Heres a good reason to quit Christianity;



'Nough said.

(August 20, 2012 at 10:10 pm)spockrates Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Rhythm,
You just say that a precog has knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. They are "simply an observer." So how is knowing a choice and eliminating choice the same thing?
Are you implying that if there were any kind of precog, there would be no choice whatsoever? That simply knowing Joe will buy a car puts the decision out of his hands? Let me ask this: Into what hands is the decision put into? In the presence of a knowledge-only precog, who or what is determining reality?

(August 21, 2012 at 12:41 am)Undeceived Wrote: Rhythm,
You just say that a precog has knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. They are "simply an observer."

Correct, that's what I say, because that's what it means to be precognitive. To have knowledge of the future

Quote:So how is knowing a choice and eliminating choice the same thing?

How many times do I have to say "the precognitive doesn't have to be doing anything but observing the future." It isn't the precog eliminating the choice (at least, it doesn't have to be). It is a requirement of precognitive ability that precognitive experiences be accurate, the future cannot go some other way, or they are not precognitive. Knowledge, remember, not a best guess, or mostly accurate predictions. Knowledge.

Quote:Are you implying that if there were any kind of precog, there would be no choice whatsoever?

No, I'm not implying anything, I'm openly stating that there would be one very specific type of "choice", the illusory type. Not that this would mean much to us with our flawed perception of time and "choice". Nevertheless, what we perceive and what is actually occurring would not seem to be interchangeable once we invoke the precog.
(we could add some more depth to this to try and shoehorn the two together by the way, but that would be even worse for the judeo-christian god concept).

Quote:That simply knowing Joe will buy a car puts the decision out of his hands?

"Simply knowing" Does put it out of his hands. He cannot choose to not buy a car -if the precog can see it. Or else the precog is no such thing.

Quote:Let me ask this: Into what hands is the decision put into? In the presence of a knowledge-only precog, who or what is determining reality?

Try none, no hands, no decision? What determines the circumstances which leads to the "decision" would depend on the "decision", but it wouldn't alter the nature of that "decision" with regards to the precogs ability to experience predestined events. We could propose that a pancake set the events rolling, that neither the Precog nor Joe where there (or even aware that this occurred), that the pancake had no intentions, is not controlling anything, and has long since disintegrated....but the illusory nature of Joe's "decision" is made perfectly clear and plain the very moment the precog experiences it - assuming...that the precog is, in fact, precognitive. You could remove either "decision" or "precog" and you wouldn't have a problem. Which is why I asked which of the two was more important to you.

This really is exceedingly simple:
-If the precog is wrong, if Joe chooses a instead of the expected b, the precog is not a precog.

-If the precog has knowledge of the event before the fact, it can go no other way, and even though Joe may feel that he;s made a decision (maybe a fine decision even -we do love to categorize our decisions) the precog can see right through this, the precog knows that the events could have gone no other way.

---

I'm going to help you both out here, and offer an alternative.

Perhaps there is more than one stream of time. Perhaps a precog could experience all potential timelines (actualizing all of these potentials from the precogs vantage point in the process). Perhaps a precog can experience Joe choosing both a and b, and everything that happens as a result of that, all the way down the river of causality ad infinitum. Perhaps the precog can experience every divergent Joe, from every divergent choice, along every divergent timeline, simultaneously.

This sort of precognition would seem to handle my objections, at least at first glance (though I still have arguments to make) but it wouldn't actually fit very well with your myths, or your notion of choices and their consequences. For example, everytime Joe chose to believe in your deity or not believe in your deity ( to sin or not to sin), an equal amount of Joes would be both rewarded and damned. Along a potentially infinite line of choices and opportunities to make choices an infinite number of Joes would be both rewarded and damned. This is just one example of how doubling down on [unsubstantiated] crazy leads to weird ass shit.....

(August 20, 2012 at 10:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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...

Now THAT is helpful. Thank you! I owe you an apology for doubting your willingness to help me understand. What you said was clear, concise and cogent. Please give me some time to think about that.

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

(August 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Heres a good reason to quit Christianity;



'Nough said.

Here's the real reason why I personally quit Christianity.

FallentoReason Wrote:Here's the real reason why I personally quit Christianity.

That is not a reason to quit Christianity. That is a reason to commit suicide.

(August 21, 2012 at 10:37 am)Faith No More Wrote:

FallentoReason Wrote:Here's the real reason why I personally quit Christianity.

That is not a reason to quit Christianity. That is a reason to commit suicide.

Well, being an aspiring musician myself I realised life is still worth living.. I'm bound to be better than this kid at music!

As an inspiring musician you should want to off yourself knowing that you are of the same species as this kid.