Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

What is that thing that gave rise to the wisdom of logic? Tell me so that I might worship it!

What we call logic is just a list of the ways the cosmos appear to behave. So I guess it's time to bend the knee.

Yes, an example of precognition is fortune telling. I agree that the God concept is understood to be able to do more than simply foretell what the future will be, and so predestine some outcomes. But I don't think the concept necessarily requires the removal of the freedom of choice from one so predestined.

Then you don't understand the concepts of predestination, precognition, or linear perception of time.

An omnipotent God might guide or limit the choices of individuals, but as long as they always have a choice between two or more alternatives, they still have the freedom to choose.

Unless their outcomes, either a or b, are known by some other entity, then they are predestined, and ergo made without a choice. The illusion of choice, sure (and only from their viewpoint, definitely not the observers). Choice, nope. We could always redefine our idea of what choice means so that we are left with nothing but reruns for the alimighty, but then the rest of the garbage attached becomes even more horrid.

Such a God might isolate people who make choices contrary to his desires, or remove people altogether (by bringing about their deaths, or removing them from a position of power, for example) but they would still be free to choose their own actions, even though their actions would not prevent the final outcomes this God desires. I suppose an apt illustration would be a rat in a maze. The maze might be the limits God places on the life of someone--where he is born, who his parents are, what intelligence he has, what wealth he obtains. The outcome (a dead end or an exit from the maze and a tasty cheese treat) would be up to the rat. The rat cannot choose the maze, or the treat at the end, but she can choose the direction she will take and whether she ends up at a dead end, or with the reward at the exit.

I'm not sure whether I should thank you for comparing your god to a cruel and powerful observer of human rats....or explain that you got it ass backwards at the very start...again. I'm wondering, btw, whether you actually think that a god places any of those limits you just mentioned. Let me ask you another one. What if this particular rat doesn't want to run this particular maze? What if I don't like cheese Spock? What kind of a god are you painting here?

Simple illustration to make a point that even a rat in a maze has a choice. I guess I don't understand how someone would have no freedom to choose when he is (as you said) free to choose either (a) or (b). For example, my son who is a drug addict and on probation and is living in his own apartment has asked to move back home. Now my wife and I have a choice to either allow him to move back into our house, or not allow him. Please explain how (if God exists) the choice is not ours. In what way, exactly would God (and not my wife and I) be the ones who decides whether we allow him to live under our roof.

---

Yes, an example of precognition is fortune telling. I agree that the God concept is understood to be able to do more than simply foretell what the future will be, and so predestine some outcomes. But I don't think the concept necessarily requires the removal of the freedom of choice from one so predestined.

Regardless of what you think, I believe my argument speaks for itself. Freewill of any kind isn't possible in a world that a God created if that God knows everything and has a choice in what worlds he can create.

An omnipotent God might guide or limit the choices of individuals, but as long as they always have a choice between two or more alternatives, they still have the freedom to choose.

Yes, but there wouldn't be more than one choice. There would be an illusion of choice, but no choice could be made because the action you are going to take has already, directly or indirectly, been chosen by the God who created that world. You can choose, sure, but your choice was already known and ingrained into you before you chose it.

Such a God might isolate people who make choices contrary to his desires, or remove people altogether (by bringing about their deaths, or removing them from a position of power, for example) but they would still be free to choose their own actions, even though their actions would not prevent the final outcomes this God desires.

When you say "such a God" what do you mean? Don't get stuck on this omniscient shit again, please. I thought we had finally shed that smelly carcass of a discussion. Give your God whatever attributes you want/that you believe to be correct and lets move on. You already said omniscience isn't logical, and we agree. Lets ditch that and get on to the meat of the discussion.
The actions they take all lead to the outcome of that God. We aren't talking about an interventionist God in any sense other than that he created the world. This God knows everything beforehand, so why would he create a world he would have to alter? No, he would pick the world of his choosing thus determining the choices of every sentient creature in it.

You assume too much, my skeptical friend! I did admit that God does not exist if by God we mean one that is omnipotent according to your definition of omnipotence. So I agree that definition (1) of omnipotence, which follows makes God logically impossible. That leaves at least four other definitions held by Christians that we have not addressed:

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:

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.

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


Remember my signature: "If we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the truth." We are making progress, for we have eliminated the impossible (1). We have not yet eliminated (2) - (5). For we have yet to prove them impossible, don't we?

Now lets say I were to tell Christians that I've become an atheist because I think it impossible for God to be omnipotent. When they ask why I believe this, I explain how definition (1) is impossible. Lets say one of the Christians asks me about definition (2), or (3) and says, "You fool! You've been brainwashed by those deceptive atheists. They duped you into thinking omnipotence is what it is not. It's not impossible for God to be omnipotent if you correctly understand what omnipotence is. Don't let their own self-deception deceive you, too."

So before I decide it is impossible for an omnipotent God to logically exist, I need to eliminate more than one concept of omnipotence, I think. I need to prove to myself that definitions (2), (3), (4) and (5) are just as impossible as (1). I tried to explain that Christians have always taught me that omnipotence is best defined by definition (3). So I cannot honestly tell other Christians I no longer believe in an omnipotent God when I still don't see how it is impossible for God to be omnipotent in the sense of (3). Can you better appreciate why I have good reason to bring up that omnipotence question, again? Can you see why the questions still remains unanswered for me?