Proving God in 20 statements

[Losty]

*naked bow*

*takes Cialis*

*prepares to wait patiently 30 mins* 

(Don't come near me till 30 mins are up)

Lol. I have no words for this...be back in 30 I suppose hehe

[Redbeard The Pink]

You don't want to get into corroborating evidence? Gee. I wonder why.


Also, did this clown just tell CD to cry him a river? We taking bets on the velocity of the ban hammer yet?

[Mudhammam]

As an aside, I think that one does interchangeably depend on the other.

Sure, to make a scientific point you need both arguments and evidence.

You can prove things within an abstract system using just arguments, but to demonstrate things to be (most likely) true about reality, it needs to be bolstered with evidence.

But to be fair, by evidence you mean phenomena that can be understood in terms of physics. ...Right? In other words, you beg the question that all important, or true, or relevant points are "scientific" in nature... Which is not a scientific claim. Do you think that there are any propositions which are categorically true and cannot be supported by evidence? If so (I think this is obviously the case, btw), to what should one make one appeal if not argumentation?

[Losty]

You don't want to get into corroborating evidence? Gee. I wonder why.


Also, did this clown just tell CD to cry him a river? We taking bets on the  velocity of the ban hammer yet?

I was thinking more along the lines of torn to shreds and devoured...

[The Grand Nudger]

@Mud.

The conclusion of an argument cannot be trusted unless it's propositions are sound. Nor can it be trusted unless it's form is shown to be applicable to the subject.  A requirement of evidence is inescapable.

[Mudhammam]

@Mud.  

The conclusion of an argument cannot be trusted unless it's propositions are sound. Nor can it be trusted unless it's form is shown to be applicable to the subject.   A requirement of evidence is inescapable.

But isn't that itself a conclusion that is not supportable by evidence?

[Mystic]

*anxiously waits for Losty*

[smfortune]

You don't want to get into corroborating evidence? Gee. I wonder why.


Also, did this clown just tell CD to cry him a river? We taking bets on the  velocity of the ban hammer yet?

I can't post links on the website, that's why. Plus it'll be a red herring discussion when I want to focus on the proof. Also, lol. I don't think a ban hammer would materially impact my life. Lol.

---

You don't want to get into corroborating evidence? Gee. I wonder why.


Also, did this clown just tell CD to cry him a river? We taking bets on the  velocity of the ban hammer yet?

Oh, thanks for the clown comment. I must admit, you have been pretty entertaining yourself.

---

You don't want to get into corroborating evidence? Gee. I wonder why.


Also, did this clown just tell CD to cry him a river? We taking bets on the  velocity of the ban hammer yet?

I was thinking more along the lines of torn to shreds and devoured...

Lol. For atheists, you guys sure relish wielding "godlike" administrative powers. Hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Look dude...you can put new shoes on an old whore, but she's still gonna walk with a limp.


The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.

[Losty]

I was thinking more along the lines of torn to shreds and devoured...

Lol. For atheists, you guys sure relish wielding "godlike" administrative powers. Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Cthulhu is God you dumb dumb