XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
      
   On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:41:53 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   .   
   >On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:05:42 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford    
   >>>wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological   
   >>>>evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a   
   >>>>logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional   
   >>>>postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical   
   >>>>limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no   
   >>>>empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded.   
   >>>   
   >>>Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence that   
   >>>any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would suggest   
   >>>that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.   
   >>   
   >>     WHAT sort of evidence/proof do you think there should be, WHERE do   
   >>     you think   
   >> it should be, WHY do you think he should provide it, and WHEN do you   
   >> think he should provide or should have provided it if there is a God   
   >> associated with Earth?   
   >   
   >The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that your supposed   
   >god character exists.   
      
       There is none and it makes sense that there is not. That's one of the basic   
   starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)