(August 24, 2012 at 11:04 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 24, 2012 at 9:55 am)spockrates Wrote: I believe you missed my point. I'm not suggesting omniscience is knowing what will be; I'm wondering if omniscience is knowing what the possibilities are. The distinction between the actual and the possible is significant, I think. Also, whatever the outcome of our discussion, as I said before, I will not be troubled. I'm here to find out the truth about whether God exists, not to prove to anyone he does. The only one I'm trying to convince is myself.

The Guessing God hypothesis. Thanks, I'll pass. Not quite what we hope for from "omniscience" btw, is it? If you're only looking to convince yourself...I'd say that you've been pretty successful on that count, wouldn't you? I have, nowehere on these boards, seen you acknowledge a single trouble aspect of the existence of this god. Sure, you may wonder if we have all the particulars of the narrative entirely correct, but in each and every case, the assumption is implicit from the very beginning that this creature exists. Why? I've never seen anyone (so I can't single you out) field anything even remotely resembling a coherent thought on this count, and yet the notion persists.

Why? Well, if I don't assume the possibility that God exists, then I've already made up my mind that God is non-existent, I think. As I've repeatedly said, I have not made up my mind, yet.

Perish the thought....

(August 24, 2012 at 11:04 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 24, 2012 at 9:55 am)spockrates Wrote: I believe you missed my point. I'm not suggesting omniscience is knowing what will be; I'm wondering if omniscience is knowing what the possibilities are. The distinction between the actual and the possible is significant, I think. Also, whatever the outcome of our discussion, as I said before, I will not be troubled. I'm here to find out the truth about whether God exists, not to prove to anyone he does. The only one I'm trying to convince is myself.

The Guessing God hypothesis. Thanks, I'll pass. Not quite what we hope for from "omniscience" btw, is it? If you're only looking to convince yourself...I'd say that you've been pretty successful on that count, wouldn't you? I have, nowehere on these boards, seen you acknowledge a single trouble aspect of the existence of this god. Sure, you may wonder if we have all the particulars of the narrative entirely correct, but in each and every case, the assumption is implicit from the very beginning that this creature exists. Why? I've never seen anyone (so I can't single you out) field anything even remotely resembling a coherent thought on this count, and yet the notion persists.

Quote:Sorry for being vague. I should have said, "You say, 'If there is a God who is a precog... .'"

....then our fates are predestined, not because there is a god, not because this god is a precog, not because of any effect of precognition or this god, not because scripture says so, and not because I want it to be or even agree with it, but because of the requirements of precognition.

Now, are you going to take a crack at explaining to me why the narrative of free will, salvation, and damnation is anything other than cruel cosmic theatre in light of this? Or would you rather, as I have suggested, propose that god just might not be a fortune-teller after all (as per the above....and I'm still wondering about the whole cosmic theatre bit, as a guessing god that sets up such a system is an equally troubling creature)? You have mentioned Calvinists a couple of times in reference to this particular problem, let me just say, the Calvinist response to this problem is easily the most callous and indifferent response I have ever seen offered. It's a brave stance, granted, but utterly and completely horrid.

Now, again, assuming that the whole bit is a factually accurate representation of reality - we would have no choice in the matter of our salvation or damnation, but I get the feeling that you and I are both found of at least pretending that we have -some- choices...even if this is not among them. Do we not have a choice as to what we will accept as goodness, or righteousness, or qualities worthy of worship and reverence?

Are we are to accept from the divine what we would not tolerate of each other, simply because we are powerless in the face of this creature's abilities.....?

(This is honestly the heart of my opinion on the matter. The status of the existence of the god you propose is not an open question to me. I am not an anti-theist because I do not believe, or because I have an issue with people believing in things which I personally characterize as childish superstition, but because of the concessions one must ultimately make -or avoid consideration of entirely- in proposing those beliefs-as-fact. I see depravity, callousness, indifference..and dare I use the phrase...abject evil embedded in the very notions that we see so often put forward as hypotheses of the divine. They seem to me, in almost all cases, to be the cruelest mirror of our own worst qualities that we could possibly engineer. I would not require any other reason to "quit christianity" - were I ever a christian to begin with. It would be completely irrelevant to me whether or not such a creature existed, and amusingly, such is already the case - in my case.)

Well, I'd have to say you have some good reasons to reject the Calvinist view. They are reasons I share, BTW. Fascinating that we actually agree on something!



Therefore, I don't think it necessary for us to go down the Calvinist road. The Calvinists might be right, but this is a question best left for Calvinists to answer. If you want to have some fun seeing how they defend their view, try visiting this site:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/forum.php

There are a few atheist, there who battle it out with the soldiers of Reformed Theology daily.

---

(August 25, 2012 at 9:51 am)Rhythm Wrote: Perish the thought....

---

(August 24, 2012 at 12:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Just for the record, in case it's lost on anyone, much of what has been posted to salvage the concept of the Christian God's existence against criticism falls into the ad hoc fallacy, and it's being entertained for purposes of discussion, not because it should be taken seriously.

Come on, now! Rythm might be having some fun at my expense, but I don't believe it fair to say he is not sincere.

---

(August 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If I do that, will you learn the difference between precognition and prediction?

Please tell me the difference between precognition and prediction, and then please explain how omniscience is the same as (or different from) each. This is necessary, I think. For the question we are currently considering is this:

If God is omniscient, does that mean human beings have no freewill?

It's entirely possible that it is a completely different question from this one:

If God is precognitive, does that mean human beings have no freewill?

My thought is that if precognition is not necessarily the same as omniscience, then to avoid discussing God's omniscience (as Rythm has insisted on doing by saying, "No thanks," when I asked him to tell me how precognition is the same as omniscience) is to commit the fallacy of using a Red Herring. Proving that God cannot be precognitive is not that same as proving God cannot be omniscient, if precognition is not the same as omniscience. Now Rythm might not be willing to consider whether God can possibly be omniscient and we (at the same time) can have freedom to choose, but I hope you are willing. If so, please tell me: What is omniscience?

If you are unsure, then perhaps this site will help:

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

There you will find these words:


Definition

There is a distinction between:

inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.[2] John Calvin, among other theologians of the 16th century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced the doctrine of predestination.


I find it interesting (though I suppose I should not be surprised) that what I wonder is the truth about omniscience is what theologians have already asserted: Omniscience is inherent, instead of total.

(August 25, 2012 at 9:55 am)spockrates Wrote: Well, I'd have to say you have some good reasons to reject the Calvinist view. They are reasons I share, BTW. Fascinating that we actually agree on something!

It would be orders of magnitude more fascinating if we didn't agree on -something-. I fear you have a long road ahead of you, if you're looking to make up your mind about any specific gods existence. I don't envy you, once you're through with this one there are a few thousand more waiting in the wings for your fair and un-assuming approach.

(August 25, 2012 at 10:18 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 9:55 am)spockrates Wrote: Well, I'd have to say you have some good reasons to reject the Calvinist view. They are reasons I share, BTW. Fascinating that we actually agree on something!

It would be orders of magnitude more fascinating if we didn't agree on -something-. I fear you have a long road ahead of you, if you're looking to make up your mind about any specific gods existence. I don't envy you, once you're through with this one there are a few thousand more waiting in the wings for your fair and un-assuming approach.

---

Agreed. I am undertaking a heroic endeavor, indeed! I suppose that in the end, if I'm still standing, I will have lost something: My ignorance! For I will have found the truth. I will also have my integrity, for I will have lived true to my signature: "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the truth." Should I demand any less of myself?

---

Mister:

What I wonder is this: Does having a power necessitate that the power one has must be used to its fullest extent? This is certainly not true of human beings. Example: The other day I was driving 47 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The police officer pulled me over. Rather than give me a speeding ticket, he chose to let me off with a warning. Now he had the power to give me the speeding ticket, but he freely chose to not do so.

Compare this to the concept of God: If God exercised the total power of his omniscience, he would be eliminating our freedom of will, as Rythm suggests. If he eliminated our freedom of will, we would become incapable of love, for love requires choice (as I suggest). This would be counterproductive to God's purpose, which is for us to freely choose to love one another of our own freewill, without being forced to do so. Not only that, but if God's omniscience must be total, rather than inherent, then not only would we not be free, but neither would he! For he would not have the freedom to limit his omniscience so as to preserve our freedom. It seems God would have less freedom than the police officer who chose to not give me a speeding ticket!

(August 24, 2012 at 8:13 am)Faith No More Wrote: Yes, the lack of free will would not prove that god does not exist, however, it would prove that god is a sadistic prick, unworthy of even a single second of devotion and worship.

I see the logic in that, which is a reason why I eventually rejected Reformed Theology.

---

So, Mister:

Do you think it reasonable to say this? Yes, God does have the omniscience to allow him to completely obliterate our freewill, but he (in keeping in character with his omnibenevolence) chooses to exercise his omnipotence by limiting his omniscience so as to allow us to freely choose to love one another, as he freely chooses to love us.

Unless you have something to add, I believe this satisfies the question for me of it being impossible for God to be omniscient, given that we have free will. That does still leave the question of whether God is actually omnibenevolent. If he is a monster, he is not worthy of being imitated, or loved, I think. If you want to move one, we can address the question: Is God really omnibenevolent? If not, we can continue to think through the question: "How can God be omniscient if we have freewill?"

spockrates Wrote:...given that we have free will.

I know I'm going to regret this seeing as this long-winded conversation was finally winding down, but do you have any proof of this?

(August 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm)spockrates Wrote: What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

Well, I wouldn't say it's complete waste of time. You'd expect that a book inspired by God would at least have not single error or contradiction, no matter how insignificant. Of course, Christians just either deny the contradictions, or make up excuses for them (like, it's not really completely inspired but only inspired guesses etc). Ultimately though, they're just ad hoc explanations for why the evidence doesn't match the predictions of what we'd expect if there was a Christian God.

The main reason I don't believe Christianity any more is the lack of evidence that it's true. Christianity doesn't have any more evidence that it's true than does Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc.

I would expect that the one true religion would just have massive amounts of undeniable evidence but no, it doesn't have any better evidence than the other religions. And it also has the same problems too as all the other religions, such as God's and or the supernatural's sudden silence during the start of the modern scientific era. But then of course, the Christian will pull more ad hoc explanations out of their ass. "God has the perfect explanation for why his one true religion seems just as stupid as all the hundreds of false ones!" "God has the perfect explanation for making the world appear that he doesn't exist!" "God is just a little shy!"

So, mainly why I "quit" Christianity, was the severe lack of evidence that it is true, coupled with the lack of evidence you'd expect to see assuming it were true. Though, the former point is a much stronger reason than the latter.

(August 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

spockrates Wrote:...given that we have free will.

I know I'm going to regret this seeing as this long-winded conversation was finally winding down, but do you have any proof of this?

I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

---

(August 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm)spockrates Wrote: What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

Well, I wouldn't say it's complete waste of time. You'd expect that a book inspired by God would at least have not single error or contradiction, no matter how insignificant. Of course, Christians just either deny the contradictions, or make up excuses for them (like, it's not really completely inspired but only inspired guesses etc). Ultimately though, they're just ad hoc explanations for why the evidence doesn't match the predictions of what we'd expect if there was a Christian God.

The main reason I don't believe Christianity any more is the lack of evidence that it's true. Christianity doesn't have any more evidence that it's true than does Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc.

I would expect that the one true religion would just have massive amounts of undeniable evidence but no, it doesn't have any better evidence than the other religions. And it also has the same problems too as all the other religions, such as God's and or the supernatural's sudden silence during the start of the modern scientific era. But then of course, the Christian will pull more ad hoc explanations out of their ass. "God has the perfect explanation for why his one true religion seems just as stupid as all the hundreds of false ones!" "God has the perfect explanation for making the world appear that he doesn't exist!" "God is just a little shy!"

So, mainly why I "quit" Christianity, was the severe lack of evidence that it is true, coupled with the lack of evidence you'd expect to see assuming it were true. Though, the former point is a much stronger reason than the latter.

Thanks, Tea. Please tell me: What evidence do you expect a true religion to have? Will you be more specific?

(August 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm)spockrates Wrote: I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

Is this because of your own freedom that you cannot think of any such reason, or because of some predestination or similar that involves your not thinking of one?