"Ken Rode" <karode@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:fgtjls$93a$1@
There is no evidence for the non-existence of God, as I have explained to
you previously, Ray.
Frankly, I don't know why you bother with this worthless loon; but I do need
to point out something about the sentence quoted above. For the fact is that
the 'God' concept so desperately endorsed by Ray and his demented ilk is so
*utterly vacuous* that your statement needs to be qualified. While there
may, strictly speaking, be 'no evidence' for the non-existence of 'God -
Version CE 2007', there is actually **plenty** of evidence for the *absolute
and undeniable* non-existence of 'God - Version BCE 1300'. What one needs to
consider here is that *as knowledge advances*, one era's imaginary 'God'
*mutates* into some new imaginary form that 'just so happens' to be *immune
to the latest level of ungainsayable disproof*. In the time of Moses, for
example, 'God' had a voice, a pair of visible buttocks, and made an audible
sound when he walked. By contrast, in the time of Feynman and Hawking -- of
sub-atomic particles and astrophysics -- a primitive tribal goat-herder
totem of that kind is *idiotically unbelievable* -- therefore 'God' *now*
has to be something that is located "outside time and space, as the
precondition of everything's existing, and as an agency not amenable to
proof or testing". *How very fucking convenient*...
M.
.
|
