Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:41:34 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <1992Oct7.221348.23588@beaver.cs.washington.edu> simonson@cs.wash
>   
> >>Why should God obey logic?  Proving he exists or doesn't exist, using  
> >>logic to say that he has or lacks some quality, all these things rely  
> >>on human logic.  If God is all powerful, why should we be more  
> >>powerful than him by constraining him to what we puny humans can  
> >>conceive of?  
> >>  
> >     This looks like a fine display of human logic right here, Alejo.  So  
> >obviously it can't be right.  
> >  
>   
> Seems like no one else is really taking the God beyond the  
  
sEEms like you are really taking 'the God' beyond the...holding by  
his hand :->  
  
> categories of human logic here seriously, so let me give it  
  
so you must have some extra-human logic to achieve that :->  
  
> a whirl.  If anyone's wondering where this is coming from,  
  
give us a whirl but don't let yourself drown in the middle   
of it :->  
  
[history deleted]  
  
> "God" can neither be affirmed nor denied.  One can neither  
  
also sprach Zarathustra !  
  
> authentically say that God "is" or "is not", for such claims  
> attempt to place God within the realm of human language, human  
  
you must really have some extra-human language under your sleeve  
to be able to tell us the un-sayable...:->  
  
> conceptualization, and hence human limitations.  Surely we are  
  
you must be the God himself to talk about the God without such  
human limitations, but even than how do you expect US :->MORTALS to   
understand YOU :->  
  
> all familiar with the famous #7:  Concerning that about which  
> one cannot speak, one must remain silent.  
  
yes we are all familiar with the #7 because it was written for  
us humans, but you MUST be really NON-HUMAN to tell US such-  
much about WOVON MANN NICHT-SPRACHEN KANN :->  
  
> Thus, Descartes' and Anselm's attempt to limit God to the  
> concept of perfection or "that than which nothing greater etc."  
  
and YOU are releasing Him from that :->  
  
> are limitations that immediately make God (perhaps the  
> Wholly Other?) into something that is wholly human.  
  
and you have that power of language to make HIM wholly-holy :->  
or to keep Him Wholly Other :->  
  
> The only thing that is left is to remain silent about God.  But  
  
no wonder :->after saying what you wanted to say :->  
  
> that in itself is impossible, for the instant that we say that  
  
impossible?, appearently for YOU :->  
  
> we must remain silent, we have already SAID that we must remain  
  
not WE, but YOU, YOU are the one who have been making all that  
preaching :->  
   
> silent.  Wittgenstein falls prey to this in the above statement.  
  
as if YOU didn't fall prey :->  
  
[more exercise on extra-humanly logic deleted]  
  
> understand "God", the Wholly Other.  
   
> If you didn't guess already, I'm new around here ...  
  
If you didn't guess already, here on the net, philosophy  
is :-> it is :->  
   
> Tony D  
  
otherwise :-> welcome to le grand bazar des petits mots.  
  
> Tony Dugdale            |  The perfect                      |  
  
> Attempts to separate "spiritual" concerns and "social/political"  
> concerns have been front and centre ever since Pharaoh tried  
> unsuccessfully to persuade Moses that religion had nothing to  
                                        ^^^^^^^^  
> do with Egypt's domestic policy on the status of nonindentured  
> servants.                   -Robert McAfee Brown  
                                      ^^^^^^  
however Pharaoh said :-> "Moses will alter your _religion_"...  
you were NOT fair to us, at least be fair to Pharaoh :->  
even Pharaoh didn't misuse _religion_ like you did :->  
  
here on the net, some uses words some uses zizis, but MZ uses  
zizipistols.