Subjective Evidence of Gods

But, we evolved into this world by adapting successfully to the environment that already existed prior to us being here and acquired traits that allow us to continue surviving and procreating as a species. This is objectively evidenced, so your rendition as subjective evidence for gods must fail.

Don't know 'bout no LDS but at Iowa we had a lot of acid flowin around.Oops, off topic.

The point being that your observation ...

quote:

---

We exist as sentient beings in a world that appears to be made ready for us.

---

... stands as subjective evidence of some god(s) fails since the observation is fallacious.

I can accept that. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, lets see.100 billion galaxies x 400 billion stars each x 2 billion planets, moons, asteroids, comets each ...about .000000000000000000000000000000007% give or take a couple orders of magnitude.

You didn't know about this? I am surprised.While the majority of what they are finding in the comets is good old H₂O they are finding large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide and some dihydrogen oxide. The scary part is that they are also finding significant amounts of hydrogen hydroxide, the stuff that kills so many people on this planet every day.Edited by AZPaul3, :

An aside, please?Maybe this has been discussed and I missed it, but isn't the lady in question, the IPU, isn't she the Invisible Pink Unicorn not the Immaterial Pink Unicorn?As in Our Lady of Pinkness from Wiki?And if this is supposed to be the same Femme de la Rose then she is not "infamous" at all but quite a warm, gentle and instructive soul once you come to her on your knees in adulation.

Did you not open and look at the evidence provided by the site? Straggler did provided the site link which provides the list right in his message. You did see the link didn't you? Right there in his message?The link is an islamic site and, just like the christian site previous, leaves a lot to be desired as far as efficacy goes. Both sites slant their evidence to their advantage making use of hyperbolic descriptions in their presentations.In other words they both exaggerate wildly.But that is the point here, isn't it. For every list you can produce they can also produce. For every name you can list they can list one as well. For every convert you crow about they can crow along with you for theirs.Ultimately, it all means nothing.