XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: smiler@jo.king   
      
   On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:04:37 -0400, mur 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.   
   >>   
   >>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 are leprechauns associated with this planet it's obvious they're   
   not going to provide any.   
      
   It's obvious that your supposed god character is no more real than   
   leprechauns, except in your deluded mind.   
      
   > If there's any possibility of a nice afterlife that's   
   > probably an aspect of "thinning the herd".   
      
   Another unevidenced assertion. Why should I believe it?   
      
   --   
   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)