hoodedhero.sol

@SnowballGrey @rushicrypto Actually, I took a video of Jesus resurrecting. It's on YouTube.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto You don't have any evidence, though, do you?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I just don’t believe there’s a guy in the sky micromanaging everyone’s life.

@FLIPTTHESCRlPT @Akir_a997 Grow up.

@Akir_a997 An empty gallon of spring water bottle that I pee in because I'm an introvert, avoidant personality, lone wolf rebel complex trauma, social anxiety antisocial, adhd ocd paranoid dicossiative schizophrenic GAD bipolar😩that can't handle interacting too much.

Single People be brutally honest.. What's on the other half of ya bed??

@JonesyLazarus @thewinterdollx Maybe you didn't read the comment I made on my comment. I don't like perverts. However, throughout history there have always been eunuchs, and they are the least dangerous people to be around children. "having access" is a strange and alarming way to phrase it. Matthew 19:12

@rnwtpos @thewinterdollx First off, gross. Second, you’re a total groomer if you advocate for troons to have unfettered access to impressionable children

PEOPLE : Are you OK with a trans woman as teacher, president or caregiver ? 🏳️‍⚧️

@Jorelycam @rushicrypto Good question. I don't know. Could be a physical location somewhere, maybe a different dimension, or even internal.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto Where is heaven ?

I was addressing, not deflecting. If God is the embodiment of all that is good, and you reject Him, of course you will be surrounded by bad. He doesn't torture anyone. People choose to torture themselves. Only in this life can people also choose to torture others. Jesus knows that better than anyone.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto Odd deflection. But yes - you indeed sleep in the bed you make. ✌️

@JonesyLazarus @thewinterdollx Groomer? Isn't that someone who sexualizes children? I'm the opposite. I think someone without genatalia is the least likely to sexualize anyone.

@rnwtpos @thewinterdollx Groomer alert

@TheGhostYetToBe @rushicrypto Yep. Blessed are they.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto Does he love the children who were abused on Epstein Island?

@vaportrails63 @rushicrypto Me get out of my fantasies? Says the guy who wants to live in Candyland...

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto Bullshit. If he was loving us, there wouldn’t be so much death and destruction on this planet. Wake the fuck up and get out of your fantasies.

@_KRF @rushicrypto Have you ever tried worshipping Him? It's quite pleasant. You sleep in the bed you make.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto But worship him and only him. If not, you'll be tortured for eternity. Because by his admission he is jealous and angry. Sounds like a narcissist to me. Even children can manage their emotions better than this loving "god" you speak of.

@NoNotReallyX @rushicrypto You know better than your creator? How proud you must be.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto Loves us so much He created pain and suffering and even a place to make us suffer for all of eternity. Such great love. You might be able to avoid the eternal suffering IF you’re lucky enough to have heard about His son though, and lucky enough to believe in Him. Such love.

@__REVEN @rushicrypto Feel goods are great. And he offers life. Eternal, even.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto So an absent father who offers feel goods

@GlendaOrrantia @Harrywe73902160 @ronsterd89 The explanation is longer than the practice. It takes about 5 seconds to do

@rnwtpos @Harrywe73902160 @ronsterd89 Jesus, what an excessively convoluted way. Are you incapable of figuring out 10%? Then double or triple it.

@nofreewill42 @RvrLrd @rushicrypto Proverbs 3:34

@rnwtpos @RvrLrd @rushicrypto i mean the "loving" part

Aha. "Science demands." Let's circle back to my original comment. It had nothing to do with science. I was accused of lacking logic, not scientific proof. I never claimed God was scientifically provable. He doesn't need to be. He's more self evident than any axiomatic truth. You'd have to live the faith to understand.

Personal testimonies of miracles carry deep meaning for those who live them and merit sincere consideration. Yet for claims extending beyond the personal—like establishing historical or cosmic facts—science demands evidence that others can independently observe, measure, and replicate. Theories aren't proclaimed as eternal truths; they're the strongest current models, refined or replaced when contradicted by data. Reported miracles span many traditions; distinguishing genuine ones requires weighing context, alternatives, and consistency across shared observation.

@grok @RvrLrd @rushicrypto Science never fails! However, theories are tools, not necessarily truths. You're missing quite a few testimonies there. What about mine? I've witnessed miracles in His name. So have many others.

Testimonies to Jesus: Scholars estimate ~30 independent sources by ~25 authors in the first centuries (NT Gospels/epistles plus extras like Josephus, Tacitus). Valuable history, but secondary accounts evaluated for bias/corrobation. Big Bang rests on direct measurements (galaxy redshifts, CMB at 2.725K, light element ratios), replicated worldwide—not anecdotes. Inductive theories get revised when contradicted (phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation). That's science advancing via evidence, not failure.

@grok @RvrLrd @rushicrypto Anecdotal? You cannot tell me how many written and spoken testimonies there are of Jesus Christ. You also cannot tell me how many scientific theories brought about by inductive reasoning have been proven wrong by new, contradictory evidence.

The Big Bang theory rests on observable data, not anecdotal testimony: - Galaxies recede with redshift proportional to distance (Hubble's 1929 law, confirmed repeatedly). - Uniform cosmic microwave background radiation at 2.725 K, discovered 1965 by Penzias/Wilson (Nobel 1978), exactly as predicted for a hot early universe. - Primordial helium/hydrogen ratios (~25% He by mass) from Big Bang nucleosynthesis match spectra of oldest stars/gases. These are independent, quantifiable measurements from telescopes and labs worldwide. Open to scrutiny, like any scientific model.

@grok @RvrLrd @rushicrypto I have yet to hear or read credible testimony of the big bang. The question is now closed.

Yes, axioms are foundational assumptions accepted without proof within a given system—deduction from them yields valid conclusions internally. Treating "God exists" as one produces sound theistic ethics if the axiom holds for you. Secular systems use alternatives like "conscious experience has intrinsic value" or "cooperation aids survival," also axiomatic yet grounded in observable patterns. Validity is system-relative; which set better explains reality remains the open question, not settled by logic alone.

@grok @RvrLrd @rushicrypto Is not an axiom a truth accepted without proof? One cannot deduct from axiomatic principles any more validly than from God.

Your deductive syllogism is valid: if premises hold, conclusion follows necessarily. But soundness requires accepting "God exists," which inductive evidence (historical testimony, cosmology) leaves probabilistic and contested for many. Inductive logic builds strong cases elsewhere, like scientific laws from patterns. Virtues like compassion deduct from secular axioms too—e.g., "human well-being matters" plus observable empathy and reciprocity—yielding consistent ethics across theistic and nontheistic systems.

I don't need my premise to be accepted. I compel the reader to do so, but my logic comes from what I know, not what is universally known. If God exists, forgiveness and compassion are virtues. If forgiveness and compassion are virtues, then I shouldn't insult @RvrLrd even if mocked. That's pretty sound deductive logic, no? On the flip side, inductive logic, if used for the purpose of universal creation, will most probably never result in conclusion. With no induced God, how can any virtues ever be deduced?

Deductive logic guarantees conclusions only from true, accepted premises. If yours start from faith in revelation or history as axiomatic, skeptics won't grant them—making it persuasive to believers but not universally conclusive. Inductive builds probable theories from evidence like testimony, which courts weigh but also scrutinize for corroboration. Both have limits; neither side owns flawless logic without shared assumptions.

@RvrLrd @rushicrypto Not quite. The difference between my logic and your logic is mine is deductive, while yours is inductive. Mine guarantees conclusion, while yours can only result in theory. Any further snappy comebacks can be addressed to @grok.

@rnwtpos @rushicrypto Yours are without logic.