XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:05:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:55:01 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >    Lots of people believe it so it must be true?   
      
       Not from my pov.   
      
   >    Really? That is your proof?   
      
       None of you can get to that starting line. At least I haven't encountered   
   one of you who could, so that's my "proof" that none of you can get to that   
   basic starting line.   
      
   >>>>>>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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)