XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:20:04 -0600, Uergil  wrote:   
   .   
   >In article , mur.@.not.   
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >>  There's also the aspect of the lying necessary to insist there is no   
   >> evidence. The fact is that ALL evidence suggests God does exist since   
   there's   
   >> NO EVIDENCE he does not.   
   >   
   >There is no more objective evidence for your notion of godly existence   
   >than there is against the notions of existence of the many incompatible   
   >gods claimed by many other religions.   
      
       You act like if God exists there should be some of the objective evidence   
   you mentioned. So far not one of you has had a valid objection with that. You   
   need 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 to make it   
   available if he exists. Unless you can do that we will continue to have no   
   reason to believe there should be any, so not having it doesn't mean anything   
   one way or the other.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)