Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Cinjin]

But please tell me: Do you think omniscience is having the power to do everything, or do you think omniscience is not only having the power to do everything but also doing everything?

It's become clear to me that if you believe in Yahweh, you believe that omniscience is having all the power in the universe to do nothing. Prison inmates in solitary confinement do more for society for fucks sake.

[Lion IRC]

I don't think you're sincere.

That's an ad hom too by the way.

[Jackalope]

I don't think you're sincere.

That's an ad hom too by the way.

You apparently don't know what the term means, or you're using your own personal definition. In addition, ad hominem is not always fallacious. Making an observation about the perception of a person's sincerity doesn't come close.

[spockrates]

Love requires a choice, so yes, if we are free to choose, we would have to be free to choose to love, or to not love. If we were not free to choose to not love, we would not be free. I'd say everyone, to one degree, or another, at times chooses not to love. So omniscience, in this case, would only reveal to God that he should create no one, for no one succeeds at loving 100% of the time.

Thanks for the nuanced reply. It is kind of a mystery why a perfect being should create anyone, especially when it involves large amounts of suffering.

Agreed. Suffering has no meaning if it never ends. But if there is an eternity, then the suffering would seem (once there) but a blink of the eye. Reminds me of my sons crying when I took them to to get their first vaccinations. I told them it would sting, but it would be over soon. I didn't like seeing them cry, but I knew the moment of pain would save them a lifetime of pain should they contract the disease against which the vaccine would otherwise protect them. If there is a heaven, then it will be worth it, no matter how severe and prolonged the suffering in time.

There are those who are mistreated who choose to react to their mistreatment by not becoming like those who mistreated them. Victims always have a choice, I think. Suffering even has the potential to make those who suffer more empathetic, and so more apt to love.

Not if they don't survive it.

True. For them I would expect (if there is a God who is both just and loving) that the momentary suffering would be worth it once in eternity.

Please elaborate, as I don't understand.

Sorry. What I'm trying to say is that omniscience is incompatible with free will. Say a Genie granted me perfect knowledge of the future. From that moment I will be incapable of doing anything but what I have already foreseen I will do. The rest of my life will be just going through the motions: I may act surprised, but I won't be. I may appear to change my mind, but it's an illusion, I already know what I'm ultimately going to think.

Yes, that would be true if the omniscient one existed in time and was waiting for the future, but it would not be true is the omniscient one existed outside of time and was already there in the future. God might look at us like one might look at a timeline in an open book. He might already see what we are going to do, but he would not already see what he is going to do, because he would have already done it. God isn't waiting for the future, he is already there.

I think, perhaps we have a different understanding of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not just an unlimited amount of power, it's an unlimited quality (or perfection) of power. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omniscience, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unwise. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omnibenevolence, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unloving. The three aspects of God must be in perfect harmony, or God becomes less than perfect. Wisdom, rather than a limit on God's power, is a perfect guiding of God's power. Love, rather a limit on God's power, is a perfect application of God's power.

Sounds sweet. Have you added 'unlimited quality of power' to omnipotence so that omnipotence means 'both unlimited quantity and quality of power' or re-defined omnipotence to 'unlimited quality of power' instead of 'unlimited quantity of power'? Are you defining 'omniscience' as something other than 'knowing everything'?

I don't believe there is such as thing as unlimited quantity of power.

For example, if God had unlimited power (power not limited by his wisdom or love) there would be nothing impossible for him to do. This is not the case, for we read in Hebrews:

...it is impossible for God to lie... .

(Hebrews 6:18)

Since there is something that is impossible for God to do, does this mean he is not all-powerful? No, it means his power is made perfect in wisdom and love.

This might be more persuasive if not of the cognitive acrobatics required to make God consistently truthful. He says to see him is to die but shows himself to people who lived. He tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat the forbidden fruit they will die, but they live for centuries afterwards. He admits to sending prophets lying spirits to deceive the people.

Not if the word die has a different meaning than the one you are attributing to it.

Of course I don't expect a book written by many different people to be very consistent, even about this, but it's a problem for people who take it as the word of God.

Can I take it as written that when you make claims about God, you are deriving them from your understanding of the Christian Bible?

---

But here is what I wonder: Does God not lie because he is powerless to lie, or does God not lie because he has the power to lie, but chooses to not lie? If the latter, rather than the former is true, then I'm thinking God truly is all-powerful, but chooses (by reason of wisdom and love) to restrain his power.

I would say the answer depends on whether the version of God you're speaking of has free will.

Actually, it depends on what omnipotent is. I'd say it can be the freedom to choose to do anything, but it cannot possibly be the freedom to do everything. Should I explain my meaning?

[Lion IRC]

That's an ad hom too by the way.

You apparently don't know what the term means, or you're using your own personal definition.

I think you are an illiterate baboon who can be out-argued by a piece of moldy bread.

(IT'S NOT AN AD HOM OK YOU STUPID FUNNY HAIRED PERSON with a weird user name!!!!)

OK (phew!)

Relax, breathe deep.

Now that I have my insults out of the way, wanna have a nice, completely separate, unrelated, intellectual discussion about the definition of an ad hom?

[spockrates]

But please tell me: Do you think omniscience is having the power to do everything, or do you think omniscience is not only having the power to do everything but also doing everything?

It's become clear to me that if you believe in Yahweh, you believe that omniscience is having all the power in the universe to do nothing. Prison inmates in solitary confinement do more for society for fucks sake.

Yes, sorry. I meant omnipotence, not omniscience. So what do you think? Is omniscience the power to do anything and everything, or is it the power to choose to do only some things?

[Lion IRC]

Sorry spockrates.
I'll shut up now.

[spockrates]

Sorry spockrates.
I'll shut up now.

No need to apologize! It would be ad hominum if he said some point I was making was untrue because I was an insincere person. In this case, I think Mister A. was correct, and we both were mistaken.

[Jackalope]

You apparently don't know what the term means, or you're using your own personal definition.

I think you are an illiterate baboon who can be out-argued by a piece of moldy bread.

In case it's not stunningly apparent, my signature is satire.

(IT'S NOT AN AD HOM OK YOU STUPID FUNNY HAIRED PERSON with a weird user name!!!!)

Not an ad hom, either. It is an insult, yes.

Now that I have my insults out of the way, wanna have a nice, completely separate, unrelated, intellectual discussion about the definition of an ad hom?

Not particularly. I'm pretty sure we have a recent thread that discusses this issue (Padraic's tu quoque thread).

[spockrates]

Please let me know if you care to share other reasons why someone should become an atheist.

You know what spock, I really don't see why it's any of our responsibility to sell it to you.

Figure it out for yourself. If you can't, carry on believing your nonsense and leave everyone else to it. It's that simple. I just find you're the biggest damn time waster here.

Frankly, watching you drag these threads on is getting that bad I just consider you more of a troll the more I watch you type. You're always coming up with every response you can think of, besides the most obvious and most logical, that your god doesn't exist and your religion is bollocks.

It's like you will scramble for any explanation you can find, regardless of how far fetched it is, to try and explain and justify the fact that your god is an inept communicator, and a shitty designer.

Tiresome and annoying.

You might be right. I might find the conversation so fascinating and enjoyable because I'm so tiresome and boring and everyone choosing to speak to me is not!

For example, I find the current discussion that God cannot be omnipotent extremely fascinating. I'm told that the reason why God is not omnipotent is because he does not have the power to do anything and everything. My little mind can see no way that it is remotely possible that omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything; hence my great anticipation of discovering how something I didn't know is possible actually is.

But if it turns out that omnipotence is indeed not the power to do anything and everything, then what reason is there to think it impossible for God to be omnipotent? The other reasons I anticipate being just as engaging, and I might actually learn that it is indeed impossible for God to be omnipotent. If God cannot be omnipotent, then God cannot be what Christians believe him to be, so I will then be closer to believing that the Christian God is imagined, rather than real.