"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vjvui2le00fcrsqbbbgodqrqdpjq0rovvh@4ax.com...

Which is fine with me. I don't object to Christians who rely on faith
alone. I do object when they claim they have evidence.

"evidence" for what? Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16). What
evidence do you need for believing love exists?

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vjvui2le00fcrsqbbbgodqrqdpjq0rovvh@4ax.com...

Which is fine with me. I don't object to Christians who rely on faith
alone. I do object when they claim they have evidence.

"evidence" for what? Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16). What
evidence do you need for believing love exists?

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:9cqqi29jtl9n86i2f8mt4ekjjsb0952hao@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:04:45 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<iK7Xg.41546$tT6.36888@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:

When I gave a someone my professional opinion of what I
thought was the best course of treatment for his particular
problem, he was under no obligation to go along with my
assessment. And if he chose to dispute this, he could find
another dentist or live with his problem. I have no obligation
to debate the issue with him. I feel exactly the same way
about this.

Are you a professionally able to distinguish between items that were
created by superintelligent agents and items that arose through natural
processes?

If Intelligence is embedded in nature, you cannot separate the
intelligent from the natural, for they are the same.

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:n7npi2t9qgr9pks7hkk90lee09le99db40@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:54:09 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<6G%Wg.41420$tT6.6798@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:

Repost

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:qtpdi2hihkci12nugkiuqra1h368a8sg5a@4ax.com...

...

There is none. Direct or indirect. Nothing suggests it. The only
reason to come up with one, is one's religious belief which makes it
a
presumption not a conclusion. The information simply isn't there to
derive it.

This is more like it Chris - no insults. But I was indifferent to the
matter of religion until I accidentally came across an article in
a magazine about an meeting in 1973 in Krakow, Poland where
many top scientist came together is a series of symposis honoring
the 500th birthday of Copernicus. Some of the attendees were:
John Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Martin Rees,
Brandon Carter. So in my case this article sparked my interest
in astronomy, the origins of the Universe, life etc. I was an
evolution and nothing I've read has changed this fact. I'm still
convinced that the evidence for change over vast spans of time
is unassailable. But the evidence presented by Brandon Carter
and vastly expanded by other scientist convinces me that there
is indeed indirrect evidence for a superintelligent agent. God
is a generic term for this agent. - Thanks Chris.

That's not very persuasive. Yes, the universe is wondrous and we find
that we behold it in awe. The problem with this is that both the god
that is being defined really is no more than 'all the wonderful things
we don't know yet' and ignorance is still not evidence.
It's easy to claim there is (undefined) evidence for a (undefined) God
particularly if you say it is (undefined) indirect evidence. That tells
us a lot about your rigor in philosophy and the use of words, but
nothing about your religious beliefs. It's no more useful than having an
atheist say that "God does not play dice with the universe."

More atheists BS, Lunch? You keep ignoring facts to bolster your atheist
fantasies. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and love and care
don't need defining, for we all recognise them on sight. Furthermore,
loving and caring is a free choice one makes, or not makes. Atheist
paranoia precludes love and care. See below

Pastor Frank

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:n7npi2t9qgr9pks7hkk90lee09le99db40@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:54:09 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<6G%Wg.41420$tT6.6798@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:

Repost

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:qtpdi2hihkci12nugkiuqra1h368a8sg5a@4ax.com...

...

There is none. Direct or indirect. Nothing suggests it. The only
reason to come up with one, is one's religious belief which makes it a
presumption not a conclusion. The information simply isn't there to
derive it.

This is more like it Chris - no insults. But I was indifferent to the
matter of religion until I accidentally came across an article in
a magazine about an meeting in 1973 in Krakow, Poland where
many top scientist came together is a series of symposis honoring
the 500th birthday of Copernicus. Some of the attendees were:
John Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Martin Rees,
Brandon Carter. So in my case this article sparked my interest
in astronomy, the origins of the Universe, life etc. I was an
evolution and nothing I've read has changed this fact. I'm still
convinced that the evidence for change over vast spans of time
is unassailable. But the evidence presented by Brandon Carter
and vastly expanded by other scientist convinces me that there
is indeed indirrect evidence for a superintelligent agent. God
is a generic term for this agent. - Thanks Chris.

That's not very persuasive. Yes, the universe is wondrous and we find
that we behold it in awe. The problem with this is that both the god
that is being defined really is no more than 'all the wonderful things
we don't know yet' and ignorance is still not evidence.
It's easy to claim there is (undefined) evidence for a (undefined) God
particularly if you say it is (undefined) indirect evidence. That tells
us a lot about your rigor in philosophy and the use of words, but
nothing about your religious beliefs. It's no more useful than having an
atheist say that "God does not play dice with the universe."

More atheists BS, Lunch? You keep ignoring facts to bolster your atheist
fantasies. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and love and care
don't need defining, for we all recognise them on sight. Furthermore, loving
and caring is a free choice one makes, or not makes. Atheist paranoia
precludes love and care. See below

Pastor Frank

Jesse Nowells <jnowells@transbay.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.31.0206032108460.20792-100000@localhost...

***** love. Love *can* make you weak & stupid.

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:gu0ei252nc6kq9nq3kq18pklfff04eae1i@4ax.com...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 21:31:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<SrDVg.19101$vi3.18513@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:qtpdi2hihkci12nugkiuqra1h368a8sg5a@4ax.com...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:31:56 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<vNtVg.18466$vi3.14842@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:05hci2p2jhq12ercmi7j2f4scu71icht66@4ax.com...

...

No, it is not. Methodoligical naturalism which among other things
refuses to invent supernatural beings as an explanation for

observation has nothing to do with gods or with faith. It is not a
philosophy, people who adhere to any philosophy can do science if

they

follow the mechanism of science.

Do you think materalism is not more fundamental to science.
Methodological naturalism is materalism.

Not in the sense that you appear to mean. Science investigates what

can. That is the observable universe.

I'm nor disagreeing on this.

...

You may believe that there is indirect evidence, but you have to

more

than merely assert it to get others to consider why you believe.

Are you seriously interested?

I don't know. Everyone who has claimed to have evidence has managed

wave their hands and make assertions. If you actually have evidence,

am interested. If you are merely going to make unsupported claims,
gatekeeper can do that.

As I have already stated the evidence which I contend supports a
superintelligence is indirect.

Then the appropriate thing to do is point to the evidence and then
_clearly_ explain how it implies a superintelligence. Don't waste your
time on any of the Discovery Institute liars like Johnson, Dembski, or
O'Leary. They have already demonstrated that their doctrines cannot be
supported by the evidence.

Two are names I've seen, one I've read and know something about.
Dembski I've only skimmed through and read excerpts from his
works. O'Leary - I've never heard anything about him/her.

The other two men, in question are anti-evolutionist. I'm not. I
think the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. I think
the two men you referred to are persons engrossed in small
meaningless thoughts, dialogues and they are the authors of
a few insignificant books.
I don't look to them for information. I personally think God is
far more majestic and grandiose than the tinkering, meddling
god these people seem to be trying to defend. I question the
claim that their positions are predicated upon scientific
evidence. The young earth creationist I have no patience
with.
Instead I have read the evidence put forth by men of science
who are universally known and respected. Granted they have
presented voluminous amounts of evidence. But the men who
initially presented this at a symposia in Krakow, Poland in
1973 commemorating the 500th birthday of Copernicus,
choose not to interpret the evidence. They simply put forth
this unexplained information. But this has not set well with
many scientist especially secular scientist.
The interpretation of this evidence has resulted in
contentions, debates and discord within the scientific
community, science writers, philosophers, professionals
and lay people alike.