>From William T Goodall
>
> On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote:
>
> >> WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational
> >> claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith
> >> made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> >>
> >
> > Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely
> > conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence
> > of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of
> > making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you
> > consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God.
> >
> >
>
> Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming
> lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it.
>
> The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the
> universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years
> not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea.
> Case closed.
>
Isn't it part of the God design specs that you can't prove its
existence?
It has to be a faith thing, not a proof thing. You may call that a
slight
of hand, but if I was on the design team, I would call it intelligent
design. So, God is outside the normal bounds of proof, I guess that's
part of the point of being/having a God. Those of a scientific bent may
claim that's not fair, equally, those who have faith (And I am not
amongst that number) would say that it is in fact crucial and very
germane to the whole God caper.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
