Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

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?

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?”

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?

---

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?