Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: "btorvik2" <btorvik2@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:15:28 -0500
Bart Goddard wrote:
Justin C <justin.0809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:slrngco2np.gg.justin.0809@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
No, the evidence points toward His existence. That makes my
model superior to yours, which explains away the evidence.
We differ on the interpretation of the evidence.
Doesn't matter, it's still evidence, which makes your
repetitive asserting that there is none, plainly false.
Which in turn nulifies your objection that the existence
of God is mere random assumption.
B.
Ok, ok, ................"VALID" evidence then... :-)
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
.
- References:
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Alex W.
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Justin C
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Justin C
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Justin C
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- Prev by Date: Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- Next by Date: Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- Previous by thread: Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- Next by thread: Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|