Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

Rather than saying a God who exists in a dimension outside space and time cannot change anything, I'd say it is possible such a God (if he exists) has already changed things. That is, he has if he has the power to reach into time at any point in time and make changes any time he wants. For him (as the Rush song puts it), "time stands still." He would have all the time he needed to enter any point in time any time he wanted and make any change he wanted and then see the result at the end of time. The timeline of time, we might imagine, is not a done deal, but a work in progress. You have to think outside the box of time and imagine what someone who existed in a time outside of time might be able to do.

If 'time stands still' he doesn't have any time at all. A shorter way of saying 'doesn't exist in space or time' is 'doesn't exist'. Nowhere, nowhen. Maybe you should consider thinking outside of the box of time: a God who exists in time and space but not our time and space would be more logically coherent, like a programmer who exists outside of an elaborate simulation; but can stop, rewind, alter, and erase at will.

Or it means that it is possible to exist in a fifth dimension, which is not timeless any more than the fourth dimension is without height, depth, or width. Such a dimension would have time, plus something that surpasses time, which one might call eternity. Physicists have good reason to believe there are more dimensions than the four you and I experience every day, so I don't see anything wrong with assuming that something beyond the fourth dimension of time actually does exist.

True, your concept of omnipotence might have no referent in reality, but that does not mean that my concept (or the concept someone else has) of omnipotence does not have a referent in reality, I think. To say that your concept is unreal and so no concept is real is to create a straw man and knock it down, I think. Why not consider the concept of someone else before dismissing it as unreal as your own?

Because if 'omnipotent' means whatever you want it to mean, discussing it is pointless. You take it to mean something other than all-powerful so you can keep using the word and avoid the logical inconsistencies. Good for you. Why should I use your definition instead of this one?

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Your dictionary definition is incomplete. This link gives a more complete explanation of the different understandings of the word:

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

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

Of the possible definitions,

1. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
   
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
   
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
   
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
   
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan.
   

you propose that (1) is the only valid understanding of the word. But I'm not so sure. I don't yet see why (3) is not a valid possibility. BTW, the Latin for omnipotent does not mean infinite power, it means having all power. There is a subtle, but significant difference, I think.

...

I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd.

I propose we reject words with logically absurd meanings as applying to anything real. How about 'ultrapotent' instead?

If we say, like some mistakenly believe, that omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then that means it is the power to make a person 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make a circle that is not only perfectly round, but also has four right angles at the same time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make an object that is completely white and completely black at the same time. Such propositions are self-contradictory, illogical and absurd!

Yet rather than conclude the problem is in the concept of omnipotence, you will change the meaning to what you want it to be so you can keep saying it. I'll point out that changing the meaning to 'able to do anything that is logically possible' still has problems. It is logically possible to have free will and make the choices that get you into heaven (if you think anyone does this, you think it's possible), so it is logically possible for God to make such beings.

So I don't see anyway it is logically possible for omnipotence to be the power to do absolutely anything at all--no matter how utterly ridiculous it is.

It's just a word. It has the meaning given to it. Words can be absurd. If 'invisipink' means 'invisibly pink', we conclude that there's nothing that's invisipink, not that 'invisipink' must have its definition changed.

What I suggest is that omnipotence is instead the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory, is not illogical and is not absurd. Would you agree with this definition of the word? Or do you think it nonsensical for me to make such a suggestion?

It's not nonsensical, you represent a long tradition of efforts to try to define God's attributes in a way that retains traditional wording while making what they refer to more unfalsifiable. There are plenty of arguments about what words mean, and trying to agree on terms is a sound discussion practice. I both don't agree and don't think it's nonsensical.

Here's a suggestion: just use 'logical omnipotence' or 'coherent omnipotence' where you would normally use 'omnipotence' so we know what kind of omnipotence you mean. Like we will sometimes use 'agnostic atheism' when distinguishing it from 'gnostic atheism' is meaningful. You don't need to use it all the time, just enough to be clear that you're not talking about re-writing logic. Bear in mind, this form of omnipotence still has problems in relation to the other 'omnis', even though it has the virtue of not contradicting itself.

Interestingly, this leaves me in the position of being able to accomplish a feat that God can't: I can make something so heavy that I can't lift it.

Mister Agenda:

I appreciate your pointing out that the idea of an omnipotent being is absurd, given definition (1) of the word, as cited above. Any Christian who believes that God can do anything at all, no matter how illogically nonsensical is irrational, and isn't thinking clearly. So we've made some progress, as my signature suggests. We've eliminated one understanding of omnipotence as being impossible. But our task is not finished, I think. For there are still four other understandings of the word omnipotent that challenge us to prove them wrong. If a soldier takes down one opponent on the battlefield, is the battle won? No, not if there are more opponents still standing against him! So let's take up the sword against the other four and bring them down, too. Then we won't be mocked by Christians when we tell them confidently that omnipotence (according to all their popular conceptions) is illogical and not worthy of our belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I agree. By the definition you appear to be using, predestination excludes the possibility of choice.

Your definition doesn't?

No, mi dispiace.


Not sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you defining predestination as predetermining what choices someone will make? If so, then I have to agree that Catholicism's understanding of the word is akin to Amish road apples. But I don't yet see how limiting the choices one makes is the same as making the choices for one.

Oh ffs Spock, you do realize that you continue to argue with yourself after my repeated pleas that you argue someone else's point with them and not me, right? No one is making any choices for you if the future is predestined (and that has never been any point of mine). There are no god-damned choices. I'm running out of ways to say this......

If we define predestination as predetermining what the consequences will be for the choices one freely makes, then there is no mess on the road to clean up. Is there?

You keep assuming these freely made choices that you should instead be establishing (especially as they relate to an entity that can see the future). Am I not making myself clear? If the future can be known (and that knowledge can be accurate), if the course is set, then your "choices" were no such thing. It doesn't matter who can see them (or if anyone at all can see them). It has nothing to do with whether or not your "choices" have been limited (unsubstantiated bullshit btw, time to call you out on that), or whether or not you have been coerced. Precogs lead to no choice. Choice leads to no precogs (or even more complicated versions of what it means to be a precog or what it means to make a"choice" involving multiple timelines/ and or cosmic theatre - a proposition that is more thoroughly destructive to the judeo-christian myth than anything else that I can imagine).

Now lets suppose I decide to agree with you and then go to Christians and say I don't believe predestination is possible, so I don't believe there is a God who predestines anything. I can just imagine what they will say: First they will ask me what I think predestination is. I'll tell them it is God predetermining what choices we make.

Therein lies the rub, predestination [stripped of all the superstitious bullshit] appears to be orders of magnitude more likely than precognition. We see determinism everywhere we look, but try as we might, we can't seem to find any fortune-tellers. Nevertheless, if fortune tellers (of any stripe, human or divine) did exist, then certain implications would follow, such as the erosion of the concept of choice.

Then they will say something like, "You poor, deluded fool! Why do you entertain such atheistic twisting of the truth? Predestination is God predetermining what choices we have, and what the consequences of those choices will be. But it is in no way God making us choose one way, or another! Listen to reason. Listen to us and stay away from them. We won't lead you astray."

This is my problem (or your problem) precisely how? Why would I give a shit what christians say about this, why would you?

[LastPoet]

Oh, Spocky, your god is so much omnipotent, except when it comes to chariots of iron

[Undeceived]

Here's what I've gathered from this discussion:
In the sense of before life (our genetics), we are predestined. In the sense of in our life, we have free will. We are mice in a maze with a myriad of choices before us—but not an infinity of choices. Free will requires an (a) and a (b). Controlling every variable in the universe is a very specific, paradoxical form of free will—this is the kind atheists like to limit God to. But a creation cannot possibly choose from an infinity of choices before it has attributes (tools) to choose with. We must rely on a creator to give us attributes. To this extent we are predestined. Only an eternal, uncreated being would escape such a form of predestination. Now during life, our choices are not predetermined, but our genetics are. Our genetics (and possibly our unique soul) make a decision between (a) and (b). If only our genetics make this decision, we are in a state of joint predestination and free will--meaning, God sets up all the variables to steer us one way, while we still make a choice. We cannot blame God for giving us limited choices because it is He we are indebted to for having choices at all. The only way we could receive other choices in our free will, like © and (d), is to receive different attributes--to become a different person. And then you would no longer be arguing for your free will, but Joe's free will. In short, you are who you are. If your free will changed, you would change. You would not be (Your Name).
Romans 9:20:
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"

[The Grand Nudger]

What part of what you just vomited onto our forums is the most important to you?

[Undeceived]

Rhythm, what do you define free will as?
1) Choosing between a limited number of prospects (ex: a, b and c)
or
2) Choosing from every prospect in the universe

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't UD. I cannot, because our knowledge of the particulars of both the cosmos and ourselves has changed so drastically from the time we coined the phrase and the concept as to render it completely and utterly useless. It appears, at this point, to be an artifact of ignorance.

However, whichever definition you choose, either 1 or 2, would be ruled out by a precognitive being (or, in the absence of a precognitive being, by predestination itself). No amount of wriggling on either term would alter that without abandoning the term in earnest, only clinging to the word so as to reconcile an ill-conceived myth with your own (though perhaps not entirely clear headed) much better understanding of the subject (relative to it's origins).

I want to make this perfectly clear to you. I am not indebted to whatever it is that you worship. Not in the least, not in one tiny particular. If you want to sign yourself up for such a debt (whether real or imagined) then so be it. I'm not interested. The thing you worship did not create me, nor did it create any one of my ancestors. It is completely absent in my life (as it was in theirs), and for that I am greatly relieved. I'm not personally looking to blame anyone's god for anything at all. That would be undeserved credit of the highest order. Now I've answered your question (and then some), will you be answering mine?

[Mister Agenda]

Mister Agenda:

I appreciate your pointing out that the idea of an omnipotent being is absurd, given definition (1) of the word, as cited above. Any Christian who believes that God can do anything at all, no matter how illogically nonsensical is irrational, and isn't thinking clearly. So we've made some progress, as my signature suggests. We've eliminated one understanding of omnipotence as being impossible. But our task is not finished, I think. For there are still four other understandings of the word omnipotent that challenge us to prove them wrong. If a soldier takes down one opponent on the battlefield, is the battle won? No, not if there are more opponents still standing against him! So let's take up the sword against the other four and bring them down, too. Then we won't be mocked by Christians when we tell them confidently that omnipotence (according to all their popular conceptions) is illogical and not worthy of our belief.

Ultimately, discussions of omnipotence are to the benefit of theists: they get to refine their definition down to a nub that isn't absurd on its face; which is fine. Once they've gotten down to the point where it's impossible to say if anything has it or doesn't (Can you prove I'm not omnipotent? No. It's not in my nature to provide evidence), we're still left with them claiming they know things they have no way of knowing and believing in things for which the evidence is weaker than what's available for Bigfoot. But better they advance some 'sophisticated' theology than believe in the guy who drowns worlds and orders the execution of infants and is right because he says so and that's how God rolls.

[spockrates]

Yes, I agree. By the definition you appear to be using, predestination excludes the possibility of choice.

Your definition doesn't?

I wasn't aware I had a definition. I'm wondering if it is true that the number of choices one has are predetermined, but what choices are chosen are not predetermined. Is this the definition to which you are referring?

No, mi dispiace.


Not sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you defining predestination as predetermining what choices someone will make? If so, then I have to agree that Catholicism's understanding of the word is akin to Amish road apples. But I don't yet see how limiting the choices one makes is the same as making the choices for one.

Oh ffs Spock, you do realize that you continue to argue with yourself after my repeated pleas that you argue someone else's point with them and not me, right? No one is making any choices for you if the future is predestined (and that has never been any point of mine). There are no god-damned choices. I'm running out of ways to say this......

It's one thing to state a premise. It's another thing entirely to demonstrate it.

If we define predestination as predetermining what the consequences will be for the choices one freely makes, then there is no mess on the road to clean up. Is there?

You keep assuming these freely made choices that you should instead be establishing (especially as they relate to an entity that can see the future). Am I not making myself clear? If the future can be known (and that knowledge can be accurate), if the course is set, then your "choices" were no such thing. It doesn't matter who can see them (or if anyone at all can see them). It has nothing to do with whether or not your "choices" have been limited (unsubstantiated bullshit btw, time to call you out on that), or whether or not you have been coerced. Precogs lead to no choice. Choice leads to no precogs (or even more complicated versions of what it means to be a precog or what it means to make a"choice" involving multiple timelines/ and or cosmic theatre - a proposition that is more thoroughly destructive to the judeo-christian myth than anything else that I can imagine).

What you believe is crystal clear; why you believe it is a mystery. Repeating the same words over and over do little to help me grasp your meaning. An example might help. Defining your terms might also be helpful. But perhaps not. Maybe I'm predestined to never get anything you try to explain?

Now lets suppose I decide to agree with you and then go to Christians and say I don't believe predestination is possible, so I don't believe there is a God who predestines anything. I can just imagine what they will say: First they will ask me what I think predestination is. I'll tell them it is God predetermining what choices we make.

Therein lies the rub, predestination [stripped of all the superstitious bullshit] appears to be orders of magnitude more likely than precognition. We see determinism everywhere we look, but try as we might, we can't seem to find any fortune-tellers. Nevertheless, if fortune tellers (of any stripe, human or divine) did exist, then certain implications would follow, such as the erosion of the concept of choice.

Then they will say something like, "You poor, deluded fool! Why do you entertain such atheistic twisting of the truth? Predestination is God predetermining what choices we have, and what the consequences of those choices will be. But it is in no way God making us choose one way, or another! Listen to reason. Listen to us and stay away from them. We won't lead you astray."

This is my problem (or your problem) precisely how? Why would I give a shit what christians say about this, why would you?

Because I can see no way to reasonably disagree with them at the moment.

---

Mister Agenda:

I appreciate your pointing out that the idea of an omnipotent being is absurd, given definition (1) of the word, as cited above. Any Christian who believes that God can do anything at all, no matter how illogically nonsensical is irrational, and isn't thinking clearly. So we've made some progress, as my signature suggests. We've eliminated one understanding of omnipotence as being impossible. But our task is not finished, I think. For there are still four other understandings of the word omnipotent that challenge us to prove them wrong. If a soldier takes down one opponent on the battlefield, is the battle won? No, not if there are more opponents still standing against him! So let's take up the sword against the other four and bring them down, too. Then we won't be mocked by Christians when we tell them confidently that omnipotence (according to all their popular conceptions) is illogical and not worthy of our belief.

Ultimately, discussions of omnipotence are to the benefit of theists: they get to refine their definition down to a nub that isn't absurd on its face; which is fine. Once they've gotten down to the point where it's impossible to say if anything has it or doesn't (Can you prove I'm not omnipotent? No. It's not in my nature to provide evidence), we're still left with them claiming they know things they have no way of knowing and believing in things for which the evidence is weaker than what's available for Bigfoot. But better they advance some 'sophisticated' theology than believe in the guy who drowns worlds and orders the execution of infants and is right because he says so and that's how God rolls.

I suppose the Christian would say the atheist is the one redefining and misrepresenting omnipotence. As for me, I'm not changing definitions as if I've failed to defend one and so jumped ship to another. I'm just trying to figure out what omnipotence really is, and if it really is illogical to believe anyone (God or not) could be omnipotent. One of the five popular definitions we've proven to be impossible to accomplish, so I've learned that whatever omnipotence is, it cannot possibly be the ability to do absolutely anything at all, no matter how ridiculous. If we could prove the other five to be just as irrational, I'd have all the reason I need to believe the idea of God is irrational, and not worthy of belief.

However, the other question you raise is worth discussing, I think: Is it illogical to believe God to be omnibenevolent? If you care to switch gears and pursue this question, I'm open to this.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've given you the most relevant example possible, the precog and the implications that their ability has on time and our perception of it. Any specific "choice" is covered under this example. I have explained, I believe three times now, in very simple terms, why the precog has this effect, I haven't once implied that the precog had to force anything (though you have constantly argued against this for some strange reason).

I'll say this, one more time....and after this point I am going to begin assuming that you understand me perfectly well (or simply never will, for whatever reason). You're asking me which choices might be predetermined and which might not (or what amount might be pre-determined whilst the outcome is not), I keep trying to explain to you that under the example of the precog there are no choices. We aren't having the same discussion. So, if we want to have the same discussion, help me help you. "I don't understand" isn't very specific, what don't you understand?

Precognitive abilities would require that the future be able to be known, accurately.
If the future can be known, it is not a series of choices (except from the flawed point of view of the individual that does not have precognitive abilities), more a steady flow of inevitability. If it were not, then it could not be known accurately, and there would be no precogs.
It is not an issue of whether or not the amount of "choices" you are presented with has been tinkered with.


If the future can be known, even if no one knows it, just the potential for the future to be known with accuracy ( no limiting, no forcing, no other powers, no other abilities...and even..if there are no precogs.....), our choices are a long series of illusions.

You need help finding a way to reasonably disagree with christians of any stripe when they go down this "god does this and god does that route"? Let me help you.

"Excuse me sir, I appreciate that you took the time to explain your beliefs to me, but I fail to see why I should share those beliefs, or how I could have confidence that your explanation is accurate without any substantiation whatsoever."