Please read and comment on blog then discuss here
Eric Sotnak said...
It seems to me that for something to be deserving of the name "God" some substantive set of traditional theistic attributes must be predicated of it. Thus far in the presentation of your argument, I think little has been done to fill in the missing details. Presumably those details will center on the sense of the numinous you invoked in the original argument. Am I correct in assuming that such details are planned for future stages of the argument?
No I think this is a case where Christian apologetic has done a disservice because it;s lent itself to setting this easy little list of omni's as a quick shorthand to God's description and identity,it's really missing the point about the nature of God and what it means to attack that word to some set of characteristics.That gives me a great theme for Wedneday's blog. I will save the brunt of my comet for then, but I'll says this:first SON is about love, love is personal so the personal dimension is implied in my argument. I think TS would imply the omni's but we really have to re think the omni's.
I see this conflict shaping up between a big man on a throne with a white beard, vs, some empty nothing vacuum of nature. Both are stereo types. The Bible certainly feeds us the former, and the lack of a mythological image in Tillich's ideas gives us the latter. Most people have learned to think of the old man in the sky as the:true Biblical image: they never get that they are merely literalizing a metaphor. and the text essentially indicates it is a metaphor.