The Search

PERSONAL STYLE EVANGELISMO ** CONFIDES IT CURTAIN NARRATION? Kadu leaves boate with the task in its hands. It is not what it wants to make, but. How many times we feel in them thus? We make what we cannot, but we make because we desire and we sadden the heart of God. Kadu does not want to come back toward the crime, but it desires to the money ….. Avista a movement and a poster with the phrase Treatment of the Soul.

He is apreensivo and nervous. Of far it sights a young that seems to be who it looks for, but it has doubts and with the hands in the weapon (waist) if it approaches distrustful. Bad one turns over and face the Kadu face scares-se/surpreso, but it does not take off the weapon of the waist. KADU? I was its search to brother and I say already you that I do not want none papo with you. It folloies me without alarms, why seno my service will be here same. BAD? (calm)? Kadu calm, we can talk.

Here it is a public place and you it has that to be calm if not to want alarms, as vc exactly say. I am happy seeing in you. I knew of your arrest, but I was in trip and therefore visit I could not you. But I prayed very for its life. KADU? It prayed for me? Of what you expensive saying itself? BAD? It looks at, I I am not more the same Maurinho, the Bad one that you knew in the life of the crime. That one that all feared. I repented myself very of everything what I made. I also know that today I run a great risk for is of face the face in this quarter here.


Former: ' ' If who was a bourgeois said this, certainly is engodo' '. That ugly in Mr. Frder 2: Excuse but to corrijir I go you here, of new you generalized, some atheists until can AFFIRM that not it exists arguments nor facts of the god existence, to put what we make is to say that the person who wants that we we believe god, in them it does not bring such item, it can talvs exist you evidence yes, but it presented nobody me. IT DOES NOT GENERALIZE. 3: Again we see the generalization, but we go to evaluate this that it said.

First: which ' ' fatos' ' they are these? Second: I am unaware of duposta fallacy that you GENERALIZED affirming that atheistic we say this when we come across in them with ' ' fatos' ' on the god existence. I know the following fallacy: Ad Argumentum ignorantiam Tentar to prove something from the ignorance how much to its validity. Former: ' ' Nobody obtained to prove that God does not exist; soon, it existe.' ' this goes more beyond, this argument takes off concluzoes of the things for simplismente we not to understand something, or not to know as this happened, associating with god, then vocs summer this in ' ' teoria' ' of it. 4: It generalized, and it said excrement. He forgives the palavro but youngster searches on popperiana science in which we base in them on our theories, and is not pra everybody to leave creating its theory, you probably it must be speaking on the synthetic theory of the evolution or of the theory of big bang, yes these theories are not ours, but nor therefore they are you invalidate fallacy here in (ad Argumentum hominem). 5: Obiviamente this is a belief, but it particularly never does not generalize saying that the atheists believe this, I vi an atheist if it wants to cite this excrement that you spoke, forgiving then me of new the palavro, reviews its concepts! ' ' A philosopher said Joseph de Maistre: ' ' Nobody affirms: God not existe' without before having desired that It not exista' '.