From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:57:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.113625.14271@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.022632.20135@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan04.031111.3890@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>My understanding is that a being which is omnipotent is capable of [has the
>>>required attributes & features which are required to do] *ANYTHING*.
>>>Therefore my understanding is that God *can* do anything. What God actually 
>>>*chooses* to do is independent from what he *can* do.
>>
>>You realize the consequences of this, when taken to its logical conclusion,
>>don't you?
>>
>>Briefly, the end result is that everything is the way God wants it to be.
>>This includes the state of man, the existence of suffering, etc.  All of
>>this follows from omnipotence + omniscience, which effectively means that
>>God makes no mistakes in planning (omniscience) and no mistakes in
>>execution (omnipotence).
>>
>>Of course, omnipotence effectively implies also that indirection with respect
>>to achieving goals is unnecessary.  
>
>Just as a side note, remember that 'unnecessary' does not mean 'will not
>happen'. IE...
> 
>>If God wants something, God can get that
>>something directly 
>
>...if, of course, He chooses to. He could also choose to get
>it indirectly.  For example, He could choose to have parts of
>His plan carried out by His creation itself. 
>
>>(if you wish to restrict the definition of ommipotence to
>>something that makes sense, I think the minimum restriction necessary is that
>>God cannot do something that breaks a definition, which means that in the case
>>of two or more mutually exclusive alternatives, God gets only one of them).
>
>I agree, omnipotence doesn't mean that nonsense is possible.
>
>>This also has some rather nasty implications for most Christians, namely that
>>Jesus was totally unnecessary for the salvation of mankind.  
>
>Of course He was. Heck, salvation was unnecessary. So was sin. So was
>pleasure. So was love. So, for that matter, is the existence of you, me,
>the universe, and everything (God has no need to create).
>
>>If God wanted
>>man to be "saved", God would have set things up such that it would never be
>>necessary to begin with.
>
>Yes, I agree, this is all quite true. What's the problem?

The problem is this:  many Christians claim that their God "loves" us
humans.  This statement has certain logical implications:

    love -> no wish for unnecessary harm (by definition).

Combined with the assumption of omnipotence and omniscience, you get:

    omnipotence + omniscience -> no unwanted indirection ->
	nothing is "unnecessary".

    nothing is "unnecessary" + no wish for unnecessary harm ->
	no wish for harm.

You also get:

    no wish for harm + omnipotence + omniscience -> no harm occurs.

But the last conclusion is false, and therefore AT LEAST ONE of the
premises must *also* be false.  Thus, either:

    - God is not omnipotent
    - God is not omniscient
    - God does not love humans.

It is up to Christians who hold to the original assumptions to decide which
of the above is the case.


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc