D week.end

If you create Adam and eve an infinite number of times over, is it possible to get one where they don't "fall"? If yes, why didn't God just do that? If no, then why were they punished for the inevitable???

@dekim_Kalvino Easy. Maybe they did but still drowned and got killed, but Noah's survived because it was big and designed to withstand that (or any) flood.

So nobody on the entire planet had a boat during Noah’s flood?🤔

The Bible doesn’t command rape. But it includes laws that don’t clearly protect against it, like telling a rapist to marry his victim. How does that fit with a perfectly moral God? Will you give your daughter to a rapisŧ to marry? Talk less of her rapisŧ? Make una dey think o

@southside_mafs Let's be fair, not all of them are like this.

When Atheist refuse the lies and propaganda of Christianity, Christians low key wish for something bad to happen to you so they can attribute it to god to prove to you their god can harm you for not believing..

@JWaveYankeeWay Bro, what if Adam and Eve did not disobey God's instruction the first time like God intende. Wouldn't there be real relationship, love, and choice?

If God just kept restarting creation until people “got it right,” then: There’s no real relationship, no real choice and No real love It would be: Control, not relationship And that’s the key difference. Look at Noahs story alone. God does reset the world through the flood—but notice: Afterward, He chooses not to do that again Not because He can’t But because that’s not the kind of relationship He’s building He literally says He won’t destroy the earth like that again—even knowing: “the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth” That’s big language my friend. God commits to working through human brokenness not endlessly wiping it out.. That’s Mercy

If you create Adam and eve an infinite number of times over, is it possible to get one where they don't "fall"? If yes, why didn't God just do that? If no, then why were they punished for the inevitable???

@JWaveYankeeWay You can't tell me that God can start all over again until he gets his desired result but he chose not to. That would just mean he's wicked to follow through with this one which is not his desire. If he can't, then why are y'all saying He's omni-anything?

@JWaveYankeeWay This is not an assumption. It's common sense. The only assumptions here are all the Omni's of God's qualities and abilities. Which are the grounds for the common sense I applied. The only way the common sense doesn't make sense is if God is not omni-anything.

@SoftwareEUG @limitandmind Who told us the creator is still alive? That it demands anything from us? Too many assumptions we cannot verify.

@limitandmind Creator still existing: assumption. Creator desiring worship, needing to be found: assumption. God as Creator, when god would be a monitor and interferer with power over our affairs: created by us, so there's no higher appeal for words attributed to god. No logical paths.

"You don't believe in most gods, I just go one step further and deny them all" is a popular atheist slogan. It sounds like a modest, reasonable extension of what the theist is already doing. But does it have any logical force beyond rhetoric? The implication is clear: the believer is already 99% of the way to atheism. They’ve correctly rejected Zeus, Thor, Ra, and thousands of others using ordinary standards of evidence. All that remains is to apply those same standards consistently to the one god they still accept. Deny that last one and you’re done. This is the atheist equivalent of saying, “Most bank transactions are legitimate, therefore fraud probably doesn’t exist.” Imagine you’re a data scientist hired by the Bank of Dawkins to build a fraud detection model on heavily imbalanced data. You could spend weeks tuning parameters with evolutionary algorithms. Or you could take the clever shortcut: label every transaction “not fraud.” Congratulations: you’re right the vast majority of the time. Your accuracy score will be excellent. The only problem? Your classifier has zero predictive power. It cannot distinguish real fraud from legitimate activity at all. The atheist will immediately reply: “But we know those other gods are false, for the exact same reasons your god is false. The skeptical standards you already accept rule them out, so consistency demands you rule yours out too.” That reply sounds devastating until you notice what it actually does. It assumes the labeling process, the skeptical criteria you used to reject the other gods, automatically applies unchanged to the remaining one. But that is precisely the point under dispute. The theist claims there are independent positive arguments, historical evidence, philosophical distinctions, or experiential grounds that differentiate their God from the discarded ones. The slogan offers no rebuttal to those arguments; it simply pretends the labeling system is already settled and universal. In other words, the slogan treats the question of God’s existence as a pure numbers game about how many deities you’ve already rejected, rather than a question about whether this particular claim has warrant that the others lacked. The fraud classifier is only as good as the independent evidence used to identify actual fraud in the first place. Remove that evidence and the model collapses into empty majority voting. At best the slogan is an effective piece of rhetoric. It makes the theist’s position feel like special pleading. It shifts the burden and sounds like simple consistency. But as an argument it is empty: it begs the very question it claims to settle. It persuades by sleight of hand, not by evidence or logic. Once you see the trick, the cleverness evaporates.

@SoftwareEUG @limitandmind You have really thought about this. I like how you express it. 👏 The issue is religious people don't need any personal revelation from the creator. Whatever their religious text says must be true.

@JWaveYankeeWay Any other explanation is just man not thinking about it from this perspective. Not that we know God like that.

@JWaveYankeeWay It's all about intentions and abilities. If my intention is to create an AI that will not destroy the world, and I know it is possible I create one that doesn't, I will experiment with it until I get the one that doesnt. If I can't, then that just means I'm not in control.

The universe was designed... ✅️ By God... ❌️ If God exists, of course he must be the creator. This is just like saying the universe has a creator. No need to say "by God"

@JWaveYankeeWay And if there is no outcome at all where adam and eve will obey his command, why punish them for disobedience when it is inevitable in all possible timelines?

@JWaveYankeeWay He sees all possible outcomes. So it shouldn't be an issue. He's all-powerful etc.

@WhATsGoiNg0N9 @KR3Wmatic How do you guys know how God thinks when you say the things you say about God?

@its_d_weekend @KR3Wmatic But how do you know that’s how you would think? You’re using human logic and understanding to make GOD make sense to you. Last time I checked god isn’t human Humans have very little understanding of what things truly are

"The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." Genesis 6:6