XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:30:27 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   .   
   >Le 2014-06-24 11:05, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>      For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of   
   >> God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged to   
   try to   
   >> explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they can't even   
   >> address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed   
   evidence   
   >> "should be" they again are helpless. When challenged to explain WHY it   
   "should   
   >> be" to God's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no clue at all   
   what   
   >> they think they think, or even what they want other people to think they   
   think   
   >> they think. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of   
   >> atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, nor can they   
   as a   
   >> group figure out what they think they're trying to talk about. Why is it   
   sad?   
   >> Because it would be interesting to learn what they thought they were trying   
   to   
   >> talk about IF they had any idea themselves. We've seen that they don't.   
   >   
   >It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to   
   >believe in «god».   
      
       It's not unreasonable to want to know what sort of evidence people think   
   there should be, or where they think it should be, or why they think it should   
   be to God's benefit to provide it. They just don't have any idea. The failure   
   isn't in asking them what they think there should be...the failure is in them   
   having no idea what they think there should be. Especially since it's obvious   
   that if God does exist he doesn't feel that it's best to provide proof that he   
   does. Yet! Maybe at some other points in time. Maybe he felt is was good to   
   provide proof enough for people to write cannonical texts centuries ago, and   
   possibly more proof at some point in the future, but not at the present time.   
   In   
   fact if he does exist it seems fairly obvious that that's how it is. So it's   
   not   
   unreasonable to ask people how they think it should be different instead. They   
   just don't have any idea how they think it should be different instead, and   
   they're all consistently proving it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)