Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

I do appreciate your reply. I think I have a tedious way of asking simple questions that sometimes turns people off. I do find your answer fascinating and want to hear more.

Maybe that's it. Law of Charity says I should not assume malice when awkward style is sufficient explanation, and here you're giving the kind of feedback I was talking about. Thank you.

In answer to your question, I'd say I'm not convinced, yet. I'm unsure of the premise that it is possible for God to create a person in such a way that she would never choose what is morally wrong. It's actually an ancient question answered by an early Christian by the name of Iraenius.. His answer to the question went something like this:

1. God's purpose is that we will love one another and love him

2. Love requires freedom to freely choose to love or not love

3. If God made us so we were incapable of choosing to hate, we would be incapable of freely choosing to love or not love

Does God have to make us incapable of choosing hate to only make people who freely choose to love? Couldn't God make everyone with free will, use omniscience to know in advance which ones won't choose love freely, and simply not make those people?

Love requires a choice, so yes, if we are free to choose, we would have to be free to choose to love, or to not love. If we were not free to choose to not love, we would not be free. I'd say everyone, to one degree, or another, at times chooses not to love. So omniscience, in this case, would only reveal to God that he should create no one, for no one succeeds at loving 100% of the time. It seems God did not create us to be perfect, but to long to become perfect. I desire to be so much more than I am, and that is the hope I have for the life to come.

4. To prevent us from freely choosing to love would be unloving and unwise

To allow us to be born into circumstances that prevent us from freely choosing love would be unloving and unwise. Yet there are children who are raped to death before they make it to five. It seems if there is someone in charge, they are completely fine with people never having a chance to freely choose love.

There are those who are mistreated who choose to react to their mistreatment by not becoming like those who mistreated them. Victims always have a choice, I think. Suffering even has the potential to make those who suffer more empathetic, and so more apt to love.

5. If God were unloving, he would not be omnibenevolent, and if he were unwise, he would not be omniscient

6. If God were not omnibenevolent, nor omniscient, he would cease to be God

If God is omniscient, he may not be able to be omnibenevolent. An omniscient being is incapable of doing anything but we it already knows it will do. Omniscience doesn't allow for multiple scenarios, there can be only one. Since mere humans can easily imagine scenarios where we would have a better chance to freely choose love without being robots, this suggests some sort of constraint on an omnibenevolent deity.

Please elaborate, as I don't understand.

7. It is impossible for God to cease to be who he is

Yet another exception on God's omnipotence, and mere assertion as well.

I think, perhaps we have a different understanding of omnipotence. I could be wrong, but at the moment, I'm thinking omnipotence is not an unlimited amount of power, it's an unlimited quality (or perfection) of power. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omniscience, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unwise. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omnibenevolence, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unloving. The three aspects of God must be in perfect harmony, or God becomes less than perfect. Wisdom, rather than making God's power less than perfect, is a perfect guiding of God's power. Love, rather than making God's power less than perfect, is a perfect application of God's power.

For example, if God had unlimited power (power not limited by his wisdom or love) there would be nothing impossible for him to do. This is not the case, for we read in Hebrews:

...it is impossible for God to lie... .

(Hebrews 6:18)


Since there is something that is impossible for God to do, does this mean his power is limited (or he chooses to restrain his power)? Yes, I think so. For his power is restrained by his love and wisdom. Since there is something that is impossible for God to do, does this mean he is not perfect in power? No, it means his power is made perfect in wisdom and love--the three qualities of God in perfect harmony.

---

Now, please understand that my speaking from a Christian point of view does not mean I'm speaking as a partisan. I'm not into partisan religion, and am willing to consider whether atheism holds the truth, rather than Christianity. I'm playing the devil's advocate, so to speak! and hope I'm not sounding dogmatic by answering your questions, rather than asking the questions, myself.

---

There is a third option: Suggest a different purpose God has in mind. You said:


What if the world (or reality) God intended to make was one in which you and I have freedom of will? Would it then necessarily follow that God would have to create a reality with no freewill? I'm thinking the purpose of God the Bible describes is to create us to be free to love, or hate as we choose. For without choice, love is impossible. The Bible indicates the end game of God is to promote this love that requires freedom, I believe.

Most often God isn't given the properties of true omnipotence, because the concept in practice is impossible and logically contradictory. They simply give him the power to make a universe as he sees fit, with the boundaries set firmly in what is logically possible and non-contradictory. If the God you espouse is free from logical base laws, then cool, you have a God with the capacity to do anything and as such would be able to do things that contradict his nature. Chew on that and toss it around in your mind to find what is implied here.

I can cite several passages to this effect,

Goody. I don't really care. I would have taken you at your word.

To counter this premise, you would need to show either (a) God's ultimate goal is not that we love him and each other, or (b) love is possible with the complete absence of freewill.

I have to do no such thing. To ask me to do either means you simply misunderstood my argument in the first place. It was probably too hazy for you to understand the God I was talking about because I only implied he couldn't contradict logic, so that was my fault.
You seem to be saying that if he can create any world he wants, he can ignore his own attributes and create a world where he doesn't know everything while knowing everything. This would allow him to create a world with free will, I guess... I don't really see how he could be omniscient without being omniscient or the logical implications of contradictory logic in reality, but whatever floats your boat.

I would not ask you to accept this argument, but if I've inadvertently made some factual errors, or logical errors, please point them out.

If I screw up, call me out on it. If you screw up, I give you my word that you'll know.

Perhaps it would help to imagine a scenario where a being without freewill exists. Let's say you are a scientist exploring deep space hundreds of years from now. During the trek, you create a drug that gives you perpetual youth, so that you might live forever. Unfortunately, the members of the spaceship's crew all refused to take the drug. One by one they die of old age, eventually leaving you all alone.

You decide to make a companion for yourself--a robot. You create this robot to look like a beautiful woman and program her to say she loves you. She can never say otherwise, for this is how you programmed her--without the freedom to choose to not love you. When she says the words, "I love you," are they a genuine expression of love? If so, why?

Is the robot highly complex and capable of radical thought pattern changes? Is she technically "capable" of changing thought patterns like love, yet programming makes her believe that she loves him because of her own thoughts?
This is what defines a person who believes that he loves someone if he/she didn't really have free will. We all feel these emotions and feel we have control over our lives, but determinism says otherwise. A God-based determinism like the one God as defined by millions as defined by me necessarily must create, as I argued, holds water until such time that you accept God is capable of disregarding logic at any point in time. This puts you in another sinking boat, unless you go back to the beginning and choose one of my original options:
Either choose that
1. My definition of God is wrong, meaning he doesn't have omniscience or the ability to create any world he wishes to create (bar logical/trait-based contradictions).
2. Argue that I was flawed in my logic somewhere and show me where and how, or
3. Submit to the argument and accept that a deterministic God necessarily follows from his traits.

Did I mess up his traits?
Can he ignore logic?
Is my argument flawed?

It's up to you what you feel is correct, but you owe me an explanation if you are going to dismiss the argument for any other reason than these three. One reason might be that there were more choices that I didn't consider...

Yes, I have to concede that God is not omniscient if by omniscient we mean he can (and does) do anything at all. For example, Paul writes of the:

...God, who does not lie... .

(Titus 1:2)

One might say that being dishonest is something God is powerless to do. For if God were dishonest, he would be unwise (and so not omniscient) and unloving (and so not omnibenevolent). Of all the choices there are to a sentient being, the only things God has the freedom to choose are those that are not just a demonstration of perfect powerful alone, but also a demonstration of perfect wisdom and love.

But here is what I wonder: Does God not lie because he is powerless to lie, or does God not lie because he has the power to lie, but chooses to not lie? If the latter, rather than the former is true, then I'm thinking God truly is all-powerful, but chooses (by reason of wisdom and love) to restrain his power.

---

But please tell me: Do you think omnipotence is having the power to do everything, or do you think omnipotence is not only having the power to do everything but also doing everything?