XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:20:53 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
      
   >In article , mur.@.not.   
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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",   
   >   
   >Something objective and verifiable. How many times do you have to be   
   >told that?   
      
       No one has any idea including you. Apparently you wish you could fool   
   people   
   into thinking you have some idea, but as you try to create the impression that   
   you do the fact that you don't is also revealed and you make it clear you have   
   no idea. No one has any idea what sort of evidence you people think you're   
   trying to talk about...not those of you who demand it, and not those of us you   
   demand it from. NO ONE has any idea what you people think you're trying to talk   
   about, and NO ONE can even pretend that they do.   
      
   >> and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for   
   >> him   
   >> to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >   
   >To prove it's not a lie made up by human beings.   
      
       You need to explain WHY you think that should be to God's benefit. As yet   
   there doesn't seem to be any reason at all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)