Better reasons to quit Christianity

[The Grand Nudger]

OK. You were saying God is a precog, which translates, "God is a precognition."

No, i say god is a figment of peoples imagination, but what I;ve been saying in this thread, for the purposes of this discussion, is that the god described appears to be a precognitive entity.

The grammar is confusing, since precognition is a paranormal ability, rather than a person. It would be less confusing to say, "God possesses precognition," or something similar.

Unless one is familiar with the terms and the subject, in which case "God is a precog" works just fine.

So let's look at the definitions of precognition:

pre·cog·ni·tion
   [pree-kog-nish-uhn]
noun
1. knowledge of a future event or situation, especially through extrasensory means.
2. Scots Law .
a. the examination of witnesses and other parties before a trial in order to supply a legal ground for prosecution.
b. the evidence established in such an examination.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precognition?s=t

Thrilled that you managed to find a definition. Good deal, lets move on.

You also made the point that if the God with precognition saw what choices a person would make, the idea that the choices were freely made would be an illusion.

Correct, and I explained precisely why.

Now I see noting in the definition to suggest that one having the paranormal ability somehow causes freewill to be an illusion. A more detailed explanation of the word also does not seem to support your theory in any way that I can see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

Might that have something to do with the fact that both the definition and the link exist to help you understad what the concept is, and don;t actually address how they might apply to other concepts? Just throwing that out there.

So I'm still at a loss as to why you believe someone having precognition necessitates that freedom of will is an illusion.

You shouldn't be, since I've explained it multiple times in multiple ways for multiple people in this thread.

Are you saying that freewill itself is an illusion, and all choices are predetermined, though there is no God?

No, but you can argue with yourself all day on that count if you like.

Or are you saying that if there was a God with a precognitive ability only then would freewill be an illusion?

No, but you can argue with yourself all day on that count if you like.

An example I hope you will use to help me understand you:

A person with the paranormal ability of precognition is watching a chess match between two chess masters. The person has a premonition

Full stop right there, precognition and premonition are not the same thing. I have premonitions, I don't have precognitive abilities.

that one of the two chess players will win the game, how many moves it will take to win the game, and what the final move will be that puts the losing player in checkmate. Please explain how, in this example, the freedom of the two chess players to choose what moves they will make is an illusion.

Is the precog correct (IOW, are they a precog?)?

1. knowledge of a future event or situation, especially through extrasensory means.

Not a guess, not anxiety, not a feeling, not an inkling, not "probably this but maybe that" or "most likely this and definitely not that"....... knowledge. From the moment that the precog has this experience the events can turn out no other way...or else they are not having a precognitive experience. The player the precog "sees" winning must win, it must take that many moves to win the game, checkmate must be achieved in the manner experienced by the precog -before the fact-. Notice, in this example, that neither of us are insinuating that the precog him/herself has to have any personal influence on the outcome of this match. Nevertheless, the future must be determined along the lines of the precogs experience, or else they are not a precog, they are not having a precognitive experience.

To take the example further: If the "losing player" "chooses" to make another move -becoming the winner-, the precogs experience is rendered useless. Now we have a choice, the future is (at least in this case) not determined, the events are not predestined, but we are left without a precog.

The precog (or, in the second - the person that does not have precognitive abilities) in either case is simply an observer. If events are predestined such that a precog can explain to you the particulars of future events (or if they are not) it does not necessarily have to be through any influence on the part of the precog (and this is a fun mind bender..if it were...how could we then be certain that the precog was actually seeing events as they would occur as opposed to events as they would -force them- to occur?)

At issue here is not whether the existence or (potential) influence of any given precog leaves us with a notion of choice or free will that is decidely more akin to an illusion than what we begin with; but that precognition as an ability (regardless of the bearer), and the requirements of that ability, not to mention whatever manner in which this is all achieved, leaves us with a concept of choice that is so far removed from what we generally take the word to mean as to render it useless.

Now, why is this all relevant to the notion of god, specifically the judeo-christian god? Because choices, we are told, have specific consequences. Because we are told that we are responsible for those choices (and this is how god is excused from any part of the world that the arguer deems unworthy or unfashionable). To have someone who would have me believe this then go on to tell me that their god is a precog...well, that's point break.