Better reasons to quit Christianity

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see a problem given the proposed definitions of time and omniscience.

Time = that which is impossible to become static in the future

Omniscient = knowing all of the possible outcomes of the future and what actions would have to be taken to make the impossible, possible and make the possible, impossible.

You mean "given my bare assertions I don't see the problem".

Your definition of time btw....utter garbage. Why is it that apologetics always hinges on creating a favorable (and often completely vapid) definition of a word to argue from? Amusingly, invoking a "changing timeline" and an omniscience that can see all these rivers of time still does not eliminate the problem. From the perspective of each individual timeline -once we have invoked precognition of the timelines- they are all as predetermined (you know...not static) as the monolithic and inevitable timeline we percieve. Troubling, isn't it? You seem to feel that by altering the vantage point of your precognitive observer you can avoid the problem posed by precognition. You cannot. As I have repeatedly explained, it isn't the observer, it isn't the observers vantage point, it is the very possibility of the having knowledge of the future which creates this issue.

Now you say, "God is a precog."

I most certainly do not. I'm explaining why this particular god is either -not a precog- or conversely, why the narrative about free will and it's attendant consequences is in error.

If by that you mean, "God is omniscient," then I'll stick with my response. No one outcome pre-known; no problem.

Except that you no longer have a precog...which is a problem.

You would have to proove, by some philosophical, or scientific method that time can become static, which I don't yet agree that you have.

Can become static? Assuming quite a bit aren't we? I've actually presented both possibilities. In one example we are capable of making choices, but precognition is impossible. In the other precognition is possible, but we are incapable of making choices. I don't personally know whether time is set or static, but it matters very little with regards to the attributes you hope to claim for this god and this narrative. For the one to exist the other must bend. I don't honestly care which of these two things gets shit-canned (or if either of them gets shit-canned...because, to be completely blunt, I know that isn't going to happen). At the end of the day, as I've said many times, there is no need for this sort of narrative to be made consistent with logic, or even itself.

-You, however, have often stated that it is important to you.....but judging by the discourse in this thread I very much doubt that this is actually the case-

But as I suggested earlier, even if you are correct, there is still no reason to disbelieve in God.

Firstly, I'm not looking for reasons to disbelieve. Secondly, you have that whole process ass-backwards, and every-time you pretend to give a shit about logic and then make statements like this it makes me cringe.

One outcome pre-known; still no problem, because this is what Calvinists believe--freewill is an illusion.

Which is a problem.

God predestines everyone for heaven, or hell and no one can change her destiny.

Precisely the problem, cruel tormentor of human ants, ants who are incapable of making choices to alter the terrible destiny that awaits them.

I used to be a member of an Evangelical Presbyterian church, so I know. Agreeing that freewill is unreal does not prevent a believer in Reformed Theology from logically believing in God. The Calvinist would simply say you are correct and advise me to return to Calvinism.

Nothing prevents a person from believing in god if they are determined to do so.

A student of logic might say you have no FE (factual errors) for your premises might be correct, but you've committed an LE (logical error) since your premises support the opposite conclusion: Even if freedom of choice is impossible, it is still possible for God to exist.

LOL.....Go find some part of what I've been explaining to you that has to do with whether or not a god existed, until then, refrain from engaging in logical errors while you accuse someone of making logical errors.

This whole post smacks of fucking desperation Spock.....You know what's becoming clear to me here? That the only reason to "quit christianity" that you seem capable of imagining is that "god doesn't exist". This flirts with the notion that you are entirely likely to excuse this god for anything, however petty or malevolent, so long as it exists, the knee must bend. For me, personally, if this god were to appear before me and confirm the entirety of the narrative and attributes claimed for it, I still couldn't bring myself to bow. The notion of a "Guessing God", wagering all of existence (including my proposed immortal soul) on a hunch...like a junkie at a dog track, is hideous to me. The notion of the "Tyrant of Time" cruelly sentencing it's creations to damnation while providing no alternative, is hideous to me. Both of these would seem to be good reasons to quit christianity.......and that's assuming that this god did exist. I couldn't bring myself to feel reverence or awe for either of these creatures. While (assuming the entirety of the narrative) my refusal to buy in to either gods little pyramid scheme would have dire consequences -it would not be the first time that threats had been leveraged against me in order to force subservience, and it would not be the first time I refused to become subservient in the face of those threats. In the end, you never know, I may crack, perhaps I could not remain true to myself and my principles in the face of destruction. But even so, what would this creature have accomplished in breaking me? My example would only serve as an even stronger reminder of how petty and undeserving of worship such a creature was in the first place.

In the end, as I cower in the presence of the lord and sing praise for his profoundly malevolent power- those people outside the circle might look in and say "Jesus christ, look at what that monster did to Rhythm". Bravo, God.

[spockrates]

I don't see a problem given the proposed definitions of time and omniscience.

Time = that which is impossible to become static in the future

Omniscient = knowing all of the possible outcomes of the future and what actions would have to be taken to make the impossible, possible and make the possible, impossible.

You mean "given my bare assertions I don't see the problem".

Your definition of time btw....utter garbage. Why is it that apologetics always hinges on creating a favorable (and often completely vapid) definition of a word to argue from? Amusingly, invoking a "changing timeline" and an omniscience that can see all these rivers of time still does not eliminate the problem. From the perspective of each individual timeline -once we have invoked precognition of the timelines- they are all as predetermined (you know...not static) as the monolithic and inevitable timeline we percieve. Troubling, isn't it? You seem to feel that by altering the vantage point of your precognitive observer you can avoid the problem posed by precognition. You cannot. As I have repeatedly explained, it isn't the observer, it isn't the observers vantage point, it is the very possibility of the having knowledge of the future which creates this issue.

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.

---

Now you say, "God is a precog."

I most certainly do not. I'm explaining why this particular god is either -not a precog- or conversely, why the narrative about free will and it's attendant consequences is in error.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

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.)

[spockrates]

If by that you mean, "God is omniscient," then I'll stick with my response. No one outcome pre-known; no problem.

Except that you no longer have a precog...which is a problem.

Is it a problem if omniscience is not the same as precognition? Knowing all possible outcomes is not the same as knowing all actual outcomes, I think.

omniscience = knowing all possible outcomes, but not the actual outcomes before the occur.

precognition = knowing all actual outcomes before the occur.

[The Grand Nudger]

From the point of omniscience or precognition all potential outcomes are already actualized, aren't they? I think I've found our disconnect. You cannot separate yourself from your own perception of time and choice in considering what time and choice might be when invoking omniscience or precognition. How this wall between "all knowledge" and knowledge of the future has been erected in your mind is, btw, beyond me. Nevertheless, has it dawned on you that you are essentially whittling down the super-powers of a creature who's only claim to authority is that it has super-powers? That's most likely going to be a problem for you at some point as well.

Your notion of an "actual outcome" is tied inextricably to what must be a flawed perception of time if any variant of this god existed.

In any case, in attemptig to redefine what precognition or omniscience means you've managed to do jack shit with regards to the illusion of choice. If this "omniscient" but not "precognitive" creature can see all possible outcomes, including the one which will be "actualized" you are still bound by that actualized outcome. IOW, you have claimed precognition under omniscience while arguing that they are not the same. It is true, btw, that omniscience and precognition are not the same, but not for the reasons you've offered. They are not the same for the blisteringly obvious reason that omniscience requires knowledge of the future -and a whole host of other shit as well-. Precognition, however, is a requirement of omniscience....unless you want to argue for "all knowledge" except "this knowledge".

[Mister Agenda]

Ever play the game in elementary school where the kids get in a long line and the teacher whispers something in the ear of the one at the front of the line? That kid whispers what she heard to the kid behind her, and she in turn whispers what the kid told her to the next one in line, and so on. Ask the kid at the end of the line what he was told and it is ridiculously different from what the teacher told the first one in line.

Even a child knows that passing on a message by word of mouth is unreliable. So if you were a god and wanted to convey some message that would be least likely to become distorted over time, how would you go about it?

I'm not sure, but the last way I would go about it would be to have it as an oral history passed down through generations (OT) or decades (NT) before anyone wrote it down, and not preserve any of the original documents so that even those are lost to time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe this revelation could have been given to a literate culture? Or maybe it could have been given to all cultures? Maybe write in the sky in big neon letters? Maybe sit down with people one on one and relate a consistent narrative? I assume that this god would have many more ideas than I am capable of fielding, but thusfar, even this short selection of alternatives seems to have eluded it.

No, instead of any of this, the revelation was provided to one group of people (or so we are led to believe) as a narrative of manifest destiny. I'm sorry, but even I (a lowly mortal) can see why this course of action is woefully incompetent, and entirely unconvincing.

[spockrates]

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.

It would also create some dilemmas regarding the scriptures Calvinists trust so completely. For example:


The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

(2 Peter 3:9)

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[spockrates]

Ever play the game in elementary school where the kids get in a long line and the teacher whispers something in the ear of the one at the front of the line? That kid whispers what she heard to the kid behind her, and she in turn whispers what the kid told her to the next one in line, and so on. Ask the kid at the end of the line what he was told and it is ridiculously different from what the teacher told the first one in line.

Even a child knows that passing on a message by word of mouth is unreliable. So if you were a god and wanted to convey some message that would be least likely to become distorted over time, how would you go about it?

I'm not sure, but the last way I would go about it would be to have it as an oral history passed down through generations (OT) or decades (NT) before anyone wrote it down, and not preserve any of the original documents so that even those are lost to time.

Why do you think it oral, rather than written?