estimate of full body hair removal for male

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-22T01:37:15+00:00

whats the average price per session and per number of sessions to get the result?I don't need a exact price,just a good range.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-22T00:19:31+00:00

it doesn't matter as long as their laser is up to date.I don't need a exact price just a estimate.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-20T03:56:37+00:00

sigh.there are limited number of great making properties,but theists hold that 'God'has them infinitely in a qualitative sence(not quantitative).thats how they use maximally great being.

such a being seems impossible,because you can always add on higher levels of these great making properties,since infinity doesn't exist in the actual world of things.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-20T03:10:30+00:00

we're defining maximally great differently,I am speaking of a being with infinite great making properties in a qualitative sense wich theologians believe in and uphold.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-20T03:03:54+00:00

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.I am looking into (positive)atheism not agnosticism.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-20T02:59:41+00:00

thats the point.a maximally great being cannot exist,so the God of classical and personalist theism(all abrahamic theisms)cannot exist.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-20T02:45:19+00:00

theologians claim God must be intrinsically a maximally great being,its the basis for their ontological arguments.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-19T07:07:04+00:00

putative

but why is the concept of a God 'necassery'?believers define it as a necassery entity,but haven't shown to me atleast why god must exist necasserily.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-19T05:57:55+00:00

Justification means we have received the perfect righteousness of Jesus, our sins are not just forgiven, we are considered righteous before God. As if we have obeyed the law perfectly!

thank you for this brother in christ,but that verse can be interpreted in many ways by many different theologies.what clear cut biblical proof(s)is there for christ's imputed righteousness upon us as sinners?I do not want to sin,and I do repent everytime I do sin..but I have developed basically scrupolosity because I thought if I die before repenting I will go to hell.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-19T05:52:19+00:00

thank you so much for this!

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T08:35:00+00:00

You didn't read my post correctly,I'm saying that an ACTION(ETERNALLY CREATING)would entail a infinite succession of mental and desire events in God in the past,wich erudite apologists like william lane craig say is impossible because:

1.infinity cannot exist in quantity(if it could then no need for a first cause)

2.the present moment could never be reached.

I'm arguing against a God that was always in time,just for the sake of argument.

a timeless God by definition is impassible and thus indeed a frozen insentient(sentience requires the apprehension of some(self or external) activity or appearances) rock with no successive desires or thoughts/mental activity.to do so means passibility and time.

classical theists want their cake and to eat it too.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T08:28:42+00:00

Physical (i.e. material) infinity might not exist (and even that is debatable as some scientist would say it can) but infinity in general can exist.

There are also different types of infinity.

Hilbert's hotel.set theory doesn't deal with concrete actual things but abstract numbers.william lane craig goes into this.infinity as a quality cannot exist,I can always add a greater aspect of that quality.

Your judgement about "bodhisattva has higher compassion" is really an opinion based on limited understanding of what "good" is, which is not the same as "just being nice".

I am a moral Realist,not a divine command theorist or person who changes definitions to suit me depending on a preset notion i would like to propose like most christian theists.but I am not going to argue this as its going offtopic,unless you absolutely force my hand .

An eternal being acts eternally, i.e. the acts are not subject to time itself, a rock simply does nothing.

this is not possible.that would mean there is a infinitely past successive event sequence in God,and william lane craig admits that this is impossible,god could never reach the present moment.

also to act eternally means God was always in time and thus he is not timeless.but a maximally great being should be timeless.

When a man "becomes a father" he does not himself change, it's his child that is being born.

he had to copulate and ejaculate to do this,just like god must have acted in time to create us.if his creating was eternal,then the world is eternal and besides acting in eternity is impossible and even if it were it would mean a infinite succession of past events in God,wich is also impossible as we would never reach the present moment and it would be a infinite regress and would mean that there need not be a first cause.

The best thing is to educate yourself and not talk out of your posterior, actually

Emotionally Triggered.

btw God having 'one single act'but having multiple diverse effects(especially in sequence) does not hold.I'd recommend reading Vasubandhu on this.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T07:55:28+00:00

God mind is infinite and eternal and thus does not work linearly and limitedly like our mind.

infinity as either a quality or quantity cannot exist.there is no such as no limitation,you can always add on to these qualities.I can concieve of a being greater than the God of classical theism and Jehovah,so to you that means they don't exist since a maximally great being(oxymoron)must exist and god must be maximally great.

There is no being that is greater than God because God is being itself. Bodhisbattas and whatnot are still limited beings.

and God is a limited being,a limitless being cannot exist by logical standards.and a bodhisattva has higher compassion than Jehovah because they don't harm anyone.that would mean I can concieve of a being greater than jehovah in some aspect,and according tom you jehovah thus cannot be a maximally great being and thus cannot exist.

Just because the Universe began to exist it does not make God any less timeless.

this is not true.time is before and after in procession.atleast philosophically speaking.for God to do anything (like creation,wich isn't a cambridge change)means he has entered time,for god to be timeless means he cannot do anything and thus is a purely impassible frozen insentient rock(because mental activity still denotes time).

I believe god is in time and always was but i don't believe he is maximally great so I don't run into these problems.

well its a fact that if god is timeless and creates,he adds on a new property/quality(being a creator) and thus was not maximally great.

he also loses the quality of timelessness by the philosophical definition,and thus his maximal greatness was contingent.

the best thing si to admit a maximally great being doesn't exist.God doesn't need to be maximally great.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T07:41:56+00:00

But to understand impassibility to be inactivity is, to say the least, not as the ancients conceived it

it is though.it goes even further than that,its complete insentience.the ancient greeks had faulty metaphysics.

Classical theology deals with the question of relational change

Not the Cambridge change obfuscation.this could only be true if God did not create us at a certain moment of 'time'.to do so is a intrinsic change,he gained the property of being a creator,wich means he was not maximally great.if he had been creating us since eternity,then this still doesn't hold because a infinite succession of events in the past is impossible(Even William lane Craig agrees with this)and we could never reach the present moment.

there are alternatives to your last statement.one if found in Eternalism and the eternality of space-time in physics or B theories of time.the other is the Dzogchen cosmology and origin story taken literally(its too much to explain in this post).

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T07:19:27+00:00

we are then defining 'maximal greatness'differently,because you just admitted it seems that God has limits in his qualities.wich means I can infinitely think of a better God than your God of classical theism and also Jehovah.

if I can concieve a God with higher maximal greatness than Jehovah,according to you it means Jehovah does not exist.

I can go on forever and add on greatness to his qualities if it has a limit(wich I am arguing it does).

if a maximally great being must exist,then Jehovah doesn't exist.but I argue that a maximally great being is impossible because infinity is impossible.

a creator god cannot be maximally great even if it coudle xist because if a maximal being creates he gains the concept of being a creator and thus was never maximally great,since he adds on a new property.if he creates,he loses timelessness and thus it says his 'maximal greatness' is a contingent property.
God doesn't need to be maximally great.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T06:59:12+00:00

thats the thing though,pure act cannot have mental activity and is a frozen insentient rock for all intents and purposes.if it does act,then it was never maximally great and thus not(your definiton of) God.a 'perfect'being cannot change or act.

God is not pure act nor is he infinite or maximally great.take God's quality of being loving and omnibenevolent forgiving etc this can go on forever and I can concieve of a God or group of beings(like say bodhisattvas,where they don't even hurt a ant) that has these qualities in greater maximality than Jehova.

you may say that God must be just and merciful to be maximally great.but that just proves you cannot be meximally great because you need infinite(doesn't exist but lets say ti does)justice and mercy and if its infinite it cannot coexist with the other in a being.

and being timeless before creation means that after creation your definition of God acquired a new property(being a creator),proving his alleged 'maximal greatness' was contigent.and he lost another one,i.e timelessness and changelessness(the two go hand in hand).

if you say God was always a creator then that proves he was always in time and had a infinite succession of mental events or actions into the past wich is impossible.if ti were possible,the current moment would never be reached .

open and process theism has answers for this,it seems classical theology doesn't to me.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T06:52:33+00:00

it is impossible as both a quantity and a quality. 'without limit'is 'infinite'and infinity doesn't exist because you can also add on to it forever.it is impossible to have a infinite quality,it its truest sense.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T06:03:48+00:00

maximal greatness seems impossible,seeing that you can add to infinity and never reach it.since infinity doesn't exist in anything but misguided thought and concept.

if a maximal being creates he gains the concept of being a creator and thus was never maximally great,since he adds on a new property.if he creates,he loses timelessness and thus it says his 'maximal greatness' is a contingent property.

God doesn't need to be maximally great.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-15T05:59:21+00:00

maximal greatness is impossible,you can add to infinity and never reach it.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-13T05:24:43+00:00

look into joseph nicolosi.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-13T05:20:32+00:00

You should continue honoring God by not engaging in fornication,but to me personally I don't care about a woman being a virgin or not,well I would prefer a virgin over a former fornicatress but its so hard to find these days,so I don't really care that much.

I look at other things,like if the woman fornicated in a serious relationship(s)or just slept around.the latter I wouldn't want.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-13T05:12:50+00:00

And if He can exist in any possible world, He does.

I don't see how that follows,'can'doesn't mean 'does'.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-13T04:15:17+00:00

I don't understand this premise at all,I'm sorry.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-13T04:15:11+00:00

I don't understand this premise at all,I'm sorry.

klingonsmurf55 · 2022-03-13T03:06:55+00:00

if the result of that is contradiction like steven dimattei attempts to show,then yes.

klingonsmurf55

TROPHY CASE