"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The person you voted for admitted that their position wasn't clear but it was clear to the voters. How many of you support abortion or political correct "pro-choice"?
More rational to assume from perception. That's what much of our perception is . It's assumption from our standpoint, a flat surface, from the ground view, terrain and skyline.
My family and I, my nextdoor neighbors, my community is struggling. An affair going on between two outside individuals does nothing for us. Yet that was in the "best interest" of us.
Clearly we're not the part of the country the ones who vote for the opposing side have in mind. Just making a recognition of that .
Another point that was going to be submitted I'll add is about the different dimensions. This can possibly help the opposing side on this topic understand better and see where rules can't be hijacked and applied anywhere.
One instance is because the rules of perception are distinct from the 3rd and 2nd dimension , a 3D image doesn't have the complete empirical tangibility in a 2 dimensioned world or reality.
Of course all of these points are outside the ring but take it home for edification.
Prove the will, you prove God. Prove God you prove the will. No matter which way, you continue in circular reasoning. Given that someone has proven God to exist would prove the will, the desire, the decision to act in creating all things.
Why would there be a will? We have an effect of the will. Circular. Where did the will derive, why would there be one, why would it be acted on? We can go on and on, it's get circular. If the response is God, circular.
This is the distinction I wanted to make of personal cause or individual will and cause that is required to be which is the law of causality. The law is what has to be as opposed to personal cause/will that is not by a law but contingent on the individual entity which has yet to be empirically proven to exist overall.
I do want to highlight this point if I were to summarize everything I would have submitted if I didn't get distracted like I did.
The opposing side never proved the will, desire or thought of God existing.
The opposing side committed petitio principii. Now we went back and forth on the contradiction of causality not existing before it existed and that was going to be a lot of the circular points made .
That along with God having causality within is just circular as well because it points us back to just proving God again. With causality being in or of God and God being an immaterial intangible entity, all that's really being said is prove God.
Causality is a thing.
Being there's absolutely nothing before anything was including the "nothing", what is there to prove?
A decision made by the will of God. Prove the will, you prove God.
Many different church organizations and there is only one bible for them. That's the point of this topic. One bible,one interpretation and there's many different denominations. That's poor arithmetic. They can't all be following the same book and reading something different. It's that "reading different" part.
You know the correct interpretation when you know what the scripture teaches.
Let's see who comes forth. I just come up with creative variations of topics to demonstrate a basic reality.
It's like pretending something is not true when it is or maybe it's something hard to understand, so I try to break it further and further and further down to infantile elementary terms . Layman's terms didn't work, now we'll use elementary terms.
The con side is opposite to the truth or if you're more comfortable with the phrasing " opposite to what the topic statement is conveying as the truth of homosexuality in prisons " , cool. It's the opposite of what my position is which is briefly stated in the description.
NOBODY can prove that topic statement. So they stay on the sidelines. It's quite funny. They couldn't prove God did not create water and darkness. They couldn't prove God the Father is a person. They or nobody can prove a trinity in scripture.
Topic is a true statement. Nobody is challenging it.
Farewell comrade known to this site as Sir Lancelot .
Farewell comrade known to this site as Sir Lancelot .
Waste of time debating this individual. Actually just interacting because they come with no debate at all.
Topic has been updated. It was not controversial.
Looks like everybody agrees with the topic.
If you actually have empirical evidence, what is there to have a faith about?
You have faith when you don't have evidence. You have the knowledge with evidence.
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:24:11 AM
Several of you accept the challenge but don't send a message on the topic. Now I'm on the clock. What is the topic?
The opposing side is restricting the topic possibly causing a first round forfeit.
"Mall
8/18/2023, 6:43:56 AM
I'm on the clock. What is the contradiction that appears to you in bible?
Author's avatar
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:21:53 AM
I'm on the clock. I'm going to have to make point of my time being dissolved by you if it's not enough of it for me to make a comprehensive introduction."
The opposing side is restricting the topic causing a possible first round forfeit.
It's just the truth of God versus any religion.
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I can't debate anything I don't have a basis for.
It's ALL GOOD that this is a non biblical burdened topic as it looks like. Can't find scripture to back up the positive position
I'm willing to debate this with anyone but you have to have scripture to back up everything you put out.
Still let every man be persuaded in his own mind by the evidence they can see for themselves.
The minority here on the side of truth. We are few in number but we're in truth.
I believe just like the scripture say. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.
It's just information. Whether you want to call it a source of information or whatever. That's all it is.
No crime in just sending a private invitation.
The person you voted for admitted that their position wasn't clear but it was clear to the voters. How many of you support abortion or political correct "pro-choice"?
More rational to assume from perception. That's what much of our perception is . It's assumption from our standpoint, a flat surface, from the ground view, terrain and skyline.
Matthew 22
" Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures".
Book chapter and verse .
My family and I, my nextdoor neighbors, my community is struggling. An affair going on between two outside individuals does nothing for us. Yet that was in the "best interest" of us.
Clearly we're not the part of the country the ones who vote for the opposing side have in mind. Just making a recognition of that .
These debates on the existence of God from the positive side, completely futile.
What do you people really believe?
Debate has ran a novel long but enjoyed it .
Another point that was going to be submitted I'll add is about the different dimensions. This can possibly help the opposing side on this topic understand better and see where rules can't be hijacked and applied anywhere.
One instance is because the rules of perception are distinct from the 3rd and 2nd dimension , a 3D image doesn't have the complete empirical tangibility in a 2 dimensioned world or reality.
Of course all of these points are outside the ring but take it home for edification.
Didn't prove any contradictions
Prove the will, you prove God. Prove God you prove the will. No matter which way, you continue in circular reasoning. Given that someone has proven God to exist would prove the will, the desire, the decision to act in creating all things.
Why would there be a will? We have an effect of the will. Circular. Where did the will derive, why would there be one, why would it be acted on? We can go on and on, it's get circular. If the response is God, circular.
This is the distinction I wanted to make of personal cause or individual will and cause that is required to be which is the law of causality. The law is what has to be as opposed to personal cause/will that is not by a law but contingent on the individual entity which has yet to be empirically proven to exist overall.
I do want to highlight this point if I were to summarize everything I would have submitted if I didn't get distracted like I did.
The opposing side never proved the will, desire or thought of God existing.
The opposing side committed petitio principii. Now we went back and forth on the contradiction of causality not existing before it existed and that was going to be a lot of the circular points made .
That along with God having causality within is just circular as well because it points us back to just proving God again. With causality being in or of God and God being an immaterial intangible entity, all that's really being said is prove God.
Causality is a thing.
Being there's absolutely nothing before anything was including the "nothing", what is there to prove?
A decision made by the will of God. Prove the will, you prove God.
I totally forget to submit my points that I had ready to go in the preview stage. All had to do was submit it, just got too busy yesterday.
Everything was just getting circular anyway as often as these debates do.
Semantics.
Rape is not wrong.
With these topics "you wanna be startin' something".
Missed my shot.
Whoever believes the bible teaches there is more than one way to interpret it, present that scripture.
I said there is only one BIBLICALLY VALID interpretation. Not only one biblical interpretation .
Many different church organizations and there is only one bible for them. That's the point of this topic. One bible,one interpretation and there's many different denominations. That's poor arithmetic. They can't all be following the same book and reading something different. It's that "reading different" part.
You know the correct interpretation when you know what the scripture teaches.
Amen
Let's see who comes forth. I just come up with creative variations of topics to demonstrate a basic reality.
It's like pretending something is not true when it is or maybe it's something hard to understand, so I try to break it further and further and further down to infantile elementary terms . Layman's terms didn't work, now we'll use elementary terms.
Vote for the truth. Do you believe there was life that caused conception?
Most humans are not good either.
The Bible doesn't say or teach most are evil.
I would take this if wasn't required to argue most are good. My position would be neutral which is correct.
I guess all we have here is "he said , she said" in statistics and data.
Yes this can't be proven. How do you prove an absolute? But atheists can be sooo bolddd .
Preservative means to save or survive.
The con side is opposite to the truth or if you're more comfortable with the phrasing " opposite to what the topic statement is conveying as the truth of homosexuality in prisons " , cool. It's the opposite of what my position is which is briefly stated in the description.
Is there anybody else that'd like to come off the sidelines and take a shot?
NOBODY can prove that topic statement. So they stay on the sidelines. It's quite funny. They couldn't prove God did not create water and darkness. They couldn't prove God the Father is a person. They or nobody can prove a trinity in scripture.
Add this one to the list, amen.
That's right, make excuses, call in and summon the reinforcements .