XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:06:52 +0100, Les Hellawell  wrote:   
   .   
   >Divers persons wrote:   
   >   
   >>>  You believe divine miracles have happened,   
   >>>that makes it YOUR burden to provide proof of   
   >>>them.   
   >>   
   >>    Those who believe there's always a different reason have no less burden   
   of   
   >>proof to provide THEIR explanation. They just are totally incapable of making   
   >>any attempt to support their belief.   
   >   
   >Extraordinary claims of things that cannot happen in nature require   
   >extraordinary evidence amounting to proof beyond reasonable doubt   
   >whilst claims of events happening within the normal bounds of nature   
   >do not require anything near like as much evidence given it is   
   >something we know can happen.   
   >   
   >As Conan Doyle once remarked, Once you have eliminated the impossbile,   
   >(whch includes events that cannot  happen in nature)   
      
       I believe it's more likely than not that there are beings who have   
   influence   
   in star systems they're not native to. I have no reason to put faith in the   
   possibility that none of them have had or have influence here, because no one   
   has ever given me good reason to put faith in it.   
      
   >whatever remains,   
   >however improbably must be the answer.   
      
       You've done nothing more than let me know your guess is that there's no   
   type   
   of God or gods associated with Earth, and you have faith that your guess is   
   correct. I consider that possibility also, but have no faith at all in it being   
   correct.   
      
   >Thus if there are two possible explanations for an event, one based on   
   >'miracles' (god-did-it) and one based on the normal workings of nature   
   >then the latter, if viable,  should be the one accepted everytime   
   >pending further invetigation. An explanation that fits within the   
   >bounds of nature and is viable is self proving in basics if not in   
   >detail. Which means that if we produce a viable explanation  it   
   >automatically over turns the miraculous one - even it is not   
   >the actual explanation  for the event - simply because it brings the   
   >event within the bounds of the possible in nature for one   
   >reason or another thus elminating un-natural.   
      
       My impression is that there probably are beings who can be considered gods   
   in some places in the universe, and the things they do are by "the normal   
   workings of nature". That includes any God or gods associated with this planet,   
   if there are any.   
      
   >Thus Darwin has produced a viable explanantion for how we   
   >got to be the way we are now (how we evolved)  He may have been wrong   
   >in some of the details but basically it is a viable explanation  that   
   >is within the normal workings of nature and more than suffcient to   
   >overturn an extraordinary  claim some god did it.   
   >   
   >To continue to insist that some god did it when there is a perfectly   
   >good natural explanation is perverse, stupid and pig-headed   
      
       If there is a God associated with Earth then it seems pretty obvious that   
   he   
   made/makes use of the evolutionay method of creation. That's a VERY basic   
   starting line that atheists can't get as "far" as.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)