Re: Randomness

From: Stuart d Kirkley (
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 13:07:06 EDT

  • Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: Frustrations (was Re: Randomness)"

    I don't see why you feel it advantageeous to resort to condescension.
    This is a serious topic and an (otherwise) serious discussion. That
    you don't agree with my view doesn't invalidate it as being without
    merit. 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.

    >Let me, for argument's sake, assume omnipotence, in which I neither believe
    >nor disbelievem BTW.
    >Assuming onnipotence on the part of God, it seems easy to also assume he
    >chooses not to exercise that omnipotence in some instances.

    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 being '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... lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding
    returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and
    honoured him that liveth forever, whose dominion is an everlasting
    dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
    And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing:and he
    doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the
    inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto
    him, What doest thou?' Daniel 4:34,35 (36 and 37 are worth a look at

    Stuart Kirkley


    On Wed, 29 May 2002 19:23:39 J Burgeson wrote: >tuart rambled: "If I read you right, you are saying that omnipotence is >dependent on our >assumptions. No offense, but that is kind of arrogant, and I'm sure you know >the >old 'ass of you and me' joke. What else could omnipotence mean, than all >power, >supreme control, absolute jurisdiction over all creation. 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. Christ said, Ye shall >know >the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Do you not feel that God is >truly >omnipotent? It may be easier to understand omnipotence if you allow the >other >qualities associated with the supreme being, omniscience, and omnipresence, >or >the all-knowing, the only true knowledge, the only true intelligence, even >the >only Mind, and all-presence, the only presence, the true being of being, >that >which Paul spoke of in which 'we live, and move and have our being'. I do >not >think that God tries to control our thoughts a >nd actions, but that we don't always listen for and acknowledge the true >thoughts, or the liberating wisdom and intelligence which He is steadily >supplying us with. That is why He sent His son for our salvation, so we >might >learn, through the Wayshower, how to better listen and obey the call of >omnipotent wisdom and intelligence, which brings the light of salvation, and >which is the benefit of having 'that mind in us which was also in Christ >Jesus'." > >I'm sure the above holds together for you, my friend. It does not for me. >Many words; little content. Sorry. > >One may ascribe omnipotence to God if he wishes. The advocates of Open >Theism seem to have a pretty good argument against it. > >Let me, for argument's sake, assume omnipotence, in which I neither believe >nor disbelievem BTW. > >Assuming onnipotence on the part of God, it seems easy to also assume he >chooses not to exercise that omnipotence in some instances. > >And that was all I said. That he does so seems (to me) irrefutable. > >Burgy > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > >

    ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 30 2002 - 13:35:11 EDT