Better reasons to quit Christianity

[LastPoet]

I resolve the so-called omnipotence/omniscience paradox easily enough by accepting that God equally has the ability to know and not to know.

You know what a contradiction is, right?

There is no limit to apologist bullshit eh? Its ok to lie, steal and kill, as long as it is for baby jesus.

[spockrates]

:BOUNCE-BALL:

Can I expect an answer to my original question anytime soon, on free will of individuals?

---

Stop the presses!

Thank you. I'd say that I don't see how knowing what someone will do is the same as making someone do. For example, let's say I live in the 1980s and create a time machine. I travel to the year 2000 and learn that a guy named Bill Gates has created a corporation called Microsoft that has made hundreds of millions. I travel back to the 1980s and invest in Microsoft and make a fortune. Now, my knowing Bill Gates would create a corporation that was successful does not mean that I caused Bill Gates to do this.

I didn't notice that you did answer this. Sorry I missed it.

Just knowing beforehand doesn't cause this to happen, you're exactly right. But If you created a world knowing beforehand that Bill Gates would make billions and setting it in motion to achieve that outcome, (rather than another outcome that could arise from the infinite other universes God was capable of creating) then I would say that Bill Gate's free will is nothing but an illusion in that world. He might think he is choosing to do things, but the choices were already made when God created the universe in which he now exists.

Yes. Perhaps I could make a world where every door to Bill's success was unlocked, but wouldn't the choice would still be Bill's to open the doors? Here is an example: I have a son who is brilliant. My wife is a high school teacher and has seen his aptitude scores and they are off the charts. He has everything going for him, but now, as a high school graduate, he is working at a food store. We offered to pay his way to college, and he refused. Why? He chose drugs and decided he didn't want to try to do anything more with his life that bag groceries and collect shopping carts. With his intelligence, he really has an advantage over others, but he chose to under achieve. No matter how many doors have been unlocked for him, he has chosen not to go through them.

Now you might say God chose to make Bill Gates a success, and chose to make my son less of a success, but I think a more reasonable explanation is that they both made the choices themselves--one to take advantage of his advantages, and one to not take advantage of his advantages.

[The Grand Nudger]

:BOUNCE-BALL:

Can I expect an answer to my original question anytime soon, on free will of individuals?

---

Stop the presses!


I didn't notice that you did answer this. Sorry I missed it.

Just knowing beforehand doesn't cause this to happen, you're exactly right. But If you created a world knowing beforehand that Bill Gates would make billions and setting it in motion to achieve that outcome, (rather than another outcome that could arise from the infinite other universes God was capable of creating) then I would say that Bill Gate's free will is nothing but an illusion in that world. He might think he is choosing to do things, but the choices were already made when God created the universe in which he now exists.

Yes. Perhaps I could make a world where every door to Bill's success was unlocked, but wouldn't the choice would still be Bill's to open the doors? Here is an example: I have a son who is brilliant. My wife is a high school teacher and has seen his aptitude scores and they are off the charts. He has everything going for him, but now, as a high school graduate, he is working at a food store. We offered to pay his way to college, and he refused. Why? He chose drugs and decided he didn't want to try to do anything more with his life that bag groceries and collect shopping carts. With his intelligence, he really has an advantage over others, but he chose to under achieve. No matter how many doors have been unlocked for him, he has chosen not to go through them.

Now you might say God chose to make Bill Gates a success, and chose to make my son less of a success, but I think a more reasonable explanation is that they both made the choices themselves--one to take advantage of his advantages, and one to not take advantage of his advantages.

No, not if you invoke precongnition. Precognitions describes a state from the observers end, it's mirror image is predestination from the observed's end. It doesn't even matter if the precognitive observer chose the initial states, or any of the given outcomes. A precognitive human being with no other abilities whatsoever would completely erode the notion of free will, let alone a precognitive god with a whole host of other abilities and stated plans.

Your son sounds like a brilliant grocery bagger, no shame in that, someone has to bag groceries. Why did he refuse your offer to pay for college btw (if you don't mind my asking)?

(alot of people score off the charts and nevertheless don't end up being doctors btw, I dig holes and change shitty diapers.......I'm also very frequently under the influence..lol)

[spockrates]

I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd. If we say, like some mistakenly believe, that omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then that means it is the power to make a person 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make a circle that is not only perfectly round, but also has four right angles at the same time. If we say omnipotence is the power to do anything at all, then it would be the power to make an object that is completely white and completely black at the same time. Such propositions are self-contradictory, illogical and absurd!

So I don't see anyway it is logically possible for omnipotence to be the power to do absolutely anything at all--no matter how utterly ridiculous it is. What I suggest is that omnipotence is instead the power to do anything that is not self-contradictory, is not illogical and is not absurd. Would you agree with this definition of the word? Or do you think it nonsensical for me to make such a suggestion?

Sounds fine and dandy. On that note, while some waste their time worshipping a creature constrained by logic I'll spend my time feeling awe and reverence for the thing that gave rise to those "laws of logic"...since they're clearly superior than this god creature to begin with. fewer bullshit fairy tale attachments, no fucking ridiculous commandments. Lets start making your god tales consistent with logic btw, would you like to do that? I doubt it very much. I think this is a tactic used only within a narrow scope to evade an argument for which the original proponents of these god's powers were completely and utterly ignorant of (not that they should have been...because the argument against omnipotence is older than the christian god to begin with).

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

---

Yes. Perhaps I could make a world where every door to Bill's success was unlocked, but wouldn't the choice would still be Bill's to open the doors? Here is an example: I have a son who is brilliant. My wife is a high school teacher and has seen his aptitude scores and they are off the charts. He has everything going for him, but now, as a high school graduate, he is working at a food store. We offered to pay his way to college, and he refused. Why? He chose drugs and decided he didn't want to try to do anything more with his life that bag groceries and collect shopping carts. With his intelligence, he really has an advantage over others, but he chose to under achieve. No matter how many doors have been unlocked for him, he has chosen not to go through them.

Now you might say God chose to make Bill Gates a success, and chose to make my son less of a success, but I think a more reasonable explanation is that they both made the choices themselves--one to take advantage of his advantages, and one to not take advantage of his advantages.

No, not if you invoke precongnition. Precognitions describes a state from the observers end, it's mirror image is predestination from the observed's end. It doesn't even matter if the precognitive observer chose the initial states, or any of the given outcomes. A precognitive human being with no other abilities whatsoever would completely erode the notion of free will, let alone a precognitive god with a whole host of other abilities and stated plans.

Your son sounds like a brilliant grocery bagger, no shame in that, someone has to bag groceries. Why did he refuse your offer to pay for college btw (if you don't mind my asking)?

(alot of people score off the charts and nevertheless don't end up being doctors btw, I dig holes and change shitty diapers.......I'm also very frequently under the influence..lol)

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. 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. 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.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Lion IRC Wrote: I resolve the so-called omnipotence/omniscience paradox easily enough by accepting that God equally has the ability to know and not to know.

Logic is not your strong suit, is it.


I resolve it by referring it to Epicurus,who wrote.

Epicurus on God and Evil

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?"
- Epicurus

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[Skepsis]

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.

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.

This analogy is faulty because the researchers we are talking about didn't create the rat to a precise genetic T from which they knew every action it would take, ever. They didn't choose to make a different rat, meaning choice was involved on their part and not the rats, effectively making all the rat's choices for it throughout it's life. I suppose the researchers would have to make an artificial environment as well, so it's not a perfect analogy, but I think you'll see the point.
If they chose the rat's every action throughout it's entire life and it's environment, knowing they were doing so all the time, then we would have an analogy.

[FallentoReason]

I resolve the so-called omnipotence/omniscience paradox easily enough by accepting that God equally has the ability to know and not to know.

What the hell does that even mean?

It means he has no clue what omniscience means judging by the contradiction he's proposed.

[Undeceived]

No, not if you invoke precongnition. Precognitions describes a state from the observers end, it's mirror image is predestination from the observed's end. It doesn't even matter if the precognitive observer chose the initial states, or any of the given outcomes. A precognitive human being with no other abilities whatsoever would completely erode the notion of free will, let alone a precognitive god with a whole host of other abilities and stated plans.

There's an unstated step in the logic here.
1. God has precognition (Premise)
2. God will always act on his precognition to achieve what he knows is most healthy* for his creation.
3. Therefore God predestines all.
The question is, is #2 true?

*healthy here is a physical and moral perfection. Emotions, reason and rationality do not exist.

---

You can choose, sure, but your choice was already known and ingrained into you before you chose it.

It's remains your choice. That's free will in life. Unless you're arguing we lack free will outside of life. Then go ahead--use your created mind to recreate yourself with different thoughts and ideas... which do not exist in your brain. You want to create and be created. You wish to have the cake and eat it. Well done, you're in a philosophical paradox.

[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?