Better reasons to quit Christianity

[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.