I accept your admission of failure to prove you claimblah blah blah blah
i dont need to prove it, its real one defined, the next job is on you to see if it has flaws, this isnt policy debate, this is philoshpiy
I accept your admission of failure to prove you claim
It obvious you cant prove your claim and you know it so you are desperate to divert
Oh I see, you're one of those people who go around twisting what everyone says, thinking you're clever. I'll give you a pass this one time as a benefit of the doubt. Keep at it, however, and we'll never speak again.did you always beleive there was no God?
you only have to define arguments in philopsiphy and it is up to YOU to find flaws in it
Youi didnt make an argument you provided a definition for a word you refused to prove that it actually exists
Better luck with your next attempt at a diversion
Oh I see, you're one of those people who go around twisting what everyone says, thinking you're clever. I'll give you a pass this one time as a benefit of the doubt. Keep at it, however, and we'll never speak again.
I did not say that there is no god. That would be a statement about gods, but I made a statement about myself. I said I didn't buy into it. Do not try to twist my words again, you are not half as clever as you think you are.
I was raised in a Catholic home. The Catholic church wanted me to say 2 things that I didn't know to be true. They wanted me to say that the bible is the inerrant word of god, and they wanted me to say that, in communion, the eucharist literally transformed into the literal flesh of Jesus. The bible has many errors, we can list them exhaustively, so if I say that the bible is without errors, that would be a lie. The eucharist remains basically just bread after the priest prays over it, it does not turn into human flesh. We can test eucharist samples and prove this. To say that the eucharist turns into the literal flesh of Jesus would be to lie.
So, I never bought into it. I never 'got' the whole god thing.
i define my argument in philoshipym, that IS proving it
Nope your diversion failed.
All you did was provide a definition of a word you made no argument and provided no proof
Youi failed utterly and completely.
Next diversion from, you failure in 3...2....1....
Nope defining a word IS NOT proving that word is an actual thing
Clearly you dont understand philosophy.
Actually it doesnt and actually you didnty
Nope defining a word IS NOT proving that word is an actual thing
im not proving anything, it is common knowledge that omniscience is a testable thing
no i have proved it as it is philosphically sound
whats the matter with it?
blah blah blah blah
i dont need to prove it, its real one defined, the next job is on you to see if it has flaws, this isnt policy debate, this is philoshpiy
leprechaun noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
lep·re·chaun | \ ˈle-prə-ˌkän , -ˌkȯn \
Definition of leprechaun
: a mischievous elf (see ELF sense 1) of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught
yes it does until proven not
you have not proven any one can know everything and that any one knows everything
"folklore"
iv never heard of a test for that whats your source?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?