Re: REVIEW: _Religious_

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:Misc-
501C7D.07441013092008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <Xns9B1859313A4DBgoddardbenetscapenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You're making an assumption that God exists.

No, the evidence points toward His existence. That makes my
model superior to yours, which explains away the evidence.

<tee hee>

The great part about this argument is...

"No, the evidence points toward His non-existence. That makes my model
superior to yours, which attempts to defy the evidence."

You might have a point if someone can cite some actual evidence
that God doesn't exist. But I doubt they can.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
    ... the evidence points toward His existence. ... model superior to yours, ... unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
    ... Bart Goddard wrote: ... the evidence points toward His existence. ... model superior to yours, ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
    ... Bart Goddard wrote: ... the evidence points toward His existence. ... model superior to yours, ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: REVIEW: _Religious_
    ... Bart Goddard wrote: ... the evidence points toward His existence. ... model superior to yours, ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: A Challenge to My Fellow Creationists
    ... I'm suspecting a basic difference in epistemology here, such that you wouldn't accept my basis for considering something evidence, and I wouldn't accept yours. ... you can't demonstrate the existence of 'the past.' ... Also, how and why is it different from the beliefs of various Christians who believe the same thing, but also believe in time and evolution? ... Is such practice a form of empiricism? ...
    (talk.origins)