Re: SOC: As goes Kansas...(evolution)

Joe E. Dees (
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 11:29:06 -0500

From:           	"John Clark" <>
To:             	<>
Subject:        	Re: SOC:  As goes Kansas...(evolution)
Date sent:      	Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:02:27 -0400
Send reply to:

> Robert Owen <> Wrote:
> >If we assume the being of a "hypertranscendental" or "super-
> >natural" object whose properties are omniscence, omnipresence,
> >and omnipotence, then I suppose the human dualities of "good-
> >evil", "loving-sadistic" and so on cannot, by definition, have
> >the slightest relevance to the essence of this object. In this
> >sense, Bryan, it is also inappropriate to say "God is Good".
> I agree. If good and evil exist independently of God then He has nothing
> to do with morality except that He's supposed to obey moral law just like
> everybody else. He can't be omnipotence either. If good and evil are
> not independent of God then doing good is just a matter of avoiding
> punishment and no loftier than obeying what the Nazi's tell you to do
> if they occupy your country. One must be true if God exists but I've
> found that most people are unhappy with either conclusion, so I don't
> make this argument much anymore, except to Extropians because
> they're not most people.
Such a being could not simultaneously be omniscient and omnipotent. If omnipotent, (s)he/it would have the power to change the future, and thus could not know it for certain; if omniscient, (s)he/it would know the future for certain, and therefore could not change it. Like the mythical irresistible force and immovable object, these two properties cannot coinhere in a single universe. Not only that, but omnipresence is equivalent to a lack of presence, for one can only possess a perspective or point of view relative to an other, or that which one is not. In the case of omnipresence, no such other can exist (there not being a place for such an other), thus there could be nothing upon which an omnipresence could establish or maintain any perspective. Also, frames of reference can only exist in multiples; there must be at least two to establish the differential context necessary for mutually definitional comparison and contrast. Omnipresence lacks such referential grounding.
> John K Clark