[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: REQUEST : RISHIS
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: REQUEST : RISHIS
-
From: ramana@ecf.toronto.edu (Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana Gopal)
-
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 07:55:53 -0400
-
Fake-Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Academic disscussions only incorporated
-
References: <ghenDxu5oL.5JB@netcom.com> <ghenDy9FtI.7zK@netcom.com> <ghenDyL5Bs.ts@netcom.com> <ghenDyotK9.42t@netcom.com>
-
Sender: News Administrator <news@ecf.toronto.edu>
In article <ghenDyotK9.42t@netcom.com>,
Joseph M. Emmanuel <maitreya@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:11:51 GMT, shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>
>>>These are not flaws. You chose to call them such. He is also Everything.
>>>So He is indeed All Forms, Names, Shapes, etc. My God Has No Flaws:).
>>
>>The main point is still not answered: wherefrom did you get the notion
>>that *if* there is an Omnipotent God, *then* he/she/it is formless?
>>What is the basis for this inference?
>
>Have you seen any Omnipotent God with form?
>
if this is the *proof*, then it is interesting. does this
argument "if i dont see Omnipotent God with a form, then
Omnipotent god must be form less" not lead to a similar
argument :"if i dont see God, there must be no god"??
