POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Getting Kenned Ham, without paying. : Re: Getting Kenned Ham, without paying. Server Time
18 Oct 2024 10:22:11 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Getting Kenned Ham, without paying.  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 11 Dec 2007 01:46:15
Message: <MPG.21c7dffe87a5ac4898a0b2@news.povray.org>
In article <web.475e186d922777ebd8f74b370@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > require, at
> > bare minimum, that even one tiny fragment of evidence could be applied
> > to at least on "god", for the idea that any such god exists, or more to
> > the point, that *their* god exists? lol
> 
> the evidence is out there everytime I open my eyes:  the sky, the stars, 
the
> sea, life...
> 
None of which constitute evidence of your specific god, or any god in 
general, **unless** you first can show positive evidence to suggest that 
a god was needed to make any of them, let alone all of them. You haven't 
done so. All you are doing is making the same stupid, "I don't 
understand how all of it happened without god, therefor it must have 
happened because of god!". The classic, "argument from incredulity". 
That its been used some the days when someone proposed Thor as the cause 
of thunder doesn't phase you in the least. Nor the fact that every 
instance of history, from the first time some shaman told someone that 
spirits made X happen, and someone else later found out that spirits 
where not needed to do it at all, people like you have been wrong in 
100% of all cases where someone figured out how to ask the right 
question, and thus found a non-supernatural explanation for it.

Let me guess, your next moronic comment will be something along the 
lines of, "Without god you can't feel the joy of seeing a sunset!"? 
Logically absurd, in that you would have a damn hard time proving in 
didn't feel something similar to what you do in such case, even if I 
don't feel the need to insert God in as an explanation (which imho 
cheapens the experience, in that it removes a huge part of the wonder 
such things inspire), but it still wouldn't prove a damn thing if you 
meant it in some more nebulous sense. After all, you are asserting that 
the existence of something would be implied by the fact thats its 
existence "causes" something else. But, you still haven't proven that 
the first thing exists, so, until you do, you can't claim that **it** 
caused the result in any way shape or form.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.