XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:54:57 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
      
   >Le 2014-06-26 16:59, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >The way I see it, that «god» thingy can do whatever it wants. Including   
   >whatever anyone would want it to do.   
      
       If you believe that if God actually does exist you believe he "should" do   
   whatever you ask him to do, immediately, and every time you ask him to do   
   something, then say so directly so we can quote you on it. If you think it   
   "should be" some variation of that then try explaining how.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)