XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:32:39 -0700, A Nony Mouse wrote:
.
>In article <9o4ldalef6babsqbs25fu0g84am5be4jiv@4ax.com>, mur wrote:
>
>> If one can only consider the possibility that there's no God
>> associated with Earth, and can't consider the possibility that there
>> is, then the person can only "have" the one possible belief.
>
>One could also believe in gods elsewhere but not here which, at least to
>me, seems no more outre than believing in gods here.
To me it seems there almost certainly must be beings who can be considered
gods some places in the universe. One of our strong atheists pretended to be
able to consider similarly:
"Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various posts, that
I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the
universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us. The
idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the exact
opposite?" - Malte Runz
yet later he disagreed with himself horribly:
"the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there are no gods.
Anywhere, anywhen." - Malte Runz
In cases where such beings do exist there can be a number of different
relationships between the gods and their "subjects". For example the gods can
make their existence very well known, and demand worship and praise. Or they
can
make themselves known but not demand anything. Or they can never give any clue
of their existence at all and maybe their "subjects" would never dream up the
possibility of their existence....or at least a very small percentage of them
would ever consider it possible. Or they could do as our God does here if
there's a god associated with Earth. Or....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
