u/ChoiceAd8619

This argument is not mine, but I wanted to share it here and see what possible counters does it even have:

P1: In order for everything to exist under a Christian view, God had to create it.
P2: God is unchanging as he is claimed to be outside of time.
P3: If something is unchanging, that means it cannot change.
P4: If God cannot change when in the act of creating, he would always be creating
P5: If it was always creating, creation was always in the making
C: Therefore, creation is eternal as well and was never created.

On the contrary, if someone is going to say that God stopped creating or began to create at some point, that would not only violate the idea of God being unchanging, but would imply that God is in time. If God is in time, he cannot be the creator of time.

Yeah, I stole it from AllegedlyIan.

Hello people, first question here. I am just an amateur who definitely does not want to get ahead of himself since I haven’t even taking any sort of acting classes whatsoever lol. I was entertaining the possibility of acting because I like art and partaking of large pieces of art is obviously an appealing idea, but I was having some small doubts about the whole process.

But before you answer, I would like to propose a hypothetical scenario.

Let’s say that you are an actor or actress at a show in a streaming platform, to give an easy example. You give your all to this project and try to do your best to exceed at the paper that you have been cast to do, but for some reason such as a shaky plot or general animosity from the public over political/social commentary, the show ends up being absolutely terrible according to total earnings and the critics.

Would that impact how much you are paid even if you had nothing to do with it? And as a follow up question, can this seriously impact your possibilities of being called for any role again or would that be based more of what casting directors think of your performance as opposed to how much you made the project earn?

That’s pretty much all. Short post. Looking forward to any response.

Trying to beat him but after +70 attempts I feel like this fight is complete rng with that restriction because of the grab jump not always working and the fire serpent spell that he can do up close and is impossible to avoid without iframes or being already very far away. Is this fight any consistent at all without rolling with something that I am missing or should I just do Maliketh no roll instead?

(This is going to include more geology than biology, but I hope it’s okay given that it is still part of the general discourse)

Whenever it comes to radiometric dating, erosion, plate tectonics or even the rate of divergence between organisms, I have found out that plenty of young earth creationists are quick to call this out as wrong because scientists “assume that the rates of x are constant”

The problem with this line of thinking which I think requires them to meet a burden of proof for once is that: why should scientists assume any of these things if they have never observed them? As far as I am concerned, there is not a single record of half lives being measured to be meaningfully distinct, and it is logically safer by following Occam’s Razor to assume that things we don’t have evidence for after thousands of inspections should not be accounted for.

Among many other questions thrown at them, I find this one to be especially compelling especially when debating in front of an audience given how simple to understand it is.

This fight is surprisingly hard if you’re beating it this way, but I had a blast with it. I would probably put it on par with some of my favorites in this game now like Mohg, Godfrey and Maliketh.

Hello guys. For a long time I’ve been generally a rather lax challenge runner just for the sake of making these games more entertaining through different approaches other than trying out new builds or playing with friends. Recently I’ve been taking on a new Elden Ring run where I am going rl1 +0 without aux, spells or summons which I am recording and posting on a YouTube channel. So far I’ve done nearly all the mid game save for Astel and I decided to go into the dlc.

As soon as I got there, I had some doubts given that dlc bosses are infamous within the challenge running community due to having some attacks that are rough around the edges and can make fights a little more rng focused or not as entertaining as good fights with very little jank such as Morgott, Maliketh or Mohg have. Other than Gaius, Messmer and Rellana, it’s hard to think of bosses that don’t have significant jank that can ruin a 10 minute long attempt due to things outside my control.

So is it really worth the struggle? Was such a run through sote fun for anyone?

Good morning people. I felt like writing here again mostly as a request to refute an ID argument given that, even though I started doing my due diligence recently in order to actually know about the subject, this is still a significant stepping stone for me. I have a very hard time understanding how it could be possible for some interdependent organs to form without being guided by something since they feel like such delicate systems such as the circulatory system of vertebrates or for instance how thermites need certain microorganisms to survive which reciprocally need the thermites to thrive, but I am absolutely willing to hear you out.

I am sorry if someone felt ignored in my previous OP since I just didn’t see myself able to respond to every single comment given even though I thanked all of them afterwards. I will reiterate my appreciation for all the responses here in case someone did not see it.

This would be a criticism to Christians whose doctrine embrace invincible ignorance and think that is a valid reason to keep someone safe from hell.

This argument, which admittedly is one that I’ve only thought for a moment but still hope it holds some weight, goes at it follows:

If we are granted that one will be safe from hell if they had absolutely no way of knowing about God since it would absolutely not be their fault, then this means that people who are completely ignorant of the Bible and the Church will be infinitely safer than those who are any aware of it given that there could be a case in which the Christian God would punish them for not looking into its religion even if the poor mortal was just aware of Christianity by seeing a church in the distance. But if the church simply wasn’t there, the case in favor of this person’s innocence for unbelief (even though I consider unbelief to not be a crime, Paul thinks otherwise) would be so ironclad that it would be completely unjust to throw them to hell.

In this case, the most moral thing for Christians to do is to stop preaching and end with all of their institutions before eventually disappearing like many other religions did in the past. Although there’s a chance some sort of legacy could be left, at least billions of people today and many more in the future would be kept safe from the curse that is knowing about God as it would erase the concept of sin fully for entire populations. And so, Christians who accept invincible ignorance are trapped in a situation where they have this moral option to take but at the cost of sinning gravely (or maybe not since they are saving a lot of people), or they would rather save themselves over everyone else.

Hello, I’ve been a lurker for a long time but I decided to make an account already in order to have my own input in this server.

I’ve been raised as a YEC in Arkansas and I’ve been given tons of scientific knowledge from notorious creationists and even a few atheists regarding evolution. Although I am personally still holding on to my beliefs mainly for faith purposes and the consensus of EO church fathers, I have to say that there are many things I am not qualified to dispute despite knowing some of the more popular arguments.

What I wanted to ask for now, seeing how bad of a reputation famous creationists have in this server, is whether you think there is any nuance in any sort of findings they’ve ever published regarding their worldviews. What I mean by this is asking if you think they have a single good take to favor their position as opposed to evolutionary theory.

Finding out whether evolutionists are at least a bit unbiased and can analyze things makes me feel like this is going to be a significantly more welcoming place for questions and objections as opposed to rejecting everything by default.