Better reasons to quit Christianity

[FallentoReason]

As an inspiring musician you should want to off yourself knowing that you are of the same species as this kid.

Evolution has shown me it's ok though. The weak will die off, just like his career must have

[Mister Agenda]

A precognitive creator God is a special case, don't you think? It established all the initial conditions already knowing what all the outcomes would be. With the Biblical creation story, he would have known Eve and Adam as he made them would succumb to the temptation they were going to face and he made them exactly that way anyway rather than with the X% more resistancr to temptation that they needed to make the choice he wanted them to make. From that, it's obvious that the choice he wanted them to make was to fail his test, for which they were then punished for doing exactly what they were made to do. A precognitive creator is a mess for anyone who takes Bible stories literally. And he doesn't even have to be omnipotent, just powerful enough to set the initial conditions. If there's a precognitive creator who set the initial conditions, our choices are what he chose for us at the beginning, and free will is an illusion because of necessary pre-determinism.

I was asked about omnibenevolence. As a trait divorced from omnisicience and omnipotence, it's fine. Maybe an omnibenevolent God made the best universe it could manage. Maybe it sends the best people to class I heaven, the pretty good ones to class II, fairly scummy ones to class III, and the worst ones to the Phantom Zone or reincarnates them until they get it right. Combined with other omni-abilities, the Problem of Evil rears its ugly head, starting with the precognitive creator issue above.

[Undeceived]

Let me ask this: Into what hands is the decision put into? In the presence of a knowledge-only precog, who or what is determining reality?

Try none, no hands, no decision? What determines the circumstances which leads to the "decision" would depend on the "decision", but it wouldn't alter the nature of that "decision" with regards to the precogs ability to experience predestined events. We could propose that a pancake set the events rolling, that neither the Precog nor Joe where there (or even aware that this occurred), that the pancake had no intentions, is not controlling anything, and has long since disintegrated....but the illusory nature of Joe's "decision" is made perfectly clear and plain the very moment the precog experiences it - assuming...that the precog is, in fact, precognitive.

So nothing is determining reality. How does reality happen then? How does Joe actually buy the car? Either he decides, a god decides, or nature decides. If you say Joe, that's a choice. If you say a god, the god works through either people or nature. And if you say nature, you're back to genes determining choices. How is it so impossible that Joe can make his choice and the precog just be knowledgable about it? Who says a precog can only see the inevitable? Perhaps it becomes inevitable, but not until Joe has made his choice. Let me put it this way: just because reality has one path doesn't mean characters couldn't have diverted reality onto a different path. The precog simply knows what that one path of reality has become.

If that isn't a choice, I don't know what is. The person picks what they want in the face of a theoretical, accessible alternative. To me, that's free will.

---

With the Biblical creation story, he would have known Eve and Adam as he made them would succumb to the temptation they were going to face and he made them exactly that way anyway rather than with the X% more resistance to temptation that they needed to make the choice he wanted them to make. From that, it's obvious that the choice he wanted them to make was to fail his test, for which they were then punished for doing exactly what they were made to do.

In order for love to exist, God had to grant Adam and Eve perfect free will. He knew they would fail, but determined He'd rather have a world of sin and love than a world of stoic robots. Can you explain to me what X% more resistance actually looks like?

[The Grand Nudger]

The really interesting thing about all of these claimed attributes (and even the god claim itself) and how they might relate to each other is not whether they are contradictory, but how they came to be attached (or what they were used to explain) in the first place. What cannot be ignored here, when discussing these attributes is that the originators of the narratives were, in many cases, creating these gods before it was apparent (or important) to anyone that the claims must be non-contradictory. Some things did not seem to be contradictory at one point though we currently understand them to be so, and of course, many of the claims appeared to be completely self explanatory or self-evident to the cultures that proposed them whilst today we much more accurately describe these as superstition (rain gods being a famous example).

What makes the whole thing really interesting ( to me at least) is how these characters have changed over time (and even how posters here on these boards attempt to engineer subtle changes to the narrative). What we have is a long history of these narratives serving us for a variety of purposes and being modified to better suit those purposes as perceived as by any given culture or person. Whether or not two claimed attributes of a divine narrative or a divine creature are contradictory (and whether or not that implies that either the narrative is incorrect or that the creature is non-existent) is, to me, a non issue. Fairy tales are fairy tales, this isn't an ongoing debate. The case, barring the introduction of some here-to-fore unseen evidence is closed on that count.

---

So nothing is determining reality.

Try again. -It does not matter what is determining reality in the example of the precog, predestined events, and "choice".

How does reality happen then? How does Joe actually buy the car? Either he decides, a god decides, or nature decides.

Pancakes...I already told you.

If you say Joe, that's a choice.

Unless there's a precog involved, in which case it isn't. If there isn't a precog involved it -may be-, but there is still the possibility that it is not, if, for example, the future can be known...even if no one knows it. As I said, a precognitive entity doesn't lead to this problem, the requirements for precognition itself does. For precognition to exist, it must be possible to know the future. If the future is not set, it cannot be known, only guessed at. Would you like to argue for a deity [that is not precognitive] that wagered every human soul and indeed the entirety of the cosmos on a guess? If you want your precog, you're going to have to man up and accept a future that can be known, a future that is set, a future that is predestined.

If you say a god, the god works through either people or nature.

That isn't an issue of precognitive ability, that would be an example of tinkering, which is not required to eliminate choice, but definitely would put a nail firmly in the coffin for other reasons entirely.

And if you say nature, you're back to genes determining choices.

There's a fair bit more to nature than genes....you do realize this yes?

How is it so impossible that Joe can make his choice and the precog just be knowledgable about it?

Re-read my multiple explanations of this or find a way to ask a question that has not been answered ad naus. By the brute force of that knowledge being made available to the precog, Joe's choice can go no other way. Even in the example of a and b..Joe is incapable of choosing that which the precog does not experience (without removing the attribute of precognitive from the observer). Joe cannot even make a choice between two simple things, let alone a complicated decision such as the ones we find in our lives with multiple alternatives up to and including the decision to not make a decision at all. In the face of predestined events, which would become apparent in the case of precognitive abilities,Joe is not choosing (though from his -or our- point of view it may very much seem like he is). Joe is simply floating through the river of time and causality and the precog experiences this clearly.

Who says a precog can only see the inevitable? Perhaps it becomes inevitable, but not until Joe has made his choice.

Then the precog did not have knowledge of the future, but of possible futures, I already posted a little bit about this but if we want to go down that road we can.

Let me put it this way: just because reality has one path doesn't mean characters couldn't have diverted reality onto a different path.

Ah, well then, if reality only has one path then what you just brought up above is ruled out. There are no other possibilities, reality has only one path, the precog experiences it, it cannot go another way.

The precog simply knows what that one path of reality has become.

This is precisely the problem, yes.

If that isn't a choice, I don't know what is.

...clearly.....

The person picks what they want in the face of a theoretical, accessible alternative. To me, that's free will.

Except that you haven't given them an accessible alternative in your examples with regards to a precog. You are arguing for a lack of choice, and then concluding that there is a choice. Wrap your head around that.

---

-With regards to your explanation of free will and love-
So, god, knowing all of this in advance (being precognitive), and in order for love to exist, set up a system such that I would be punished not for any failing of my character or goodness, but simply for not having faith; strange, since you would think that god as the "author of my heart and soul" would know why I don't....and I could have been written such that it was at least possible (and, because you have invoked predestination in invoking precognition...not by any actual choice on my part, only an elaborate illusion)?

This is the price of love?

[Undeceived]

I don't want to beat a tired horse, but I'll have one last go.

Joe is incapable of choosing that which the precog does not experience

There's the problem in this discussion. The logic can be flipped. The precog is incapable of experiencing what Joe does not choose. So they happen simultaneously (which correlates to God, since all times are the present for Him). We know this is true because the precog would not experience any choice unless Joe made a choice. Joe cannot stray from the path of the precog, but the precog cannot stray from the path of Joe. Circular. That's why I asked who determines reality. Joe does. If not, If he made a pre-determined choice (with no alternative), who or what determined that single path of reality? The timeline must begin. Either at least one choice was made along the way (like creation), or everything, from the start of the universe down to me being in front of my laptop right now... is inevitable (again, circular- no cause). A cause does not happen without a choice--yours, or someone else's. Now God, being a precog, knows his own decision before he makes it. Does that mean God never made a choice? Or does the principle not apply to the same person? If not, why not? Use logic, not speculation, in your answer.

Here's another way of looking at it. You're saying I'm bound to my precog, that I can only do what it experiences. Why am I bound to my precog? Because it is right? That's like saying I'm bound to the truth, that I can only do what I'm going to do--I can only fulfill reality. Well of course I can only carry out reality. That doesn't mean I don't have choices within reality, that I can't change it. A precog knows reality. I create reality, or someone does. Just toss out the notion of a precog altogether. If it is only an observer, 'reality' and 'precog' are interchangeable. Because as you said, a precog doesn't cause anything in me. Nor does the act of its knowing change anything (as would knowing only the inevitable). It is therefore synonymous with reality. So your idea of a precog exists in the atheistic here and now. Yet we make choices. Or do we?

[spockrates]

A precognitive creator God is a special case, don't you think? It established all the initial conditions already knowing what all the outcomes would be. With the Biblical creation story, he would have known Eve and Adam as he made them would succumb to the temptation they were going to face and he made them exactly that way anyway rather than with the X% more resistancr to temptation that they needed to make the choice he wanted them to make. From that, it's obvious that the choice he wanted them to make was to fail his test, for which they were then punished for doing exactly what they were made to do. A precognitive creator is a mess for anyone who takes Bible stories literally. And he doesn't even have to be omnipotent, just powerful enough to set the initial conditions. If there's a precognitive creator who set the initial conditions, our choices are what he chose for us at the beginning, and free will is an illusion because of necessary pre-determinism.

Whether Adam and Eve were actual people, or symbolic of the human condition, I think you are assuming that God (if he exists) tried to make a race that would never turn against him, or against one another. You aren't asking a question, so I suppose you don't mind if I go back to asking them: If God's purpose is believed to be to create a race capable of love, is such love possible while eliminating the possibility of hate? Is it possible to create beings who are capable of loving God, or others and who are (at the same time) incapable of hating God, or others? (I am asking the question in the context of definition (3) of omnipotence, which was suggested previously in this discussion.)

---

Dude, don't quote a massive bit for a single line reply.

Sorry, I was unaware of this particular forum etiquette. The rules change from forum to forum. I'll be careful not to abide by that one from now on. Thank you.

---

... that one of the two chess players will win the game, how many moves it will take to win the game, and what the final move will be that puts the losing player in checkmate. Please explain how, in this example, the freedom of the two chess players to choose what moves they will make is an illusion.

Is the precog correct (IOW, are they a precog?)?

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

Not a guess, not anxiety, not a feeling, not an inkling, not "probably this but maybe that" or "most likely this and definitely not that"....... knowledge. From the moment that the precog has this experience the events can turn out no other way...or else they are not having a precognitive experience. The player the precog "sees" winning must win, it must take that many moves to win the game, checkmate must be achieved in the manner experienced by the precog -before the fact-. Notice, in this example, that neither of us are insinuating that the precog him/herself has to have any personal influence on the outcome of this match. Nevertheless, the future must be determined along the lines of the precogs experience, or else they are not a precog, they are not having a precognitive experience.

To take the example further: If the "losing player" "chooses" to make another move -becoming the winner-, the precogs experience is rendered useless. Now we have a choice, the future is (at least in this case) not determined, the events are not predestined, but we are left without a precog.

The precog (or, in the second - the person that does not have precognitive abilities) in either case is simply an observer. If events are predestined such that a precog can explain to you the particulars of future events (or if they are not) it does not necessarily have to be through any influence on the part of the precog (and this is a fun mind bender..if it were...how could we then be certain that the precog was actually seeing events as they would occur as opposed to events as they would -force them- to occur?)

At issue here is not whether the existence or (potential) influence of any given precog leaves us with a notion of choice or free will that is decidely more akin to an illusion than what we begin with; but that precognition as an ability (regardless of the bearer), and the requirements of that ability, not to mention whatever manner in which this is all achieved, leaves us with a concept of choice that is so far removed from what we generally take the word to mean as to render it useless.

Now, why is this all relevant to the notion of god, specifically the judeo-christian god? Because choices, we are told, have specific consequences. Because we are told that we are responsible for those choices (and this is how god is excused from any part of the world that the arguer deems unworthy or unfashionable). To have someone who would have me believe this then go on to tell me that their god is a precog...well, that's point break.

Once again, I'd like to express my thanks for your patience and your doing your best to help me wrap my head around what you are saying.



I'm thinking you are saying (and would agree with) this:

1. Time is both static and dynamic. The past is static and cannot be changed--what is done is done and cannot be undone. The present and future are dynamic and constantly changing--as we make decisions and take action in the present, we change what the possible outcomes of the future might become.
   
   
2. If there were a being who had perfect precognition (who either looked down the corridor of time and saw what the outcomes would be, or who traveled through time to the future and saw what the outcomes would be, or who existed outside of time and experiences the past and future as the present) then this being's precognitive ability would make him capable of seeing the actual outcomes in the future for the choices and actions we are now making in the present.
   
   
3. Once the being with perfect precognition sees the actual outcomes of our choices and actions, the time of the present and future would be forever changed from dynamic to static. The choices we make and actions we take would be set in stone, unable to be altered in any way. Like the poor sod of the ancient Greek soldier who was too foolish to keep from avoiding the Medusa's gaze, time (looking into the eyes of this perfectly precognitive being) would forever be turned to stone (so to speak) and unable to change in any way.
   
   
4. Since the future becomes set in stone and cannot be changed or undone, it becomes like the past--static.
   
   
5. Since the future becomes static, our choices and actions cannot be changed in any way. They too are set in stone and become static.
   
   
6. Choices and actions that cannot be decided or taken in any way but one are not free at all, and so freewill is an illusion.
   

Please tell me, Rythm:

Am i understanding you correctly? Are you saying that a precognitive being who sees the future (if such were possible) would make the outcomes to become static, rather than dynamic, and so freewill would become an illusion?

[The Grand Nudger]

There's the problem in this discussion. The logic can be flipped. The precog is incapable of experiencing what Joe does not choose.

And?

So they happen simultaneously (which correlates to God, since all times are the present for Him).

No, they do not, or the creature is not -PRE-cognitive. It matters very little what the creatures vantage point is when ours is that of linear progression. Again, that the precog -may not- be able to experience what Joe does not choose (I already explained a few ways in which the precog could btw) does not change the fact the Joe, in his linear waltz through the timeline, is incapable of choosing that which the precog did not experience.

We know this is true because the precog would not experience any choice unless Joe made a choice.

Except that Joe isn't making choices...sigh.

Joe cannot stray from the path of the precog,

Which is why calling Joe's actions "choice" is entirely ridiculous......

but the precog cannot stray from the path of Joe.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Joe can be said to be making a "choice".

Circular. That's why I asked who determines reality. Joe does.

That should be easy to demonstrate. You're a Joe, determine reality for me?

If not, If he made a pre-determined choice (with no alternative), who or what determined that single path of reality?

Pancakes...again.

The timeline must begin.

Why must it, aren't you arguing for a god that experiences all things in the present?

Either at least one choice was made along the way (like creation), or everything, from the start of the universe down to me being in front of my laptop right now... is inevitable (again, circular- no cause).

No known cause, and you're ignoring something fairly obvious. If whatever set events in motion in this predestined universe was not a sentient creature no choice was made.

A cause does not happen without a choice--yours, or someone else's.

This is idiotic, does the sun "choose" to shine on the water, creating evaporation and eventually rain? No, it does not.

Now God, being a precog, knows his own decision before he makes it. Does that mean God never made a choice?
[

Yes, it does actually.

Or does the principle not apply to the same person? If not, why not? Use logic, not speculation, in your answer.

Wait just a minute, are you going to blather on about a god and then tell me not to speculate. Do you want to try this statement again? If not, I'm going to pull a goose and gander and request that you leave anything about your god out of the discussion....

Here's another way of looking at it. You're saying I'm bound to my precog, that I can only do what it experiences.

Yeah, so long as theres a precog you're bound to it. If you weren';t, the creature could not be said top be precognitive.

Why am I bound to my precog? Because it is right?

No, it has to be right to be called a precog, but that's not what binds you. As I've already explained, multiple times, it is the requirements of precognition as an ability that would bind you. For there to be precogs it must be possible to know the future. You cannot know something that has not been set.

That's like saying I'm bound to the truth, that I can only do what I'm going to do--I can only fulfill reality. Well of course I can only carry out reality. That doesn't mean I don't have choices within reality, that I can't change it.

If the future is set you cannot change it, by definition. You know, predestined events.

A precog knows reality. I create reality, or someone does.

Find that someone and you might have an argument.

Just toss out the notion of a precog altogether.

I would, and I suggested that you do the same a loooong way back.

If it is only an observer, 'reality' and 'precog' are interchangeable.

Didn't we just toss out the precog? No, they arean't.

Because as you said, a precog doesn't cause anything in me. Nor does the act of its knowing change anything (as would knowing only the inevitable). It is therefore synonymous with reality.

Except that it isn't sysnonymous wioth reality. FFS. How many times do I have to say this to you. Whether or not a precog influences you or events has no bearing on the concept I've explained to you -at length..

So your idea of a precog exists in the atheistic here and now.

No, there are no known precognitive entities in human experience, not in the "atheist" or "Theistic", not in the here and now, not in the past.

Yet we make choices. Or do we?

Precisely the problem...even in the absence of a precognitive, even in the absence of a divine creature, predestined events (a requirement for precognition) erode the concept of choice even when there is no one to observe them.

---

Please tell me, Rythm:

Am i understanding you correctly? Are you saying that a precognitive being who sees the future (if such were possible) would make the outcomes to become static, rather than dynamic, and so freewill would become an illusion?

Both of you are barking up the same godamned tree. The precog need have no effect. The precog need have no other ability than to observe. It is the ability to observe the future itself that creates this problem, not the precog who has the ability. They do not have to "force" events to conform to their visions, nor do their visions have to "force" time to become static. Their experiences must be accurate, or they are not precogntive. For a precognitive to have knowledge of the future, it must be possible to have knowledge of the future. It is not possible to have knowledge of what is not yet determined.

Since you both seem to be having immense amounts of trouble with this simple concept lets try an example that does not involve a precog:

I have in my hands, right now, a glass filled with water. I am going to turn this glass upside down. What do you think will happen? Predict the future for me.

[Mister Agenda]

In order for love to exist, God had to grant Adam and Eve perfect free will. He knew they would fail, but determined He'd rather have a world of sin and love than a world of stoic robots. Can you explain to me what X% more resistance actually looks like?

It looks like saying no to a snake trying to get you to eat a magic fruit.

So this is what you think perfect free will is: Create two people without the knowledge of good or evil and put that knowledge in a magic fruit. Tell the people they can eat anything but magic fruit, but if they eat the magic fruit, they'll die that day. Pretend to leave them alone (assuming you're an omnipresent deity) with a talking snake that's going to try to get people who don't know right from wrong to eat the magic fruit. The snake sells it (by being truthful, but that's another story). One of them tries it and is so blown away that she wants to share it with the other one, who also tries it. Suddenly they've got guilt and shame. You pretend to come back and pretend not to know what they've been up to; like a parent who asks a question they already know the answer to, to see if their kid will lie about it. Yep, they DID eat the fruit, and get exiled and cursed for doing something they couldn't know was wrong before they did it, along with all their descendants, whose first crime is being born human.

If there was ever a story in the Bible that begs to be taken metaphorically, it's this one.

If you knowingly leave two toddlers alone with a shotgun and a psychotic killer, who is ultimately to blame if the kids shoot each other? Are you off the hook if you told them they could play with anything but the shotgun?

---

Whether Adam and Eve were actual people, or symbolic of the human condition, I think you are assuming that God (if he exists) tried to make a race that would never turn against him, or against one another. You aren't asking a question, so I suppose you don't mind if I go back to asking them: If God's purpose is believed to be to create a race capable of love, is such love possible while eliminating the possibility of hate? Is it possible to create beings who are capable of loving God, or others and who are (at the same time) incapable of hating God, or others? (I am asking the question in the context of definition (3) of omnipotence, which was suggested previously in this discussion.)

I'm inclined to think that the people who wrote the story didn't mean for it to be taken literally. Clearly if Yahweh created humans and has something anywhere near close to the attributes ascribed to him, he was definitely NOT trying to make a race that would never turn against him or one another. That was clearly not his goal in making angels, either, given how that turned out. Yahweh would get the race he wanted, clearly one capable of not loving him or others.

Now it is logically possible to create people with free will who choose to love God and others, while not creating people with free will who choose not to love God and others, if it makes any logical sense for a precognitive being with such creative powers to create beings with free will at all. We might have a much lower population today if Yahweh arranged things that way, but it wouldn't be a logically impossible world.

'God really loves free will' is offered as an ad hoc explanation for the Problem of Evil, but it's got problems, the greatest of which is the implication that God really tried but this was the best he could do.

[Faith No More]

I'm inclined to think that the people who wrote the story didn't mean for it to be taken literally

According to Karen Armstrong in her book The Battle for God, the bible interpreted very metaphorically up until the Enlightenment. Science was the new tool to determine the truths behind our existence, and the bible-thumpers wanted to keep up. So, one guy in particular(the name eludes me) announced that he was going to through the bible as see how it stood up to scientific scrutiny. Well, instead of doing that, he never even looked at the bible scientifically, and then he declared that the bible was entirely scientific. And thus was born the literalists and the path to creationism.

[The Grand Nudger]

People of the near and distant past aren't always as air-headed as we imagine them to be, or as as some of us may be in the present ourselves.