/Blushingusmarine2005 wrote:
I got a bananna for you.Ty wrote:
If a fucking bananna .
Promise to calll?
/Blushingusmarine2005 wrote:
I got a bananna for you.Ty wrote:
If a fucking bananna .
ExactacklyShem wrote:
It also fits up your anus
Yes it is, and here's whyCerpin_Taxt wrote:
It's more logical to believe in a god than it is to not.
Last edited by Drakef (2007-05-28 19:14:31)
Lol I think he means the banana is the God those people were like worshipping it. Im sorry for all of my sins by just now eating a banana :pCameronPoe wrote:
Oh my God. Proof that humans were monkeys at one point maybe. lol
+1 for an actual LOL!Shem wrote:
It also fits up your anus
What, like creating a robot?LawJik wrote:
"creation science" it's an oxymoron..
lol......... Point at the top for ease of entry.......lolsimmy.uk wrote:
For all non believers. This is new evidence there is a god.
I'm afraid that I don't really follow what the hell you're talking about here, but all I can say is this.... Even if God exists, do you really think humans would be able to comprehend it to the point of forming an even remotely accurate religion around the nature of this being and what it apparently wants from us?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Yes it is, and here's whyCerpin_Taxt wrote:
It's more logical to believe in a god than it is to not.
Here is your proof: St. Anselms Ontogogical arguement(Paraphrased by me)
Let us call God "That than which nothing greater can be concieved", because that seems the only thing that all
monotheistic religions are able to agree on. Now existence in reality is more relavent than existance in mind, so "That than which nothing greater can be concieved" must exist in reality, because if "That than which nothing greater can be concieved" did not exist, than "That than which nothing greater can be concieved" could not be "That than which nothing greater can be concieved".
Or even better:
God is "That than which nothing greater can be concieved". It is greater to be necessasary than not. "That than which nothing greater can be concieved" must be necessary, so it must exist.
The fact that the creation of this absurd little arguement is possible should be in itself proof that God exists!
lololololooollloolollol.elstonieo wrote:
that about sums it up