XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:10:01 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 13:11:33 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >How could a creator create without interacting in the universe in which   
   >it creates?   
      
       WHAT sort of interactions do you think there should have been or should be,   
   WHERE do you think the interactions should have been or should be, WHY do you   
   think evidence of them should be available to humans on Earth, WHEN do you   
   think   
   it should be or should have been made available? So far it appears VERY CLEAR   
   that no one including YOU has any idea at all what you want people to think you   
   think you're trying to talk about.   
      
   >>>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)