XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:49:05 -0400, Vincent Maycock  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.   
   >   
   >That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about   
   >people"),   
      
       My impression is that he doesn't care about some people. What makes you   
   think he cares about every one of them?   
      
   >nor should the presence of "tricks" in God's appearances be   
   >considered the active ingredient in the viability of this   
   >evidence/proof for God's existence, nor should a sane God consider it   
   >"beneath him" to perform tricks in his appearances on TV.   
   >   
   >>If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no   
   >>doubt he could persuade you to.   
   >   
   >Right.   
   >   
   >>And if he exists and wanted everyone in general   
   >>to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too.   
   >   
   >True.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >There's nothing that great about the way things are right now;   
      
       So you have faith that this is the worst body in our star system because   
   the   
   conditions are greater on all the others. I don't, but if you can defend your   
   faith then please try to.   
      
   >an   
   >omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.   
      
       I believe omnipotence is not possible. Why do you believe it is?   
      
   >>>>>>>>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   
   >   
   >If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,   
   >I would probably say the same thing, yes.   
      
       From your superior position how would instruct God to make his particular   
   "footprints" verifiable to you, so you could verify them to the rest of   
   humanity?   
      
   >>even though   
   >>you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.   
   >   
   >Why do you leave footprints in the snow when you go out?  Or do you   
   >carefully destroy all evidence that you were there, the way this   
   >supposed God does?   
      
       How do you know he walked in snow and when, where and why he did 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.   
   >   
   >That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God;   
      
       What gives you faith that omnipotence is even possible and not a gross   
   exaggeration?   
      
   >and one would think   
   >if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not   
   >exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.   
      
       What gives you faith he's *pretending to not exist*?   
      
   >>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.   
   >   
   >Only trivially more slave-like.   
      
       You wouldn't have the freedom you have.   
      
   >There shouldn't be a whole of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)