Search results
From FreeThoughtPedia
- [[Category:Semantical arguments]]6 KB (947 words) - 14:24, 3 July 2011
- [[Category:theological arguments]] [[Category:historical arguments]]10 KB (1,700 words) - 22:50, 12 February 2009
- [[Category:historical arguments]] [[Category:theological arguments]]4 KB (696 words) - 05:33, 22 January 2012
- [[Category:historical arguments]] [[Category:theological arguments]]9 KB (1,377 words) - 18:22, 11 June 2009
- [[Category:historical arguments]] [[Category:scriptural arguments]]6 KB (947 words) - 22:51, 12 February 2009
- ...t. They used one of the ten arguments listed herein. How solid are these arguments and how do they stand up to basic science and reason? ...or invoking bits and pieces of "Quantum Theory" but they're still the same arguments). How familiar are you with these?23 KB (3,822 words) - 19:18, 4 April 2011
- [[category:scriptural arguments]] [[category:theological arguments]]4 KB (730 words) - 22:30, 4 June 2009
- ...n''. Is there a "law of digestion?" No. Another intellectually bankrupt semantical run-around. ...tierende eine Ursache haben muss, wer hat Grott kreiert? Varianten dieses Arguments berufen sich auf den ersten Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik um zu behaupten, da26 KB (4,092 words) - 10:10, 5 February 2010
- The key to fooling people with these arguments is simple: insert a naked assertion in the middle of the argument, hoping t ... is no proof. You cannot prove something doesn't exist. This is a logical, semantical trap that many theists use - a variety of the Shifting the Burden of Proof12 KB (2,054 words) - 17:42, 24 February 2010
View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
This site costs a lot of money in bandwidth and resources. We are glad to bring it to you free, but would you consider helping support our site by making a donation? Any amount would go a long way towards helping us continue to provide this useful service to the community.
Click on the Paypal button below to donate. Your support is most appreciated! |
|---|
