XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: sylvia@not.at.this.address   
      
   On 19/09/2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:54:14 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   > wrote:   
   > .   
   >> On 14/09/2014 1:57 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:14:54 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>> Le 2014-09-10 14:47, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>        Would they be able to post at all?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What lies?   
   >>>   
   >>>       All of them. Of course the biggest is that there's no evidence for   
   God's   
   >>> existence, when if there really was no evidence there would be nothing for   
   >>> anyone to believe in.   
   >>   
   >> The alternative possibility is that people believe despite the absence   
   >> of evidence.   
   >>   
   >> As an argument for the existence of God, it really doesn't work. It just   
   >> leaves open the question of why people believe.   
   >   
   >      If there really was no evidence there would be nothing for them to   
   believe.   
      
   If you believe that, I'm forced to ask you what the evidence is for it?   
      
   Generally, all that's required is to conceive of something to believe,   
   and then believe it. Evidence is an optional extra.   
      
   Sylvia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)