XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:43:09 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >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, it is absurd to imply that non-material evidence exists.   
      
   >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:   
      
   Does Jack Frost design ice patterns?   
      
   >"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-fundamen   
   alist-manifesto.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)