XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:44:05 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 13/10/2014 7:15 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:45:16 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>> Showing that design   
   >>>>> in nature has its roots in cognition is the step that lacks a sound   
   >>>>> argument.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Naturalism may NOT be the better   
   >>>>>> explanation, nevertheless, it wins, but _only_ through default.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Supernaturalism doesn't offer any explanations, does it? If it does, how   
   >>>>> can such explanations be tested?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> First things first. Indirect evidence of design must be first,   
   >>>   
   >>> "Indirect"? Why can't *direct* evidence of design be put forward?   
   >>   
   >>      This gets down to the challenge that has defeated all atheists in   
   several   
   >> ngs to the point that none of them have been able to give a respectable   
   answer.   
   >> All they've been able to do is give a very few not at all respectable   
   answers,   
   >> but most often give dishonest excuses as to why they won't accept the   
   challenge.   
   >   
   >Poisoning the well? That's an excellent choice for an opening fallacy.   
   >   
   >> Dishonest because they COULD NOT meet the challenge even if they wanted to   
   try.   
   >> The challenge itself is simple and applies to your position now. Try to   
   explain   
   >> WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it   
   "should   
   >> be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us   
   >> with it if he exists.   
   >   
   >What you issue as a 'challenge' is actually an attempt to shift the   
   >burden of proof.   
      
       No it sure isn't. When people demand evidence of God's existence they are   
   making it known that they believe there should be some sort of evidence if he   
   does in fact exist. They're also making it known that they think it should be   
   someplace where it's available to humans on Earth, and that there should be   
   some   
   reason for God to provide it for us. By making those things known they take on   
   their own burden, which none of them are able to deal with and some--probably   
   most--even pathetically try to deny.   
      
   >While I can evaluate any evidence that is put forward,   
      
       By denying that there is any evidence atheists are showing that claim to be   
   false, though I haven't seen you personally make that particular claim yet.   
      
   >it is *not* my responsibility to say what evidence there ought to be.   
      
       It IS the responsibility of those who think it should be available if   
   there's a God associated with Earth. But since NO ONE can imagine what it   
   should   
   be, where it should be, or why it should be available, NO ONE should ever   
   expect   
   it much less demand it. That's one of the starting lines atheists can't get as   
   "far" as. Why can't they? What prevents them?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)