XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:50:38 -0500, mur wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:01:57 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >.   
   >>On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:41:58 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:12:05 +0000, grabber  wrote:   
   ...   
   >>>>He almost certainly can't, because his rhetoric is highly dependent on   
   >>>>the phraseology he adopts - notice how he stick like glue to the same,   
   >>>>strange little patterns of words.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Mur needs "Fred can consider the possibility X" to be understood at some   
   >>>>points to mean "Fred accepts that the possibility of X has not actually   
   >>>>been ruled out", yet at other times to mean "Fred carries around in his   
   >>>>head an account of X that he finds fairly plausible". If mur were to   
   >>>>change the words to less ambiguous ones, his rhetoric would fall apart.   
   >>>   
   >>>      If a person 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. HOW would you like to   
   try   
   >>>pretending that fact is not true? WHY do you want to pretend it's not true,   
   do   
   >>>you have any idea at all about that?   
   >>   
   >>What's with   
   >   
   >    Your reply shows that you have no way to pretend what I pointed out is not   
   >true.   
   >   
   >>your "God associated with Earth"?   
   >   
   >    It speaks for itself just as it would if I said something about you being   
   >associated with a news group. It seems even an atheist should be able to   
   figure   
   >that out.   
      
   So your deities are not universal, they are limited.   
      
   >>Do you claim there are other gods that ignore earth?   
   >   
   >    I don't claim there are any gods. I do consider the possibility that there   
   >are though, and that's something you're not able to do.   
      
   I have considered the possibility, but every deity invented is silly and   
   unsupported by any evidence. Why should I waste my time inventing new   
   ones?   
      
   >>What about the deity that allegedly created the universe?   
   >   
   >    Personally I believe that's a gross exaggeration, and if there are any   
   gods   
   >they developed after the universe came into existence. That wouldn't prevent   
   >them from existing at all though, and certainly wouldn't prevent any God from   
   >being associated with Earth. But of course there could be no God associated   
   with   
   >Earth but gods associated with other planets and star systems, and galaxies,   
   and   
   >possibly even the universe itself. But since the possibility of there being a   
   >God associated with Earth is beyond your ability to think about realistically,   
   >the other possibilities would be even farther away from your ability. It would   
   >be like if you have no concept of the structure of an atom, for someone to go   
   on   
   >and tell you about ions and isotopes.   
      
   Sounds like some strange LDS heresy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)