RT> Frank Masingill discussing "Logical impasse" with me...
 RT> This is similar to David Hume's argument which goes something like  RT>>
 RT> this: Deists claim that god is benevolent and omnipotent. There is evil
 RT> in the world. If evil is gods plan then he is not benevolent. If evil is
 RT> 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.
 RT> We have detailed information according to the Bible.
   I'm afraid you are sorely limiting the number of sources of "God" or 
gods"
that exist in they known history of "mankind" which, btw, is also only a
symbol just like the "God" symbol. You seem also, above, to be be certain 
hat
the symbol is male since you use the pronoun "he" in referring to it.
 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."
 RT> I'm not going to argue word definitions. Sorry. That's not philosophy.
   I agree, but etymology is not an insignificant aspect of an approach to it
as witness the work of Nietzsche.  What then IS philosophy in your view?  Are
you protesting that Mortimer Adler has no credentials as a philosopher?  Not
sure what you mean.  If two people are talking and their words have no common
meaning they certainly cannot converse very much on philosophical topics.
When I speak on the subject I use the common western meaning of the founders
of the subject as the "love of wisdom" (not the "possession" of wisdom).  
hen
I philosophize, I also embrace both its empirical AND transcendental aspects
because I refuse to limit "reality" to merely that which the experience of 
an
can encompass in immediacy.  Nor do I embrace some male boogeyman in the sky,
as I assume neither do you - but them I shouldn't make assumptions about you.
 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.
 RT> Why?
   Why what?  I thought I just said it was odd.  If I KNEW why they do it I'd
say so.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------