(August 29, 2012 at 8:28 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Such is the exploration of the self young Spock. this "god" is what YOU want him/shim to be.

Yes, I agree any concept of this God (if God exists) must be logical. One reason why I question the faith of Rythm, Mister and Cato.

Tell me please, KN: Do you think anything is impossible for an omniscient God (if one exists) to know?

Spockrates Wrote:I thought that when I came to this forum, people would say, "Well, I personally don't believe in God, so I don't have any beliefs about him, but tell me what YOU think God is, and I'll be glad to discuss your own beliefs with you."

Translation: I thought that I could just waltz in here, spew unsupported beliefs and redefine words to my liking without anyone asking me to justify any of it.

(August 29, 2012 at 8:34 am)spockrates Wrote:

(August 29, 2012 at 8:28 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Such is the exploration of the self young Spock. this "god" is what YOU want him/shim to be.

Yes, I agree any concept of this God (if God exists) must be logical. One reason why I question the faith of Rythm, Mister and Cato.

Tell me please, KN: Do you think anything is impossible for an omniscient God (if one exists) to know?

Let us get some facts straight here young Spock.

The abrahamic deity is a paedophilic, homosexual and misogynistic creature. What can such a creature "know" beyond that which consumes it's interests?

(August 29, 2012 at 8:49 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(August 29, 2012 at 8:34 am)spockrates Wrote: Yes, I agree any concept of this God (if God exists) must be logical. One reason why I question the faith of Rythm, Mister and Cato.

Tell me please, KN: Do you think anything is impossible for an omniscient God (if one exists) to know?

Let us get some facts straight here young Spock.

The abrahamic deity is a paedophilic, homosexual and misogynistic creature. What can such a creature "know" beyond that which consumes it's interests?

I'd say such a deity can know nothing more than it wants to know, and chooses to know, which is what it is interested in knowing, yes. Then it seems you and I agree that it is logical to think an omniscient God knows only what it decides to know--nothing more, nor less. But please tell me: Do you think the only way God could know what it is like to be homosexual would be if God experienced what it was like to be homosexual? It seems to me sexuality, in general (and homosexuality, in particular) is a human experience. One must engage in a sexual act to have true knowledge of what the experience is like. Don't you think?

(August 29, 2012 at 5:26 am)spockrates Wrote: Hi, Cato. Good to know you're still around! The Latin omni means all. Do you see any difference between having the ability to know all and actually knowing all?

So, according to you god is not omniscient? He just has the ability to know all?

(August 29, 2012 at 5:26 am)spockrates Wrote: So let us carefully consider what Epicurus had to say and not just accept it on blind faith. After all, we won't know there is no evidence against his ideas if we don't question them.

This is what Epicurus said. Have fun considering.
“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?”

(August 29, 2012 at 5:26 am)spockrates Wrote: According to Epicurus' understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing (absolutely nothing) that is impossible for God (if God exists) to know?

You essentially asked Rythm the same thing. Quit being evasive and take a position. Is your god omniscient or not? I don't give a damn about his reported potential, does he know everything or doesn't he. Simple question so quit dancing.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: Should one believe everything one reads?

No. Note how little this has to do with the matter of how I happen to know that the Bible started as oral history, your original question. I educated myself. I suggest you do the same for a change instead of always asking others to do the most basic homework for you. If you want to know about the history of the Bible, try a history of the Bible.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: What do you do when one thing you read contradicts something else you read?

Evaluate it critically and come to my own conclusions, doing additional research as necessary to find out what I want to know.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: For example, what do you do with this?

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

I see that theists have been trying to weasel out of the inherent problems of omniscience since critical examination of the idea began. Their best effort is 'inherent omniscience', ie, limited omniscience. Which is an oxymoron. It's a weak justification to hold on to a word that should be dumped from descriptions of God. 'Ultrascience' would do as a word defined as the ability to know anything one chooses to. Inherent omniscience is effectively the same as saying 'omniscient, but not really'.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: I did not give birth to the idea of inherent omniscience, Mister.

I should hope not. I think better of you than that. It was clear that you were parroting someone else.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: Satisfaction does me no good if I'm satisfied with a lie and self deceived. If lies are all that satisfies me, then I hope that (as the Rolling Stones sang), "I can't get no satisfaction!" Like Spock said, "I always endeavor to be correct." When I quit Christianity, I want to reject the real religion, not some false misconception. That way, no Christian will accuse me of knocking down some straw man.

You shouldn't be satisfied with ad hoc arguments for retaining your faith either, but that doesn't seem to trouble you at all.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: Having been a Christian yourself for a time, Mister, you are likely familiar with this one:

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

(Galatians 5)

What you are saying to me is that it is irrational for Christians to believe their God empowers them to be more like him.

What I am saying to you is what atheists always say: There's no good reason to conclude that God exists. Debating the nature of an imaginary being is mere logical exercise. As the entire thread has demonstrated, God has one of the primary attributes of an imaginary character: you can change the definition of what you're talking about as you please for the sake of argument.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: For their God has NO self-control. He cannot control what he thinks about! So he must be a hypocrite, because he tells others to imitate him.

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5)

And he tells them to think about good things.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

(Philippians 4:8)

Yet his thoughts are not noble, right and admirable. For they destroy our freewill, making love impossible! Hence, he makes it impossible for anyone to obey his command:

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

(John 13:34-35)

This is the logical consequence of putting blind faith in the idea that omniscience means there is nothing God doesn't think about. Is this what you think every rational Christian truly believes?

You act like God MUST have omniscience, so the word MUST mean whatever it has to, to be consistent with Christian teachings. That is not rational. The word has a meaning, which non-Calvinist Christians want to be something else so they can have their cake and eat it, too.

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: Please let me ask you this, my friend: Does omniscience mean Christians must believe God thinks any and every thought--no matter how hateful and evil? Or do you think they believe the God in whom they trust abstains from thinking thoughts he believes are inherently evil?

Omniscience means 'all-knowing'. If that's a problem, reasonable and honest Christians should conclude that it's not the right word to describe their God. And omniscience doesn't require God to think certain thoughts, it requires him to be aware of them. Do you think God is not aware of your evil thoughts? There is a difference between knowing what Joe is thinking and thinking it yourself. Would a virtuous mind reader be guilty of impure thoughts if she read the mind of a sinner?

---

(August 29, 2012 at 8:21 am)spockrates Wrote:

I have to admit that I find it fascinating, guys. Your zeal to defend your faith in what God is rivals that of the most partisan, diehard fundamentalist, Calvinist, Carholic, or Evangelical!

I thought that when I came to this forum, people would say, "Well, I personally don't believe in God, so I don't have any beliefs about him, but tell me what YOU think God is, and I'll be glad to discuss your own beliefs with you."

As it is, I'm getting a dogmatic correction of my beliefs, as if I'm being asked to convert to the true faith of what God is before I reject him! I'll say it again: Fascinating.

We did ask you. You were evasive. You're being corrected on your reasoning and vocabulary, not your beliefs. We're not telling you what God is, we're telling you what words mean.

I can't say it enough: become a Catholic and stop wasting our time, then shitting on us for indulging your JAQing.

(August 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(August 29, 2012 at 5:26 am)spockrates Wrote: Hi, Cato. Good to know you're still around! The Latin omni means all. Do you see any difference between having the ability to know all and actually knowing all?

So, according to you god is not omniscient? He just has the ability to know all?

(August 29, 2012 at 5:26 am)spockrates Wrote: So let us carefully consider what Epicurus had to say and not just accept it on blind faith. After all, we won't know there is no evidence against his ideas if we don't question them.

This is what Epicurus said. Have fun considering.
“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?”

(August 29, 2012 at 5:26 am)spockrates Wrote: According to Epicurus' understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing (absolutely nothing) that is impossible for God (if God exists) to know?

You essentially asked Rythm the same thing. Quit being evasive and take a position. Is your god omniscient or not? I don't give a damn about his reported potential, does he know everything or doesn't he. Simple question so quit dancing.

I'm thinking the position that there is nothing that can be known, which God does not already know is not one that any thoughtful Christian holds. So no, I don't see how knowing anything and everything is what rational Christians believe omniscience is.

If I'm wrong, perhaps you can show me by answering this question: Do you think an experience someone has is something she might remember, and so know? For example, I had an uncle who fought in the Vietnam War. In that war, he had the experience of killing someone.

Now if my uncle expressed the anxiety he felt from the experience of killing another, I could not honestly say, "I know what you are going through," because I've never gone through that experience, so I honestly don't know. Would you say the only way I can know what it feels like to take the life of another human being is to actually have the experience of killing?

---

(August 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 28, 2012 at 5:47 am)spockrates Wrote: Please let me ask you this, my friend: Does omniscience mean Christians must believe God thinks any and every thought--no matter how hateful and evil? Or do you think they believe the God in whom they trust abstains from thinking thoughts he believes are inherently evil?

Omniscience means 'all-knowing'. If that's a problem, reasonable and honest Christians should conclude that it's not the right word to describe their God. And omniscience doesn't require God to think certain thoughts, it requires him to be aware of them. Do you think God is not aware of your evil thoughts? There is a difference between knowing what Joe is thinking and thinking it yourself. Would a virtuous mind reader be guilty of impure thoughts if she read the mind of a sinner?

Yet, I can be aware of something, or someone without knowing it, or her completely. For example, I can be aware that you exist without knowing who you are. I can be aware there is someone knocking at my front door without knowing who it is. I can be aware that someone is a murderer without knowing what it feels like to murder someone. I can be aware that someone is homosexual, or bisexual without having full and complete knowledge of what it is like to experience her kind of sexuality. So how can being aware of everything and everyone be the same as having complete knowledge of everything and everyone? Wouldn't God have to experience every kind of pleasure, pain, virtue and vice in order to truly know what it feels like to experience them? If this really were the case, then I think the serpent in Genesis would have been correct when he told Eve:

“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

(Genesis 3:5)

Whether the account is symbolic, or not, it raises the same question: Wouldn't the only way for God to truly know what it is like to sin be to learn it the way Eve did--by having the experience of sinning?

These questions are one reason why I'm still wondering if having access to all knowledge is the same as possessing all knowledge. Now Socrates said something in Theatetus that might help us answer this question: He said there is in fact a difference between having knowledge and possessing it. Do you know what he meant, or (if you are interested) would you like me to explain so that we might consider whether what he said will assist us with our discussion?

What I would like you to explain is, if you're seriously considering atheism, why are you avoiding the central question of God, which is 'does it exist?', in favor of arguing about its attributes? We may as well be discussing what color a unicorn could be. Once we've established that an invisible pink unicorn can't exist, we haven't got one step closer to establishing whether a visible brown one or a plain invisible one does or does not.

Make up the most reasonable, innocuous, plausible, likely version of God you want without any of the problems that seem to trouble you and there's still no good reason to think it's real. I don't have much trouble with the deist version of God, for instance. No PoE, no theodicy, no miracles except one. I just don't know why I should think it's real. It has the advantage of not being self-contradictory or contradictory to observation, like an infinite number of other possible being we could imagine do. All it lacks is evidence and a reason to exist.

That's all you need to know about atheism to seriously consider it. So make up your mind already.

Is there anyone here who disagrees that to experience is to know and there are some things that can only be known through experience?

---

(August 29, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What I would like you to explain is, if you're seriously considering atheism, why are you avoiding the central question of God, which is 'does it exist?', in favor of arguing about its attributes? We may as well be discussing what color a unicorn could be. Once we've established that an invisible pink unicorn can't exist, we haven't got one step closer to establishing whether a visible brown one or a plain invisible one does or does not.

Make up the most reasonable, innocuous, plausible, likely version of God you want without any of the problems that seem to trouble you and there's still no good reason to think it's real. I don't have much trouble with the deist version of God, for instance. No PoE, no theodicy, no miracles except one. I just don't know why I should think it's real. It has the advantage of not being self-contradictory or contradictory to observation, like an infinite number of other possible being we could imagine do. All it lacks is evidence and a reason to exist.

That's all you need to know about atheism to seriously consider it. So make up your mind already.

I asked why others believe God does not exist. The answer several gave was that if God existed, we would not be free, for God's omniscience would be the death of our freewill. I'm simply asking why this belief is true and expressing why I still have my doubts. I think the doubts are justified, but do you still disagree? Do you think that to experience is not to know and there is no thing that cannot be known apart from experiencing it?

(August 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm)spockrates Wrote: Is there anyone here who disagrees that to experience is to know and there are some things that can only be known through experience?

If you mean "know" in the epistemological sense of justified true belief, then yes, I disagree. Our senses and perception of reality do not necessarily convey an accurate picture of reality.

Replace "know" and "known" with something else, and perhaps we might find agreement.