XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
      
   On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:05:01 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   .   
   >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   
   >>   
   >>    YOU again revealed yourself as a liar.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   >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.   
   >   
   >You have yet to provide any verifiable evidence for your supposed god   
   >character.   
      
       If there is a God associated with this planet it's obvious he's not going   
   to   
   provide any. If there's any possibility of a nice afterlife that's probably an   
   aspect of "thinning the herd".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)