u/Pale-Object8321

Every arguments and counterarguments that atheists made have little to do with atheism exactly. Theists can make the same arguments that atheists made, and it would make no difference. This is because god is a made-up word (well, all words are made up but bear with me here) that can range from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent agent to a malicious rock.

For example, someone who believes in a creator god typically would argue for the "First Cause" while the counter-apologists would made a counterargument to say why that argument isn't convincing or sound. That counter-apologists would often be associated with an atheist, therefore making the counterargument to be atheistic in nature, but that's not accurate. A theist who believes in a cyclical universe could also make the same counterarguments. Therefore, that counterargument isn't actually based on atheism. It's a rebuttal against believing in a god, but not all gods, which is not what atheists are. They don't believe in all conception of god.

You can repeat the examples, and realise that most of the "against theistic arguments" aren't necessarily because it's atheistic. More examples would be that the problem of evil is an argument against a trio-omni god, therefore that means a theist who doesn't believe in a trio-omni god would also be able to use the problem of evil.

Even "natural vs supernatural" arguments aren't necessarily "atheist vs theists", as some theists can also believe that god isn't supernatural, like Spinoza's god, certain kind of deistic concept of god, or when they believe in the universe, material thing as god. So those theists would use the same arguments as atheists against supernatural god.

And before you point out the obvious, that atheists don't believe because evidence of absence, or that there's no evidence for god. A theist could still use that same evidence of absence to believe, as most call it faith in the unseen or observed. How does that make sense? Idk, but they can do that. Beliefs aren't strictly logical after all.

Anyway, my point is, "against theism (or more importantly, a specific type of theism)" arguments aren't strictly atheism. They're arguments or counterarguments made that are used to be tailored against the theist's specific claim. You can try to make a counterargument against any kind of theist's argument, but it would never be because of atheism specifically, but because that argument either has holes, fallacious or other things that the counterargument would deal with.

(Not sure what flair to use)

After rereading it for a few times, the general idea is pretty clear but there are some questions I was hoping some of you smarties would know the answers to. I understand that Paul generally acts as Thecla's teacher, but there are some things I don't understand.

When Paul initially rejected Thecla to be baptized, because it was "not the time" yet, did Paul know what Thecla would go through, or was Paul dissuading her to go with him? Was it a hesitation from Paul's side, or was he told by God to reject the first request? Since Thecla ended up baptising herself, was that part of Paul's foresight?

What I mean is, in the story when thrown into an arena with lions and bears to be killed, a female lion protected her by attacking the other beasts and standing faithfully at her side. She miraculously survived several execution attempts, including being burned alive and thrown to flesh-eating seals, before going on to preach the gospel. Did he knew about this beforehand that she would do great things? Or was he not anticipating that?

I guess I'm just a bit confused whether Paul was supposed to be a guide or if there's something else like he can't reveal too much or something. In the story, he didn't stand out much compared to Thecla, which I understand, it's her story, but it's just a bit confusing to me.

I just finished my second research article, therefore I thought I'd try making a new one in hopes of getting another publication. Naturally, I tried to research a new topic. But then, as I tried to read more, I became unsure on how should I write my new paper.

Say, that I found an article with two independent variables and one dependant variables that I want to do a research on, so to not make it a reduplication paper, I would add another independent variable as part of the originality. But then, as I searched more journals and articles, I found that those three independent variables towards the same dependent variable had already been done, then I add more, then I found out that it had also been done.

Perhaps I could try to use different methodology, but then, y'know, someone already did what I was planning to do. It then becomes discouraging to continue, so I was wondering what you guys do. How do you deal with this kind of roadblock?

I just finished my second research article, therefore I thought I'd try making a new one in hopes of getting another publication. Naturally, I tried to research a new topic. But then, as I tried to read more, I became unsure on how should I write my new paper.

Say, that I found an article with two independent variables and one dependant variables that I want to do a research on, so to not make it a reduplication paper, I would add another independent variable as part of the originality. But then, as I searched more journals and articles, I found that those three independent variables towards the same dependent variable had already been done, then I add more, then I found out that it had also been done.

Perhaps I could try to use different methodology, but then, y'know, someone already did what I was planning to do. It then becomes discouraging to continue, so I was wondering what you guys do. How do you deal with this kind of roadblock?

I get how to calculate goodwill and why it arises. But now what? Do the numbers just stay there forever or what do you do with it?

For example, say you bought a company for Rp. 150, even though it's worth Rp. 100. So now with Rp. 50 goodwill, what exactly do you do with that Rp. 50? Does it just stay there as goodwill forever? do you depreciate it or something? Someone answer please and explain why, thank you.

Edit: I'm not sure if I have to clarify this, but I'm not talking about people being nice or the clothing store.

I get how to calculate goodwill and why it arises. But now what? Do the numbers just stay there forever or what do you do with it?

Edit: I'm not sure if I have to clarify this, but I'm not talking about people being nice or the clothing store.

As a series, Boruto is a bit of 'meh' for me. I think it started out strong, but it doesn't maintain that start. This is speaking for the series in general, but I think it's better if Boruto was a series detached from Naruto, or if it was more or less detached.

To me, I can't for the life of me say that Boruto is a good sequel. Don't get me wrong, some characters I think would definitely fit as the continuation of Naruto. Boruto, Sarada, Kawaki and Mitsuki feel like legacy characters where they earned that right to be Naruto's successors. Bur that's speaking about the characters themselves, not the story. Because dear god, it's like the story of Boruto is a big screw you to the Naruto franchise.

This isn't me complaining about powercreeps, or that the Boruto characters are stronger than Naruto characters, because honestly, who cares. Obviously they would be stronger, that's even the theme in Naruto. And this isn't me talking crap about how Boruto's story is completely different in terms of plot than Naruto. Really, it's to be expected. Rather, I would even be more upset if it more or less follow the same plotline and progression.

What I'm annoyed the most is how straightforward, single-line, and filled with undeserved Deus ex Machina inside the story. What I mean is, almost everything in Boruto follows a strict course of A to B plot progression, without anything that could vary it. In Naruto, for example, except for the war arc, everything feels detached to each other that completely connects into a single story. You could try to swap a character with another similar character and get an interesting result. Everything feels organic and you get interesting plot twist occasionally.

With Boruto, I wouldn't call it shallow, but follows a single plot progression without really anything interesting. Everything is kinda expected, or at the very least, there's nothing you can guess what would happen if you try to switch a character with a different one. The story of fighting Isshiki, for example. It's a completely straightforward story with no variation whatsoever that you, as the reader, could expect. The final fight had to be Naruto and Sasuke vs Isshiki, it had already been foretold or planned. Naruto had to get new power, with no foreshadowing whatsoever, and the readers should just accept it. Same with Sasuke losing the rinnegan, and Boruto's inner alien. The 'world building' isn't described as how it is, but is told in the story explicitly. Amado just keeps on giving us 'the lore' during the fight, and the "show, not tell" guideline of storytelling just completely went out of the window.

Which brings me to my final point. I think Boruto is just not a very well planned story, which, I hate to say that it's a money grab, because even if it's the case, I think many hearts were poured in it. It's just that, everything should've been planned better, and even if it's no longer Naruto, the sequel should have the same impact or more than Naruto.

I don't remember exactly the details, but it's basically a story where Oreki tries to find Eru's murderer. I remember there was shooting or something, and Oreki had a gun. I think the murderer was Satoshi, but I'm not sure. I don't remember the song. I saw it on YouTube years ago, but I can't find it anymore. If someone knows a re-upload or something, please let me know.

I know different Christians believe different things, so I'm pretty much asking for your own personal kind of beliefs, not others. For example, some Christians would say they believe that all the bible characters are real, literal and historical, which is... Well, you don't need to answer if you believe that I guess. It's a pretty simple criteria which is just "if it's in the bible, it exists" and this post can just be the answers for the christians that believe it.

Anyway, it's more of those Christians who believe in certain bible characters, but not others. Obvious examples would be Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses or Job. Perhaps you'd consider them as metaphorical, or maybe the characters exist as a real historical person, but the stories weren't supernatural or was just something god put inside their head.

For example, perhaps the donkey didn't actually, y'know, talk and it was just a hallucination inside Balaam's head that god made or something. That maybe the flood wasn't global or something. Or perhaps the Israelites weren't actually historically commanded to do genocide or literally anything else.

Basically, for those characters you believe as exist, then characters that you don't believe exist, or just a metaphor or whatever, how do you identify which characters are real, historical person or which characters that are just metaphorical? Like, what's the criteria? If a Christian believe that every characters in the bible exist historically because their criteria is that, well, those characters were written in the bible, what would be your criteria if you don't believe a certain character doesn't exist in history, for example.