XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:55:53 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 11-January-2015 12:30 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:53:28 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 11-January-2015 5:11 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:49:22 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>> ..   
   >>>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:48:47 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:35:21 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:15:38 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:23:45 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:26 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>>>>>      No. If there is a designer then it's pretty obvious that he   
   made use of the   
   >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary method of developing life on this planet, even though   
   we can't jump   
   >>>>>>>>>> in the "lab" with him and see exactly how he went about making it   
   take place.   
   >>>>>>>>>> That's one of the basic starting lines atheists are unable to get   
   as "far" as.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Can you?   
   >>>>>>>>> Show us your evidence that a designer did something. As far as I can   
   >>>>>>>>> tell, your argument is that science is right, but that you want to   
   add a   
   >>>>>>>>> designer that you have absolutely no evidence for, a designer that is   
   >>>>>>>>> indistinguishable from nothing   
   >>>>>>>>      Yet WE have no reason to believe the proof you demand should be   
   available to   
   >>>>>>>> humans, much less do any of us have any idea what you're imaginig it   
   should be,   
   >>>>>>>> or where it should be, or why it should be available to us, or when   
   it should   
   >>>>>>>> have been or should be made available. Your supposed criticism means   
   NOTHING,   
   >>>>>>>> and you can't even pretend it does mean anything as you consistently   
   prove every   
   >>>>>>>> time you're challenged on it.   
   >>>>>>> I never demand proof. I ask for evidence.   
   >>>>>>      YOU ARE evidence.   
   >>>>> You keep making that foolish claim. Repeating it ten thousand times will   
   >>>>> not make it true.   
   >>>>       Pointing out that I keep pointing it out won't make the fact stop   
   being   
   >>>> true. Nothing will or can make it stop being true, in fact.   
   >>> his claim that it's untrue (whether it is or not) does not make it   
   >>> untrue, just as his claim of 'no evidence' for God does not make any   
   >>> evidence disappear!   
   >> My claim is that your religious claims are all unsubstantiated. They are   
   >> empty, meaningless nonsense.   
   >   
   >no, you have claimed repeatedly that there is absolutely NO evidence for   
   >God. care to retract that?   
      
   Why would I retract my claim?   
      
   If you had any evidence for your deity, you would have presented it to   
   me long ago. You have never presented any evidence that your deity or   
   any other deity exists. I would be a fool to retract a statement of fact   
   when it is accurate.   
      
   There is no evidence that any deity exists, not even the one you hope   
   exists.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)