Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Napoléon]

My little mind can see no way that it is remotely possible that omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything

Your little mind is obviously not too big on definitions then.

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.

So you say.

Personally I think it's taking you an incredibly long time to think this shit over.

This thread full of philosobabble, it's pointless, and gets nowhere nearer to discerning whether there is or is not a god.

What a waste of time.

[Lion IRC]

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.

Not to labor the point but calling someone a liar (by euphemism) is an ad hominem because it attacks the person not the idea.

Whether or not you are "sincere" bears no logical relevance to the discussion. In fact, your sincerity or otherwise is a completely separate proposition.

Debate topic "A" - Smoking should/shouldnt be banned
Debate topic "B" - People who thing smoking should be banned arent sincere.

In argument, we dont say..."You're a liar, youre insincere, I think thats a lie, or I think you are lying, or liar liar pants on fire, or you secretly know I'm right and refuse to admit it, blah, blah.."

Why not?

Because there's simply no need to.

If something is untrue, you demonstrate this with logic, reason, evidence NOT with accusations about how believable a person is.

In fact, whether the person stating something, (which is demonstrably untrue,) is doing so deliberately or mistakenly is formally irrelevant.

If it really WASNT an ad hominem remark, then the person making that remark is required (IMHO) to justify having made it by providing an alternative explanation for having used such a comment during the course of an intellectual discussion.

You dont get to quarantine your ad hominem atttack on your opponent behind some firewall and then claim that you werent calling them a liar to try and (illogically) discredit their case.
This is the internet. The public square. There is an audience. And the purpose of an ad hom isnt to make your opponent FEEL bad.

People would do better, if they really must call their ideological opponent a moron/loony/retard/etc. to just get on with it and stop wasting time with some protracted defence that its not really an ad hom....

- if it's true
- if it's not connected to the topic
- if you were "just kidding"

[Skepsis]

Yes, I have to concede that God is not omniscient if by omniscient we mean he can (and does) do anything at all.

...
What? You meant omnipotent when you said omniscient here, right? I'll work off that assumption. Simple mistake.

For example, Paul writes of the:

...God, who does not lie... .

(Titus 1:2)

An omnipotent God would have the capacity to lie, which is apparently against his nature, thus you dismiss a God who is capable of everything. Other reasons you might dismiss this include the logically contradictory nature of omnipotence and the simple illustrations of this.

One might say that being dishonest is something God is powerless to do. For if God were dishonest, he would be unwise (and so not omniscient) and unloving (and so not omnibenevolent).

I don't know about a God, but for humanity lies can be pragmatic and even purely beneficial for all parties. Some lies are actually made by the wise in an educated manner. Still, this is just me nitpicking... a habit I have.

Of all the choices there are to a sentient being, the only things God has the freedom to choose are those that are not just a demonstration of perfect powerful alone, but also a demonstration of perfect wisdom and love.

Perfect power means that which doesn't contradict his other attributes? Perfect. This is what my original contention works off of. This argument doesn't really apply to a different God who can do anything.

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.

If he cannot lie/ his nature doesn't permit him to lie then he has no choice in the matter. He wouldn't be the same God that those who worship him defined him as; he would be completely different. This is the penalty for having so many "omni"s to your name.

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

I hope we can get back on topic soon and leave my mistakes in definition in the past.
Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything. If you are able to do something then you have the chance to perform the action at any point in time. If your nature is perfectly good, then you would be unable of killing someone unjustifiably. You would be incapable of the act. If you were perfectly loving, you would be unable to see those you love in pain that served no purpose and if you knew everything you would know that the pain that those people were suffering was unnecessary. Stuff like that.

[spockrates]

My little mind can see no way that it is remotely possible that omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything

Your little mind is obviously not too big on definitions then.

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.

So you say.

Personally I think it's taking you an incredibly long time to think this shit over.

True. I am one who,

… cares not whether his words are many or few, so long as he attains the truth.

(Theaetetus, 172)

This thread full of philosobabble, it's pointless, and gets nowhere nearer to discerning whether there is or is not a god.

What a waste of time.

Are you saying it's pointless for me to listen to people's reasons why they don't believe in God before deciding whether they are good reasons why I should not believe in God? I'm being told it is impossible for God to be omnipotent and at the same time, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I'm wondering what those who tell me this are thinking omnipotence is, since it seems to me it is impossible for omnipotence to be the power to do anything and everything. But do you disagree? Before dismissing my assumption, why not consider why I hold it? I might have something worth considering (or I might not) but you will never know if you don't find out.

---

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.

Not to labor the point but calling someone a liar (by euphemism) is an ad hominem because it attacks the person not the idea.

Whether or not you are "sincere" bears no logical relevance to the discussion. In fact, your sincerity or otherwise is a completely separate proposition.

Debate topic "A" - Smoking should/shouldnt be banned
Debate topic "B" - People who thing smoking should be banned arent sincere.

In argument, we dont say..."You're a liar, youre insincere, I think thats a lie, or I think you are lying, or liar liar pants on fire, or you secretly know I'm right and refuse to admit it, blah, blah.."

Why not?

Because there's simply no need to.

If something is untrue, you demonstrate this with logic, reason, evidence NOT with accusations about how believable a person is.

In fact, whether the person stating something, (which is demonstrably untrue,) is doing so deliberately or mistakenly is formally irrelevant.

If it really WASNT an ad hominem remark, then the person making that remark is required (IMHO) to justify having made it by providing an alternative explanation for having used such a comment during the course of an intellectual discussion.

You dont get to quarantine your ad hominem atttack on your opponent behind some firewall and then claim that you werent calling them a liar to try and (illogically) discredit their case.
This is the internet. The public square. There is an audience. And the purpose of an ad hom isnt to make your opponent FEEL bad.

People would do better, if they really must call their ideological opponent a moron/loony/retard/etc. to just get on with it and stop wasting time with some protracted defence that its not really an ad hom....

- if it's true
- if it's not connected to the topic
- if you were "just kidding"

You might be right, there.

---

Yes, I have to concede that God is not omniscient if by omniscient we mean he can (and does) do anything at all.

...
What? You meant omnipotent when you said omniscient here, right? I'll work off that assumption. Simple mistake.

For example, Paul writes of the:

...God, who does not lie... .

(Titus 1:2)

An omnipotent God would have the capacity to lie, which is apparently against his nature, thus you dismiss a God who is capable of everything. Other reasons you might dismiss this include the logically contradictory nature of omnipotence and the simple illustrations of this.

One might say that being dishonest is something God is powerless to do. For if God were dishonest, he would be unwise (and so not omniscient) and unloving (and so not omnibenevolent).

I don't know about a God, but for humanity lies can be pragmatic and even purely beneficial for all parties. Some lies are actually made by the wise in an educated manner. Still, this is just me nitpicking... a habit I have.

Of all the choices there are to a sentient being, the only things God has the freedom to choose are those that are not just a demonstration of perfect powerful alone, but also a demonstration of perfect wisdom and love.

Perfect power means that which doesn't contradict his other attributes? Perfect. This is what my original contention works off of. This argument doesn't really apply to a different God who can do anything.

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.

If he cannot lie/ his nature doesn't permit him to lie then he has no choice in the matter. He wouldn't be the same God that those who worship him defined him as; he would be completely different. This is the penalty for having so many "omni"s to your name.

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

I hope we can get back on topic soon and leave my mistakes in definition in the past.
Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything. If you are able to do something then you have the chance to perform the action at any point in time. If your nature is perfectly good, then you would be unable of killing someone unjustifiably. You would be incapable of the act. If you were perfectly loving, you would be unable to see those you love in pain that served no purpose and if you knew everything you would know that the pain that those people were suffering was unnecessary. Stuff like that.

I think it will help to consider whether your definition of omnipotence is a viable one before we proceed to applying it to any concept of God: Let's say a guy named Ed becomes omnipotent. He is neither omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. He just has that power we call omnipotence. Now Ed is a dishonest person, which is something he does not like about himself. He decides that now that he has the power to change himself, he is going to use it to make himself 100% honest 100% of the time.

My question is this: Once Ed makes himself perfectly and always honest, can he still tell a lie? If he cannot lie, then how can omnipotence be the power to do anything and everything? I'm thinking some choices are mutually exclusive. What are you thinking?

[Erinome]

What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

I read a few pages into this appalling thread, and I'm totally grossed out by your inability to see how dumb this is. What reason do you have for not being a Muslim? If you spend your whole life worshiping this prophet, when you die, you'll lose.

You should give up on being a Christian because it makes you an infidel and a blasphemer. You should give up on being a christian because the Koran says that Islam is the one true religion. Give it up because your mortal soul is at stake!

Maybe you should give it up because the messiah hasn't arrived to earth yet. Yahweh is displeased with your worship of this sinner who falsely professed to be the son of god. You should seek out a temple and talk to a rabbi about how you can convert to the one true religion.

Perhaps you're displeasing Kama, Serapis, Jupiter, Odin, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Isis, Krishna, or Ishtar. You could really lose out on the afterlife if you don't start worshiping the right deity. Think about it.

[pgrimes15]

What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

What did your thoughtful atheist friends say ?

Regards

Grimesy

[Skepsis]

I think it will help to consider whether your definition of omnipotence is a viable one before we proceed to applying it to any concept of God: Let's say a guy named Ed becomes omnipotent. He is neither omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. He just has that power we call omnipotence. Now Ed is a dishonest person, which is something he does not like about himself. He decides that now that he has the power to change himself, he is going to use it to make himself 100% honest 100% of the time.

I can't tell if you are trying to avoid my question at this point. I have made it very clear that the God in question isn't an omnipotent one, but one that abides by his own nature and the laws of logic.
Omnipotence is logically impossible as an attribute. It is only real in concept. The God we are talking about cannot be omnipotent unless you are willing to concede that he has the ability to do things against his own nature.
For example, if I was omnipotent except for things that violate my nature, I would simply have whatever power I normally would have. Flying is against my nature, so I couldn't fly. Things like that.

My question is this: Once Ed makes himself perfectly and always honest, can he still tell a lie? If he cannot lie, then how can omnipotence be the power to do anything and everything? I'm thinking some choices are mutually exclusive. What are you thinking?

I have already made a point to say that I am not talking about an omnipotent God.
If someone is perfectly honest then they are incapable of lying.

[spockrates]

What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

I read a few pages into this appalling thread, and I'm totally grossed out by your inability to see how dumb this is. What reason do you have for not being a Muslim? If you spend your whole life worshiping this prophet, when you die, you'll lose.

You should give up on being a Christian because it makes you an infidel and a blasphemer. You should give up on being a christian because the Koran says that Islam is the one true religion. Give it up because your mortal soul is at stake!

Maybe you should give it up because the messiah hasn't arrived to earth yet. Yahweh is displeased with your worship of this sinner who falsely professed to be the son of god. You should seek out a temple and talk to a rabbi about how you can convert to the one true religion.

Perhaps you're displeasing Kama, Serapis, Jupiter, Odin, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Isis, Krishna, or Ishtar. You could really lose out on the afterlife if you don't start worshiping the right deity. Think about it.

Thanks for the advice, Aleialoura. I read an English version of the Koran (or should I spell it Qu'ran?), some time ago. Great book! There is a passage about the God being as close as the heart that beats within the one who believes in him. Do you know what book I might find that passage in?



Edit: Oops! I thought from your post that you were Muslim. I see after reading your signature I was mistaken and you were being facetious. My mistake. Actually, Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet like Mohammad, but Mohammad was greater, and Jesus' disciples were the lying Jews who deceived the world--not Jesus. But are you saying I should be atheist because there might be a God, but I'll never know what God is the true God, so I might as well throw up my hands and say, "Why try?"

---

What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

What did your thoughtful atheist friends say ?

Regards

Grimesy

At this forum, they've said that these are the reasons:

1. Religion is just a way to keep me from doing all the naughty stuff I should be free to do.

2. There is no God.

3. There is no soul, no life after life, no judgment of any kind after death.

Currently, we're considering (2) and how an omnipotent God can also be omniscient, or omnibenevolent.

---

I think it will help to consider whether your definition of omnipotence is a viable one before we proceed to applying it to any concept of God: Let's say a guy named Ed becomes omnipotent. He is neither omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. He just has that power we call omnipotence. Now Ed is a dishonest person, which is something he does not like about himself. He decides that now that he has the power to change himself, he is going to use it to make himself 100% honest 100% of the time.

I can't tell if you are trying to avoid my question at this point. I have made it very clear that the God in question isn't an omnipotent one, but one that abides by his own nature and the laws of logic.

I'm sorry, I must have missed your question. Please repeat it.

Omnipotence is logically impossible as an attribute. It is only real in concept. The God we are talking about cannot be omnipotent unless you are willing to concede that he has the ability to do things against his own nature. For example, if I was omnipotent except for things that violate my nature, I would simply have whatever power I normally would have. Flying is against my nature, so I couldn't fly. Things like that.

But I'm not sure your concept of omnipotence actually is real. For you said: "Omnipotence is the capacity to do anything." My question about this premise is this: Is it possible to have the capacity to make a being that is 100% honest 100% of the time and (at the same time) 100% dishonest 100% of the time? I don't see how it is, do you? So how can omnipotence be "the capacity to do anything," since this one thing not even any omnipotent being could do?

My question is this: Once Ed makes himself perfectly and always honest, can he still tell a lie? If he cannot lie, then how can omnipotence be the power to do anything and everything? I'm thinking some choices are mutually exclusive. What are you thinking?

I have already made a point to say that I am not talking about an omnipotent God. If someone is perfectly honest then they are incapable of lying.

Agreed. So don't you agree it is impossible for even an omnipotent being to make a person who lies and who is (at the same time) perfectly honest? It appears that it is not possible for anyone--whether he be God, or omnipotent Ed! Neither one could make little people who were perfectly honest all of the time and perfectly dishonest all of the time. Thus, it seems we need a different concept of omnipotence, since this one is flawed. For I think you might agree that omnipotence cannot possibly be the capacity to do anything when there is one thing impossible for even an omnipotent being to do.

So I have to ask the question again: What is omnipotence?

[Skepsis]

I'm sorry, I must have missed your question. Please repeat it.

Here:

If you have a God who knows everything and is everywhere with at least enough power to create the universe, why is it that he is capable of not dictating the choices of every person ever to live? By creating a world with beings capable of choice he is necessarily creating a world where he predetermined the choices of everyone.

A God who knows everything before he creates everything is creating a world where he willed every being to make the choices they do.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say the word omnipotence. Please explain what omnipotence is.

Omnipotent isn't even an issue unless you are saying that your God is omnipotent.
I'll repeat this too:
Omnipotence is the ability to perform and action, think any thought, or otherwise act in any conceivable way. The capacity to do so, not that he would or does. That's as clear as it gets.

OK, so is it possible for someone who has the power to become perfectly honest to also be omnipotent?

Yes. Perfect justice, perfect love, perfect honesty- they all preclude the ability to perform the antithesis of themselves.

The reason I ask is because I'm still not sure I comprehend what you believe the word omnipotent to mean.

Nothing is impossible. If I were omnipotent I could do anything.

Once I have a working definition in mind, you and I can measure concepts of an omnipotent God against it.

Do you believe your God to be omnipotent? If not, then this discussion is moot.

We cannot come to an agreement that it is impossible for God to be omnipotent if we don't first come to an agreement on what omnipotence is! Don't you agree?

Omnipotence is logically impossible, but if your God can invalidate logic then that isn't a problem. Your God could then lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, and torture while still being perfectly good, because he would be truly omnipotent. He could create a stone he is unable to lift, then lift it. Things like that.

Now if you, or I find that our proposed definition is not logical, no worries!

Yeah, omnipotence is, by it's nature, illogical.

We can just modify it until we agree that we agree as to what the correct concept of omnipotence is.

Or we could stick with a God who simply has the power to create worlds, answer prayers, create miracles, and other Godly things that Gods do, like I originally suggested. If the isn't your God then my argument is needless.

We will then be in a better position to come to some agreement as to whether God can be omnipotent and also omniscient and omnibenevolent.

...While maintaining free will as a trait for all humans.

I think you said omnipotence is the power to do anything and everything, but perhaps I misunderstood. So please tell me so I can be sure what you mean: What is omnipotence?

I already have. You asked three times in this one post, and I answered twice. I think that'll do.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Do you believe in an eternal hell?

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.

So a very short life of unusual suffering qualifies you for an eternal reward?

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.

The God you're describing can't change anything, because it's already done everything its ever going to do. If the concept of doing something doesn't contract the nature of something outside of time, since time is the only context in which doing something makes sense.

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

I agree, which is why 'omnipotence' is a word with no referent in reality. Seriously, you're arguing for the most unlikely conceivable God, just a pile of omni-attributes that was the culmination of generations of people claiming my God is bigger/better/wiser/more powerful than yours.

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

That's exactly what I meant by cognitive acrobatics. If you have to say 'die' doesn't mean 'die' in the usual sense in order to keep believing what you already believe, you don't hesitate.

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?

No. I know that taking omnipotent to mean what it says is ridiculous, but you don't want to give up the word, so you will seek a new meaning for it that doesn't mean 'all-powerful' so you can continue saying the word that means 'all-powerful' while actually meaning something else. Then you will go through life having to explain what you mean by 'omnipotent' to people who insist on thinking it means what omnipotent means: all-powerful.

Note that the KJV never uses the word 'omnipotent'.