Stuart wrote (and this time I will quote him in full: "I don't see why you
feel it advantageeous to resort to condescension. This is a
serious topic and an (otherwise) serious discussion."
No such was intended. I did intend to point out that I, for one, found your
arguments too verbose to try to unpack. That it is a "serious topic" I
agree; else I would not have replied.
" That you don't agree with my view doesn't invalidate it as being without
merit."
Of course not. But it is up to you to state it clearly enough that it makes
some sense. I read your post twice before concluding that it was too obscure
for my simple mind to understand. My reply was, of course, only to point out
that "omnipotence" does not imply (necessarily) exercise of that
omnipotence. Nothing more.
"Arguing 'ad hominem' serves no useful purpose and only obscures the
objectivity of the issues being discussed. As a scietntist, you should
understand that objectivity must be divorced from personal bias and opinion
in order to be effectively realised. I'm sure you have better judgement than
that."
If I implied an ad hominem descriptor of you, I apologize. None was
intended.
I had written: "Let me, for argument's sake, assume omnipotence, in which I
neither believe >nor disbelieve BTW. Assuming omnipotence on the part of
God, it seems easy to also assume he chooses not to exercise that
omnipotence in some instances."
Stuart replied "I can only reiterate that omnipotence is not dependant on
any human assumptions by virtue of it's very definition. And to assume that
it is, is trying to place your opinion above God, or divine Truth, an
impossibility and an inevitably futile gesture. If you think that God can be
circumscribed by human opinions and theories and conjectures or hypothesis,
then you misunderstand the fundamental
principle of omnipotence, which is all-power, the key word eing 'all'.
There is nothing more than what is 'all', how can there be? And since God is
all-power, how can there be any other power or even any suggestion of
somthing outside of His jurisdiction, since He is all-in-all. No human
argument can alter the reality of His dominion or usurp the jurisdiction of
His divine province, because it is wholly divine and not dependant on human
opinion."
I quoted all your text above, sans the Bible verse, which so many people
seem impelled to add as if it proved their point. I find the above text
sufficiently confusing that I hesitate to even try to unpack it. But --
where angels fear to tread ... I will try.
"I can only reiterate that omnipotence is not dependant on any human
assumptions by virtue of it's very definition."
"Omnipotence," is, of course, a word. A human word. "Unlimited power,"
according to Webster's 3rd (unabridged). To understand that, of course, I
must understand (and assume) definitions of both "unlimited" and "power." So
it seems that it is not the word itself you are arguing about. Perhaps you
are arguing that God is, in fact, omnipotent. Fine, I have no quarrel with
you having that particular opinion. But, of course, that was not the subject
being discussed.
Perhaps you meant something else. But what that might be baffles me.
"And to assume that it is, is trying to place your opinion above God, or
divine Truth, an impossibility and an inevitably futile gesture."
How you can decide I wish to place my opinion above God's is a mystery.
"If you think that God can be circumscribed by human opinions and
theories and conjectures or hypothesis, then you misunderstand the
fundamental principle of omnipotence, which is all-power, the key word being
'all'. There is nothing more than what is 'all', how can there be?"
How you can conclude that I think this is also a mystery.
"And since God is all-power, how can there be any other power or even any
suggestion of somthing outside of His jurisdiction, since He is all-in-all."
Well -- I can address this. Given that God IS omnipotent, he can obviously
choose to exercise that omnipotence by allowing decisions to be made WITHIN
his realm by secondary entities, such as you and I. To say he cannot is to,
ipso facto, limit his power. Now you may say he DOES not, and I suppose that
option can be defended up to a point, but only by also an assertion that we
are without free will.
I which case I cannot help but type this! < G >
" No human argument can alter the reality of His dominion or usurp the
jurisdiction of His divine province, because it is wholly divine and not
dependant on human opinion."
To the extent that these words express a thought, I probably agree. But as I
stare at them a second and a third time, I'm not sure they mean anything in
particular. I may be wrong.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 31 2002 - 00:09:18 EDT