XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:35:54 -0500, Free Lunch wussed horribly:   
      
   >On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:06:27 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >   
   >...   
   >   
   >>I'm not interested in arguing with you and defending myself point by   
   >>point against your criticisms. my contention has always been that there   
   >>is evidence for the existence of God (just as there is evidence for   
   >   
   >Yes, that is your contention, but when you are invited to show us that   
   >evidence, you make it clear that you have no such evidence and that you   
   >know that there is no evidence that any gods exist, not even the one you   
   >capitalize. Why do you claim there is evidence when it is clear that you   
   >know there is no evidence?   
   >   
   >>Nessie, UFO's, etc.,) contrary to what (some? many?) atheists claim that   
   >>there is NO evidence. that is all I have sought to address. you're right   
   >>when you said I am not interested in the validity of the evidence,   
   >   
   >So you support the idea of presenting non-evidence at 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)