Better reasons to quit Christianity

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

By whom, certainly not by me. I'm stalled on precognition, because precognition, in and of itself, erodes the very concept of choice, as I've already stated. I'm still laughing at the premise, I haven't taken any steps further, and honestly, there is no need to go any further. The premise is borked, it doesn't matter what assumptions you tack onto it.

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.

Except that a: you're just claiming that the rat has a choice in the first place, you haven't established that it does, and B, you've invoked precognition, which you won't be getting around anytime soon. Either precognition bends or choice bends. I don't think you're getting me here.......if god is a precog, precog alone....not making your choices for you, just a fucking precog....you have no choices. It is an illusion born out by your relative inability to perceive future events that -from some point in the time line, available to some observer- have already occurred. If you could truly go either way, then the precog would not know your choices. They would not be precognitive. This, of course, assuming linear progression of time, which is important to you myth. If instead, we proposed that the precog knew both of your choices and could see the timeline going in two divergent directions all the way unto the end for every choice made by every being capable of making choices then you have invoked infinite alternative timelines and the amount of hot water that puts your myth in is staggering. Not only does it put the myth into hot water, each individual you in every divergent timeline still had no choices, it was still an illusion.

Now, to be fair, hard determinism is already a bitch, that's without invoking magic, but once you do, the nails become firmly seated in the lid of the coffin.

[spockrates]

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

How do you think Epicurus defined omnipotence?

---

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.

Well, they could have chosen a different rat. Maybe a rat doped up on crack cocaine, or a rat given high doses of vitamin B12, which is in popular energy drinks like Red Bull. But are you saying that every behavior of a human being is (like every behavior of a rat) predetermined by one's genetics alone? For example, whether I choose to become an atheist, or remain a Christian--do my genes predetermine this outcome?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why are we talking about the researchers choices now? I thought we were the rat, not the guy in the lab coat. Are you intentionally trying to tank your own poor analogy now?

[spockrates]

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?

By whom, certainly not by me. I'm stalled on precognition, because precognition, in and of itself, erodes the very concept of choice, as I've already stated. I'm still laughing at the premise, I haven't taken any steps further, and honestly, there is no need to go any further. The premise is borked, it doesn't matter what assumptions you tack onto it.

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.

Except that a: you're just claiming that the rat has a choice in the first place, you haven't established that it does, and B, you've invoked precognition, which you won't be getting around anytime soon. Either precognition bends or choice bends. I don't think you're getting me here.......if god is a precog, precog alone....not making your choices for you, just a fucking precog....you have no choices. It is an illusion born out by your relative inability to perceive future events that -from some point in the time line, available to some observer- have already occurred. If you could truly go either way, then the precog would not know your choices. They would not be precognitive. This, of course, assuming linear progression of time, which is important to you myth. If instead, we proposed that the precog knew both of your choices and could see the timeline going in two divergent directions all the way unto the end for every choice made by every being capable of making choices then you have invoked infinite alternative timelines and the amount of hot water that puts your myth in is staggering. Not only does it put the myth into hot water, each individual you in every divergent timeline still had no choices, it was still an illusion.

Now, to be fair, hard determinism is already a bitch, that's without invoking magic, but once you do, the nails become firmly seated in the lid of the coffin.

Sorry, that still went over my head. I think I understood what this means:

If instead, we proposed that the precog knew both of your choices and could see the timeline going in two divergent directions all the way unto the end for every choice made by every being capable of making choices then you have invoked infinite alternative timelines and the amount of hot water that puts your myth in is staggering.

But you are correct that I'm not getting why this is true:

I don't think you're getting me here.......if god is a precog, precog alone....not making your choices for you, just a fucking precog....you have no choices.

Given that the definition of precognition is this,


knowledge of a future event or situation, especially through extrasensory means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precognition?s=t

I'm still blind as to why knowledge of a future event is the same thing as causing a future event. Will you give me a brief example to illustrate your point?

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus fucking christ. Precognitive ability alone has nothing to do with whether or not one caused an event or directed a choice, but nevertheless it removes the concept of "choice" from the equation, and I've explained why at least twice now (and each time mentioning that the precognitive ability alone, without any other powers or actions is the troubling part). You seem to want to argue another point desperately but that's too bad, go argue that point with someone else.

Having knowledge of a future event does not mean that you caused the event, but it does mean that the event is predestined -which is not an example of choice. It's the polar opposite of choice, in fact.

[spockrates]

What the hell does that even mean?

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

It's possible it means he is thinking this is the correct definition of omnipotence:

The ability of a deity to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

---

Jesus fucking christ. Precognitive ability alone has nothing to do with whether or not one caused an event or directed a choice, but nevertheless it removes the concept of "choice" from the equation, and I've explained why at least twice now (and each time mentioning that the precognitive ability alone, without any other powers or actions is the troubling part). You seem to want to argue another point desperately but that's too bad, go argue that point with someone else.

Having knowledge of a future event does not mean that you caused the event, but it does mean that the event is predestined -which is not an example of choice. It's the polar opposite of choice, in fact.

Yes, I agree I don't follow you, which one reason why I've asked you for an example to show the point you are trying to get across. Let me try one:

An omnipotent God predestines that a person will have freewill, and he predetermines that this freedom of choice will determine the person's eternal destiny.

I think the problem inherent with discussing predestination is that it is difficult to grasp what the person using the word believes it means. The reason is that there are a great number of conflicting ideas as to what the word actually means. Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

If you would like, we can see how the Catholic understanding of predestination proves that people (if God exists) are not free to choose to believe, or not believe in him:



The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Predestination says,[15]:

"[...] God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those that directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will."

Pope John Paul II wrote[16]:

"Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All
The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all."
"[...] [G]race comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

The Catholic Catechism says:

"God predestines no one to go to hell"[17]




If you want me to understand from where you are coming, please explain in what way this definition of predestination demonstrates that you, or I are not free to believe, or disbelieve in the Jesus Christ you mentioned. If you are not interested in giving sight to my blind eyes, that's OK, too. I understand that it is not in the laughing hyena's nature to help, rather than mock!




Help or not, I do enjoy trying to figure out just what the heck you are trying to say. Can't say I ever have, but I like the challenge, just the same!

[The Grand Nudger]

Because predestination/precognition, by definition, excludes choice (and this again is assuming linear progression, not just linear perception, of time -because we've already tossed out perception when invoking the precog). Your "choice" has already occurred. Your "choice" is going to go one way only. Your "choice" has no possibility of going any other way. If it did...then the precog would not know the future....ergo would not be a precog. That's kind of a requirement for precognitive ability, accuracy. Capeche?

You want me to sit here and argue time as it applies to catholic superstition? Thanks, I'll pass. What about this requires an example, every "choice" is an example, no specifics are required. Precognition and predestination are over-arching concepts as they apply to time and "choice". I'm not interested in letting you waltz past the problems with the very premise of precognitive ability as it applies to choice in order to argue competing superstitious drivel regarding the same. When you ask me "show me how this understanding of gods" -anything- is incorrect let me preempt the question. The point they went off the rails was the moment they invoked a magical being in the first place. I was only half joking when I mentioned that to you so many posts ago. I have to ask you this, in what way would we expect a primitive and superstitious understanding of time and choice to be a factually accurate representation of reality?

---

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Predestination says,[15]:

"[...] God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those that directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will."

Pope John Paul II wrote[16]:

"Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All
The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all."
"[...] [G]race comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

The Catholic Catechism says:

"God predestines no one to go to hell"[17]

---

What am I supposed to say about this Spock, it's unsubstantiated horseshit, start to finish.....tell me why I shouldn't utterly dismiss it on principle? I mean, I'm already humoring the idea of fortune telling, how much garbage do I have to swallow to have this discussion with you? How much garbage do you have to load the discussion with before you can even begin to argue a point?

(try the search function btw, this conversation has been done before, in a long drawn out specific and superstition crushing way. Long story short : read moar sci-fi)

[Mister Agenda]

The concept seems to be taught by scripture, yes. Why do you ask?

Why do you have to ask why I ask? You just said suffering may be justified because it's temporary, if there's an eternal hell, there's eternal suffering. Which puts you back at square one regarding your justification.

Rather than saying a God who exists in a dimension outside space and time cannot change anything, I'd say it is possible such a God (if he exists) has already changed things. That is, he has if he has the power to reach into time at any point in time and make changes any time he wants. For him (as the Rush song puts it), "time stands still." He would have all the time he needed to enter any point in time any time he wanted and make any change he wanted and then see the result at the end of time. The timeline of time, we might imagine, is not a done deal, but a work in progress. You have to think outside the box of time and imagine what someone who existed in a time outside of time might be able to do.

If 'time stands still' he doesn't have any time at all. A shorter way of saying 'doesn't exist in space or time' is 'doesn't exist'. Nowhere, nowhen. Maybe you should consider thinking outside of the box of time: a God who exists in time and space but not our time and space would be more logically coherent, like a programmer who exists outside of an elaborate simulation; but can stop, rewind, alter, and erase at will.

True, your concept of omnipotence might have no referent in reality, but that does not mean that my concept (or the concept someone else has) of omnipotence does not have a referent in reality, I think. To say that your concept is unreal and so no concept is real is to create a straw man and knock it down, I think. Why not consider the concept of someone else before dismissing it as unreal as your own?

Because if 'omnipotent' means whatever you want it to mean, discussing it is pointless. You take it to mean something other than all-powerful so you can keep using the word and avoid the logical inconsistencies. Good for you. Why should I use your definition instead of this one?

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

But you were a Penecostal. Weren't you taught the difference between physical death and spiritual death?

Sure. I was hoping that sharing the information that I'm a Pentecostal would move the conversation along as you wouldn't assume I was unaware of the usual arguments. I'm aware of it but find it very unconvincing in absence of a willingness to apply ad hoc reasoning to make it make sense.

Before rejecting the idea that the Bible gives different meanings to the word death depending on the context, you should first ask what I think the word die means in the context we are discussing, don't you think?

No, I don't think that. First, I have not rejected the idea that the Bible gives different meanings to the word death depending on context. I have accepted that the context in these cases is especially clear. Do you think Jacob died spiritually when he saw God face-to-face? Second, what you think the word 'die' means doesn't matter to this discussion. What matters is what was meant by the word 'die' in Genesis. I don't recognize you as having any particular qualification or authority as a Bible translator, so why would I consult you on such a thing? If you have substantial evidence that your interpretation is the correct one, present it.

The KJV also doesn't use the word Trinity, either, but I'm sure you were taught how the concept is clearly taught in scripture--unless, of course, you used to be a Oneness Penecostal. In that case, you were taught Modalism, which is a word that is also not in the Bible.

I used to be a 'Oneness Pentecostal'. Clearly, early Judaism was henotheistic as other gods were referred to. The NT refers to Jesus as the Son of God (and as the Word in John), refers to the Holy Ghost, and to the Father. Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is referred to; as is baptism in the name of Jesus, which Oneness Pentecostals resolve by inferring that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is, rather than a trinity, God created the universe and life (Father), incarnated as a human (Son) and otherwise interacted with humans as a spirit (Holy Ghost). I count at least four gods in mainstream Christianity: The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Devil (god of evil). In an admittedly polytheistic religion, angels would be counted as lesser gods and saints as demigods. They are actually considered loas in Voodoun and Santeria.

I propose we use the meaning of the word omnipotent that is not logically absurd.

I propose we reject words with logically absurd meanings as applying to anything real. How about 'ultrapotent' instead?

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!

Yet rather than conclude the problem is in the concept of omnipotence, you will change the meaning to what you want it to be so you can keep saying it. I'll point out that changing the meaning to 'able to do anything that is logically possible' still has problems. It is logically possible to have free will and make the choices that get you into heaven (if you think anyone does this, you think it's possible), so it is logically possible for God to make such beings.

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.

It's just a word. It has the meaning given to it. Words can be absurd. If 'invisipink' means 'invisibly pink', we conclude that there's nothing that's invisipink, not that 'invisipink' must have its definition changed.

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?

It's not nonsensical, you represent a long tradition of efforts to try to define God's attributes in a way that retains traditional wording while making what they refer to more unfalsifiable. There are plenty of arguments about what words mean, and trying to agree on terms is a sound discussion practice. I both don't agree and don't think it's nonsensical.

Here's a suggestion: just use 'logical omnipotence' or 'coherent omnipotence' where you would normally use 'omnipotence' so we know what kind of omnipotence you mean. Like we will sometimes use 'agnostic atheism' when distinguishing it from 'gnostic atheism' is meaningful. You don't need to use it all the time, just enough to be clear that you're not talking about re-writing logic. Bear in mind, this form of omnipotence still has problems in relation to the other 'omnis', even though it has the virtue of not contradicting itself.

Interestingly, this leaves me in the position of being able to accomplish a feat that God can't: I can make something so heavy that I can't lift it.

[spockrates]

Because predestination/precognition, by definition, excludes choice (and this again is assuming linear progression, not just linear perception, of time -because we've already tossed out perception when invoking the precog).

Yes, I agree. By the definition you appear to be using, predestination excludes the possibility of choice.

Your "choice" has already occurred. Your "choice" is going to go one way only. Your "choice" has no possibility of going any other way. If it did...then the precog would not know the future....ergo would not be a precog. That's kind of a requirement for precognitive ability, accuracy. Capeche?
[/qoute]

No, mi dispiace.

You want me to sit here and argue time as it applies to catholic superstition? Thanks, I'll pass. What about this requires an example, every "choice" is an example, no specifics are required. Precognition and predestination are over-arching concepts as they apply to time and "choice". I'm not interested in letting you waltz past the problems with the very premise of precognitive ability as it applies to choice in order to argue competing superstitious drivel regarding the same. When you ask me "show me how this understanding of gods" -anything- is incorrect let me preempt the question. The point they went off the rails was the moment they invoked a magical being in the first place. I was only half joking when I mentioned that to you so many posts ago. I have to ask you this, in what way would we expect a primitive and superstitious understanding of time and choice to be a factually accurate representation of reality?

---

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Predestination says,[15]:

"[...] God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those that directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will."

Pope John Paul II wrote[16]:

"Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All
The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all."
"[...] [G]race comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

The Catholic Catechism says:

"God predestines no one to go to hell"[17]

---

What am I supposed to say about this Spock, it's unsubstantiated horseshit, start to finish.....tell me why I shouldn't utterly dismiss it on principle? I mean, I'm already humoring the idea of fortune telling, how much garbage do I have to swallow to have this discussion with you? How much garbage do you have to load the discussion with before you can even begin to argue a point?

(try the search function btw, this conversation has been done before, in a long drawn out specific and superstition crushing way. Long story short : read moar sci-fi)

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. 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?

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.

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."

---

[quote='spockrates' pid='324673' dateline='1345343345']
The concept seems to be taught by scripture, yes. Why do you ask?

Why do you have to ask why I ask? You just said suffering may be justified because it's temporary, if there's an eternal hell, there's eternal suffering. Which puts you back at square one regarding your justification.

I have to ask, because I'm curious how it fits into the task at hand, which is to show how it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist. Sounds more like changing the topic to explaining who an omnibenevolent being does not exist. I've split this off from the rest of your reply, if you care to discuss this topic separately.

[Skepsis]

Well, they could have chosen a different rat. Maybe a rat doped up on crack cocaine, or a rat given high doses of vitamin B12, which is in popular energy drinks like Red Bull. But are you saying that every behavior of a human being is (like every behavior of a rat) predetermined by one's genetics alone? For example, whether I choose to become an atheist, or remain a Christian--do my genes predetermine this outcome?

I haven't put too much thought into determinism, but I would like to think it's false. That said, I have to lean towards determinism because of the compelling evidence that I have seen for the concept, though, like I said, I haven't looked into the concept too much. That is regular determinism, though, and doesn't take into account things like the choice of a God to make a world where you do whatever it is you do instead of another world where you do different things. The fact that God can choose worlds nullifies free choice in the world he chooses, because of the simple fact that he knowingly chose every single action every single person will take and has taken in the world he chose. Just knowing the actions they will take before they take them doesn't amount to nullified free will, but the fact that he knew every action and created the world to follow that path does.
To answer your question on genetics, yes. Every action you take in any situation is based on your genes and the laws of physics that govern the creation of those genes. You actions were set in stone from the moment matter first came into being, determined by the laws of nature that everything must abide by. Adding a God to the mix simply add the choice of the God into the equation, meaning he created the world in such a way that the first particles would make us, doing whatever it is we do. We answer to the laws, according to your own beliefs, that your God set in place for us, which makes us who we are and who we will be.
Theoretically, we could calculate the future if we were advanced enough to map out the interactions of every atom in the known universe.