Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Anomalocaris]

What I would like you to explain is, if you're seriously considering atheism, why are you avoiding the central question of God, which is 'does it exist?',

Because he is a fucking idiot.

[spockrates]

What I would like you to explain is, if you're seriously considering atheism, why are you avoiding the central question of God, which is 'does it exist?',

Because he is a fucking idiot.

I resemble that remark!



But as I told Mister, I have asked why God doesn't exist. I was told that if an omniscient God exists, then and he knows all. If he knows all, then I'm not free.

So we've been considering this. After our investigation, I'm now thinking that if God exists, the fact that he is not experienced is good evidence he does not know all. Anyone who says knowing all is what omniscience is must be mistaken, I think.

What do you think, Chuck?

---

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.

Cato. What do you think now that I've taken a position? If omniscience is total, rather than inherent, then the Christian God is not omniscient in that sense of the word.

So let us do what you suggest and have fun with Epicurus:

SPOCKRATES: Epicurus, please tell me. Is God omniscient?

EPICURUS: There are many gods, child. But if any is omniscient, it would be Zeus, the god of wisdom, among other virtues.

SPOC: So should I worship this god, since he is the omniscient one?

EPIC: If he is omniscient, you would have no other choice than what you choose. Whether you worship him, or not, you would be unable to do otherwise. For he would know your choice before you chose, and no one can unknown what he already knows.

SPOC: So there is nothing that can be known that he does not already know?

EPIC: That's what I said, child. Why ask me to repeat it?

SPOC: Sorry, I guess I cannot believe my ears. Are you saying Zeus is experienced? Is there no experience he does not know?

EPIC: Yes, child. What other conclusion could one possibly have about an omniscient god?

SPOC: He has experienced anything and everything mere mortals have experienced?

EPIC: Of course. Zeus has many times taken on mortal flesh of birds, animals and people of every kind. As a man, he has withheld no pleasure (virtue, or vice) from himself. No intoxication has he not felt. No beautiful woman, or man has he not bedded. No temptation has he resisted. Zeus knows every experience, so he is omniscient. Do you comprehend as much as you little mind is capable, child?

SPOC: Yes, master. I must say that you must be one of the offspring of one of Zeus' divine sexual conquests, for you have the wisdom of a god!

EPIC: You surprise me, child. For that is the first wise thing to come out of your mouth.

SPOC: Thank you, master. But I hope you will suffer to answer just one more question for me.

EPIC: Ask, and I will answer, and you shall be wiser still.

SPOC: Since Zeus is omniscient, and so has had every experience, I wonder this: Has Zeus had the experience I have most? That is, has he experienced what it is to be ignorant and to not know?

EPIC: That is an absurd thought child. You disappoint me.

SPOC: Sorry to disappoint, master. But now I have to wonder how an omniscient god can possibly know all, for he cannot possibly know what it is like to not know!

[The Grand Nudger]

I resemble that remark!



But as I told Mister, I have asked why God doesn't exist. I was told that if an omniscient God exists, then and he knows all. If he knows all, then I'm not free.

Nothing to do with whether or not a god exists Spock. Think that this has been repeatedly stated. The whole precog, predestined, free will bit assumes that god exists and the narrative is accurate. That god may not be a precog is only offered as a way to salvage it's character in the face of sin and consequence (though we create other equally disturbing problems in proposing this). What you are doing here, is attempting to create something other than omniscience (but retaining the word omniscience because for some reason, it's important to you/the narrative) and then arguing for that. There's a term for this sort of argument. When you're done arguing for that, and when you have applied the tiniest amount of rigor and referred to this attribute by whatever term likely already exists for it, I'm going to ask you what kind of an asshole constructs such a high stakes gamble with the cosmos not having any clue as to how it will all turn out.

So we've been considering this. After our investigation, I'm now thinking that if God exists, the fact that he is not experienced is good evidence he does not know all. Anyone who says knowing all is what omniscience is must be mistaken, I think.

No, Spock, anyone who says that omniscience means "knowing all" is not mistaken, they are referring to the long established definition of the word. The folks who assigned this attribute to their fairy made a poor choice in doing so (but, to be fair, the whole sin and consequence bit was tacked on later by folks who really don't seem to have given two shits about the consistency of the narrative).

Cato. What do you think now that I've taken a position? If omniscience is total, rather than inherent, then the Christian God is not omniscient in that sense of the word.

Again, the qualifier "inherent" has no ability to alter the attribute "omniscient". There is only one "sense of the word" omniscient. It is very particular, very descriptive. Look, just drop it, call the damned god "very smart" and be done with it.

[spockrates]

I don't know what else to say, Rythm, except that I appreciate the time you and others have given to help me think through this.



I did look up omniscience, and posted what I found:

Omniscience ( /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/[1]), mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient

Having the capacity to know something is not the same as knowing something.

I posted several biblical passages for Mister Agenda, since he is familiar with the Bible. These clearly demonstrated that the biblical authors believed in a God who has the capacity to know all, but chooses not to know all.

I've asked if anyone disbelieves experience is knowledge that can only be obtained by experiencing it. I also asked if anyone disagrees that Christians teach the God in whom they believe is in no way infinitely experienced so that there is no evil experience he has not experienced, and so knows. No one disagreed.

So I honestly can see no possible way that any Christian can say God has experienced all, and so has personal knowledge of all. (Not even the most stubborn Calvanist would disagree with this!) I can see no possibility that the definition of omniscience I cited is incorrect. Since the birth of the religion, there have always been Christians who have believed that omniscience is merely an unlimited potential to know all.

---

As Spock said, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--no matter how improbable--must be the truth." There may be other reasons God does not exist, but the false idea that omniscience and freewill cannot coexist appears to have been shown to be an impossibility. If we instead found it to be the only possibility, I would have agreed such was a sufficient reason for me to quit Christianity.

[spockrates]

Now, I might be wrong, and it still might be possible to salvage your argument against omniscience. You might concede that Christians believe God does indeed limit his personal knowledge (or experincial knowledge) but does not limit his impersonal knowledge (or objective knowledge) of events. If you want to retreat to this more defensible position, I'm open to considering what you have to say in its defense, if you are open to addressing my doubts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh ffs, this will be the very last time I explain this. After this I'm calling a troll a troll.

If knowledge of the future is possible, even if (for whatever silly reason you're likely to make appeals to next) no entity actually has this knowledge...the events of the future are predestined, not an issue of choice, or "free will".

The problem with proposing precognition (as it relates to free will and choice), for the very last time, is not whether any given entity is precognitive, but the restrictions the precognition -even as a possibility- places on future events.

I've addressed your responses, repeatedly. You have not so much as made an attempt to consider this subject at all. What I'm stuck with here is a 39 page ad naus, and a monumental waste of my time and confidence. I'm extremely disappointed, because we seem to have reached the famous "shit on the board and declare victory" moment made famous by way of pigeons and chess.

[spockrates]

Yes, but an important premise of your argument against omniscience was that God does not limit what he knows. Since this premise has now obviously been proven false, your conclusion is now not supported. All that you previously stated has been soundly routed.

What I'm now asking is how you know an omniscient God would not limit what he knows about the future, since this is now shown to be an obvious possibility.

If you don't desire to continue to consider the question, I'll allow you to retreat from the battle for the truth without demanding any surrender.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trolls gotta troll.

You wouldn't know what an important part of the premise of my argument is because you have a demonstrated inability to properly relate it in counterargument.

[spockrates]

But I don't see how a possibility to know is the same as actually knowing. For example, it is possible for me to know what you mean, but I obviously don't. If you don't continue the dialog, then I likely never will know. My possibility of comprehending you is certainly not the same as actually comprehending you. But do you disagree?

---

Still, I respect your intention to keep my understanding potential, rather than allowing it to become actual. I respect your desire to keep me from knowing!

:p

[The Grand Nudger]

Smoke and mirrors Spock. Your refusal to address the issue in favor of diversion appears to be intentional. If there's something I've said that you're having a hard time getting a handle on perhaps you should re-read the thread..since I've explained this, in all likelihood, more than a dozen times.