XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 15:57:18 -0400, Vincent Maycock  wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:20:49 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >snip   
   >   
   >>>>>>    Try to explain WHAT type of evidence   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Any kind.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    You have no idea.   
   >>>   
   >>>Footprints in the sand or snow?   
   >>   
   >>    And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were   
   >>made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know   
   they   
   >>were the real thing?   
   >   
   >I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just   
   >evidence.   If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some   
   >footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,   
   >since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."   
   >   
   >> Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave   
   >>footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of   
   his   
   >>existence.   
   >   
   >He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience   
   >rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.   
      
       Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a   
   thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it   
   over and over and over again?   
      
   >>>A video-tape of God on the evening news?   
   >>   
   >>    Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the   
   >>authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What   
   sort   
   >>of sound track? What sort of narration?   
   >   
   >I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like   
   >"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and   
   >walking on water."   
   >   
   >I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,   
   >depending on the circumstances, that God exists.   
      
       From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come   
   perform   
   tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care   
   about anyway. If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have   
   no   
   doubt he could persuade you to. And if he exists and wanted everyone in general   
   to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too. So if he does exist it   
   seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason   
   doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.   
      
   >>>>>>you think there should be, WHERE you   
   >>>>>>think it should be,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Anywhere.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    You have no idea.   
   >>>   
   >>>In the snow or sand?   
   >>   
   >>    How you would verify? To start with, explain this:   
   >>   
   >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints   
   >   
   >These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the   
   >evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's   
   >a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.   
      
       You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God even   
   though   
   you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.   
      
   >>>On TV?   
   >>   
   >>    How you would verify?   
   >>   
   >>>>>>WHY you think it should be available to humans,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence   
   >>>>>available to us.  It's just insane to think about the myriads of   
   >>>>>things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or   
   >>>>>any time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>     Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this   
   evidence   
   >>>>you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something   
   SHOULD BE   
   >>>>somewhere for some reason.   
   >>>   
   >>>That's not faith;   
   >>   
   >>    It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the   
   >>faith itself.   
   >>   
   >>>that's just a generalization of the way the world   
   >>>seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for   
   >>>themselves.  If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the   
   >>>entity from serious consideration.   
   >>   
   >>    You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most   
   >>easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a   
   God   
   >>associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable   
   evidence"   
   >>of his existence for his own reasons.   
   >   
   >And you can think of no  motivation for why he would behave this way.   
      
       I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people   
   are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day,   
   and   
   it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists. Another   
   would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more   
   like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists. Another would be to "trim   
   the   
   herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those   
   who don't.   
      
   >I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable   
   >evidence," for God's existence here on earth  there is no such being   
   >associated with our earth.   
      
       I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being   
   correct,   
   and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and   
   taking   
   more things into consideration.   
      
   >snip   
   >   
   >>>You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.   
   >>>   
   >>>>you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving   
   >>>>everyone proof.   
   >>>   
   >>>You mean evidence.   
   >>   
   >>    Why are you ashamed to call it proof?   
   >   
   >Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*   
      
       If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to   
   believe in and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting   
   lines you people can't get as "far" as.   
      
   >>>>One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of   
   >>>>thought,   
   >>>   
   >>>It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it   
   >>>trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs   
   >>>does not does not exist.   
   >>   
   >>    It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does   
   exist.   
   >   
   >That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.   
      
       It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and   
   are convinced that he does exist.   
      
   >Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?   
      
       That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship   
   and pray to their parents.   
      
   >>It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but   
   the   
   >>first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.   
   >>   
   >>>>and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife   
   >>>>that's probably even better from his pov.   
   >>>   
   >>>No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's   
   >>>there.   
   >>   
   >>    It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone   
   >>believes he does.   
   >   
   >So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not   
   >discovered?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)