XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.atheism   
   From: percent@peescent.net   
      
   On 2/2/2021 4:02 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:   
   > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:03:58 -0800, Paul S Person   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 17:03:26 -0500, Dreamer In Colore   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:03:55 -0800, Paul S Person   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,   
   >>>>>>> you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false   
   >>>>>>> promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No   
   >>>>>>> contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story   
   >>>>>>> ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced   
   >>>>>>> people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who   
   >>>>>>> watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And   
   >>>>>>> the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does   
   >>>>>>> not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,   
   >>>>>>> he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning   
   >>>>>>> and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and   
   >>>>>>> suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and   
   >>>>>>> ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> George Carlin, Dec 23 2005   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence   
   >>>>> >from George Carlin?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational   
   >>>>> analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and   
   >>>>> you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a   
   >>>>> supernatural entity. Why is that?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an   
   >>>>>> invisible man out there waving a magic wand.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle   
   >>>>>> anything more than simple stories.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Only those that have never read a single line of religious   
   >>>>>> philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious   
   >>>>> philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in   
   >>>>> what your particular brand of this is.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well, you can if it actually exists.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's ok. I can handle mushy.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> And those that haven't read a single line of religious   
   >>>>>> philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent   
   >>>>>> criticism of religious beliefs.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so   
   >>>>> far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not   
   >>>>> omnipotent.   
   >>>>> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.   
   >>>>> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?   
   >>>>> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other   
   >>>>> branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be   
   >>>>> omniscient and omnipotent?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except   
   >>>> Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service:   
   >>>> existence.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now that's an interesting statement. The Christian God is supposed to   
   >>> be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and that's regardless   
   >>> of philosophy. Those are foundational principles for that particular   
   >>> deity, or did I miss something?   
   >>   
   >> It would appear that you missed /the entire Bible/, for starters.   
   >>   
   >> And the people I have run into who believe that "supposed to" applies   
   >> to "the Christian God" tended to be atheists pursuing a Straw God   
   >> Argument.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I disagree! There are plenty of places in the Christian Bible that   
   > point to God having omni-level abilities. "And God said, Let there be   
   > light." No?   
   >   
   > Wasn't it St Anselm with the ontological argument that used the   
   > omni-powers as a basis for framing a rebuttal to the problem of evil?   
   >   
   > I rather like the "Straw God Argument" label, though. I think I might   
   > have to steal that.   
   >   
   >>>> And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent   
   >>>> alternate meanings.   
   >>>   
   >>> Also an interesting statement. What alternate meanings can you   
   >>> ascribe, when "omni" means "All"?   
   >>   
   >> Omniscence:   
   >> -- God knows everything that happens because it happens   
   >> -- everthing happens because God knows it happens   
   >> the second, of course, leads to predestination, among other   
   >> abominations.   
   >>   
   >   
   > There's no "because it happens" that is a necessary condition for God   
   > knowing everything. God knows everything... period. Of course that   
   > leads to predestination, which is the whole point of the abomination.   
   >   
   >> Omnipotence:   
   >> -- God can do anything He wants   
   >> -- God has power over each and every thing (excludes logical   
   >> paradoxes, which are not "things")   
   >> -- God powers everything   
   >> Aquinas died before finishing the /Summa/, so some earlier works   
   >> appear at the end. One of these explains that the World will end when   
   >> God stops turning the crank that makes the outermost sphere rotate.   
   >> Since each sphere is powered by the sphere above, all the spheres will   
   >> stop and, eventually, all motion will stop.   
   >> How literally this was intended to be taken I have no idea, but it   
   >> graphically illustrates the second meaning.   
   >>   
   >   
   > If God can do anything he wants, and doesn't fix some pretty heinous   
   > issues, then how does that square with omnibenevolence?   
   >   
   > One is forced to choose between "God chooses to do nothing", "God   
   > chooses to allow heinous things to happen, and/or actually causes them   
   > to happen in the first place" and "Why do we need a God in the first   
   > place?"   
   >   
   >> I should also point out that "omnipotence" is the Latin term. The   
   >> Greek term, "pantokrator" is a /political/ term ("God is the ruler of   
   >> all"), as the ending shows (it appears in "aristrocrat" and   
   >> "plutocrat" as "ruler" and in "aristocracy", "plutocracy", and   
   >> "democracy" in a slightly different form to designate political   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)