Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

---

I appreciate your hard work but my basic question was "What is the analogy? Re-post it here

---

"What is the analogy?" You said you answered it. You said you'd already responded to Coke.

Just quit lying already. Address the analogy

Here it is, AGAIN
Coke said, "I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So, address the analogy.

---

If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

So let's review. YOU AGREED that:

1. Empathy, compassion, understanding, helping others in need, forgiveness, justice, and mercy would NOT BE POSSIBLE unless there was evil and suffering.

2. Empathy, compassion, understanding, helping others in need, forgiveness, justice, and mercy are GOOD things that are a big part of LOVE.

So doesn't this mean, then, that it is perfectly logical for an all powerful God who is loving to allow evil and suffering, because without it it would be impossible for us to have empathy, compassion, forgiveness etc. which are a part of LOVE?

In other words, doesn't it mean, then, that if God does NOT allow evil and suffering, then He is not all loving?

There are people who cannot accept a God greater than humans, as this requires giving up control to a greater power.

There is a hubris to Humanity. We see elements of it when people believe New is always better than Old, that any law must have exceptions which conveniently line up with the individual's personal beliefs and preferences. We see it when someone insists on government regulation and control of individual choice and beliefs.

We see it in a media which casts faith as some kind of extreme belief system, while allowing mob behavior without penalty.

Waco is symptomatic of a Humanist arrogance, that blames God and belief in God for all wrongs, and presumes all virtues to be modern, Leftist and atheist.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Well, I do agree that "nothing": is a succinct description of your evidence on this point, TS.

---

Nothing as described in quantum theory is something. God as described in religious imagination equates to nothing.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

The concepts of good and evil do not actually "vary among cultures." While there are particular actions that may be viewed as right in one culture and wrong in another, the idea that right and wrong exist does not vary. Even atheists such as yourself have a belief in right and wrong.

---

You're arguing semantics. The concept of what is good and what is evil varies between cultures. What is considered right and wrong is cultural.

---

Not mere semantics. Whether good or evil exists is not the same question as to whether a particular action is properly classified as good or evil.

The concept of whether there is good and evil does not vary between cultures, and particular ideas of what is good and what is bad vary a whole lot less than you'd like to think.

---

It depends upon the culture, and those cultures change with time. What is good and bad, as documented in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition and culture varies through time.

---

Variations in cultural mores aside, whether good and evil exist does not depend on culture or time.

---

It most certainly does. What is good or evil by Christian definitions, can be totally different to Muslims, Hindus, and Jains. What is considered good or evil depends upon the frame of reference and criteria from which a description/definition is drawn.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Well, I do agree that "nothing": is a succinct description of your evidence on this point, TS.

---

Nothing as described in quantum theory is something. God as described in religious imagination equates to nothing.

---

You do realize you just said nothing of substance, right TS?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Well, I do agree that "nothing": is a succinct description of your evidence on this point, TS.

---

Nothing as described in quantum theory is something. God as described in religious imagination equates to nothing.

---

You just argued against yourself.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

The concepts of good and evil do not actually "vary among cultures." While there are particular actions that may be viewed as right in one culture and wrong in another, the idea that right and wrong exist does not vary. Even atheists such as yourself have a belief in right and wrong.

---

You're arguing semantics. The concept of what is good and what is evil varies between cultures. What is considered right and wrong is cultural.

---

Not mere semantics. Whether good or evil exists is not the same question as to whether a particular action is properly classified as good or evil.

The concept of whether there is good and evil does not vary between cultures, and particular ideas of what is good and what is bad vary a whole lot less than you'd like to think.

---

It depends upon the culture, and those cultures change with time. What is good and bad, as documented in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition and culture varies through time.

---

Variations in cultural mores aside, whether good and evil exist does not depend on culture or time.

---

It most certainly does. What is good or evil by Christian definitions, can be totally different to Muslims, Hindus, and Jains. What is considered good or evil depends upon the frame of reference and criteria from which a description/definition is drawn.

---

Whether good or evil exist is a separate question from whether a particular behavior is good or not. You keep on saying that some people think some things are right that others think are wrong. This is irrelevant to whether there are actually things that are good or bad.

Deal with my argument:
If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

Waco1947 said:

---

Deal with my argument:
If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

God does not have to act the way you want to be all powerful or all loving.

Now, answer my question: how much suffering can be allowed in a universe with an all powerful and all loving God?

Waco1947 said:

---

Deal with my argument:
If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

My very loving dad had a belt that held his pants up. It also busted my butt.

Wine, it's great for celebrating and for complementing a meal. It also causes hangovers when abused. When abused, it can lead to liver issues and drunk-driving.

Rain, we can't live without it. We can also have a great deal of property damage and even death by drowning.

If you like country music, Is It Raining At Your Place Like It's Raining At Mine

If you like God, "it rains on the just and the unjust."

Waco1947 said:

---

Deal with my argument:
If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

Obviously you have suffered a devastating personal loss.

I am sincerely sorrow for your pain.

Somehow, someway I hope you can recover some peace and joy in your life.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

Waco1947 said:

---

Deal with my argument:
If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

What if pathogens came into existence when Man (not God) brought evil into the world?

Evil exists because God gave Man free will. Do you think it would have been better if God had made it impossible for us to make choices?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

I don't understand how a quantum vacuum is considered "nothing" by these scientist.

It is not "nothing".

Plus how did all these quantum particles in the quantum world (being smaller than an atom) get enough mass to create the Big Bang?

Are we to believe that an entire universe popped into existence from a quantum world?

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

And as I've summarized to you, MANY times, the theory that quantum fluctuations caused our universe out of nothing is based on mathematics where the physicist/mathematician had to teleologically place boundary constraints on the equations with the specific goal of producing our particular universe in mind. In other words, Intelligent Design. Ahh, the ultimate rich irony when an atheist, believing to have felled God by wielding his humanist sword of Reason (science), ends up falling on the sword himself.

It takes a desperate fool and an insane amount of denial to believe that quantum fluctuations (which isn't nothing) somehow popped into existence a set of over 25+ universal constants and laws, each of which so happen to be exquisitely, exquisitely fine tuned on a razor's edge otherwise the universe would just either collapse or dissipate into nothingness, which then caused stars and planets to form, upon which abiogenesis occurred (which is impossible to explain because the prebiotic chemistry is virtually impossible) and then once over that tiny hurdle, the complexity of life increased (defying the incomprehensibly small odds of spontaneous, random generation of productive, functional genetic information, as evidenced by population genetics) to ultimately result in an unfathomably complex human being, who, already the beneficiary of an incredible amount of luck by this point, came complete with a brain which by some fantastic, unknown application of biology is able to produce subjective conscious experience, which enables us to sense the universe and contemplate our own existence - thus ultimately meaning that physics popped into existence and became aware of itself..........and believe all of it, all on its own, to be "plausible".

Aliens. It could have been aliens…. all the way down.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Aliens. It could have been aliens…. all the way down.

---

Quoting my own post: Agenda-driven scientists are so against the idea of a god, they created the hypothesis of Directed Panspermia

https://www.google.com/search?q=directed+panspermia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

I don't understand how a quantum vacuum is considered "nothing" by these scientist.

It is not "nothing".

Plus how did all these quantum particles in the quantum world (being smaller than an atom) get enough mass to create the Big Bang?

Are we to believe that an entire universe popped into existence from a quantum world?

---

Because the quantum definition of nothing doesn't fit with what you think is nothing. Your idea of nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is unstable. Nothing is a vacuum state without radiation, energy, particles, baryonic matter, and dark matter, just quantum fluctuations in and out of existence.

Gravity.

Yes, because we know that it did. We just don't understand everything about how, yet.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

And as I've summarized to you, MANY times, the theory that quantum fluctuations caused our universe out of nothing is based on mathematics where the physicist/mathematician had to teleologically place boundary constraints on the equations with the specific goal of producing our particular universe in mind. In other words, Intelligent Design. Ahh, the ultimate rich irony when an atheist, believing to have felled God by wielding his humanist sword of Reason (science), ends up falling on the sword himself.

It takes a desperate fool and an insane amount of denial to believe that quantum fluctuations (which isn't nothing) somehow popped into existence a set of over 25+ universal constants and laws, each of which so happen to be exquisitely, exquisitely fine tuned on a razor's edge otherwise the universe would just either collapse or dissipate into nothingness, which then caused stars and planets to form, upon which abiogenesis occurred (which is impossible to explain because the prebiotic chemistry is virtually impossible) and then once over that tiny hurdle, the complexity of life increased (defying the incomprehensibly small odds of spontaneous, random generation of productive, functional genetic information, as evidenced by population genetics) to ultimately result in an unfathomably complex human being, who, already the beneficiary of an incredible amount of luck by this point, came complete with a brain which by some fantastic, unknown application of biology is able to produce subjective conscious experience, which enables us to sense the universe and contemplate our own existence - thus ultimately meaning that physics popped into existence and became aware of itself..........and believe all of it, all on its own, to be "plausible".

---

^^^^^ Nonsense.

There are no teleological boundary constraints. Your religious views are built soley upon teleology, and nothing else. The evidence of reality belies your fantasy, which is understandably unsettling to you.

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

So TS has been fixating on Raquel, I perceive.

She was quite a beautiful woman, sad to hear she passed.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

Pretty sure it was equal.

And the accusation is the admission. Wipe yourself off.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

Pretty sure it was equal.

And the accusation is the admission. Wipe yourself off.

---

"the accusation is the admission" wasn't taught at Baylor Law, was it?

While Raquel was quite beautiful, I still prefer Sophia.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

Pretty sure it was equal.

And the accusation is the admission. Wipe yourself off.

---

You might say the accusation is 'equal' to admission.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

... and the blaspheming brownie?

a rectilinear cuboid swath of sodom.

- kkm

{ sipping coffee }