skyeyes wrote:

Everfresh wrote:

You have evidence there is no God? Please, share it.

Don't be daft, O Insistent One. One can't prove a negative (in this
case, nonexistence), and if you had an ounce of sense, you'd know that.

I beg to differ. There is no metaphysical reason or logical constraint
on proving a negative. It need only be the sort of thing which is
expected to leave evidence. For example, it is a trivial task to prove
there is no elephant in my house. Proving that there is no God of
Abraham as Jerry Falwell understands him requires more work, but it has
been done already, as the incidental side-effect of those generations
of scientists and historians who have gathered various kinds of
evidence for other reasons. There has been no global flood, no special
creation of humankind; Earth is about 4.55 billion years old; there was
no Tower of Babel, etc. When discussing the God who was taught in the
Sunday School *I attended as a child, there is ample proof that the
evidence we would expect is not there, or is even contradicted by the
evidence which is.

OTOH, if one is a theist who sees the older myths as allegorical
teaching stories rather than science texts, or a Deist who postulates
a "stand back and watch" creator, then no, we can't establish they
don't exist.

And why would we want to?

But *you* don't have any evidence *for* the existence of any god, and
you damn well know that - that's why you're trying to shift the burden
of proof.

I was answering Vic's question about why you hate science. We weren't
discussing the existence of God.

We can, of course, if you have any evidence that such a thing exists.

Please, give me any rational alternative cause for our result.

By "our result," I take it you mean the fact that we exist? We're a
natural organism that evolved in a natural ecosystem, and therefore we
"fit" into that ecosystem. (Had the ecosystem been different, we'd be
different, too.) We've got lots of other natural organisms for company.
Why does any of this need supernatural explanation? (Aside from the
fact that you personally want one, that is.)

Please, describe why forensic science sees a dead body and doesn't say, "This doesn't
suggest a crime occurred."

You're casting far afield to make your point, and doing it none too
clearly, I must say. However, it's perfectly possible for a forensic
scientist to look at a dead body and not think a crime ocurred. There
are many natural causes of death, you know. Not everyone dies from
having been murdered.

You really need to communicate more clearly if you want to make a
point.

Please explain how science sees a plant and says, "This doesn't mean there was a seed."

I'm guessing at your meaning here, as your writing is incomprehensible.
What does the fact that most plants require seeds to reproduce have to
do with anything? What seed did your god grow from?

(But actually, yes, there are ways that certain plants can propogate
themselves without seeds. You need to take a science course, Mr.
Minister. You know, try to actually *learn* some science, before you
start arguing about why it's wrong?)

Explain scietifically (not in terms of belief) how a universe comes to be without >being made.

Explain scientifically (not in terms of belief) how a super-complex
being, one capable of creating an entire universe, comes to be without
being made.

If a god can exist without having been created, then so can the
universe.

It's not only possible, but also entirely probable, that the universe
has *always* existed in some form or another, whether condensed into an
infinitely dense, unimaginably hot point, or as one point on the
membrane of a multiverse. There's no need for it to have ever "not
existed."

Thomas Paine (critic of Christianity) said atheists were fools to believe there is no >prime mover.

Thomas Paine was a famous atheist, but he frequently spoke within the
framework of Deism, which was the popular explanation of the universe
in his day. They didn't have the data that they have today; the only
thing they could think of was, a supernatural entity musta dunnit. I'd
like to see Paine's exact quote, if you don't mind. Since you say he
said this, it's up to you to provide the supporting quote and the
reference work you got it out of.

Anyway, even if Paine was a stone believer, what difference would that
make? It would still be just one man's opinion, and one without any
data backing it up, at that. What, are we expected to drop quaking to
our knees at the mention of the great Tom Paine?

Newsflash, lambchop: were Tom Paine alive today, he'd be on *our*
side.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

Kermit