XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:25:25 -0400, August Rode wrote:
.
>On 15/10/2014 7:30 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Did I demand evidence of God's existence? If so, please point out where
>I did so.
Did I say you did? Though I certainly expect that you have, I didn't claim
that you did. I pointed out what other people have done which is similar to you
asking "Why can't *direct* evidence of design be put forward?".
>You're as bad a reader as Conrad Ewing/R. Dean. We're talking
>about *design* here, not God.
You tried to pretend I made "an attempt to shift the burden of proof." Your
reaction to my pointing out the burden of others was to change the subject.
>> 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.
>
>And you won't see me make that claim.
Can you admit that there is evidence, and if so can you present any
example(s)?
>>> 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.
>
>And since I don't believe that there's a "God associated with Earth", it
>isn't my responsibility to say what evidence there ought to be for it.
>Thank you for agreeing with me.
>
>> 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.
>
>Terrific. So Christians believe something which you think is completely
>unsupported by evidence. I can live with that. If only others would say
>it as clearly as you do...
In case you really are as clueless as you're acting, I wasn't referring to
the evidence that does exist and has persuaded billions of people of God's
existence. I was referring to whatever evidence atheists are trying to imagine
they're demanding when they demand evidence since the evidence we do have
doesn't satisfy them. Are you really so clueless that you were unaware of that,
or were you dishonestly pretending to be more clueless than you actually are?
If
the latter, can you try to explain why?
>> That's one of the starting lines atheists can't get as
>> "far" as. Why can't they? What prevents them?
>
>Nonsense.
We know they can't get there because they prove it by asking for evidence.
When they ask for it they're showing they believe that if God does exist they
believe there should be some verifiable evidence of some kind somewhere for
some
reason, yet they can't imagine what it should be. There's plenty of evidence
for
God that they don't like, but they feel that if he exists there should be
something more. We can agree that their position is absurd, but they're in it
none the less even if you're ashamed of them for it and want to deny it they
STILL remain in it.
>The next question that comes along if a Christian believes
>something unsupported by any evidence whatsoever is "how do you know
>it's true?"
But you would never be in that particular position since you would never
claim there is no evidence. You agree with me that there is evidence otherwise
there would be no reason for anyone to believe God exists. At least you've
encouraged me to believe that by what you've written so far. But if you now
want
to try to disagree with yourself about some part(s) of it, then please make
your
attempt.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
