--- Stuart d Kirkley <email@example.com> wrote:
> If I read you right, you are saying that omnipotence
> is dependent on
> our assumptions.
Actually, I think his point was that _you_ are
assuming something about God's omnipotence that is
neither logically necessary nor can we really hope to
make complete logical sense of the nature of God.
> What else could
> omnipotence mean, than all power, supreme control,
> jurisdiction over all creation.
This is one definition of omnipotence that is not very
logically compelling, because, you get into silly
logical arguments about God lacking omnipotence if
defined in this way. No matter how you define it,
omnipotence is not the power to do anything without
restraint. Once you decide to do something, other
things become illogical, contradictory or nonsensical.
> I fear you are making the classic
> mistake of ascribing human limitation to the divine
> province. I mean
> no offence, John, we are all somewhat guilty of it.
I think Burgy is doing exactly the opposite of
ascribing a human limitation to God. You are making
the mistake of thinking that the human concept of
omnipotence accurately describes the power inherent in
God and also the will or ability to exercise that
power. In fact, like Kant and others before him, I
tend to think that God defies our categorization in
this way. We can approximately understand aspects of
His nature through His revelation, but we can't
understand completely. I think the extent of God's
power is one area we are likely to not understand that
> Christ said, Ye
> shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
> free. Do you not
> feel that God is truly omnipotent?
The problem, Stuart, is the definition of omnipotence.
We have the same problem with omniscience,
The more human the definition of omnipotence, the more
acute (apparently) the problems of evil and theodicy.
It is the fuzzy human notion of omnipotence that
creates the greatest theodicy problems.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 29 2002 - 11:38:58 EDT