XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: catpainmerca@gmail.com   
      
   On 08/07/2014 17:02, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:17:24 +0100, Catpain Merca   
   >  wrote: .   
   >> On 02/07/2014 16:27, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:41:18 +0100, Catpain Merca   
   >>>  wrote: .   
   >>>> On 26/06/2014 21:59, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:17:37 +0100, Catpain Merca   
   >>>>>  wrote: .   
   >>>>>> On 24/06/2014 16:05, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>> For how long have atheists been begging for and   
   >>>>>>> demanding "evidence" of The Great Wallaby of Frink'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.   
   >>>>>> (with laughter)   
   >>>>>>> When challenged to explain WHY it "should be" to Great   
   >>>>>>> Wallaby of Frink'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.   
   >>>>>> You think so?   
   >>>>>>> It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire   
   >>>>>>> group of atheists none of their small minds can answer   
   >>>>>>> these questions,   
   >>>>>> (not our job)   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> We've seen you don't   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Life itself is evidence.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Material life is not evidence for supernatural agencies or   
   >>>> entities.   
   >>>   
   >>> Try to get this far and then see if you can move on from there:   
   >>>   
   >>> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from   
   >>> magic." - Arthur C. Clarke   
   >> God the mechanic is not a refutation of my assertion.   
   >   
   > Then what do you think you're trying to talk about?   
   >   
   >>>>> All accepted miracles are evidence.   
   >>>> Accepted by whom?  Invariably when pressed for a miracle which   
   >>>> can be subjected to scrutiny, all that is offered is poor   
   >>>> evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> Things which occur and appear to be miracles are poor evidence   
   >>> that they occur?   
   >> Things which are recounted from persons of unknowable veracity and   
   >>  ability are poor evidence.  Which is more likely, that the   
   >> physical laws of the universe were temporarily suspended or that   
   >> some witnesses either got it wrong or lied?   
   >   
   > If God exists I've no reason to doubt he performs "miracles" to   
   > demonstrate his existence to some people. If he doesn't exist then   
   > all reported miracles are wrong.   
   There you go then, matter settled. No significant evidence of miracles,   
   negligible one might say.   
      
   > Even if he does exist and performs miracles, I've no doubt some of   
   > the reports of miracles are incorrect. I also have no doubt that some   
   > people lie deliberately, and others got it wrong. I can consider the   
   > things that you can, but I can go on and consider things that you   
   > can't.   
   >   
   >> Miracles require the strongest of evidence.  Feel free to supply   
   >> such evidence now to the scientific community.   
   Miracles require the strongest of evidence.  Feel free to supply   
   such evidence now to the scientific community.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> If the situation were otherwise, we would see significant   
   >>>> parts of the scientific community dedicated to investigation of   
   >>>> such phenomena. In other words very fucking poor evidence,   
   >>>> negligible in fact.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> All miracles> recorded in the Bible are evidence.   
   >>>> Very fucking poor evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's no way you could know that.   
   >> If there is strong evidence it's startling that the scientific   
   >> community is not significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong   
   >> evidence to the scientific community and we can go from there.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> All saints are evidence.   
   >>>> Very fucking poor evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's no way you could know that either.   
   >> If there is strong evidence it's startling that the scientific   
   >> community is not significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong   
   >> evidence to the scientific community and we can go from there.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> All medical miracles are evidence.   
   >>>> Very fucking poor evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's SURE no way you could know that.   
   >> If there is strong evidence it's startling that the scientific   
   >> community is not significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong   
   >> evidence to the scientific community and we can go from there.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.   
   >>>> Evidence only of wishful thinking and gullibility.   
   >>>   
   >>> I must wonder if you're stupid enough to believe that, or if   
   >>> you're really not that stupid.   
   >> I'm not gullible enough to believe without evidence that prayers   
   >> are answered.  If there is strong evidence that prayer is   
   >> effective it's startling that the scientific community is not   
   >> significantly pursuing it.  Provide strong evidence to the   
   >> scientific community and we can go from there.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you   
   >>>>> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to   
   >>>>> God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I neither know nor care.   
   >>>   
   >>> Then you have nothing at all. That's what this thread is about,   
   >>> btw.   
   >>>   
   >> Disingenuous cretin that you are, here's the bit you snipped.   
   >> Find that harder to deal with did you? > reinstated> I've already said he's a figment of your imagination.   
   >> Purport some testable qualities for your figment and let them be   
   >> tested.   
   I've already said he's a figment of your imagination.  Purport some   
   testable qualities for your figment and let them be tested.   
   >   
   > In what ways do you think they should be tested, and which of those   
   > tests do you think have not been done? Why not?   
   I've just left you with the problem of how you're going to demonstrate   
   the existence of your purported supernatural entity.  Don't try handing   
   it back to me.   
   >   
   > What of the tests that have been done? What do you think the results   
   > should be if God does exist, and why?   
   I've just left you with the problem of how you're going to demonstrate   
   the existence of your purported supernatural entity.  Don't try handing   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)