XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:05:42 -0400, mur wrote:   
      
   > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological   
   >>>evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a   
   >>>logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional   
   >>>postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical   
   >>>limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no   
   >>>empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded.   
   >>   
   >>Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence that   
   >>any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would suggest   
   >>that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.   
   >   
   >     WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do   
   >     you think   
   > it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you   
   > think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God   
   > associated with Earth?   
      
   The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your supposed   
   god character exists.   
      
   --   
   Smiler, The godless one.   
   aa #2279   
   Gods are all tailored to order. They are made   
   to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)