XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:01:58 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist  wrote:   
   .   
   >In article , mur.@.not.   
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >> I don't. I take it for granted that no one is able to get to the   
   >> proof you're referring to, and He doesn't feel that it's best for   
   >> what He wants to see happen for him to make it available to us.   
   >   
   >What makes you thing that if such a person would prevent all evidence of   
   >its existence   
      
       I don't believe he would have to prevent it as I already told you but you   
   don't seem able to comprehend. I believe it would be out of our reach to view   
   whatever equipment etc he made use of, as well as the being himself and any   
   beings that helped him, and he would have to deliberately make it available to   
   us and that would only be if doing so would be best for what he wants to see   
   happen, as I already explained for you.   
      
   >that there is any evidence to suppose such  person   
   >existing at all?   
      
       The fact that there are no animals in transition stages between reptiles   
   and   
   birds today is evidence that something had deliberate influence on the way   
   things evolved. The fact that there are very VERY few fossils of any such   
   creatures is also evidence.   
      
   >And what makes you Assume that if there is ay such person it is not she?   
      
       If God exists I don't believe he would be restricted to any particular form   
   or gender but refer to him as male out of convenience and because that's how   
   we're encouraged to refer to him in most if not all canonical writings.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)