KGODDEN@cmsa.gmr.com (06/15/91)
I submit the following self-evident truth as proof that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. BTW, I found this beaut elsewhere on the net in somone's signature line: "God made one mistake when He created man. He wrote self-modifying code..."
mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Name? What Name??) (06/17/91)
In article <Jun.15.02.16.17.1991.18852@athos.rutgers.edu> KGODDEN@cmsa.gmr.com writes: >I submit the following self-evident truth as proof that God is neither >omniscient nor omnipotent. BTW, I found this beaut elsewhere on the net >in somone's signature line: > >"God made one mistake when He created man. > He wrote self-modifying code..." G-d wanted to create a being that could partake of his creation and praise him for it. To that this being had to have some of the characteristics of G-d. One of the things that we know about G-d is that he has free choice. In order for man to experience the greatest good - he has to be in an environment that allows him to experience it's contrast. Therefore, the possibility to *not* experience that good must exist. Therefore free choice. The Bible says "All is in heaven, except for fear of heaven". We are given the choice of praising G-d for creation or not recognizing his hand in it. If man was not able to choose his own fate, we would be little more than automatons... James mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
wimjan@dbf.kun.nl (Wim-Jan Hilgenbos) (06/22/91)
KGODDEN@cmsa.gmr.com writes: >I submit the following self-evident truth as proof that God is neither >omniscient nor omnipotent. BTW, I found this beaut elsewhere on the net >in somone's signature line: >"God made one mistake when He created man. > He wrote self-modifying code..." Does this proof anything? If man isn't able to see the results of self modifying code why should this aply to God? i.e. Isn't it possible He did this on purpose and knows what will come of it? BTW I for myself never use, and I believe a lot of theological ex- planations agree on this, a word preceded by omni when speaking of God. The way we people think doesn't allow for this. Omnipotent for example always brings to mind the question: Can someone omnipotend make a stone that heavy he can't lift it himself? So when speaking of God I prefer to use MOST. i.e. most powerful, most loving, most lovable, etc. So the lines you picked up don't prove anything and are probably meant to be read as a critic or an opinion. Wim-Jan [Most may not be quite strong enough. I do agree that the implications behind the omni- words are often problematical. But Christians do have some ideas about God that require us to think of him as being more than simply slightly more XXX than the rest of us. Unfortunately to get to the best characterizations we probably need to look at each of the issues separately. E.g rather than omnipotent, I prefer to say that God is the source of the universe, and is in control of it. The Bible doesn't deal with abstractions such as "omnipotent", since as you indicate, in order to use "all", you have to be *very* careful in your definitions. But it does have the concept that God has the power to do what he wants to. This is an easier concept to deal with because we don't have to worry about hypothetical situations. Similarly with loving. The point is not that he is epsilon more loving than the most loving human, but that he is the source of all of our love. --clh]