Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from Ricter:

Feelings are observable.

Anyway, you are not smart enough to poke fun at "meta", but I'm smart enough to use it correctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
More...
Don't be so sour.

Making up flowery meaningless concepts like "meta-level" explains nothing.
Why stop there. You might as well produce a "super meta level" . "How about an "ultra-super meta-level".

Determinations arrived at logically following empirical evidence , the scientific method, are what they are, irrespective of what any feeling may or not suggest.
That’s not anything to do with emotional states or vague ideas

Nothing to do with feelings.
 
Quote from stu:

Don't be so sour.

Making up flowery meaningless concepts like "meta-level" explains nothing.
Why stop there. You might as well produce a "super meta level" . "How about an "ultra-super meta-level".

Determinations arrived at logically following empirical evidence , the scientific method, are what they are, irrespective of what any feeling may or not suggest.
That’s not anything to do with emotional states or vague ideas

Nothing to do with feelings.
More...

You are too unread for this conversation. Locked in a box, you are.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

At least there's some logic to the one in question.
More...
Suppose there were this thing called God, and it expected you to use certain abilities , like skepticism, doubt, rationality, reasoning, critical inquiry, practical knowledge, honesty, to come to the decision that there is no such a thing as God.
It uses circumstances to suggest belief , but then also provides clues which to pick up on, such as, this God is hypothetical, unknowable , indescribable, imaginary, an abstract idea , unfalsifiable , implausible , of "unknown composition and location."
It expects, wants, requires you to come to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist in order to achieve some other goal, which It in kind doesn’t explain either, and if you do believe in it after all that , you shall be cast out.

Wouldn't that make Pascal’s wager wrong and illogical?
 
Nonsense. You've given nothing but faulty assumptions, circular "logic," STUpid "reasoning," and dimwitted drivel all of which I've refuted. Get an education so you can get a clue and get professional help for your pathological lying.
Quote from STUpid:

You've been given plenty of specific logical, rather obvious reasons why Russell's Teapot and God are equally implausible and why they are therefore, as unfalsifiable as each other. You haven't been able to refute them.
Apparently immature response is all you have.
More...
 
You addressed this to Martinghoul so I'll only give you a hint: you are too unread for this conversation (yet again). Go back and understand Pascal's wager before making a fool of yourself (yet again).
Quote from STUpid:

Suppose there were this thing called God, and it expected you to use certain abilities , like skepticism, doubt, rationality, reasoning, critical inquiry, practical knowledge, honesty, to come to the decision that there is no such a thing as God.
It uses circumstances to suggest belief , but then also provides clues which to pick up on, such as, this God is hypothetical, unknowable , indescribable, imaginary, an abstract idea , unfalsifiable , implausible , of "unknown composition and location."
It expects, wants, requires you to come to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist in order to achieve some other goal, which It in kind doesn’t explain either, and if you do believe in it after all that , you shall be cast out.

Wouldn't that make Pascal’s wager wrong and illogical?
More...
 
Well you nailed it with that comment so...

Question for you if I may. Are you a U.S. citizen living in Canada?
Quote from Ricter:

Oh... my... god... (no pun intended).
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top