Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: wimjan@dbf.kun.nl (Wim-Jan Hilgenbos)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Proof that God errs.
Message-ID: <Jun.22.01.38.14.1991.7166@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 22 Jun 91 05:38:15 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Lines: 45
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

KGODDEN@cmsa.gmr.com writes:

>I submit the following self-evident truth as proof that God is neither
>omniscient nor omnipotent.  BTW, I found this beaut elsewhere on the net
>in somone's signature line:

>"God made one mistake when He created man.
> He wrote self-modifying code..."

Does this proof anything?
If man isn't able to see the results of self modifying code
why should this aply to God?
i.e. Isn't it possible He did this on purpose and knows what will come 
of it?

BTW I for myself never use, and I believe a lot of theological ex-
planations agree on this, a word preceded by omni when speaking of
God. The way we people think doesn't allow for this.
Omnipotent for example always brings to mind the question:
Can someone omnipotend make a stone that heavy he can't lift it himself?
So when speaking of God I prefer to use MOST.
i.e. most powerful, most loving, most lovable, etc.

So the lines you picked up don't prove anything and are probably 
meant to be read as a critic or an opinion.

                               Wim-Jan

[Most may not be quite strong enough.  I do agree that the
implications behind the omni- words are often problematical.  But
Christians do have some ideas about God that require us to think of
him as being more than simply slightly more XXX than the rest of us.
Unfortunately to get to the best characterizations we probably need to
look at each of the issues separately.  E.g rather than omnipotent, I
prefer to say that God is the source of the universe, and is in
control of it.  The Bible doesn't deal with abstractions such as
"omnipotent", since as you indicate, in order to use "all", you have
to be *very* careful in your definitions.  But it does have the
concept that God has the power to do what he wants to.  This is an
easier concept to deal with because we don't have to worry about
hypothetical situations.  Similarly with loving.  The point is
not that he is epsilon more loving than the most loving human,
but that he is the source of all of our love.

--clh]