XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/7/2014 12:04 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   > On 07-October-2014 9:27 AM, R.Dean 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > atheists seem unable to appreciate the absurdity of asking for material   
   > evidence of what is non-material and rejecting any non-material evidence   
   >   
   Yes, I agree this is absurd. However, is there some _indirect_ evidence   
   which can be seen as intelligent involvement in the formation of the   
   universe and nature? There does exist, what certain scientist say   
   "appears" to be design in nature, however, you will find few, if any   
   scientist who will acknowledge this is _actual_ design. Design infers a   
   designer and so, an a priori consideration will not allow design:   
   "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an   
   apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material   
   explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying   
   to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we   
   cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". - Richard Lowontin   
   darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2005/07/darwinian-fundament   
   list-manifesto.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)