Better reasons to quit Christianity

[idunno]

spockrates, are you an open theist?

[downbeatplumb]

Reasons to quit christianity.

You get to stop feeling like you have to defend stupid ideas like "god".

You will start to see that godditit is a retardant to rational thinking and start to truly ask the right questions.

You also have the fun of toying with the minds of christians on forums like this.

[idunno]

put it down, that is not a toy.

[downbeatplumb]

Oh but it is.

[idunno]

Oh wait, it is. Carry on.

[Mister Agenda]

I asked why others believe God does not exist. The answer several gave was that if God existed, we would not be free, for God's omniscience would be the death of our freewill. I'm simply asking why this belief is true and expressing why I still have my doubts. I think the doubts are justified, but do you still disagree? Do you think that to experience is not to know and there is no thing that cannot be known apart from experiencing it?

The free-will dilemma entertains, for the sake of argument, the consequences of believing certain things about God. It doesn't address theism per se at all, only the God of theodicy. No matter what answer is arrived at, it will not support the existence or non-existence of God, it will just have you twiddling with definitions. Have you considered deism (he says, hopefully, as encouragement toward Catholicism has failed)?

---

Yes, I agree any concept of this God (if God exists) must be logical. One reason why I question the faith of Rythm, Mister and Cato.

Please specify what faith of mine you think you're questioning?

---

Based on what Rhythm, Cato and Mister Agenda tell me. It seems you disagree with them, too--though for different reasons. I'm thinking God cannot be experienced. You appear to be thinking God cannot lack ignorance.

I would love to hear what you've gotten from what I've told you. Because I'm completely sure what you took away wasn't what i actually said, based on experience.

[Anomalocaris]

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

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

What do you think, Chuck?

So long as you insist on playing the muddying charade, I will muddy it some more.

All knowing does not have to mean literally knowing all. All knowing could simply mean knowing all that is in principle possible to know, which may not be all.

So one might say an omniscient being does not know that which is in principle unknowable, but knows everything else.

One might also say an omnipotent being should have in his capacity to create that which is unknowable even to himself, and thus in principle unknowable.

When you have grasped this life line, I will then cut it for you.

[Mister Agenda]

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

Which doesn't address whether God exists, only if an omniscient God exists.

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

Let's get this straight. You're saying omniscience can't be knowing all because God can't know everything, so the definition of omniscience must be wrong? Not that actual omniscience can't exist?

---

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

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

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

Ah, so you know the pigeon maneuver. Checkmate, atheists!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

put it down, that is not a toy.

When something is broken,it is perfectly OK to use it as a toy. What passes for the minds of most Christians here makes any use we choose appropriate

[Cyberman]

Not to mention there's always a chance some of them might be repaired. Notice I don't single out any names here.