In article <7mu9vf$2dto$1 at newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
"dp3" <DP333 at prodigy.net> wrote:
>>peppermill at my-deja.com wrote in message
<7mu29s$frt$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Oh dear! I described a God that was omniscient but not omnipotent. I
> >suppose that our speculations have to fit the stereo types to avoid
> >offending believers and nonbelievers. Oh thats right we can't
> >speculate. It's an either or thing.
> >Peppermill.
> well b4 you say anything why don't you tell us what kind of
stereotype the
> particular god your speculating about conforms to. otherwise your
statements
> lose any sort of meaning and we can't respond to them properly
because we
> have no clue what you are talking about.
> the thread was about an omniscient god, who created humans and gave
them
> free will; you cant expect us to just implicitely understand that the
god
> you are refering to is not omnipotent. for a lot of people the
concept of
> god is of something that is omnipotent and yes to them it is
meaningless to
> speculate on a god that isn't omnipotent. such a thing to them would
not be
> god it would be something else.
> dan
>>Sorry. I thought that a God that was not omnipotent was implicit in
the statement. I did mean that maybe there was only one way to achieve
the goal of evolving whatever kind of creature God wanted. Like I said,
I violated the stereotype. Would a God be confined to a stereotype? The
gods of mythology have never sounded omnipotent to me. A someone or
something that could create a universe by whatever means, and be
omniscient is powerful enough to be a God by my definition. Obviously
not by yours.
Peppermill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
