Why knocking is so important.

[Drich]

Appeals to cliche' and generalities does not empirical validation make.

Or rather when have you ever defeated anything I have said with empirical validation. Please post a quote number or provide a link. Otherwise know you just quoted a cliche' atheistic answer to what you believe to be a general Christian response.

When your claimed efficacy for your A/S/K bullshit can not be replicated by us, your claim failed empirical validation. You've been weaseling, posturing, dodging, beating your chest, and whining ever since in order to pretend that sticking to your wish thinking, after it had failing a empirical validation outside your head, doesn't mark you as not only an idiot even amongst morons, but a disingenuous, impertinent, and morally cowardly idiot to boot.

Maybe re read what you wrote again. You made the claim that states;
' to the mind of the idiots, invincible wishful thinking can never be defeated by empirical validation.'

which would indicate you provided such validation. You are not going to be allowed to move the goal post here and then say I have failed to supply such validation. If it is as you said, and you have provided emperical validation against anything I have said, then now is your oppertunity to persent it. Otherwise this is your oppertunity to admit you are wrong.

---

Again I am just a beggar trying to tell other beggars where to find food. You want proof? I ate it, but there is more if you just A/S/K for it.

Actually you're only posing as a beggar and trying to convince everyone that a huge pile of shit is really food if only we fool ourselves into thinking we can eat it; when in actuality, you don't have any food any more than the rest of us.

And just like Chuck's observation, that wasn't a cliché either.

cli·ché
klēˈSHā kli-,kli-,ˈklēˌSHā/
noun
1.
a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.

Chuck's use of the cliche' is so over used that it did not even apply to this topic, and it was kudo'ed. It's like you guys are on automatic pilot and have turn your brains off. This appeal to 'emperical evidence' is used generally in an arguement pitting YEC creationism against evolution where actual evidence has been provided. Chuck has not provided any contrary evidence to anything said in almost 50 pages of dialog. yet he claimed it because that is how atheist closes a YEC/Evolution arguement. This 'smart guy' does not seem to understand in order to claim the use of 'empirical evidence' requires the actual use of said evidence.

Therefore his empty appeal to this closing arguement very easily falls under the term cliche' because it is so over used the person using it does not even understand it proper or timely use.

:Facepalm:

---

What the hell is wrong with you? I am just asking you how can you know for things to be true, how much and what kind of evidence you need for them.

Asked and answered. The proof required for God, is direct contact with God. Again this is what is offered in Luke 11.

Really? Physically impossible? As opposed to a wizard in the sky that poofs things into existence.
I gave you a scenario of me accomplishing something extraordinary, and then telling you that I've done it. What do you need to be convinced that I have actually done it?

That is why your analogy failed.

The claims I provided are not from me. I am simply showing you all the claims/promises God has made to us. I have also pointed out that He will provide the proof you need to establish and maintain your relationship.

That would be like watching you climb that building if that is what is needed.[/quote]

---

Wow. Drich calling out someone else for a bad analogy...

again just because you do not understand how analogies work.. does not mean one it bad because you failed to understand you do not have the freedom to use them outside how they are presented.