XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:55:00 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>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.
Show me.
>> 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)
|
