RE: Better reasons to quit Christianity
August 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm
(This post was last modified: August 26, 2012 at 9:50 pm by spockrates.)
(August 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm)padraic Wrote:Quote: If God has total omniscience, it is indeed probable that this abrogates our freewill.
The Catholic position is that God is infinite, as are his qualities of omnipresence,omnipotence and omniscience.
Does it not follow that an infinite being can only possess infinite qualities?
Not a rhetorical question,I really want to know. I'd be grateful not to hear from any theist apologists.
I keep thinking of Epicurus and the problem of suffering:
Quote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Yes, but I believe both you and Epicurus, wise as he was and you indeed are, are thinking of total omniscience, rather than inherent omniscience. I'm thinking there is a difference between possessing something and using that thing one possesses to it's fullest extent. Some of us have been talking about various aspects of Spock, so let me use him as an example to illustrate my point: Let's say Spock chose to arm wrestle Dr. McCoy. Spock, being Vulcan, has vastly superior strength, but he decides to let McCoy beat him. Does this mean Spock is not stronger than the doctor? No, it means he chose not to use all of his strength to overpower him.
Now let's say an alien race gave Spock infinite omniscience. Becoming omniscient, Spock realizes that were he to use his new ability to its fullest extent, freewill would cease to be. Rather than overpower all who freely choose, he decides not to use his omniscience to it's fullest extent. He decides to see only so much as he is able to see while still allowing freewill to be.
In both examples, Spock decides to limit his ability so as to not overpower others. His limiting his ability does not mean it is less than it is; it simply means it is under his control. Spock's muscular strength was inherently greater than McCoys, but it was not totally greater. For Spock did not use his total strength to overpower McCoy. Spock's omniscience was inherently infinite, but it was not totally infinite. For he did not use his omniscience to overpower our freedom of will. See the difference between an inherent ability and a total ability?
(August 26, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(August 26, 2012 at 9:29 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Hey Stimbo and Padraic, how many times have you shouted "Get off my lawn!" today?
Only twice, then I shook my fist at a couple of 'teddy boys' with their tatty trousers and their silly haircuts and their so-called music that you can't even hear the words. After that I tried for a motion then had a nap while Diagnosis Murder was on.
(August 26, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: After seven years of drought anyone would lose his head.
Or hope for some.
Indeed.
"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the truth."
--Spock
--Spock