Well, if the something we are a part of now did come out of nothing at all, who could ever have guessed it would include exchanges like this?
It may well not be God alone that works in mysterious ways!! 
Yes good question.
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
“he is a committed atheist”
…or ‘lacks belief’, therefore there is nothing to think about if the person was initially born lacking belief in a/any god. I’ve talked to such people, they have no concept of what (a) god may be or what they even think god is… I don’t think they care as much as you seem to.
…the exact same thing as what we’re saying about god here… identical, in fact.
From earlier… “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”, so that person may never have had a single thought about god during their entire existence.
Perhaps you are redefining what an atheist actually is.
Lol, ok!
Then they have very strong views… I think it’s to do with history and churches and religion in general… crusades, conversions, genocides etc.
You said: The way he put it, because the very idea of a perfect being is formulatable, the proposition must be considered.
…in his mind, but not necessarily in anyone else’s… he seems excited by the prospect of it, in his mind… so must be considered, for him.
It seems that he is speaking from his own perspective, not speaking for All.
…because he knows that all/only the best gods are benevolent… hypothetically speaking, of course. 
True.
Anyone with God-Consciousness can assume the level of realization needed to clarify that mystery!
But than, strangely It will again be sealed.
However that Sign and It’s delivery , certainty may be inferred, unless deliberately excluding the message.
Does he now…!
…it is… what are your thoughts on that?
In fact I will tell You , how that ‘Godspell’ works
For some who seek contextual certainty for any type of ‘proof’, it’s like they’ll be missing the first fir the trees. And that is why, a literal ambiguity works wonders against any form of hidden types of transmission between actually perceived contexts.
Does that make any sense at all?
Well, that’s fine. You will go on pretending atheists never heard of God, I will allow you to keep pretending, and we will move on to more interesting things.
I dunno about strong. I have known dislike to be a rather lukewarm feeling.
But all these things say rather little about the thought itself, don’t they?
Crusades, converstions, genocides… Who knows the contexts? And we know that the worst wars, conversions and genocides were committed by atheist entities. It seems to me to be rather a more personal thing to do with the thought itself.
Certainly in the mind of anybody who undestands what he means. Do you?
I’m not really sure the logic went exactly like that.
This seems rather wanton. I don’t think the exact same things can even be said about each of the things on the list.
He dors.
I have a lot of them. Maybe we can pick a specific narrowed path and go from there.
The first thing, what the OP was about. It means he would create the world, and at that, the best of all possible worlds.
If the word ‘god’ means good, and we are all said to have god in our hearts… hypothetically speaking, then maybe those whom dislike the word ‘god’ aren’t good… maybe they don’t know what good even is.
Of course I understand what he means, but that is not the point here, you’re cherry-picking at best… I just simply obviously don’t agree with him, on that point.
That’s my logic, on how I think it went down. 
Leibniz sounds a bit fundamental, but that is obviously his affair only… doesn’t mean we all have to think and feel the same way about the matter, as he. You do though, yes?
That’s a powerful point.
The point being that it’s not just in his mind.
In the sense that he worries about fundament, I agree.
The question is less whether we do than whether we can.
Do I feel what he felt? What I can say for sure is that following his train of thought makes me feel a certain way, and I am fairly convinced that was intentional, and further convinced that it was how he felt. He accounts for pretty much everything when he writes, including things like this. But he cannot account for more than what the thought is.
That’s your view, I’ll stick to mine… though I’ve never been wanton.
Only an all-encompassing benevolent being could create the best of all possible worlds. A starting point, for the discussion.
I got that, from reading the OP.
For instance, you can say that dragons have bodies, but you cannot say that time travel have bodies.
I guess one thing that could be said here is that there then could only be one being that could create the best of all possible worlds.
From PN:
Again:
I don’t doubt that “in your head” the logic of this is impeccable. But, again, I’ll wait for the folks in the scientific community to get around to documenting it one way or the other on Nova or on the Science Channel.
Here for example: sciencechannel.com/show/how … ks-science
Or here: bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres … nology/all
Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.
Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.
There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.
Right?
Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments – worlds of words – up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to…to prove it.
No, in my view, just because brain matter has acquired the ability to think – given free will of course – doesn’t necessarily establish that thinking brains have the capacity to grasp how existence itself came into existence. Well, other than by way of arguing a conclusion into existence by arguing – in a world of words – that only your own premises count in establishing that.
That is what you are doing here, right?
Well, that settles that then.
And I’m all for anyone attempting to do that. Instead, the “flaw” in your conclusion is, in my view, the point I raise above about the limitations of logic that far out on the metaphysical limb.
Thus…
More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.
I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.
Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of “I” transcends death itself or, instead, that’s it’s oblivion…then all the way back to “star stuff”.
Is it moral or immoral to think existence exists and that we’re writing and responding to posts?
Dasein right?
How do you solve that problem?
I must have a “condition”, unless of course I’m wrong.
Great! Now all the thread needs is for Pedro I Rengel to return to bring it back around to The Corner!! 
And that a sufficient reason can surface, for that to occur, with the Heidegger’s later resolution to the problem of Dasein.
I meno, under the penalty of some law that can be found somewhere, faithfully swear to be able to reason that out, to the best of my knowledge, I swear to God.
Note to Pedro:
Top this, my friend!! 
To be honest, however, I find this less interesting than the implications of a world created by a perfect being (if you permit, assuming into perfection both benevolence and all-encompassingness).
What does the best of all possible worlds entail?
If you could, rather than wondering whether we believe it or not, we simply assume it is the case, a perfect being exists and created this world, the best of all possible worlds. It is fact. What then about this world?
This world entails a Second.