Sentences with phrase «n't much proof»

For this Jesus guy, however, there is not much proof...

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.

There is no evidence that other sunlike stars experience such shutdowns, though there is not much proof that they don't.

Not exact matches

While his burger has not yet stimulated our culinary juices as much as our innovative ones it's a powerful proof of concept and important first step.

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.

Because neither of these allegations resulted in criminal charges, much less convictions, they're not proof of anything.

The commercial cleaning industry may not be a recession proof industry, but it has been resilient, and has emerged, not much scarred by tough...

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...

I have seen much more proof of GOD than than I have of scietific «fact» Gods word hasn't changed in 6000 years.

Meanwhile, to Hawking's supporters who suggest that I am not owning up to his scientific «proofs,» I believe airwx has already said it best for me — he's a THEORETICAL physicist, and having read some of his work, I'm smart enough to know that much of what he says about God is an exercise in jumping to conclusions, even as sound as much of his scientific work is.

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.

The critical point is, one might say, not so much the proof as the pudding it's in.

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.

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 saying that I believe this, of course there is about as much proof to this as there are to any other religions.

It is not much of a proof of Christ and has certainly been a stumbling point for me.

You are embraced, wrapped and protected in His Kevlar Love and you're bullet proof against the shrapnel lies of being not enough or too much.

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.

Before we say we are right and they would be wrong, let's not forget they would have as much proof as we have.

the proof of Gods presence in us is not limited to the material or biological evolutionary development only, but most important scientific proof is the effect of His will in historical development of the world.A computer program now used and tested a powerful machine by inputing all recorded events in history during the last hundreds years and found out that it has a purpose and not random.Meaning that an intelligent being could have influence it.It is now presumed by the religious observers that it could be His will.The process now is under improvement, because the computers is not powerl enough the deluge of information and data since the beginning of history, some analyst believes that in them near future if the Quantum computers which is much powerful than the present coventional will be used, then dramatic results and confirmation will be at hand.

I suppose if you doubt the Bible, then my proof - texting isn't of much value.

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.

In fact, much evidence for other species have been found, and it is extraordinarily difficult to find because you can't just look up in the sky at something that still exists in order to find proof, you have to go carefully digging all over the world for stuff that has for the most part been buried, destroyed, decayed, etc..

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.

There just isn't any reasonable proof about deities period, much less what they might affect (without going down that path into political fable land).

So, as much as it would be lovely - looking proof of God's existence, that sudden perfecting of believers, alas, that's just not how it works.

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 person.

None of these people have much «action», «proof is in the pudding» and I haven't seen much pudding either.

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.

since there only proof is a man made written book there is not much to be able to argue.

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.

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.

And the unique impression of Jesus upon mankind, whose name is not so much written as ploughed into the history of this world, is proof of the subtle virtue of this infusion.»

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.

The healing miracles were not so much proofs as they were visible demonstrations.

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

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!

Will, The bible and extracts from it on buildings is not proof of anything in the bible; apart from places and a few people very little of the bible has been proven correct and much of the foundation is proven incorrect.

But Wesley concludes: «In the end, what keeps me on the path I've chosen is not so much individual proof texts from Scripture or the sheer weight of the church's traditional teaching against homosexual practice.

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.

And not as a perpetual temptation or sparring partner so much as a badge of honor, proof that we're intellectually rigorous, honest, and thoughtful — not the mindless automatons the world thinks we are.

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.

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.

Aside from eyewitnesses of the resurrection which you have the option not to believe, the Christian movement itself which has contributed so much good for humanity around the globe is the greatest proof of Jesus Christ's existence.