From: "Rudy Canoza" 

On Mar 26, 11:50 am, duke  wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:53:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza
 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you keep referring to a
god when you have yet to prove one
even
> >>>>>>>>> exists?
> >>>>>>>> It's only logical.
> >>>>>>> Not an answer.
> >>>>>> You can't refute it.
> >>>>> There is nothing to refute.  Just another evasion.
> >>>> It's your funeral.  Enjoy it if you can.
> >>> Another pathetic attempt at intimidation that is supposed to
> >>> substitute for an actual response.
> >>> It doesn't.
> >> You ask me to prove God exists.  I can't.
> >Of course you can't.
>
> That's what **I** said.

Right.  But if you really had "evidence", then you could at least
potentially "prove" the existence.  But you admit you can't.

> >> All evidence demands his existence.
> >No, it doesn't.  In fact, the evidence doesn't point to
> >it at all.
>
> ALL evidence does.

NO evidence does.  You just find it pleasing, emotionally, to believe in it.


> >> It's only logical.
> >It's completely illogical.  It's a wild,
> >unsubstantiated leap of faith, a leap you made because
> >of ignorance and superstition.
>
> Can you show me evidence that God doesn't exist?

Can you show me evidence there isn't a flying miniature pink elephant
hovering right behind your head this instant?

The burden of proof is *ALWAYS* on the person making the positive
assertion.  You assert, "god exists".  The burden of proof is on
you to support your assertion.  You can't, at least not using evidence and
logic.  You *admit* you can't.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag