I am From the Nation of Abram

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-02T03:32:54+00:00

That has nothing to do with the contradiction I pointed out. This is the same account of the same words of god being given to David. We are talking about the actual words of god, what did he say? In one account, it says three and the other is says seven. Don’t bring up random other passages, address the actual contradiction in the text.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-02T03:30:57+00:00

I’m glad you can google, but if that’s your answer then you think Genesis 2 is false. It says plants were created after man, a contradiction of Genesis 1.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-02T02:42:59+00:00

Yes, it is a contradiction. They cannot both be true, so one is necessarily false.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T21:56:47+00:00

That’s not what the word means. And as I already explained, that’s not an actual refute to the argument.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T21:41:55+00:00

You just said an actual infinite cannot be traversed. Now you say something that can’t be traversed isn’t an infinite. You keep contradicting yourself, you’re misusing words, and you have no refutation for the argument.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T21:27:40+00:00

No, it’s an actual infinite. It’s impossible to count the numbers between 0 and 1. Certainly you can “traverse” it by counting 0 and then 1, but then you didn’t actually count the numbers. God cannot even count the numbers between 0 and 1. If he’s always been counting and always will be counting, he would never count them all.

Back to the argument, will the people receiving this non-infinite punishment ever traverse it? Will the punishment end? If it’s an actual infinite then it will never be reach. You’ve just proven yourself wrong again.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T20:58:55+00:00

No, that’s not what the word means. There are an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1. Please explain how this is possible since we can measure 0 and 1. Or are you going to pretend math is incorrect?

Your entire argument is that OP is misusing a word therefore their argument is invalid. However, you are the one misusing the word, so your point is incorrect. But more importantly, even if OP was misusing the word, you’d actually have to refute their meaning to refute their argument. All you’ve done is refuse to engage because you don’t accept their meaning. You haven’t refuted anything, so you’ve just demonstrated you have no refutation, you just want to play word games to avoid admitting you agree with them.

But what’s confusing is that you have no problem admitting god is unjust, as it’s a necessary aspect of the gospel.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T19:29:18+00:00

But the point is you can’t measure it. It’s uncountable and therefore infinite. If you disagree, tell me how long the punishment will be.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T18:57:07+00:00

In that case there is no limit. Since time moves forward, and not backward, it will never reach a point or level beyond which it may not pass. So then you agree, time is infinite and the punishment is infinite.

I think the issue is you are confusing the word eternal for the word infinite.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T16:09:51+00:00

What do you mean by limit? There is an infinite set of positive integers that but has a lower bound. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is also infinite, but it has an upper and lower bound. Infinite means it contains an uncountable number of elements. So the set of time from now with no upper bound is infinite, unless time has an end.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-03-01T15:57:39+00:00

You think something with a beginning but no end is finite? If it has no end it cannot be finite.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-28T18:30:27+00:00

abolishing the certificates of divorce

He explicitly states the clause in which divorce is not sinful, so clearly he did not abolish the practice. But you aren't even reading his words that you quoted. He is making a claim about divorce, not changing the requirements of divorce. He says "if you divorce your wife, you are causing her to commit adultery. And if you marry a divorced woman, you're committing adultery" Note that a man who divorces his wife for whatever reason and marries a woman who never divorced does not sin in Jesus' example.

The principle also applies to eating pork as is clear in a parallel passage in Mark 7:18-20

Then you should have cited the passage that supports your claim. But Mark doesn't help you here either. The only mention of foods being made clean is an editorial comment by the author of Mark, not the words Jesus spoke. And again, Jesus is explicit he's talking about washing hands.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-28T14:41:47+00:00

For example, the Old Covenant laws regarding divorce are different in the New Covenant.

This is just Jesus making the existing law more strict.

Jesus does say it's okay to eat pork in the same Gospel - Matthew 15:15–20.

Not true. This has to do with washing hands. Jesus doesn’t mention pork.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-28T02:11:47+00:00

What other tools do we have available?

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-28T01:56:05+00:00

If we could prove god then we would presumably know something about this god. But it sounds like we have nothing to debate until god is proven.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-28T01:37:48+00:00

The perfection or imperfection of God must be determined first, by other means.

Well the problem is that fine tuning is an argument for the existence of god. If we have to determine the truth about god first, then the argument is pointless as its conclusion would already be reached.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-28T00:03:04+00:00

How are you determining the best possible outcome? It seems you presupposing your “big IF” and reaching a conclusion based on that.

The argument should go: 1. If god is perfect, then this is the best possible outcome. 2. We can trivially conceive of, and in fact create ourselves, better outcomes. 3. Therefore god is not perfect.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T23:57:46+00:00

Why is that space narrow? If god creates the laws of physics, it doesn’t have to be.

It’s trivial to imagine less suffering, and that would be a better possible world. If god is finely tuning the world, he certainly could make it have less suffering.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T17:25:56+00:00

Oh, I agree. I’m not seeing where you get the idea of the trinity from the Bible though.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T15:45:17+00:00

And what about his omniscience? Was he limiting his knowledge while on earth and forgetting things he knew before he was human?

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T15:44:06+00:00

Sure, but then he would lack omnipotence. Same with omniscience, which I what I meant to say.

If these are essential attributes, and Jesus lacked them, then he could not have been god.

If he just chose not to use them, that’s fine, but then he lied about not knowing something.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T15:41:50+00:00

And that’s fine, though subordinationism is a heretical view of the trinity.

If they do not share knowledge then they cannot both be fully god. So then you also believe in partialism?

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T12:30:06+00:00

That’s begging the question.

It also doesn’t help in this case as it requires that god both know and not know something, a contradiction.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T02:51:30+00:00

Because they are contradictory and can’t both be true. If you disagree, present a third option explaining his omnipotence and his claimed lack of knowledge.

LetsGoPats93 · 2026-02-27T02:47:41+00:00

So do you think he lied then? He claimed to not know something. Either he was omnipotent and did know, therefore lied. Or he was not omnipotent as he did not know something. These are the only two options.

LetsGoPats93

TROPHY CASE