There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Debate talk:Logical proof of the existence of God
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cue the bickering between Jeeves and AKjeldsen in 3, 2, 1... Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I particularly like the variant spelling : Title v Content. Toast 05:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't understand. What are you talking about?
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:35, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Existance : existence. Toast 05:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Ah, I see now. Thanks.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:16, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Ah, I see now. Thanks.
- Existance : existence. Toast 05:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't understand. What are you talking about?
Side by side[edit]
Would this be better as a side-by-side so that we can analyse it point by point?--Bobbing up 06:24, 4 January 2009 (EST)