Frank Masingill on "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
 RT>> evil in the world. If evil is gods plan then he is not benevolent. If
 RT>> 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.
 RT>> We have detailed information according to the Bible.
 FM>    I'm afraid you are sorely limiting the number of sources of "God" or
 FM> "gods" that exist in they known history of "mankind" which, btw, is also
 FM> only a symbol just like the "God" symbol. You seem also, above, to be be
 FM> certain that the symbol is male since you use the pronoun "he" in
 FM> referring to it.
Frank, with all due respect, this is a strawman. The premises were laid in 
the statement itself. If you want to change the premises then of course the 
conclusion is going to change.
What about the statement itself? What do you think of 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
 FM>> they 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.
 FM>    I agree, but etymology is not an insignificant aspect of an approach
 FM> to it as witness the work of Nietzsche.  What then IS philosophy in your
 FM> view?  Are you protesting that Mortimer Adler has no credentials as a
 FM> philosopher?  Not sure what you mean.  If two people are talking and
 FM> their words have no common meaning they certainly cannot converse very
 FM> much on philosophical topics. When I speak on the subject I use the
 FM> common western meaning of the founders of the subject as the "love of
 FM> wisdom" (not the "possession" of wisdom).  When I philosophize, I also
 FM> embrace both its empirical AND transcendental aspects because I refuse
 FM> to limit "reality" to merely that which the experience of man can
 FM> encompass in immediacy.  Nor do I embrace some male boogeyman in the
 FM> sky, as I assume neither do you - but them I shouldn't make assumptions
 FM> about you.
Indeed. And maybe you'd like to consider that what you think isn't what 
everyone else thinks. I see a list of "I"s up there. What is that to do with 
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.
 RT>> Why?
 FM>    Why what?  I thought I just said it was odd.  If I KNEW why they do
 FM> it I'd say so.
So, am I to ascertain that anything you don't understand is labeled odd?
    Relatif Tuinn
... Assembler Command: BMI: Blow up Memory Immediate
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------