XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:48:23 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:   
   .   
   >On 10/6/2014 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 07-October-2014 10:49 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:27:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 9/28/2014 9:05 PM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:10:14 -0500, Free Lunch   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:35 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:27:00 -0600, Uergil  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In article , mur@.not.   
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Most that I've encountered try to claim they have no belief. Not   
   >>>>>>>>> believing   
   >>>>>>>>> any gods exist can mean having no belief, or it could mean   
   >>>>>>>>> believing no gods   
   >>>>>>>>> exist. Even after making it clear they believe no gods exist   
   >>>>>>>>> many atheists   
   >>>>>>>> Most atheists only SUSPECT that no gods exist   
   >>>>>>>      No place(s) in the entire universe? Or just none associated   
   >>>>>>> with this planet   
   >>>>>>> or star system?   
   >>>>>> There are zero gods that are supported by evidence.   
   >>>>>       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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Science is materialist, thus limited and confined to natural occurrence   
   >>>> and natural entities made up of matter, thus the scientific method has   
   >>>> no capability to examine and study the unnatural; therefore there can be   
   >>>> no solid, empirical evidence for Deity, since Deity does not consist of   
   >>>> matter.   
   >>> So you are objecting that science doesn't accept bullshit that people   
   >>> make up and attribute to some god or other.   
   >>   
   >> you assume that ppl are making up stuff. how can you be sure that any   
   >> testimony regarding experiences of/with/from God is not about real   
   >> experiences? you can't. all you have is your belief. that is ALL you have.   
   >>   
   >A few people have problems with the ancient concept of eternity. The   
   >issue isn't whether the concept is fact or not. Because for thousands of   
   >years, both Christians and Jews have maintained the belief that God is   
   >eternal, without beginning or end. So, for a Christian the query   
   >who created God is an irrational question which indicates an absence of   
   >knowledge regarding that which they presume to be challenging.   
      
       When you get down to that issue it's no less or more fantastic a concept   
   whether God had anything to do with the creation of the universe or not. To say   
   he always existed is a copout I don't accept. To say the matter in the universe   
   always existed is similar from my pov. It seems most likely to me the matter   
   came first, but how and from where? The same is true for the energy. If the   
   universe is going through cycles of expansion and contraction then the same   
   matter and energy could have existed in varying conditions through a number of   
   different cycles, but still it had to come into existence at some point   
   somehow.   
   If God came into existence at some point in these cycles and developed the   
   ability to influence the cycles themselves then that's a realistic, way we   
   could   
   feel that he "created" the universe, but it brings up many more questions and   
   details to consider which are all far beyond the reckonings of people who can't   
   consider the possibility of God's existence in any realistic way at all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)