by Taylor Madison May 10, 2016
the ending at the end of a sentence to any action, whether it be difficult or simple, said in a Quick Draw Mcgraw type serious tone, similar to adding "in bed" to the end of sentences
ex. I am walking to my car, and i won't spill my beer.
i will do a handstand while walking up the stairs, and i won't spill my beer see in bed
i will do a handstand while walking up the stairs, and i won't spill my beer see in bed
by The One They Call Froh March 30, 2010
"won't HE do it? " is when the grill master Mike Evans shows up in your FB timeline unexpectedly without warning or notice; but with a whole lot of SMOKE, BRISKET, RIBS, and PORK BUTT . . . gently reminding YOU that HE is about to bless folks with his barbecue
by 123_Reptile August 9, 2019
"Why won't God heal amputees?" is an atheist site created by a liberal retarded atheist called Marshall Brain. The site employs faulty reasoning and fallacies to try and debunk the existence of God with the question in the title. The premise of the argument is that since God doesn't heal amputees when people pray for it, God couldn't possibly exist.
What the liberal idiot Marshall Brian overlooked as he wrote his next fallacy filled paragraph which is pretentious enough to brainwash college freshmen and other idiots into atheism, is that the existence of God has nothing to do with the promises of religion or prayer.
In deism or even general theism, God is simply the creator of the universe, the instigator behind The Big Bang and the designer of the laws of science that govern the universe. God isn't required to intervene in human affairs.
Marshall Brain's argument is simply an argument against prayer working. To say that "god is imaginary" because prayer doesn't work ignores observational science and laws. Mashall's argument ignores the sound Prime Mover argument which persists that every effect has a cause (a law of science), since the universe is in motion and came from a source, it was an effect that had a cause and the cause would have to be eternal as you cannot have an infinite regress (as an infinite line of objects creating other objects has no beginning and therefore no start) ergo the universe was the result of a timeless cause with no beginning.
What the liberal idiot Marshall Brian overlooked as he wrote his next fallacy filled paragraph which is pretentious enough to brainwash college freshmen and other idiots into atheism, is that the existence of God has nothing to do with the promises of religion or prayer.
In deism or even general theism, God is simply the creator of the universe, the instigator behind The Big Bang and the designer of the laws of science that govern the universe. God isn't required to intervene in human affairs.
Marshall Brain's argument is simply an argument against prayer working. To say that "god is imaginary" because prayer doesn't work ignores observational science and laws. Mashall's argument ignores the sound Prime Mover argument which persists that every effect has a cause (a law of science), since the universe is in motion and came from a source, it was an effect that had a cause and the cause would have to be eternal as you cannot have an infinite regress (as an infinite line of objects creating other objects has no beginning and therefore no start) ergo the universe was the result of a timeless cause with no beginning.
This creator cause (which can be called God) likely has intelligence judging by the mathematical cosmology of the universe which can be studied by mathematics, the constant fine tuning that can be observed throughout the universe along with the laws of science themselves. The likelihood of these principles having formed by themselves from mindless nothingness is simply impossible and next to believing in magic.
Sadly, atheists like Marshall Brian continue to reject modern science and physics and still persist that "things can come from nothing" despite this never being observed, displayed, measured or proven. Also if matter and energy could truly originate from "pure nothingness" then that simply begs the question of "why can't a god?" In the atheist world-view, intelligence was the product of nothingness, in an infinite multiverse, why would it be impossible that some intelligence that developed in some place became something akin to a god that could traverse different realities and dimensions or perhaps one of the realities or universes that formed "from nothing" formed with a consciousness? Atheists who truly believe in "nothing from something" can't really deny these hypothesises since they persist that such complex things could form from nothing, therefore atheism really destroys itself with its own ridiculous beliefs.
Why won't God heal amputees? Simple, God isn't required to.
Sadly, atheists like Marshall Brian continue to reject modern science and physics and still persist that "things can come from nothing" despite this never being observed, displayed, measured or proven. Also if matter and energy could truly originate from "pure nothingness" then that simply begs the question of "why can't a god?" In the atheist world-view, intelligence was the product of nothingness, in an infinite multiverse, why would it be impossible that some intelligence that developed in some place became something akin to a god that could traverse different realities and dimensions or perhaps one of the realities or universes that formed "from nothing" formed with a consciousness? Atheists who truly believe in "nothing from something" can't really deny these hypothesises since they persist that such complex things could form from nothing, therefore atheism really destroys itself with its own ridiculous beliefs.
Why won't God heal amputees? Simple, God isn't required to.
by The Logical Truth March 31, 2015
Common phrase issued by recently stabbed individual attempting to express his/her acceptance of the utter ridiculousness of the event, as well as the individuals predilection for raging so insanely hard that such events only serve to further legitimize the incredible rageability of said subject. In a sense, individual is expressing his/her belief that the second-person ("you") will not be able party as excessively or with as little regard for human life, to the extent that there is a possibility of receiving a stab wound.
"You don't think I won't just kill busch lights all day? I got stabbed last night. You won't get stabbed tonight."
by Beans55 September 29, 2008
Term that can be used when one in opposition threatens to do something other (and lesser) than fight you.
Term that can be used when one in opposition makes what seems to be an empty threat.
Is to be said quickly and with furrowed brow.
See also: you won't though.
Term that can be used when one in opposition makes what seems to be an empty threat.
Is to be said quickly and with furrowed brow.
See also: you won't though.
by Mos before Bros April 17, 2007
I "ghetto" phrase made as a joke, aimed at people who tend to speak in a "ghetto" manner. The meaning of the phrase is actually "You fine as hell, I want you" but was changed to "yhu find as he'll i won't yhu" to imply that a primarily "ghetto" male was showing interest in an attractive female. It is supposed to imitate bad spelling and auto-correct in a sentence. The phrase is primarily used to show attraction in a person, and essentially wanting to date.
*man sees attractive female on Instagram*
Man: Ooh, she fine as hell, I want her. Lemme comment on her post.
*yhu find as he'll i won't yhu*
Man: Damnit auto-correct
Man: Ooh, she fine as hell, I want her. Lemme comment on her post.
*yhu find as he'll i won't yhu*
Man: Damnit auto-correct
by ZbIsMe23 October 1, 2020