Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: The Best Response Thus Far
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=5388&mesg_id=5473
5473, RE: The Best Response Thus Far
Posted by raymond_, Fri Apr-04-03 04:57 PM
but the perspective is still
>polaric(One Omni-attributed God and humans)
>

Point well taken. Yeah, my whole argument/explanation regarding free will and God's foreknowledge assumes (and rests on) the nature of God to be that which the Judeo-Christian and Muslim faiths commonly conceive Him to be. i.e omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, infinite, all-powerful (could God create a rock too heavy for God to lift? always love that one)

On one hand it could be looked at as inherently flawed because it does rest on a certain conception of the nature of God. But one could also argue that (if there is a God) God could be no other way than that which Western religion generally thinks of him to be.

The most no-frills (perhaps one might say non-dogmatic) reason for believing in God is that the universe could not have been created without an uncaused cause. And, if you do except this you are saying that God is all actuality and no potentiality. Well one implication of this is that it could be validly proven that such a belief leads to the conclusion that God is immutable. How can something with no potentiality change? And if he is an immutable uncaused cause than he must be infinite. And, if he is infinite, and he at least initiated the expansion of the universe, then he is at the very least a remote cause of all things insomuch as his actions eventually created everything. So, perhaps he is all-powerful. See, as long as you hold a belief in God, even if its in a very non-dogmatic way such as God as a first cause, it is possible to be led to the assertions that most Western religion claims......

Thus, one could argue that anybody who recognizes God but does not recognize Him as having these attributes such as omnipotence, simply does not have the correct conception of God.

What ( I think) this means is that, maybe (and this really is a maybe) one cannot answer this question properly without having this polaric notion of God...because this polaric notion of God, if we are assuming there is God, is perhaps more accurate than others. (as a good Kuhnian I erased true and correct from that last part)



peace.