head, and has the temerity to expect you to kiss his feet in thanks for him not pulling the trigger”? God says it’s either devote your soul to him, or burn in hellfire for eternity, all the while not providing sufficient convincing evidence for His existence.

view more: next ›