XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 12-January-2015 9:24 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> 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?
because it's a different claim, idiot! the claim that there is no
evidence for God is different to saying that religious claims are
unsubstantiated.
>
> 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.
I shall simply refer you to what I said to mur on 5/1/15 ..
"I don't bother with 'free'. he is such a liar. how many times have we
described here what evidence there is for God? more than a dozen times I
would think. and he just says it's not evidence, and then a bit later on
will claim that we have never presented any evidence. I refuse to give
him the satisfaction of doing it all over again."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
