Subject:
|
Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:51:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
770 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
> Another take: Maybe God's omnisicience is not a static thing. Perhaps, with
> each choice we make, God's knowledge is updated. As a rough analogy, a jar
> of water does not change in content by being stirred.
Then it is no longer omniscience.
> Another take: (and the one I tend to lean towards) Omniscient and
> omnipotent, as commonly defined are self-defeating. (Can God make a rock he
> can't lift?) Shift the definition to "know all things knowable" and "do all
> things doable", and God can be omnisicient without compromising free will.
Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not omniscient,
he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does not know his work
is not a very good creator. Same goes for omnipotence.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
