XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:23:39 -0400, mur wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:57:18 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   > .   
   >>On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:45:45 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:36:16 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:04:15 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Sat, 9 May 2015 22:02:43 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>>>On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:02:45 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Thanks for admitting that you believe in your supposed god character   
   >>>>>>without a single scrap of evidence.    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     It's obvious and even an atheist should be able to figure it out   
   >>>>>     without having to have it explained.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I've a lovely bridge that I'm trying to sell.   
   >>>   
   >>>     Provide the verifiable evidence or again be revealed as a liar by   
   >>>     your own   
   >>> ineptitude.   
   >>   
   >>You [restore] first, liar for god.[/]   
   >   
   >     YOU again revealed yourself as a liar.   
      
   You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence for your supposed god   
   character. Until you do, you remain a liar.   
      
   --   
   Smiler, The godless one.   
   aa #2279   
   Gods are all tailored to order. They are made   
   to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)