RT> This is similar to David Hume's argument which goes something like this:
 RT> Deists claim that god is benevolent and omnipotent.
 RT> There is evil in the world.
 RT> If evil is gods plan then he is not benevolent.
 RT> If evil is not gods plan then he is not omnipotent.
   This, of course, by definition, assumes the "God" symbol to be synonymous
with anthropomorphic attributes.
 RT> God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent if evil exists.
   I agree with Mortimer Adler that "benevolence" is not a necessary 
ttribute
of that which we symbolize as "God," however, if you deny it omnipotence then
the symbol no longer makes any sense to ANYBODY if they engage in any thought
about it.  This is not to argue that the anthromoporphic beings can be
assured of knowing even the complete reality of what it might be to be
"omnipotent."  
   I continue to find it odd that the opponents of Fundamentalism allow
themselves to be trapped into the using the categories of Fundamentalism.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------