120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[bilby]

On God's omniscience and knowledge of the future.

This has long been a subject of debate on how God can foreknow the future. Some theologians have seriously suggested God is beyond human comprehension, so the answer is, he just does. It's a dogmatic claim that is beyond reason, supported by revelation that assures us he does so. We cannot possibly say how. Others, including Christian and Moslem thinkers have stated from revelation that God determines all that happens, God's predestination and Providence. God has thus created the future. If one thinks of God being outside of all time, then he has created all at once and all exists at once. Others, for example Process theologians deny God knows the future. Unless one understands the history of the debate on God's omniscience and foreknowledge, it's had to make sense of this subject. There is a rich literature on the theories of compatibilitism vs determination.

Pick your cup of poison. A lot of theologians complain about atheist lack of "sophistication" Sometimes they are correct, a lot of theological problems have a long complex history. But that only creates more opportunities for attacks sophisticated enough to avoid complaints of them being strawmen attacks.

Regardless of the mechanism, it is not logically possible for free will to exist if any entity has perfect foreknowledge.

Any god concept that includes an acceptance that logic applies, a claim that god is omniscient, and a claim that free will exists, is impossible - such a combination of traits is as absurd as a married bachelor, or a square triangle.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Omnigenesis. My proposition that God's foreknowledge makes free will impossible, that God is responsible for evil. Determinism rules, compatiblism fails. This has the assumption that the dogma God does in fact have foreknowledge of future events. I don't discuss how that works, just revelation and dogma assure us it does. And I can always take refuge in the dogmatic claim God is incomprehensible so I don't have to answer how God does the trick. Though I am quite able to debunk the standard claims designed to deal with the issue. And to consider the usual metaphysical arguments that have been invented over the ages to debate this issue.

Oh, and Molinism. Did I mention Molinism?

 

[Learner]

I took the liberty of snipping down to the content I'd like to respond to. A god who knows which outcome is going to take place (no matter how many permutations it can "foresee") is a god who knows the future, not one who (like me) can imagine a near infinitude of different things that could happen tomorrow.

I don't think believers of the word of God will ever accept there "not" being a free will because it goes against the reason for covenants , laws and warnings in the logical sense other than just the belief. So it isn't then an argument of the scritpural text but rather from what is not humanly possible . Indicated by Lion " creating a being with free will - ie. in His own likeness? "

Arguing that Jesus is the one constant in all of this is certainly a matter of faith. But it involves a lot of magicking things away, things that have already been enunciated in the previous posts. Backing away and saying it's simply something we can't fathom solves nothing. It just means we're believing something with no evidence because we want to believe it even if it doesn't make sense.

There are only two options as you know. By chance into existence or creation. We for example believe Jesus existed and is most truthful. There will be of course people believing one or the other.

 

[bilby]

I don't think believers of the word of God will ever accept there "not" being a free will because it goes against the reason for covenants , laws and warnings in the logical sense other than just the belief. So it isn't then an argument of the scritpural text but rather from what is not humanly possible . Indicated by Lion " creating a being with free will - ie. in His own likeness? "

Arguing that Jesus is the one constant in all of this is certainly a matter of faith. But it involves a lot of magicking things away, things that have already been enunciated in the previous posts. Backing away and saying it's simply something we can't fathom solves nothing. It just means we're believing something with no evidence because we want to believe it even if it doesn't make sense.

There are only two options as you know. By chance into existence or creation. We for example believe Jesus existed and is most truthful. There will be of course people believing one or the other.

There are more options than that.

Spontaneous emergence of the universe and creation are two ideas that have been suggested; but there are others. For example,another possibility is that the universe has always existed; and within that possibility are the options of an eternal history (you can go back in time indefinitely) or a closed history (Time has a beginning, but an infinite number of things may have occurred since then). Time could be like latitude - you can't keep going North on the surface of a sphere forever, and you can't keep going back in time forever - but there's no 'edge' or barrier at the North Pole, you just end up going South from there no matter what you do. There are far more than two options.

The fact is that we don't know - but we DO know that creation by a God doesn't help to solve any issues, because it simply leads us to the same problem we started with. "Where did X come from?" cannot be answered with "Y created it" without the question "Where did Y come from?" taking its place. So "God created it" not only isn't THE answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"; "God created it" isn't even AN answer to that question.

 

[DBT]

Two possible mechanisms of Omniscience may be Hard Determinism or Block Time, neither permits freedom of action or freedom of will, though the illusion of freedom of action, etc, may be present for those embedded within the system but unable to see the big picture.

 

[Atheos]

I don't think believers of the word of God will ever accept there "not" being a free will because it goes against the reason for covenants , laws and warnings in the logical sense other than just the belief. So it isn't then an argument of the scritpural text but rather from what is not humanly possible . Indicated by Lion " creating a being with free will - ie. in His own likeness? "

Arguing that Jesus is the one constant in all of this is certainly a matter of faith. But it involves a lot of magicking things away, things that have already been enunciated in the previous posts. Backing away and saying it's simply something we can't fathom solves nothing. It just means we're believing something with no evidence because we want to believe it even if it doesn't make sense.

There are only two options as you know. By chance into existence or creation. We for example believe Jesus existed and is most truthful. There will be of course people believing one or the other.

There are plenty of believers in the Christian Bible who accept that there is not a free will. The percentage of free willies vs the others varies over time (as does nearly every percentage of belief acceptance theologically speaking) but those who believe this have no problem reconciling their beliefs with the existence of (so called) covenants, laws and warnings.

(I say "so called covenants" because obviously I do not believe that these came down from a god, which is a significant implication of the word.)

Q: What did the predestiationalist say after falling down a flight of stairs?

A: Whew! I'm sure glad that's over.

 

[Learner]

There are more options than that.

Spontaneous emergence of the universe and creation are two ideas that have been suggested; but there are others. For example,another possibility is that the universe has always existed; and within that possibility are the options of an eternal history (you can go back in time indefinitely) or a closed history (Time has a beginning, but an infinite number of things may have occurred since then). Time could be like latitude - you can't keep going North on the surface of a sphere forever, and you can't keep going back in time forever - but there's no 'edge' or barrier at the North Pole, you just end up going South from there no matter what you do. There are far more than two options.

I used to ponder on the thought and come across theories of other imaginitve ideas of the universe in previous years.(I no longer believe plausible) I use the main two options being this is generally the most two debated on.

The fact is that we don't know - but we DO know that creation by a God doesn't help to solve any issues, because it simply leads us to the same problem we started with. "Where did X come from?" cannot be answered with "Y created it" without the question "Where did Y come from?" taking its place. So "God created it" not only isn't THE answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"; "God created it" isn't even AN answer to that question.

I have no problem with "The fact we don't know" The part you mention regarding the problem of who created God in the first place ? - "Where did X come from ?" A question asking who created who ? will bound to have a limited or as you said "have NO answer." Its a fail proof question in your favour.

But you can have another option here, like from your other options above; "God could have always existed" like your proposition the "universe could have always existed" above. A proposition within the same conceptual context.

 

[Learner]

There are plenty of believers in the Christian Bible who accept that there is not a free will. The percentage of free willies vs the others varies over time (as does nearly every percentage of belief acceptance theologically speaking) but those who believe this have no problem reconciling their beliefs with the existence of (so called) covenants, laws and warnings.

I won't dispute you on that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But you can have another option here, like from your other options above; "God could have always existed" like your proposition the "universe could have always existed" above. A proposition within the same conceptual context.

Except with God, you're adding an unnecessary level of complexity into the scenario. We know that the universe exists, even though we don't know why. If the answer to that why is to posit this whole other thing that we know even less about, you're dealing with the lack of knowledge by adding on even more lack of knowledge and not getting any closer to an answer. It's a step backwards in regards to one's understanding.

 

[Learner]

Except with God, you're adding an unnecessary level of complexity into the scenario. We know that the universe exists, even though we don't know why. If the answer to that why is to posit this whole other thing that we know even less about, you're dealing with the lack of knowledge by adding on even more lack of knowledge and not getting any closer to an answer. It's a step backwards in regards to one's understanding.

I was making a point that if the proposition; that the universe may have appeared by a particular notion, I could use the same notion (always existed) that creation under these theoretical parameters could do also. But yes the answer for creationists is next to impossible to demonstrate, we would of course say the same for non creationist ideas of the universe.

This particular question may have to be altered or left out for a time, I don't know

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except with God, you're adding an unnecessary level of complexity into the scenario. We know that the universe exists, even though we don't know why. If the answer to that why is to posit this whole other thing that we know even less about, you're dealing with the lack of knowledge by adding on even more lack of knowledge and not getting any closer to an answer. It's a step backwards in regards to one's understanding.

I was making a point that if the proposition; that the universe may have appeared by a particular notion, I could use the same notion (always existed) that creation under these theoretical parameters could do also. But yes the answer for creationists is next to impossible to demonstrate, we would of course say the same for non creationist ideas of the universe.

Except the two propositions are unequal because we have evidence that the universe exists and lack evidence that God exists. Therefore, in regards to the universe, there are only two possible answers - either the universe started to exist at some point or the universe has always existed. In regards to God, there are three - either God started to exist at some point, God has always existed or God doesn't exist at all. There is, necessarily, a reason behind the existence of the universe but there's not necessarily a reason behind the existence of God, given that he just might not exist in the first place.

 

[Learner]

Except the two propositions are unequal because we have evidence that the universe exists and lack evidence that God exists. Therefore, in regards to the universe, there are only two possible answers - either the universe started to exist at some point or the universe has always existed. In regards to God, there are three - either God started to exist at some point, God has always existed or God doesn't exist at all. There is, necessarily, a reason behind the existence of the universe but there's not necessarily a reason behind the existence of God, given that he just might not exist in the first place.

The universe existing should "not" be in use as part of the atheist argument. The universe is "neutral". The origins of the universe is the vaild argument, the two propositions between The lucky shot or Meant to be." these are equal!

The religious that read scriptures will find it with difficutly to explain to atheists unless they do from outside their respected faiths and argue that God exists with the similar methods used for Intelligent design. People that believe plausible in the universe creation outside of religion believe there IS a case for a creator or God according to them ,this would include scientists, not all of course.

 

[James Brown]

A: I'm troubled.

B: Why?

A: There's a thing that I can't figure out.

B: What is it?

A: I can't figure out why is there a universe?

B: Oh that's easy. God made it.

A: Now I'm more troubled.

B: Why?

A: Now there are two things I can't figure out.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Where did the Universe come from?

God created it.

Where did God come from?

He has always existed.

Can you prove that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except the two propositions are unequal because we have evidence that the universe exists and lack evidence that God exists. Therefore, in regards to the universe, there are only two possible answers - either the universe started to exist at some point or the universe has always existed. In regards to God, there are three - either God started to exist at some point, God has always existed or God doesn't exist at all. There is, necessarily, a reason behind the existence of the universe but there's not necessarily a reason behind the existence of God, given that he just might not exist in the first place.

The universe existing should "not" be in use as part of the atheist argument. The universe is "neutral". The origins of the universe is the vaild argument, the two propositions between The lucky shot or Meant to be." these are equal!

The religious that read scriptures will find it with difficutly to explain to atheists unless they do from outside their respected faiths and argue that God exists with the similar methods used for Intelligent design. People that believe plausible in the universe creation outside of religion believe there IS a case for a creator or God according to them ,this would include scientists, not all of course.

No, the universe existing should be part of everybody's argument because we definitely have a universe. There's no dispute that the universe exists*. That means that the universe either started at some point or has always existed - one of those two options is definitely true, even though we don't know which. That's not the case for God. There is a dispute whether or not he exists and both of those statements could very well be false about him.

There is, of course, a case for the existence of God. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be religious people. That case is not closed, however, like the case for the existence of the universe is. One can't just take the existence of God as a given in their arguments like one can with whether or not we have a universe.

* Unless you're a solipsist, in which case just go and masturbate in the corner by yourself and don't derail other people's discussions with your horseshit.

 

[Learner]

No, the universe existing should be part of everybody's argument because we definitely have a universe. There's no dispute that the universe exists*. That means that the universe either started at some point or has always existed - one of those two options is definitely true, even though we don't know which. That's not the case for God. There is a dispute whether or not he exists and both of those statements could very well be false about him.

Creationists agree on the same thing to non-theists regarding "coming into existence at some point". We also agree on the existence of the universe.

There is, of course, a case for the existence of God. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be religious people. That case is not closed, however, like the case for the existence of the universe is. One can't just take the existence of God as a given in their arguments like one can with whether or not we have a universe.

Quite not arguing here.

 

[bilby]

I used to ponder on the thought and come across theories of other imaginitve ideas of the universe in previous years.(I no longer believe plausible) I use the main two options being this is generally the most two debated on.

The fact is that we don't know - but we DO know that creation by a God doesn't help to solve any issues, because it simply leads us to the same problem we started with. "Where did X come from?" cannot be answered with "Y created it" without the question "Where did Y come from?" taking its place. So "God created it" not only isn't THE answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"; "God created it" isn't even AN answer to that question.

I have no problem with "The fact we don't know" The part you mention regarding the problem of who created God in the first place ? - "Where did X come from ?" A question asking who created who ? will bound to have a limited or as you said "have NO answer." Its a fail proof question in your favour.

But you can have another option here, like from your other options above; "God could have always existed" like your proposition the "universe could have always existed" above. A proposition within the same conceptual context.

I didn't say there was NO answer. I said we don't know what the answer is.

And sure, a god could always have existed; but if things can be eternal, why add the god concept? It's an unnecessary multiplication of entities. Why stop there? Why not have an ephemeral god, who created the universe, and who was himself created by an eternal meta-god?

We know the universe exists. If nothing is eternal, then positing a god leads to the question of how god spontaneously began. So it doesn't help with the question of spontaneous beginnings.

If on the other hand, some things can be eternal, then we don't have a question to answer.

God cannot be an answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'. Right now we don't know the answer; but we can rule out gods, because the existence or otherwise of gods doesn't affect the question.

 

[Learner]

I didn't say there was NO answer. I said we don't know what the answer is.

And sure, a god could always have existed; but if things can be eternal, why add the god concept? It's an unnecessary multiplication of entities. Why stop there? Why not have an ephemeral god, who created the universe, and who was himself created by an eternal meta-god?

One of the thoughts I had as an agnostic but of course now I see the meta God is like the one in the bible.

We know the universe exists. If nothing is eternal, then positing a god leads to the question of how god spontaneously began. So it doesn't help with the question of spontaneous beginnings.

If on the other hand, some things can be eternal, then we don't have a question to answer.

The only thing we would see "not eternal" is within the physical realm, having sell by dates so to speak.

I sort of said that too that the question regarding eternal best be put aside.

God cannot be an answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'. Right now we don't know the answer; but we can rule out gods, because the existence or otherwise of gods doesn't affect the question.

We believe it was God is our answer. "We don't know how He did it" is what I should have said from the believers point of view. Yes I know not satisfactory to atheists but you are asking creationists.

 

[bilby]

One of the thoughts I had as an agnostic but of course now I see the meta God is like the one in the bible.

We know the universe exists. If nothing is eternal, then positing a god leads to the question of how god spontaneously began. So it doesn't help with the question of spontaneous beginnings.

If on the other hand, some things can be eternal, then we don't have a question to answer.

The only thing we would see "not eternal" is within the physical realm, having sell by dates so to speak.

I sort of said that too that the question regarding eternal best be put aside.

God cannot be an answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'. Right now we don't know the answer; but we can rule out gods, because the existence or otherwise of gods doesn't affect the question.

We believe it was God is our answer. "We don't know how He did it" is what I should have said from the believers point of view. Yes I know not satisfactory to atheists but you are asking creationists.

It's not so much that it is unsatisfactory; rather that it IS NOT AN ANSWER AT ALL.

The sum total of things you know after the answer is given is EXACTLY the same as it was when there was no answer - you've just painted your 'fucked if I know' a prettier colour.

 

[Lion IRC]

...God cannot be an answer to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing'. Right now we don't know the answer; but we can rule out gods, because the existence or otherwise of gods doesn't affect the question.

The word "God" here stands as a placeholder for 'cause'. And since we are talking about a WHY question instead of a how question, I don't think we can avoid the need for a personal being as the cause.

If the universe happened spontaneously - literally for no reason whatsoever - then there is no 'why'. No Higher Being who wants to create the universe because He has a reason.

Why is there Beethoven's 5th Symphony instead of nothing?
Answer - because someone creatively, deliberately wrote it.
There hasn't always been such a thing - it's not a past eternal symphony.
Neither was it created by necessity or pure chance.
And it didn't create itself - it had a contingent cause and that cause was a personal being.

How questions. Why questions. This is pretty basic philosophy of science.

And if the universe came into existence supposedly by pure chance, will science be satisfied with such tentative, poorly evidenced theory? Or will we still be left wondering why it happened 13.7 billon years ago rather than 1 billion years ago?