XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
      
   On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:57:18 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:45:45 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:36:16 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:04:15 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:02:43 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >>>> .   
   >>>>>On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:02:45 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:41:53 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one   
   >>>>>>     of the basic   
   >>>>>> starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character   
   >>>>>without a single scrap of evidence.    
   >>>>   
   >>>>     It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out   
   >>>>     without having to have it explained.   
   >>>   
   >>>I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell.   
   >>   
   >>     Provide the verifiable evidence or again be revealed as a liar by   
   >>     your own   
   >> ineptitude.   
   >   
   >You   
      
       YOU again revealed yourself as a liar.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)