Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2h.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hou2h!kdh
From: kdh@hou2h.UUCP (K.HUNTER)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Personnal Testaments as Proofs
Message-ID: <362@hou2h.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Mar-84 17:14:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2h.362
Posted: Fri Mar 23 17:14:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Mar-84 09:09:11 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 28

Guess I can't hold out any longer -- here's my $0.02 worth:
 
>> This line of reasoning does seem to make sense, and it is not a new
>> idea. It does, however, conflict the common definition of God. Either
>> God is omnipotent, or He cannot change mankind. If you accept this
>> argument, you must also seriously doubt whether God posseses the other
>> qualities associated with Him (omniscience, etc), since if He is not
>> all-powerful, He is probably not all-knowing, and so on. If this is the
>> case, then there is nothing left to distinguish Him from us.

Your either/or is not all inclusive - it should, I believe, read:

"Either God is omnipotent **and does not WISH to change mankind**,
or He cannot......."

I think this is closer to the idea that the article you referenced had
in mind.  Just because God does not change mankind does not imply
that He cannot.  He may simply have personal (?) objections to the practice.
Remember George Burns answering this same "Why do you permit evil, etc?"
question in "Oh, God!" ?
Can't say that I totally agree with everything said, but it holds together
about as well as some of the other arguments I've heard on this topic...

I can't believe that finally I gave in...........

				Kevin Hunter
				AT&T Consumer Products
				Holmdel, NJ