From: utzoo!watmath!cbostrum
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: omnipotence implies what?
Article-I.D.: watmath.4864
Posted: Thu Apr  7 03:25:52 1983
Received: Thu Apr  7 06:13:06 1983

ralphs response to don requires a reply. in trying to even understand
what omnipotence is there are severe problems. ralphs conception seems to
make it possible that one can be omnipotent, and still fuck up when one
tries to do something that we assume possible. (note that unlike
descartes and other fruitcakes, i am not claiming that an omnipotent being
can do the logically impossible. but it does seem true that an omnipotent
being should do better than what it has apparently created to date. and
not only that, but in the bible, to pick these gentlemens favorite putative
impotent, rather, omnipotent being, it seems true that he should not
get so upset with his results as the God depicted there does, if he were
such hot stuff). 

you guys can not really expect us to take much of this seriously, can you?
youll have to do a lot better, if thats the case. when will you admit that
your views of god are not even coherent to yourselves? the initial god-views,
that is, the highly anthropcentric ones, were coherent fer shure, but they
were quite clearly false, so the lets-be-metaphorical game began and this
tremendous incoherence arose.