Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

Who is to say the future is one, but not many? Who is to say that omniscience is not the ability to see only one outcome, but countless billions of possible outcomes, and to act in the present according to all the possible outcomes foreseen?

Who indeed, once we've gone down this road. But this is even more troubling for the judeo-christian god, and I've already begun to elaborate upon why, twice... posts ago.

Isn't this what someone does when he plays chess, but on a much smaller scale? Rather than avoiding the argument, I think I'm addressing it, though in a way you did not expect.

At no point does the chess player possess precognition, even though they may accurately determine the moves of their opponent, it isn't precognition that allows them to achieve this. See the above for what I may expect (or what you may propose that could be expected), and reread our posts.

the Use your imagination, Mister! Have a little fun with the wonder of what it must be like to be all-knowing and to know all. It cannot possibly be as dull and unremarkable as even the most creative person can imagine. Can it?

I wouldn't know, I couldn't rule out the utter dullness of omniscience personally, maybe Mister can, neither of us having experienced it. An eternity without so much as a single surprise....idk Spock...

I don't see a problem given the proposed definitions of time and omniscience.

Time = that which is impossible to become static in the future

Omniscient = knowing all of the possible outcomes of the future and what actions would have to be taken to make the impossible, possible and make the possible, impossible.

Now you say, "God is a precog." If by that you mean, "God is omniscient," then I'll stick with my response. No one outcome pre-known; no problem. You would have to proove, by some philosophical, or scientific method that time can become static, which I don't yet agree that you have.

But as I suggested earlier, even if you are correct, there is still no reason to disbelieve in God. One outcome pre-known; still no problem, because this is what Calvinists believe--freewill is an illusion. God predestines everyone for heaven, or hell and no one can change her destiny.

I used to be a member of an Evangelical Presbyterian church, so I know. Agreeing that freewill is unreal does not prevent a believer in Reformed Theology from logically believing in God. The Calvinist would simply say you are correct and advise me to return to Calvinism.

A student of logic might say you have no FE (factual errors) for your premises might be correct, but you've committed an LE (logical error) since your premises support the opposite conclusion: Even if freedom of choice is impossible, it is still possible for God to exist.