XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:19:42 -0600, BruceS  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 09/26/2014 11:05 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:51:22 +1000, the following appeared   
   >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>   
   >>> On 20-September-2014 6:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> but then there is also belief 'caused' by evidence   
   >>   
   >> Of course. But that doesn't refute what she wrote, that   
   >> evidence isn't required for belief to exist. And it isn't;   
   >> only faith is required; evidence is just a "nice-to-have".   
   >>   
   >> BTW, the OED defines "faith" as "Strong belief in the   
   >> doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction   
   >> rather than proof".   
   >   
   >So, does the OED have anything to say about "evidence" that supports the   
   >definition as being "someone believes it" or "there's a fanciful book of   
   >fairy dust that says"?  Or maybe the OED is all stodgy and rational, and   
   >doesn't accept wishes and dreams as evidence.   
      
       Try to explain 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)