Theology, supreme being...

From: Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland (henkl@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM)
Date: Tue 21 Feb 1995 - 22:40:08 EET

> From: Sandy Petersen <>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 12:31:26 -0600
> >all this discussion about logical proofs of the existence of the
> >Invisible God is irrelevant. You can't really build (as experience
> >has shown on Earth) a logical proof of the Supreme Being.
> Okay. In the first place, the fact that we cannot build such
> a proof of a Supreme Being on Earth has little to do with Glorantha.

I love these discussions. Readers may have noticed that the nature of the gods in Glorantha is one of my major triggers on the Digest... Not that any discussion actually resolves to anything, of course... I still like the discussion.

> In the second place, the fact that we have not developed such a proof
> hardly means that we can't. It just means we haven't. (Side note: I
> do NOT think such a logical proof is possible. It's part of my
> theology.)

Step 1: Agree on a definition of "Supreme Being" and its nature. Step 2: Discuss the possible existance of above.

Most discussions I've seen on the subject jump in at step 2. IMO, no one can actually complete step 1, as the divine transcends definition... As soon as you've cornered it, it isn't divine anymore... For me this applies to Glorantha and TRW.

Henk Langeveld

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:50:36 EEST