[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> If God existed, there would be no suffering in the world, because a   
   >> loving God would have removed it.  It follows that a loving God does   
   >> not exist.   
   >   
   >"NO suffering?" That is extreme.   
      
   As it should be, considering God's supposed extreme power and love.   
      
   >That would be to say that if a man and   
   >woman sire a baby, then if at any point that baby causes any suffering   
   >for itself or another then that man and/or woman should immediately kill   
   >that baby so that it will not cause suffering ever again.   
      
   The correct course of action is not to kill the baby but to ease its   
   suffering by some means.  God should have the same responsibility.   
      
   >This extreme   
   >position and extreme action are what do not make sense, and would actually   
   >be unloving of the man and woman rather than loving of the man and woman,   
   >including that tolerance and patience are two of the fruits of a loving   
   >heart. Thus God himself is allowing his offspring a certain amount of time   
   >to exercise their free will.   
      
   Here you're using a fallacy called "the fallacy of excess," which is   
   "that because a little bit of something is a good thing, it follows   
   that a lot of the same thing is even better."  In the case of free   
   will, we don't allow our children the free will to run around like   
   hellions, and neither should God do the same for us.   
      
   I think, for example, that Adolph Hitler, after gassing his 4   
   millionth Jew, had long since lost all rights to his "free will,"   
   considering what he had done.   
      
   > You cannot blame God for what people do.   
      
   In fact, we can --  because God is more powerful than people and is   
   therefore responsible for their actions if they begin to harm others.   
      
   >However, God has had a plan and program from the very beginning after he   
   >created all souls at once, knowing ahead of time that by giving them free   
   >will what the result might be. He does intend at a certain point to remove   
   >all of the wicked off of the earth.   
      
   A delay of 1000 years, given the amount of cruelty that the wicked   
   inflict, is a form of either cruelty, incompetence,  or laziness on   
   God's part.   
      
   >Then after one thousand years shortly   
   >later remove them from the universe [via decreation - separation of   
   >consciousness & will portions from the spirit portion]. GOD WOULD ONLY BE   
   >CRUEL IF HE WOULD ALLOW THE WICKED TO CAUSE SUFFERING TO THEMSELF AND   
   >OTHERS *FOREVER*, WHICH HE IS NOT GOING TO DO, SEE? AND ISN'T IT TRUE   
   >THAT ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL? THERE *IS* A HAPPY ENDING!   
      
   Precisely why a lot of Christian theology is wrong, because it claims   
   that God will allow people to suffer "forever" in hell.  If ever there   
   were "cruel and unusual punishment," or "punishment that does *not*   
   fit the crime," eternal torture in hell would be it.   
      
   >> In general, there is no evidence for the existence of God, so we   
   >> conclude that he does not exist, in the same way that we conclude that   
   >> the Easter Bunny does not exist, because there's no evidence for the   
   >> existence of that creature.   
   >   
   >Well, that depends on what each individual person is willing to consider   
   >to be EVIDENCE and ENOUGH EVIDENCE. And it also depends on whether an   
   >individual person is INTERESTED or WILLING to have such a belief, because   
   >if an individual person DOES NOT WANT to have a certain belief, they will   
   >refuse any evidence that there is.   
      
   False dichotomy.  There's a third option: a person may not care one   
   way or the other, neither "wanting to believe in God," nor "wanting to   
   not believe in God."  I and many other atheists belong in this third   
   category:  We don't care whether or not God exists -- we simply see no   
   evidence for that existence, and therefore reject it.   
      
   > Another important distinction in   
   >regards to this subject matter is that there are two different positions   
   >that can be taken in regards to realities, truths, facts: 1. A person can   
   >decide that they can figure out what these must be; and 2. A person can   
   >decide that they will make effort by various means to discover what   
   >these are. See the difference? The latter is the correct position to   
   >take and will lead a person to the most accurate results.   
      
   To me, you've got a distinction without a difference there, but seeing   
   that there *is* no difference between the two hairs you're attempting   
   to split in 1 and 2, I'll agree with your Version 2, since it's as   
   sensible to me as Version 1.  Either one will do.   
      
   >Evidence For God:   
   >   
   >Do you believe in intuition? Have you ever had a thought come into your   
   >mind, which ended up being correct, and which if you did not follow it   
   >you lived to regret? Have you ever had a "gut feeling", which ended up   
   >being correct, and which if you did not follow it you lived to regret?   
   >Most people have had both of these experiences, including me.   
      
   Yes, intuition exists.  It has two origins:   
      
   a)  people making lucky guesses and not realizing that it was just the   
   laws of statistics that did it, and not some "higher force" (e.g. "I   
   won the lottery!  It must be fate!" to which we reply, "Well, no,   
   there were a lot of people who bought lottery tickets -- somebody had   
   to win")   
      
   b) the emotional association of certain things with certain other   
   things that rational thought isn't capable of, that makes me people   
   say "Well, *I* didn't figure that out!  How the hell did I know that?"   
   and the answer is that your emotions can sometimes associate   
   themselves with things better than your conscious brain can -- so as a   
   survival mechanism, the lower brain functions can sometimes bypass the   
   higher brain functions and lead to predictions of future events that   
   don't seem rational -- and in fact, they're not; they're an   
   *irrational* means of knowing about  what's going on around in the   
   world.   
      
   But it has nothing to do with God or spirits or anything -- it's just   
   the emotional parts of your brain focusing in on cues about what's   
   going on in your environment faster or better than your rational brain   
   is.   
      
   > I never   
   >knew what these things were until I read in The Edgar Cayce Readings   
   >that there were two portals in the human body for contact between   
   >spirit God and spirit Soul: 1. The area that is a soft-spot on a   
   >baby's head, which accounts for the thought coming into one's mind;   
   >and   
      
   The soft spot is there because the baby's head hasn't fused together   
   completely yet in its developmental process; it's not because there's   
   a place for the soul to enter into it there.   
      
   >2. The area of the navel, which accounts for the "gut feeling".   
      
   No, the navel is formed when the umbilical cord is cut and tied up by   
   the person who delivers the baby.   
      
   And there's no reason to take the location of your physiological   
   sensations as an indication of anything unusual going on.  That's just   
   where they happen to be.   
      
   >Having had these experiences since I was born, and which have   
   >sometimes had great impact on my life and/or the life of another   
   >and/or lives of others, finding this explanation meant a lot to me.   
   >In sum, the Readings say that intuition is God's personal communication   
   >to an individual person. Taking the concept that God sees and knows   
   >everything, this explanation made sense to me because intuition and   
   >gut feeling are always right. An all-seeing all-knowing God could   
   >certainly always be right. In addition to all of this, one day I felt   
   >"led" to visit the A.R.E., and after I got there at a certain point   
   >I felt "led" to sit in one of the four chairs in the lobby all of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)