Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

A precognitive creator God is a special case, don't you think? It established all the initial conditions already knowing what all the outcomes would be. With the Biblical creation story, he would have known Eve and Adam as he made them would succumb to the temptation they were going to face and he made them exactly that way anyway rather than with the X% more resistancr to temptation that they needed to make the choice he wanted them to make. From that, it's obvious that the choice he wanted them to make was to fail his test, for which they were then punished for doing exactly what they were made to do. A precognitive creator is a mess for anyone who takes Bible stories literally. And he doesn't even have to be omnipotent, just powerful enough to set the initial conditions. If there's a precognitive creator who set the initial conditions, our choices are what he chose for us at the beginning, and free will is an illusion because of necessary pre-determinism.

Whether Adam and Eve were actual people, or symbolic of the human condition, I think you are assuming that God (if he exists) tried to make a race that would never turn against him, or against one another. You aren't asking a question, so I suppose you don't mind if I go back to asking them: If God's purpose is believed to be to create a race capable of love, is such love possible while eliminating the possibility of hate? Is it possible to create beings who are capable of loving God, or others and who are (at the same time) incapable of hating God, or others? (I am asking the question in the context of definition (3) of omnipotence, which was suggested previously in this discussion.)

---

Dude, don't quote a massive bit for a single line reply.

Sorry, I was unaware of this particular forum etiquette. The rules change from forum to forum. I'll be careful not to abide by that one from now on. Thank you.

---

... 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.

Once again, I'd like to express my thanks for your patience and your doing your best to help me wrap my head around what you are saying.



I'm thinking you are saying (and would agree with) this:

1. Time is both static and dynamic. The past is static and cannot be changed--what is done is done and cannot be undone. The present and future are dynamic and constantly changing--as we make decisions and take action in the present, we change what the possible outcomes of the future might become.
   
   
2. If there were a being who had perfect precognition (who either looked down the corridor of time and saw what the outcomes would be, or who traveled through time to the future and saw what the outcomes would be, or who existed outside of time and experiences the past and future as the present) then this being's precognitive ability would make him capable of seeing the actual outcomes in the future for the choices and actions we are now making in the present.
   
   
3. Once the being with perfect precognition sees the actual outcomes of our choices and actions, the time of the present and future would be forever changed from dynamic to static. The choices we make and actions we take would be set in stone, unable to be altered in any way. Like the poor sod of the ancient Greek soldier who was too foolish to keep from avoiding the Medusa's gaze, time (looking into the eyes of this perfectly precognitive being) would forever be turned to stone (so to speak) and unable to change in any way.
   
   
4. Since the future becomes set in stone and cannot be changed or undone, it becomes like the past--static.
   
   
5. Since the future becomes static, our choices and actions cannot be changed in any way. They too are set in stone and become static.
   
   
6. Choices and actions that cannot be decided or taken in any way but one are not free at all, and so freewill is an illusion.
   

Please tell me, Rythm:

Am i understanding you correctly? Are you saying that a precognitive being who sees the future (if such were possible) would make the outcomes to become static, rather than dynamic, and so freewill would become an illusion?