XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.philosophy, sci.logic   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
   From: Esque"@gmail.com   
      
   On 5/12/2016 8:19 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 May 2016 00:54:35 -0400, "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 4/30/2016 10:47 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 05:52:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >> [snip]   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The   
   >>> [snip]   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins   
   are   
   >>>> really just gods?   
   >>>   
   >>>     Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to   
   something   
   >>> so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may   
   have   
   >>> made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of   
   developing   
   >>> the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god   
   like.   
   >>>   
   >>>> The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow   
   how   
   >>>> those false statistical claims were made?   
   >>>   
   >>>     Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the   
   >>> evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your   
   escape is   
   >>> then just do it.   
   >>>   
   >>>> As far as medical miracles,  those are the results of hard working   
   doctors,   
   >>>   
   >>>     Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility   
   with all   
   >>> their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no   
   reason   
   >>> to at all.   
   >>>   
   >>>> not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.   
   >>>   
   >>>     The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this   
   planet   
   >>> if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally   
   capable of   
   >>> "thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron   
   level,   
   >>> or at "best" a severely retarded level.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Last there are no accepted miracles.   
   >>>   
   >>>     Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Only folkish and stupid people that   
   >>>> out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.   
   >>>   
   >>>     You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"   
   >>> regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.   
   >>>   
   >> It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in   
   >> the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist   
   >   
   >     He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing   
   that   
   > shows how unrealistic a person's  "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any   
   place   
   > not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to   
   ridicule   
   > that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they   
   feel   
   > that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.   
    >   
   Right, just above the clouds. But not too high since the air would be   
   too rarefied to breath.   
   >   
   >> and   
   >> where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or   
   >> theology.   
   >   
   > 4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he   
   > could not provide proof of his existence because doing   
   > so would change things too much.   
    >   
   Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life   
   is could be a trial run.   
   >   
   >> Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is   
   >> there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the   
   >> Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is   
   >> scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence   
   >> for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.   
   >> This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious   
   >> material.   
   >>   
   >> Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed   
   >> just about everything known about the atom is through indirect   
   >> evidence.   
   >> We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.   
   >> Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular   
   >> fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god   
   >> particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is   
   >> only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks   
   >> in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by   
   >> a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is   
   >> indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a   
   >> Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and   
   >> astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by   
   >> the existence of  homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the   
   >> animal kingdom..   
   >   
   >     That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.   
   >   
   Don't know what this means.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)