A more preposterous hypothesis

[Willum]

Many of you have probably heard of Eric, the god-eating penguin.

"God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist."
-- Mark

Eric is not the point of this post.
The point that:
I propose that there is nothing you can posit about god, or God, that a more preposterous claim can be made that still is more logical than God.

We can use Eric as a starting point, God is posited, Eric is posited, preposterously as demonstrating God cannot exist, yet still logically defeats the idea in both cases.

I believe this is true about anything that can be said about God.

Am I wrong? Can anyone think of anything?

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #97]
Challenge them in your own posts. I’ll even contribute, but don’t ad hoc left field ideas in mine without substantiation that it has something to do with the topic.
Thanks

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #97]
Challenge them in your own posts. I’ll even contribute, but don’t ad hoc left field ideas in mine without substantiation that it has something to do with the topic.
Thanks

No, I don't think so Z. If you say the challenge has nothing to do with the topic then you have a problem and I won't be having any more discussions with you unless perhaps I can't distinguish your socks.

[Willum]

No, I don't think so Z [W? sic?] If you say the challenge has nothing to do with the topic then you have a problem and I won't be having any more discussions with you unless perhaps I can't distinguish your socks.

Well, fair enough.
So, what Christian reasons do you have supporting your stance that God is not omniscient, and does not know that future evils will occur?

That does not seem to agree with the Bible, it’s myths, its folklore, or anyone else’s opinion.
Kind regards,

[Clownboat]

No, I don't think so Z [W? sic?] If you say the challenge has nothing to do with the topic then you have a problem and I won't be having any more discussions with you unless perhaps I can't distinguish your socks.

Well, fair enough.
So, what Christian reasons do you have supporting your stance that God is not omniscient, and does not know that future evils will occur?

That does not seem to agree with the Bible, it’s myths, its folklore, or anyone else’s opinion.
Kind regards,

There are none that I'm aware of off the top of my head. Only things that allude to omniscience.

The idea that the Christian god is omniscient, creates obsurdities as has been demostrated here. As people start straying (analysing them or being lukewarm as some would claim) from their beliefs, they start making room for things like a non omniscient god or how their god used evolution to create man as a couple examples.

I trust that DavidLeon is on the path to being set free from his religious beliefs and will be allowed to live his life as he sees fit (assuming that leaves out harming others of course).

[DavidLeon]

There are none that I'm aware of off the top of my head. Only things that allude to omniscience.

The idea that the Christian god is omniscient, creates obsurdities as has been demostrated here. As people start straying (analysing them or being lukewarm as some would claim) from their beliefs, they start making room for things like a non omniscient god or how their god used evolution to create man as a couple examples.

I trust that DavidLeon is on the path to being set free from his religious beliefs and will be allowed to live his life as he sees fit (assuming that leaves out harming others of course).

It depends on what you mean by omniscience. Omnipotent as well. Religious beliefs, like any other beliefs, can be nonsensical. So I put things in a practical rather than religious context. To say God is omnipresent is wrong. The physical heavens can't contain God which means God is nowhere in this universe. Never has been and never will be. If God can't be in the physical universe then he isn't omnipresent. The Bible says his place is fixed in heaven meaning spiritual heaven.

Omnibenevolence is sort of tricky. From the Latin omni meaning all bene meaning good and volens meaning willing what does the term mean? A dictionary will say simply all good, but a theologian will probably say all loving. All good is problematic because good is subjective. What is good to me isn't necessarily good to you. All loving is just wrong because there are things God hates. God as omnibenevolent, like omnipresent is just wrong.

Omniscience and omnipotent are, in the exaggerated religious sense, not surprisingly, wrong, but in a practical sense they are plausible. I use the term omnivore as a simile. A practical understanding of omnivore would be an animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin. It would be a gross exaggeration to say that omnivore implies an animal that can eat literally anything, like the universe or time.

To say that God is omniscient in the sense that he knows what you're thinking, or what you are going to do in the future is nonsensical. And unscriptural. God didn't know what Adam and Eve and Cain and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing. That is scriptural. That he knew what they were up to and what they would do isn't. God can't see into the future like a fortune teller. That isn't supported by the Bible. God can see certain behavior patterns that will undoubtedly lead to a specific result and God can make things happen that are within the laws of his creation. That is supported by the Bible.

Likewise, in the religiously exaggerated sense to say that God is omnipotent meaning he can do literally anything isn't supported by the Bible. God can't lie.

So here I am, with this practical understanding of the Bible. On a supposedly Christian forum talking to atheists. What are my obstacles in presenting my perspective? Both Christians and atheists overwhelmingly have an exaggerated perspective of the Bible. A Christian due to the quixotic and an atheist due to the mundane. A Christian will believe in the nonsensical exaggeration and an atheist will take everything at face value. So to a Christian when the Bible says the snake talked it means a snake talked. Anything, they reason, is possible with God. It isn't. The snake didn't talk. To an atheist when the Bible says a snake talked it means a snake talked. If the Bible says it then, they reason, that is what the Bible means. It doesn't. The snake didn't talk. The donkey didn't talk. The burning bush didn't talk.

So what does the Bible mean when it says God can't lie? Anyone can lie.

Oh. I almost forgot. God didn't use evolution to do anything. To suggest otherwise isn't supported by the Bible. Whether I or anyone else likes it or not.

And to this ...

I trust that DavidLeon is on the path to being set free from his religious beliefs and will be allowed to live his life as he sees fit (assuming that leaves out harming others of course).

What makes you think that I'm on the path to being set free from my religious beliefs and those beliefs don't allow me to live my life as I see fit? Because I'm not on that path and they don't prevent me from doing so. My religious beliefs are a part of my living life as I see fit.

[Clownboat]

What makes you think that I'm on the path to being set free from my religious beliefs

You are making biblical exceptions to account for some of the inconsistencies that most religious interpretations create. Just like I did as I was being set free from my beliefs. That is why I think this and why I am encouraged.

IMO, you deserve to be free. You can be who you are and I for one trust that you won't start murdering or raping once you are no longer saddled with trying to make sense of the world and the Bible at the same time.

Don't harm others. No gods needed.

[DavidLeon]

You are making biblical exceptions to account for some of the inconsistencies that most religious interpretations create. Just like I did as I was being set free from my beliefs. That is why I think this and why I am encouraged.

IMO, you deserve to be free. You can be who you are and I for one trust that you won't start murdering or raping once you are no longer saddled with trying to make sense of the world and the Bible at the same time.

Don't harm others. No gods needed.

I had a big long history of what makes me think the way I do. My atheist / irreligious upbringing in the Bible belt, my religious grandmother who stabbed me twice with a pairing knife and momentarily parallelized me with a cast iron garden hose nozzle. The sociopolitical atheistic fundamentalist nonsense my old man tried to beat into my head, the two religious experiences I had when I was six that got me beat; a church attendance and an Easter egg hunt both gone horribly wrong.

It was long and unnecessary. My response is that I think, in my case, you confuse the Biblical with the theological. I don't make Biblical exceptions, you just think they are Biblical exceptions because you haven't distinguished the difference between the Biblical and the theological.

Freedom is an illusion, and I struggle enough with filtering the nonsense of ideological possession to labor under any illusions of freedom.

[Clownboat]

You are making biblical exceptions to account for some of the inconsistencies that most religious interpretations create. Just like I did as I was being set free from my beliefs. That is why I think this and why I am encouraged.

IMO, you deserve to be free. You can be who you are and I for one trust that you won't start murdering or raping once you are no longer saddled with trying to make sense of the world and the Bible at the same time.

Don't harm others. No gods needed.

I had a big long history of what makes me think the way I do. My atheist / irreligious upbringing in the Bible belt, my religious grandmother who stabbed me twice with a pairing knife and momentarily parallelized me with a cast iron garden hose nozzle. The sociopolitical atheistic fundamentalist nonsense my old man tried to beat into my head, the two religious experiences I had when I was six that got me beat; a church attendance and an Easter egg hunt both gone horribly wrong.

It was long and unnecessary. My response is that I think, in my case, you confuse the Biblical with the theological. I don't make Biblical exceptions, you just think they are Biblical exceptions because you haven't distinguished the difference between the Biblical and the theological.

Freedom is an illusion, and I struggle enough with filtering the nonsense of ideological possession to labor under any illusions of freedom.

My thoughts go out with you as you continue your journey.
Go well.