XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:21:52 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:22:42 +1100, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >>On 17-November-2014 4:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:41:33 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 16-November-2014 5:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:29:45 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> but I didn't say ppl who 'believe they have had such experiences' I said   
   >>>>>> 'have had'.   
   >>>>> So they have objective evidence which shows that the   
   >>>>> experiences were real, and not simply something they believe   
   >>>>> happened? If not, how is such belief verified?   
   >>>> how could ppl prove they have had some experience of/from God?   
   >   
   >>> By having objective evidence that they did, perhaps?   
   >>   
   >>such as? this is the question that mur keeps asking. what objective   
   >>evidence would you expect to see/have that someone has had an experience   
   >>of God?   
   >   
   >Mur won't provide objective evidence because he presumably   
   >has none,   
      
       I also point out that there's no reason to believe any should be available   
   if God does exist, meaning that the absense of it means NOTHING in regards to   
   whether or not there's a God associated with this planet. You can't provide any   
   evidence that what I pointed out might not be correct.   
      
   >and tries to shift the burden of proof to his   
   >opponents;   
      
       LOL!!! You try to pretend that me challenging you to explain WHAT sort of   
   evidence YOU believe should exist WHERE, and WHY YOU believe it should be   
   available to humans if God exists is shifting a burden of proof that I somehow   
   have. HILARIOUS!!!   
      
   >don't sink to mur's level.   
      
       LOL!!! You encourage him not to "sink to" the level of pointing out what an   
   inept dishonest moron YOU are. HILARIOUS!!!!   
      
   Objective evidence is   
   >simply evidence that any disinterested observer can observe.   
      
       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.   
      
   >It's not up to anyone but the claimant to provide the   
   >evidence   
      
       I point out that there's no reason why there should be any objective   
   evidence of God's existence even if there is a God associated with this planet.   
   You can't provide any evidence that what I pointed out might not be correct.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)