Licensing requirements differ from state to state, but
the more verifiable evidence there is that shows you have legitimate training, the better.
I think I can provide
more verifiable evidence to support the hypothesis that love exists than you can to support the hypothesis that your god exists.
Not exact matches
It is far
more significant to me that no believer, not even a top - dog charlatan shaman such as any Pope - A-Dope, can not provide factual, independent,
verifiable and objective
evidence for their cult's beliefs.
«And to focus
more precisely on the issue of «scientific
evidence,» the sciences, ordered by their nature and method to an analysis of empirically
verifiable objects and states of affairs within the universe, can not even in principle address questions regarding God, who is not a being in the world, but rather the reason why the finite realm exists at all.......
Without
verifiable evidence, it is no
more rational or reasonable to assume there are any gods as it is to assume there are Pink Unicorns.
More useless conspiracy theory bullshit from Bob, with absolutely no
verifiable evidence to support it.
Perhaps you can provide
verifiable evidence that proves you know what I believe
more than I do?
Another question: why is it that,
more than a century and a half since Darwin's theory (and it's still taught world - wide as an unproven theory) has the
evidence increasingly pointed away from him, not in support of him», is utterly and quite refutably wrong by an abundance of
verifiable scientific
evidence.
Atheism can't be proven, but it is the
more logical position since it is a skeptical position in response to a positive position that lacks
verifiable evidence.
The
more verifiable scientific
evidence you collect for your skeptical mind, the
more you will prove to yourself that the mind really can heal the body.
My sense is that the
more effective approach (albeit not a panacea) is reinforcing the trial judge's role as «gate keeper» in the admission of reliable and
verifiable scientific
evidence.