>
>On one hand it could be looked at as inherently flawed
>because it does rest on a certain conception of the nature
>of God.

It IS inherently flawed.

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.

Whoever would make that argument would likely be a racist.

>
>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.

"the Creator" is a term I hear people use who don't want to say "god". But the creator of what? This physical universe? That creator is WAAAY beyond comprehension from this level of experience and is not even worth getting caught up trying to figure out. That creator does not demand worship or praise(like humans/aliens) or answers prayers. I envision the relationship akin to a person who created a self sustaining flower garden. The person doesn't demand anything from the plants and insects and minerals. And the plants and insects would be wasting their time attempting to figure out the life of the gardener...

...There is a more personal creator, who also possesses the "omni-attributes", but possesses them in relation to our unique paths. That creator is our Higher Self(HS). The TRUE SELF that CHOSE to create our current, "past" and "future" incarnations for the experiences that they provide.

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......

That's true, that's why that term "god" sucks ass.

>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)

The question can be delt with without the use of polaric notions. But it does take having a greater awareness of the nature of 'spirit' and how it pertains to physical reality and at the very least, being able to perceive other possiblities than what the judeo-christian/muslim paradigm offers.
>
>
>
>peace.

Truth 2 U