Depends on the year.

not sure how you arrived at that list or what your question means, was trying to point out that x is a divisor of y when y/x is an integer.

so only 1, 2, 19 and 38?

Sorry aber wieso versuchst du das hier zu relativisieren? es ist unter keinen Umständen okay, und dass der idiotische Weltsichten hatte macht es nicht weniger schlecht.

The human is primed for tribalism and these parties are exploiting that bug to offer the always-attractive solution of “this group of people is to blame”. This time, it’s Muslims and generally immigrants.

how on earth do you spend 144k to tow some air bubble back to the coast?

as long as you don’t do it greedily you should be fine

They may have been expecting it to be popular, but less so than it actually was.

Before you paid for “free” software with your data, you used to pay by agreeing to install a search bar in your browser. Usually you just uninstalled it directly afterwards. Not this guy though.

Lift just one side so your buttocks spread, then reach from the side to wipe. All the while, the seat carries (most of) your weight.

Well, it’s fun if anything :). Nobody actually believes in god for rational reasons.

The argument we were discussing was that god was either evil (as in not good) or not omnipotent.

Whether humans must be evil due to free will is another discussion entirely, and I would propose that free will is never entirely free and always limited by our perception and understanding of the world. If evil didn’t exist, you would be as free to be evil as you are to ignore gravity. Also, most religions believe in a paradise free from evil, so does that mean you lose your free will once you enter?

Yes, exactly. If there is a god, they definitely either aren’t omnipotent, or they aren’t good according to our definition of being good (as they ignore our unnecessary suffering).

Don’t see how that’s what I proposed as good. As time wouldn’t exist for god (implication of being omnipotent), there’s no reason that suffering ever existed in the first place - no need to change anything on a running system.

By that logic, you could say that eliminating cancer is exterminating humanity as is, and thus evil.

An omnipotent god could alter nature in a way that makes us able to enjoy good without needing to suffer. If they can’t, they’re not omnipotent. If they don’t want to, they’re letting us suffer unnecessarily, and they’re not good.

So many fruits in the berrum family, can’t believe they even had to google that question…

A four sided triangle is a verbal misconstruct, because we chose those names to represent different objects - nothing to do with what god can or can’t do. They could make all of us believe that four-sided polygons are called triangles, which fulfills the requirement you propose. On the other hand, free will can’t “require” suffering, because a requirement would mean there is a rule god can’t break, which would mean they are not omnipotent.

Still, the (theoretical) fact remains that god knows about the suffering and lets it happen. Whatever the goal is, if he’s omnipotent he should be able to reach it without having suffering. If he can’t, he isn’t omnipotent. If he doesn’t want to, he’s not good.

assuming you’re right, he either can’t or doesn’t want to create that world without human suffering. Remains either evil or not all powerful.