XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:18:25 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
       Can you consider any way(s) that gods could exist? If so, try to explain   
   what you think the minimum requirements would be from your pov.   
      
   >>>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?   
      
       There's a significant difference between "inventing new ones" and trying to   
   think about how such beings could exist regardless of what other people   
   believe,   
   from my pov. Apparently not from yours though.   
      
   >>>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.   
      
       It's all basic realistic things to consider from my pov. Whatever you think   
   you're trying to talk about I have no idea. Do you?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)