From: stumper 

Syd wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:32 pm, stumper  wrote:
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:06:28 -0400, in alt.atheism
>>> stumper  wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:07:54 -0400, in alt.atheism
>>>>> stumper  wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Jaime G wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
,
>>>>>>>  stumper  wrote:
>>>>>>>> How do you know that you are not being
deceived every time?
>>>>>>> If results are predictable, then one is hardly
being deceived.
>>>>>> What makes you think
>>>>>> the world has to be so regular and coherent?
>>>>> Observation shows that it is.
>>>> The other way around.
>>>> It cannot but appear that way
>>>> because we are assuming the physical world
>>>> to be regular and coherent to make it predictable.
>>> What? The observations are consistent.
>>>> There is no way to prove that
>>>> the physical world is actually that way everywhere.
>>> So what? Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence.
>>>> We already have some reasons to believe
>>>> that is not the case in quantum physics.
>>> But no other.
>>>> There is absolutely no reason to assume that
>>>> God should exist physically as well as spiritually.
>>> There is absolutely no evidence to support any claims about any gods,
>>> even the one you are trying to sell.
>> Have you ever fallen in love with anyone?
>>
>> --
>> ~Stumper
>
> "Ever fallen in love with someone, ever fallen in love with someone,
> ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have.."
>
> PDW, who's guitar is in the shop..
>

God is everything there ever was, is, will be, and some more. Do we still
need to prove God's existence?

--
~Stumper

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag