XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:23:32 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:
.
>mur@.not. wrote in news:79kr2adbktl5d8aj73gk42h5d3b2lkeasb@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:13:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman 
>> wrote: .
>>>mur@.not. wrote in news:s0ch2ah293hbq8c5437hn8kl4l67dtg8b5@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:29:36 +0100, grabber  wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>>On 28/09/2014 11:23, Malte Runz wrote:
>>>>>> "grabber"  skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>> news:CAEVv.595807$7b1.280829@fx01.am4...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I don't think there's a disagreement between you
>>>>>>> [felix_unger] and Malte about whether that material represents
>>>>>>> good grounds in believing in Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe there's a huge disagreement.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see any sign that it's anything more than a "huge
>>>>>disagreement" about the definition of "evidence".
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you think that felix thinks there are good grounds for believing
>>>>>in Nessie? I haven't seen anything that gives us a clue that he does
>>>>>(nor that he doesn't), because he resolutely refuses talk about
>>>>>that, or indeed anything that would be a move away from his
>>>>>favourite activity of disputing the definition of "evidence".
>>>>>
>>>>>> f_u regards any and every kind of
>>>>>> hearsay as evidence:
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course he does, because he thinks that all kinds of hearsay are
>>>>>included in his beloved definition, which is all he is interested in
>>>>>debating. If you could get him to talk about the circumstances in
>>>>>which he thinks hearsay might or might not be considered adequate
>>>>>grounds for believing something, then you might actually get
>>>>>somewhere. But I predict that you will never be able to get him to
>>>>>discuss this.
>>>>
>>>>     Here's a challenge that has defeated every atheist who has been
>>>>     presented
>>>> with it so far. See if you can be the first to give a respectable
>>>> reply to it:
>>>>
>>>>     Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should
>>>>     be", WHERE you
>>>> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's
>>>> benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>    Change the term "God's" to "Santa's" and you might
>>>see how silly your question is.
>>
>>     The fact that atheists don't have any idea how to attempt to meet
>>     the
>> challenge shows how "silly" their demand is.
>
>
>      What "challenge"?

    The one that defeats every one of you, including you, to the point that not
one of you is able to even attempt to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think
there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should
be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists. No one has
given a respectable answer anyway. Some have suggested that God should grant
every request anyone makes to him, which is childlike and worthy of no respect
at all. Some have suggested that he should re-grow the limbs of amputees which
is in no way superior to saying he should grant every other request as well.
One
person amusingly suggested he should make a "video tape", and also that he
should leave his "footprints in the snow". Both of those are so absurd maybe
even some atheists could figure out why. So the "challenge" STILL defeats every
one of you to try to explain what you think you think you're trying to talk
about, which is disappointing because I'm very curious what the explanation
could possibly be. BUT! We have been clearly shown that there is no
explanation,
and not one of you has any idea what evidence you think should be where, or why
it should be there.

>> Not a single on of you
>> has any idea at all what evidence you think should be where or why you
>> think it should be there if God exists. One thing we know for a fact
>> to consider along with the absolute clueless position of atheists, is
>> the fact that if God does exist he doesn't want to provide us with
>> proof of his existence yet if he ever will.
>
>
>      Every stance you take to excuse "proof of
>his existence" applies to every deity in every
>religion that ever existed. What makes your faith
>any different than theirs?

    I don't have faith that there IS a God associated with Earth. If there is I
have faith that he has his own reasons for not providing the proof you people
are so obsessed over. I have faith that people have had different beliefs about
him and have referred to him in different ways. I have faith that there are
things wrong with all religious faiths and none are entirely correct. I have
faith that he is an "alien" and is technologically advanced far beyond what
humans on Earth are. Whether that's "any different than theirs" or not doesn't
matter to me. It's the position I'm in at this point in my life, and so far no
one has given me reason to put faith in the one possibility that there is no
God
associated with Earth, so I continue to consider how their could be.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)