Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

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.)

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.

---

Perish the thought....

---

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.

---

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.