From: jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: ooOO dOG AND GOd OOoo
Keywords: dog god
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:27:44 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne


In article <1bhfk9INNpgp@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, ecuzq@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr B H Y Tseng) writes:
|> In article <3352@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato) writes:
|> >
|> >In article <1belrsINN9aa@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, ecuzq@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr B H Y Tseng) writes:
|> 
|> >|> Well, God's power is not mechanical, it's personal. When we talk about
|> >|> God's power, we cannot separate it from His other attributes, namely,
|> >|> Love, Righteousness, etc. Also, if God couldn't create a squared circle,
|> >|> you may call Him not omnipotent according to your definition, but I doubt
|> >|> your definition would be accepted by most philosophers.
|> >
|> >If God is omnipotent, then God's powerful must encompass the mechancial aspect.
|> >The God you mentioned has attributes derived from the Bible, it is the Christian
|> >God, there is no other reasons to believe that God, if exists, even possesses such
|> >attributes as love, righteousness etc.
|> 
|> Yes, God's power encompasses the mechanical aspect. But what I was saying
|> is that God's power is not only a mechanical power, it is also a personal
|> power. Yes, the God I am talking about is the Christian God, and the bible
|> does tell us about this personal God's attributes such as love and
|> righteousness. What I am saying, therefore, is that God would not act
|> against his own will. For example, He cannot sin. You may again say he
|> is not omnipotent because He cannot possibly sin.

All boils down to the Bible, without it you cannot convince others and you cannot
convince yourself as well.

|> >|> Well, there is a book written by Richard Swinburne, called "The
|> >|> Coherence of Theism". It was published in the late seventies.
|> >|> The above question is well discussed. Also see books written by
|> >|> A. Plantinga.
|> >
|> >They are not the first two human beings talked about these things. From the
|> >title of the book, it sounds that the author started out to defend theism.
|> 
|> Well, yes, they defended theism. But a book talking about philosophy of
|> religion, written by an author who does not have any view or standpoint
|> is hardly worth reading.
|> 
|> >Let me reiterate one thing, a true "God" believer should not limit his/her
|> >view to Christian God, and Christian God as described in the Bible could be
|> >too limited to be considered universal.
|> 
|> What ground do you have in saying this? If there is a true God, then it
|> follows that other "Gods" are not true. It is as simple as that! And why
|> is the Christian God too limited to be considered universal?

Why can't "true" and "God" has a pluralistic sense? The simple thing is that your
argument is a fallacy. If Christian God is only about love and righteouness
then I would not say that it is universal, since there are so many aspects of
human feelings which are not part of it. Ethics is a product of the evolution of 
human society, I don't believe that it is something endowed by God. Universe is
vast, and it is likely to have different ethics in the other side of the world.

Lin Can
=========================================================================
.-- .... --- . ...- . .-. -.. . -.-. --- -.. . ... - .... .. ...
--. . - ... -. --- - .... .. -. --.        
.-.. .. ..-. . .. ... ... .... --- .-. - .-- --- .-. -.- .... .- .-. -..
                                                   .-.. .. -. -.-. .- -.
=========================================================================