Sentences with phrase «much proof do»

Facts of the season so far, we have half the points of the league leaders, less points than this time last year, only two fit first team defenders, more money in the bank than ever before.how much proof do you need that wengers job is to make money for his boss and not win trophies.

, the answer would often be, «How much proof do you have?»

Not exact matches

If you haven't even experienced one boom bust cycle, please don't start spouting off how much you've made and how fail proof your methodology is for retirement.

There is ample evidence for the existence of God, what you decide to do with this evidence is ultimately up to you, but do not claim that there is none... and I would submit to you that many people believe many things without evidence every single day... but do not lump all people of faith into one basket... I have personal proof that God exists, but proof for me may not be proof for you, some people can see something with their own eyes and still deny it, that is why I said it is ultimately up to you to decide what you believe... there is much evidence both for and against the existence of God, you need to decide which evidence you choose to believe...

Then pretending that those who lack their belief also have a faith based position demand much less intellectual discipline is a much easier option than facing up to the burden of proof they give when insisting they believe what they do.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

With faith in your heart, you do not need to pursue proof or empirical evidence through human means which you will never find because God Is Spirit, thus, so much greater than mortal men which He created who have limited knowledge.

I believe god is love, I think we have little ability to understand much beyond that at this point and those who would define and codify god are arrogant fools doing harm in this world, I believe that the absence of love in anything is proof that it doesn't come from god, fire and brimstone does not come from god, unconditional love and acceptance does.

He says that he has as much proof for the existence of Jesus as he does for the existence of Einstein.

You can do alot of detective work to find that the boyfriend pretty much couldn't exist but if the person deeply believes then logical proof most likely won't work.

I'm not even actually denying that Jesus was real, but there is absolutely no proof that he was the son of god or divine in any manner, so sorry, he holds as much credence as Harry does.

However, to accept historical accounts that G - d did once reveal Himself to mankind would be fair as proof, as much as one accepts accounts that Julius Caesar existed as proof that he existed.

Arkes does much to demonstrate that the Founders had an understanding of that discourse which we ourselves generally lack; Prof. Smolin, in aiming to disagree with Arkes, inadvertently provides his own proof.

There is no tested evidence of these natural explanations, much less proof, but the existence of multiple natural possibilities negates the Big Bang and Inflation as proof of God (that doesn't mean it proves No God, it means that it can't prove God did it since there are other alternatives).

@jimtanker — you don't have to be insulting when you share your opinion... It's your choice to believe what you wish but don't insult everyone else in the process... Just remember that there's so much that your «thinking» brain can't explain and as a «thinker» you shouldn't dismiss anything just because you have no proof.

And I'm sure they had a few, but I do not expect to find much in the way of proof.

Ok you have as much FAITH in your proof as she does that see has seen angels so there for you are believing in something you have not seen right you have not seen here medical records to prove that she has Schizophrenia.

@Jim It really does not matter to somone like RealG, how much proof you provide, he has his conclusion and that will never change.

God bless you richly Jeremy, thank you so much for blessing me... now the proof will be shown as I do share my «coals»

None have a lot of evidence, much less proof, but that doesn't matter.

@david johson your long response offers no proof of anything, opinions and personal interpretation are not «proof «you admitted as much -LRB-, the old i can't prove a negative) but you impressed the heck out of martin t (not particularly difficult on that, as he appears to thrive on any bs that seems to support his «position») Just a side bar Santa does exist, or rather did, Saint Nicholas, Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the «Coke» version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual persdid, Saint Nicholas, Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the «Coke» version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual person.

I suspect that science doesn't prove as much as you think, and I can assure you that the things it does prove are not proof that God does not exist.

So who cares about religious people, you can't convince someone of reality when they fabricate their own, they fabricate their proof, their facts, best thing is just do your thing and stay way from them as much possible, most of the times they turn more people into atheists than atheists themselves by the things they say and do anyway, lol so no need for us to do it.

The best part of all this discourse is that it serves as undeniable proof that God does exist and He created you all; if you truly believed that there is no need to worship God because He is a made up piece of fiction, would you actually spend this much time arguing over some ridiculous fallacy?

You'll never get the «first hand proof» you want, until you believe God first, and if you do get it, none of your atheist peers will believe you... much like you now.

There is no proof to prove there is no existence of a God, as much there is Proof that God does not eproof to prove there is no existence of a God, as much there is Proof that God does not eProof that God does not exist.

to J.W. and fred — i think its rather silly to argue anything as fact if its cleary thought based (i.e. lacking proof / evidence) when asked about the where did we come from or how the universe (whatever) i always answer with i don't know, but then i pose an idea — i state openly thats its only an idea... if any one of you religions folks would simple agree to the FACT that what you BELIEVE is real is REALLY only an idea until proven (much like evolution) then i would find much more pleasing conversations beyond the realm of atheists... but alas, i am still waiting — i found some but most are imovible in there beliefs that god is real, provable, and most def.

Also remember they didn't have much on the burden or nor was proof really a requirement.

I might have done it for the wrong reason in the beginning — to proof points and I hate to be wrong, but now I love it so much — I want to learn something new everyday and have many AH HA moments!

This seems to many to he too much to ask, but nothing less will do justice to the challenge of the burden of the proof.

O but no there wouldnt be, most of you hide from society, not for fear that you will be judged, but just that simple fact, that you got about as much proof nothing exist beyond this place, as I do that there is!

How much more scientific proof do you need???

What there is, is Jesus doing miracles then, and some people didn't believe him, and they become obsessed with trying to disprove him (much like you are), and becoming violent when no proof is given that he is the Son of God.

My argument is that while science does tell us much about the world around us, IT (science - our most favored epistemological standard) obviously only deals with the physical and can not disprove the spiritual, and that there are other ways of knowing truth that do prove (support is the word I prefer, since no «proof» is satisfactory to al epistemological standards) the existence of God.

If you want to bring science into it there appears to be a neurological brain study about it: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/97 Generally speaking, at this time I'm not sure how much stock I put into the results of these various neurological studies since while they seem to show brain activity under certain controlled situations, I don't necessarily find the situations conducive to what I consider proof.

Anyone can predict bad things will happen, and be almost certain to be right at some time in the future, since so much stuff happens.Either present a fulfilled prophecy that had exact dates in it, with events that later did happen on those dates, or show some integrity by retracting any claims of «proof» of prophecy that you might be making.

Religion is used to protect so much of the evil in the world that it comes close to being actual proof that «GOD» does not exist.

Apparently Barrie believes in conspiracy theories... I'm not sure how much more proof people like this require... the president is indeed christian and just because he doesn't wear it on his sleeve and bring it in to politics the republitards and their supporters alike use the no true scotsman fallacy against.

I actually have a lot of empirical proof in the restored quality of life in my clients, but so much of what I do is discovered through subjective means.

Of course, this does not amount to proof of his general hypothesis, much less of his metaphysics.

And they has just as much «proof» of the existence of their gods as we do of ours.

Much like a proof reader finds misspellings, the removal of those references is to correct errors, not to inject any atheist ideology so your paranoid delusional chad brain can power down and go back to doing what it does best, collect dust.

I didn't pay much attention to the proof times (I'm a novice at baking) so didn't finish until about 10:30 at night, but as you promised, the prep was easy and the result is so hard to describe.

I proofed for 24 hours and used baking paper in the bottom of a cast iron casserole dish (a round one, which I am thankful for as the dough does not have much structure as with most gluten free things).

Another beautiful post and proof that you're so special even the beautiful little creatures love you as much as we do.

I didn't get much oven spring — I think I let the proof gone on a little too long.

The first two times it didn't raise as much as it could so today I left it proofing for almost 4th.

Way too much work... does anyone at Epicurious proof read the recipe.

I made a recipe from America's Test Kitchen and it required the naan bread to sit and proof for 24 hours and I didn't have that much time.

I don't spend an early pick on someone that sits locked in a safe marked do not open until Brown is gone or Staley retires, and who is all clay and not much proof.