On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:28:47 -0400, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Vincent Maycock" <maycock@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:q0709j5rrn8aj7t2d2s44stoo8p2pjj7b0@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:18:58 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Vincent Maycock" <maycock@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rq109jtkr3flolmv3n7luc2cugdmfc3vt6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:13:14 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Vincent Maycock" <maycock@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:h28u8j98e8hm2gq7c61djiqbdeqvb0mbs9@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:08:56 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seems like it. It's just a different faith.. I mean they even have
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>own
>>>>>>>churches. So either they are lying about their lack of faith or they
>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>committing tax evasion and should go to jail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even the hardened Kevrob atheist admitted he leaves the door ever so
>>>>>>>> slightly open, which was honest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True, you have to give him that. I tend to be more of an agnostic type
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>person. I would acknowledge the possibility of one or more entities
>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>would be god like, but currently we have no true evidence of such
>>>>>>>being(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't currently have any true evidence of the existence of pink
>>>>>> garden unicorns. Are you agnostic about their existence?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. If you believe in them and it makes you happy, and doesn't harm
>>>>>anyone
>>>>>else. Go for it.
>>>>>After all, in all the Universe there well could be something we might
>>>>>call
>>>>>a
>>>>>pink garden unicorn.. or there could not.
>>>>>
>>>>>With up to 2 trillion galaxies in the universe that we know of or
>>>>>suspect,
>>>>>and each galaxy having about 100 Billion stars be galaxy, and if we
>>>>>assume
>>>>>1.6 planets per star.. and then if we assume only 0.1% of those are
>>>>>habitable, and only 0.1% of those are inhabited.. That leaves a LOT of
>>>>>room
>>>>>for a pink garden unicorn to exist or not.
>>>>
>>>> What about the Keebler Elves? Could *they* be lurking in a tree near
>>>> you?
>>>
>>>Lame evasion.
>>
>> How so?
>
>Because your line of questioning as already failed.

Okay. Let's just say for the sake of argument that that part of my
questioning failed. How do you deal with my *next* question, about
the Keebler Elves? Or was it just a lame evasion on your part?

>>>>>>>However, if our thoughts about the size of the Universe is anywhere
>>>>>>>close
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>being true, and the time that the Universe is thought to have
>>>>>>>existed..
>>>>>>>there could be entities that are as far above us, as we are above
>>>>>>>ants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible, in your opinion, to rule out the existence of certain
>>>>>> *types* of gods?
>>>>>
>>>>>Depends on what type you're talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For example we know there can be no omnipotent omni-
>>>>>> benevolent god of the Christian sort out there
>>>>>
>>>>>Depends are you talking true omnipotence or something so far in advance
>>>>>of
>>>>>our civilization at the point of contact to appear so?
>>>>
>>>> Either one.
>>>
>>>Then I would put it that a civilization advanced enough to easily travel
>>>between the stars would appear damn near omnipotent to the people 2000
>>>years
>>>ago.
>>
>> True. What's your point?
>
>That you just agreed with me, thus establishing my point made that you can't
>possibly know what you asserted you did above.

Tell that to the Christians who assert that they *can* detect
omnipotence in their god.

>>>>>Further, from my readings God is not omni-benevolent, in fact in some
>>>>>ways
>>>>>God seems quite selfish, particularly when it comes worship.
>>>>>See Exodus 20:3-5/6 depending on which version you use.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course that is somewhat contradicted by claims there are no other
>>>>>Gods
>>>>>while at the same time declaring there shall be no Gods before him.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, yea, there is a lot of wiggle room there. I certainly know of no
>>>>>claim
>>>>>of omnipotence or omni-benevolence from the Biblical God.
>>>>>I mean he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for a rather petty reason by a
>>>>>few
>>>>>of
>>>>>the people who lived there. Hardly seems omni-benevolent to me.
>>>>>I mean consider endless eternal damnation for limited and very finite
>>>>>offenses... Does that sound like being omni-benevolent?
>>>>>Yes, the Bible is full of such contradictions within itself and within
>>>>>religions teachings of it.
>>>>>Now perhaps in God's view his is both.. but from ours, not so much.
>>>>
>>>> Note:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zf626yc/revision/1
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying if the Christian god exists, he must be evil?
>>>
>>>Would depend on your point of view, wouldn't it?
>>
>> What would prevent God from sharing this rather important information
>> with us about human suffering from his point of view?
>
>Lack of understanding? Knowledge you would never understand it at your age
>of development.
>
>I mean do you explain to a 9 month old baby why you are going to stab them
>with a sharp object, or do you do so because you know it's for the good of
>the baby?
>
>I mean you could try to explain it.. but realizing it's futile to do so, who
>would bother?

A god who can't explain to us something as simple as why he's making
us suffer must be a very weak god indeed. Perhaps you're confusing
the idea of a god with the idea of space aliens.

>>>Even benevolence can seem like utter cruelty to the ill informed and visa
>>>verse.
>>
>> So is this the "best of all possible worlds," in your view?
>
>Hardly, but it could be better than it might have been otherwise.. See above
>about the baby receiving a shot.

So we can rule out the existence of gods who could make our world a
perfect place?

>>>> I
>>>> wouldn't quarrel with that -- but since Christians are generally
>>>> unwilling to agree with a statement like that, I generally phrase it
>>>> as "the Christian god does not exist."
>>>
>>>Well, first we would have to establish exactly what the term "Christian
>>>god"
>>>means and exactly how that is supported. In a discussion like that
>>>precise
>>>and specific meaning would need to be determined and supported. Not just
>>>from the view of the people saying it but also what they can support as
>>>being directly referenced. I mean it's nice to say God is omnipotent, but
>>>did God ever state that and to what if any limits, either inherent or self
>>>imposed.
>>
>> At the very least, the Bible portrays God as being really powerful;
>
>Agreed and given the civilization at the time, that wouldn't be that hard to
>do. Heck we could probably do at least some of that today if we wanted to.

True. And you know what else we're better at than that or any other
Judeo-Christian god? Stopping people from suffering. We have
hospitals for that. God or space aliens or the Keebler Elves
repeatedly refuse to do that for us.

>> so
>> we don't necessarily have to even mention the idea of omnipotence
>
>Well since we are the ones that asserted omnipotence... it would be our
>error.

A common error among Christians.

>> when investigating all the suffering around us and asking why God
>> would allow it, if he existed.
>
>Reference the baby above. Do you crawl on your hands and knees because
>otherwise you might have to suffer learning to walk?
>Do you refuse to swim because you might suffer some learning how to do so?

Would you refuse to swim because it caused you to suffer in some way?

>Nope, if you had your way, we could neither feed ourselves, move ourselves
>or even care for ourselves.. the "benevolent god" would have to care and
>provide for us every moment of every day, and prevent us from doing or
>seeking anything else.

No, he would not. Removing suffering is not the same thing as "doing
everything for us." That kind of extremist thinking is typical among
theists. I'm surprised. I thought agnostics were better at logic
than that.

>No, suffering is sometimes necessary to growth. To suggest none should exist
>is to deny growth, change, advancement.... which hardly sounds like
>something a benevolent God would do.

I didn't say that no suffering should exist. I said there is some
suffering that shouldn't exist, if even a moderately caring,
moderately powerful god a la Christianity existed.

>Really? You need to try to think these things through for yourself.. as it
>is you're just looking like a fool.

From your arguments so far I would say you go beyond just *looking
like* a fool!