On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Nytemuse wrote: @> > >I stay as far away from most fundamentalists as I can, but I would think @> > >just the opposite. Close textual analysis may indicate contradictions and @> > >inconsistencies, and the idea that there would be contradictions and @> > >inconsistencies is anathema to people who believe that God dictated the @> > >Bible and that its every word is law. @> > @> > At the risk of touching off a flamewar, my experience with fundamentalists @> > would suggest that they do, indeed, read all of the passages most closely in @> > order that they might then explain all the inconsistencies away. @> @> Not that I'm trying to add to a flamewar, but the fundamentalists I've @> come across read a lot, but either don't read enough or don't think about @> what they've read. Personally, I prefer to use the "If God is omnipotent, @> can he create a boulder too heavy for him to lift?" And the variations @> thereof. Obviously it's nowhere near a good argument, but at least you @> know that's one question they can never answer! Honestly, Leibniz had a good argument for this one. His approach was that the concept "a rock God can't lift" is a logical contradiction, and therefore not a good measure of omnipotence. He actually may have something here; would it make sense to ask whether God could create a red green tuesday with brown hair? It makes a similar amount of sense to say "a thing which a being that can do anything cannot do X to". (I am not saying I endorse Leibniz's point of view, simply that this argument is not bulletproof.) Or there's this one: He could make a rock, then decide not to lift it. Heh.