"In the Name of Jesus" <michaelmclean2021@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:v6sd9j$3764m$5@dont-email.me...
> On 13/07/2024 1:28 am, Scout 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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, 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.
>>
>> Really? You need to try to think these things through for yourself.. as
>> it is you're just looking like a fool.
>
> Vincent has a strong tendency to tweak, twist, and distort in order to try
> and shift what he believes into an edifice of fact, reality, and truth.
>
> There is plain old common sense in your replies. It is actually
> refreshing. Skeeter's replies are quite often similar.
>
> Personally, I am not bothered if a person is atheist, agnostic, or
> religious; in all cases every day common sense, logic, and truth is most
> welcome.

Yep, free will means we can have different beliefs. The ONLY thing I tend to
look for is your ability to support your beliefs even if only because you
believe in it by faith... and if that's the case, allow others to do the
same. If you're going to demand proof of their beliefs then you should be
willing to do the same for yours.
Indeed, I just had a thought.. maybe, it's not so much what about what your
faith is, than it is about you having faith. Interesting notion. I will
have to think on that.

In short, generally, don't ask for what you wouldn't provide.

I have had several people tell me that I am a deeply spiritual person,
because I've at least given the matter serious thought.
Perhaps, that's all that is really needed...
To have a faith, to think about it, to question it, to challenge it.. to
accept it.
I don't know, maybe I never will, but I do hope there is more...