God placing the universe

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are an idiot.

He said that assuming there is a God, which we would have to do for Pittman's idea to work, we don't know what is imperfect. In God's scheme the movement of the moon as it is now might be perfect, just because it appears to us not to be doesn't mean it is. That is all he was saying. All you were saying was bullshit.

lol. dejavu. i know exactly what he was saying. and you just repeated it. my post addressed exactly that point for those among us with any anylytical capabilities.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

The very idea you would misspell "feel" three times while saying that . . .

😆 Stop bickering you guys, and now kiss and make up. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 Stop bickering you guys, and now kiss and make up. 😆

But then I'd have to kill everybody for sinning.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But then I'd have to kill everybody for sinning.

And you assume I didn't want that? 😈

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God is unknowable.

For the purposes of this thread he does possess the characteristic of being perfect and omnipotent nonetheless.

So in this case I can contradict myself since I maintain the idea that we know nothing about gods will but combine it with the stipluations set forth in the OP.

The very idea you would misspell "feel" three times while saying that . . .

again. your proposing the same thing. god is unknowable. your further sentences contain nothing adressing my previous reply. and remeber, if your simply working on hypothetical characteristics, you shudnt MAINTAIN any idea.

and ofcourse, misspelling is a wonderful excuse to try and vent out some misgiving about your life. no problem, ill give you a shoulder to cry on.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol. dejavu. i know exactly what he was saying. and you just repeated it. my post addressed exactly that point for those among us with any anylytical capabilities.

No. It didn't, you didn't understand his post.

You said

"lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. "

But, if you really understood what was going on, but you didn't, because you are a moron, you would have understood that the hypothetical situation required the assumption that God existed...

Right, you understood shit. Lets be honest, you just try to drown people in long posts that are badly paragraphed, with horrible spelling and unnecessary uncommon words (which, I am sure, works with Shakya very well) so you don't have to think. Well, people that can actually think don't care for your stupidity, so, in the future when you attack a well thought out post, maybe bring up some valid points, cause some people actually read and think here...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
again. your proposing the same thing. god is unknowable. your further sentences contain nothing adressing my previous reply. and remeber, if your simply working on hypothetical characteristics, you shudnt MAINTAIN any idea.

I don't often say this but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and ofcourse, misspelling is a wonderful excuse to try and vent out some misgiving about your life. no problem, ill give you a shoulder to cry on.

Actually I was channeling my personal insecurities into humor. The idea hat you take it as some manner of attack says a lot about you 😬

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It didn't, you didn't understand his post.

You said

"lol, you already gave an unabased, illogical ultimatum. you first assumed that there is a god{nothing short of your own definiton would do ofcourse} with all evidence to the contrary. "

But, if you really understood what was going on, but you didn't, because you are a moron, you would have understood that the hypothetical situation required the assumption that God existed...

Right, you understood shit. Lets be honest, you just try to drown people in long posts that are badly paragraphed, with horrible spelling and unnecessary uncommon words (which, I am sure, works with Shakya very well) so you don't have to think. Well, people that can actually think don't care for your stupidity, so, in the future when you attack a well thought out post, maybe bring up some valid points, cause some people actually read and think here...

i DID. you oxycotton fool. however the poster was contradicting himself in bringing in a hypothesis and then firmly BELEIVING IN his own criteria for admittance into the universal set called god. and then based on this, he was supporting a previous BELIEVERS hypothesis of god fitting the bill. it was half equal to the argument brought about by believers. and it was addressed in the manor i would address the former. simply put, it was an attempt to elaborate on the shortcomings of the HYPOTHETICAL logic being used.

and while were on the subject, you should honestly consider the possibility that in trying to be a respectable wacko, your trying to humiliate another poster's length of posting {which for you, requires an entire paragraph and uique psychic abilities which give you more insight into the mind of that person/motivation then the person in question} with rude words and allegations of overly unique words without understanding, simply to satisfy your own prejudices against not using simple language or your ill thought out position that all people who use{what appear to you} "big words" are morons without substance. if your truly the simple genius who can see through my elaborate web of confusion and lies, i congratulate you. youve shown me for the fraud i am. ill leave the forum in disgrace and never try to use my word twisting and lengthy posting techniques on any other PEOPLE WHO READ out there. ive learnt my lesson 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😮‍💨 .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't often say this but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Actually I was channeling my personal insecurities into humor. The idea hat you take it as some manner of attack says a lot about you 😬

meditate on it, youll understand. 😄 😄 😄 😄

and, exactly WHAT made you think, i thought of your statement as a personal attack 😕 🙄 . i saw it for what it was, merely an ATTEMPT at sumthing faintly resembling an attack. dont give your self so much credit. remeber, humility is a virtue 😎

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i DID. you oxycotton fool. however the poster was contradicting himself in bringing in a hypothesis and then firmly BELEIVING IN his own criteria for admittance into the universal set called god. and then based on this, he was supporting a previous BELIEVERS hypothesis of god fitting the bill. it was half equal to the argument brought about by believers. and it was addressed in the manor i would address the former. simply put, it was an attempt to elaborate on the shortcomings of the HYPOTHETICAL logic being used.

and while were on the subject, you should honestly consider the possibility that in trying to be a respectable wacko, your trying to humiliate another poster's length of posting {which for you, requires an entire paragraph and uique psychic abilities which give you more insight into the mind of that person/motivation then the person in question} with rude words and allegations of overly unique words without understanding, simply to satisfy your own prejudices against not using simple language or your ill thought out position that all people who use{what appear to you} "big words" are morons without substance. if your truly the simple genius who can see through my elaborate web of confusion and lies, i congratulate you. youve shown me for the fraud i am. ill leave the forum in disgrace and never try to use my word twisting and lengthy posting techniques on any other PEOPLE WHO READ out there. ive learnt my lesson 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😮‍💨 .

No, you ****ing idiot. He did not bring in a hypothesis. That was the threads basis. He just gave a possible statement why this does not prove that a hypothetical "God" is fallible.

As for the rest. My posts are easy to read. Yours are just endless babbling of sets of letters looking similar to words used in the English language.

And what the **** is an oxycotton. My research says either you invented a new word or you are a moron that can't spell old ones.

oxycotton 😕

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
oxycotton 😕

😆 I liked that part. 😆

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
oxycotton 😕

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 I liked that part. 😆

Are you sure?

oxycotton
90 up, 66 down

retards call it oxycotton.

"Hey man, you wanna sell me that oxycotton?"

"**** you *****, it's oxycontin. You shouldn't use drugs that you don't even know the name of. *****!"

oxycotton
15 up, 52 down

1. its oxycontin
2. its not deadly
3. contains a big orange lable that screams do not break crush or chew (thats why you morons overdose)

1.(my first experience with the dug)dude my friends step dad has cancer and has something called oxycontin is that the same as oxycotton?

2. ive been chewing oxys for so long that i bumped an 80 and i didnt feel shit.

3. damn i have no tolerence i took a whole oxy 10 and passed out

Yeah, keep that laugh for the next time, you think you caught be being wrong...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you sure?

It was just twisted enough to make me laugh. But I do have a strange sense of humor. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was just twisted enough to make me laugh. But I do have a strange sense of humor. 😉

Right, I am sure you can fool the people here, but I see through your eyes and I see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you ****ing idiot. He did not bring in a hypothesis. That was the threads basis. He just gave a possible statement why this does not prove that a hypothetical "God" is fallible.

As for the rest. My posts are easy to read. Yours are just endless babbling of sets of letters looking similar to words used in the English language.

And what the **** is an oxycotton. My research says either you invented a new word or you are a moron that can't spell old ones.

as for the second para, your showing your obsession for putting people down. and your lack of patience or{dare i propose} "talent" which makes you UNABLE to read or undrstand my posts.

oxycotton is a drug. or rather, a slang for a drug. now, ACTUALLY do some researchand see what it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Right, I am sure you can fool the people here, but I see through your eyes and I see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.

😆 *speechless* 😐

is the water that runs down your drain dirty/muddy or clear???