Debate : 8263


Off-Topic / Debate / 8263	8262 \| 8264

Subject:	Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:47:21 GMT
Viewed:	744 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: > As an aside, lots of creators (some creators of very enduring works) have > claimed they do not fully understand their creation. It doesn't make them > any less of a creator. True, but you're speaking as though a finite creator is the same as an infinite Creator. The work of any creditable author contains depth, allusion, and meaning that he didn't realize, much less intend, but that doesn't make the work any less powerful. Melville, for example, didn't realize that Moby Dick was allegorical until someone pointed it out to him. Authorship does not equal authority, and a creation is not limited only by the skill of the creator. However, when dealing with an infinite Creator, the issue is somewhat different, and we may arguably assume that He (It?) has full knowledge of Creation. To respin the weary ontological argument, a Creator who does not have Absolute Knowledge of His Creation is not as perfect as a Creator who does have such knowledge. Further, early scholarly doctrine indentified God as "that which greater than nothing can be thought." Using this view, if Tom and I can conceive of a God able to know the future with certainty, then Tom and I have definitely thought of something greater than a God unable to know that future. > Would you be willing to post your arguments in a little more depth? I'm > enjoying this discussion, but it's hard to respond to one-liners. I'm sorry to chime in out of turn, but Tom is making some points that have stuck in my consciousness for some time, so I wanted to get into it, too. Dave!

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
Feel free to jump in, I sometimes don't have time to post here, and if someone else posts a more detailed explanation of what I am stating, it makes it easier on me ;-) (...) -- \| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp \| Please (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
(...) Hmm. I'm not particularly convinced that it is necessary, but I'll grant the point, since it's a theological underpinning for most christian faiths. (...) Hmm. There's not much I can say to that, because it's a pretty closed loop. The phrase (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
(...) Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for that assumption so (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

Custom Search