Frank Masingill discussing "Logical impasse" with me...
 RT>> This is similar to David Hume's argument which goes something like
 RT>> 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.
 FM>    This, of course, by definition, assumes the "God" symbol to be
 FM> synonymous with anthropomorphic attributes.
We have detailed information according to the Bible.
 RT>> God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent if evil exists.
 FM>    I agree with Mortimer Adler that "benevolence" is not a necessary
 FM> attribute of that which we symbolize as "God," however, if you deny it
 FM> omnipotence then the symbol no longer makes any sense to ANYBODY if they
 FM> engage in any thought about it.  This is not to argue that the
 FM> anthromoporphic beings can be assured of knowing even the complete
 FM> reality of what it might be to be "omnipotent."  
I'm not going to argue word definitions. Sorry. That's not philosophy.
 FM>    I continue to find it odd that the opponents of Fundamentalism allow
 FM> themselves to be trapped into the using the categories of
 FM> Fundamentalism.
Why?
    Relatif Tuinn
... Bumper sticker: "Rock-and-roll is music, not driving instructions."
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------