Tweet
My comments on this editorial are below, interspersed with some of the original text. You can find the link here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/o...niscience.html
And I'd urge you to read it on your own, since I will snip parts of it. Also, that gives it page views which will hopefully cause the NYT and other papers to include similar philosophical and theological discussions to take place on their websites.
My comments do not include the entirety of the original text, so I'll use snip to show that I've cut something, usually a paragraph. You can feel free to see whether or not I need to address those points:
To all non-western thinkers? Like Muslims? Or Hindus who believe that all gods are simply parts of the one supreme God, Brahman?
This is coming across as pretty loose
What we sometimes call logically-qualified omniscience: God can do anything logically possible.
This is a weird line to me, given its inclusion in this paragraph where we accept, for the sake of argument, logically-qualified omnipotence My quibble here then is that, iirc, Descartes is not so much talking about incoherent omnipotence, but more the idea that God, as author of reality, can bend reality in whatever way he sees fit.
I suppose this is possible. Such a God could create a world in which evil does not exist.
not the samelogicallyimo, this carries over into the New Testament -- we are unrighteous, not because of sin, but our own. If we face judgement, it is because we ourselvespossibility of wickedness. If a one cannot be wicked, then that one cannot also be righteous.
That seems like a lot to conclude from a phrase sewn into a jacket.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/o...niscience.html
And I'd urge you to read it on your own, since I will snip parts of it. Also, that gives it page views which will hopefully cause the NYT and other papers to include similar philosophical and theological discussions to take place on their websites.
My comments do not include the entirety of the original text, so I'll use snip to show that I've cut something, usually a paragraph. You can feel free to see whether or not I need to address those points:
To all non-western thinkers? Like Muslims? Or Hindus who believe that all gods are simply parts of the one supreme God, Brahman?
This is coming across as pretty loose
What we sometimes call logically-qualified omniscience: God can do anything logically possible.
This is a weird line to me, given its inclusion in this paragraph where we accept, for the sake of argument, logically-qualified omnipotence My quibble here then is that, iirc, Descartes is not so much talking about incoherent omnipotence, but more the idea that God, as author of reality, can bend reality in whatever way he sees fit.
I suppose this is possible. Such a God could create a world in which evil does not exist.
snip
snip
Comment