Omniscience and Morality

obtuseobserver · Apr 7, 2011

Factual backings for what?

If God is not omniscent he is not God.

Immoral people exist w/out regard to God or omniscence (having or not having).

Morality is genetically programmed? You'll need to do more than assert it as fact. If true then no act is moral or immoral it is simply part of a genetic response to stimulus. We may regard some acts as moral or immoral but this would be an illusory construct rather than the true nature of things.

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/05/genetic-morality-delusion.html

RoccoR · Apr 30, 2011

obtuseobserver, et al

Yes, there is a small fallacy in this line of thought. It has to do with observing all the assigned properties in a concept of a Supreme Being, God, Deity, Kwisatz Haderach ..... Universal Entity, or interactive collective conscious; herein after, referred to as "X."

This is considered one of the more easily answered questions.

obtuseobserver said:
obtuseobserver said:

If omniscent god then no free will - if no free will - no morality because no choice....

Click to expand...

obtuseobserver said:

Factual backings for what?

If God is not omniscent he is not God.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Using a combination of powers, simultaneously, the “X” merely assumes surveillance across the entire timeline; past, present, and future. “X” then knows today, what you will do tomorrow because it has already happened. It requires "X" to be assigned the characteristic properties of being "omniscient," "omnipotent," and the "omnipresent."

This alleviates the conflict on free-will. The mind of “X” or the will of “X” does not interfere with the promise of free-will. "X" only knows a choice has been made because it was made in the past relative to "X" in the time continuum; but in the humans present; bound to a serially floating point along the continuum.

Most Respectfully,
R

obtuseobserver · May 5, 2011

RoccoR said:
obtuseobserver, et al

Yes, there is a small fallacy in this line of thought. It has to do with observing all the assigned properties in a concept of a Supreme Being, God, Deity, Kwisatz Haderach ..... Universal Entity, or interactive collective conscious; herein after, referred to as "X."

This is considered one of the more easily answered questions.
(COMMENT)

Using a combination of powers, simultaneously, the “X” merely assumes surveillance across the entire timeline; past, present, and future. “X” then knows today, what you will do tomorrow because it has already happened. It requires "X" to be assigned the characteristic properties of being "omniscient," "omnipotent," and the "omnipresent."

This alleviates the conflict on free-will. The mind of “X” or the will of “X” does not interfere with the promise of free-will. "X" only knows a choice has been made because it was made in the past relative to "X" in the time continuum; but in the humans present; bound to a serially floating point along the continuum.

Most Respectfully,
R

Kwisatz Haderach - lol

God requires no explanation and can only be described as that beyond which is the furthest we may conceive without regard to the specific aspect... its the beach ball bouncing off the boat. The farther we get across the lake we'll always bounce it out farther. Your description is certainly more elegant.

So, for me the exercise is silly. I accept that I cannot know everything and it doesn't trouble me

DodgeFB · May 5, 2011

obtuseobserver said:
Kwisatz Haderach - lol

God requires no explanation and can only be described as that beyond which is the furthest we may conceive without regard to the specific aspect... its the beach ball bouncing off the boat. The farther we get across the lake we'll always bounce it out farther. Your description is certainly more elegant.

So, for me the exercise is silly. I accept that I cannot know everything and it doesn't trouble me

I agree. I am not arrogant enough to expect to know everything. When I was a teenager I thought I knew everything. Guess I should have written it down. Because I don't know much anymore.

RoccoR · May 7, 2011

obtuseobserver, et al,

I thought you would like that "Kwisatz Haderach." I lump them all together as one concept.

obtuseobserver said:
Kwisatz Haderach - lol
... ... ...
So, for me the exercise is silly. I accept that I cannot know everything and it doesn't trouble me

(COMMENT)

I have no clue to the answer of "X" --- as there is no compelling tangible evidence, one way or the other. However, since I cannot even imagine an explanation on the origins of the First Engery and how it started the First Motion, I am keeping my options open.

But I suspect that when I die, the essense of who I am and what I did will be lost (not that it is any great loss); and that is that. Nothing beyond.

I am not so arrogant as to think that my species is anything special. But just in case there is a Kwisatz Haderach, I'll say a prayer just before the lights go out.

Most Respectfully,
R

DodgeFB · May 7, 2011

obtuseobserver: I have an idea why some people that do not believe in God seem so angry at us. They think we are just doing it to piss them off!

Must be something like that for so many to care so much. Not all, but some seem to feel it a life long mission to trash God. I can't help it if they just don't get it. And I don't care if they believe or not. More and more people seem to think they can "save me from religion" if they just tell me how stupid it is.

RoccoR · May 14, 2011

DodgeFB, et al,

Religion is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. If it were, it wouldn't have survived for more than 3000 years in one form or another.

DodgeFB said:
Must be something like that for so many to care so much. Not all, but some seem to feel it a life long mission to trash God. I can't help it if they just don't get it. And I don't care if they believe or not. More and more people seem to think they can "save me from religion" if they just tell me how stupid it is.

(COMMENT)

At one time, it must have been essential to the evolution of the species and instrumental in the development and progress of culture and socialization that spawned the great civilizations that we study still today.

But religion has a dark side to it.

Most Respectfully,
R

TortoiseDream · May 16, 2011

RoccoR said:
DodgeFB, et al,

Religion is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. If it were, it wouldn't have survived for more than 3000 years in one form or another.

Respectfully, I don't think that's an argument. The length of time a set of ideas survives in human society has no bearing on the philosophical truth of those ideas. Humans also believed the world was flat for millennia, for example, but that does not mean that the world is flat.

I've also been thinking about this idea (the OP) some more. It seems like the counter-argument against the OP is that God knows what human beings will choose do to with their free choice, but that does not mean that free will is lost. I don't think this is a consistent position. I think pre-determined choices are non-sense. I don't think a choice can be made if the outcome is already determined, a choice seems to imply either outcome is still possible. So if things are predetermined, no one chooses their actions, they are simply going through the motions of choices already made for them by something else (science, God, fate, etc).

obtuseobserver · May 19, 2011

TortoiseDream said:
Respectfully, I don't think that's an argument. The length of time a set of ideas survives in human society has no bearing on the philosophical truth of those ideas.

But it has a lot of bearing on whether or not people take religion seriously. Anecdotally it is sound.

TortoiseDream said:
Humans also believed the world was flat for millennia, for example, but that does not mean that the world is flat.

much overstated assertion. the ancients knew the world was round. those who had reason to know, knew

TortoiseDream said:
I've also been thinking about this idea (the OP) some more. It seems like the counter-argument against the OP is that God knows what human beings will choose do to with their free choice, but that does not mean that free will is lost. I don't think this is a consistent position.

But the chooser has free will even if some one else knew.

Example: I can watch my kid knowing she's gonna make a certain choice (not know but have an extraordinarily high likelyhood of knowing) and the fact that I know what she's going to do doesn't mean she has no free will.

TortoiseDream said:
I think pre-determined choices are non-sense. I don't think a choice can be made if the outcome is already determined, a choice seems to imply either outcome is still possible. So if things are predetermined, no one chooses their actions, they are simply going through the motions of choices already made for them by something else (science, God, fate, etc).

have fun with that one there

RoccoR · May 24, 2011

obtuseobserver, TortoiseDream, et al,

We are in agreement as to the outcome, but for different reasons.

obtuseobserver said:
But the chooser has free will even if some one else knew.

Example: I can watch my kid knowing she's gonna make a certain choice (not know but have an extraordinarily high likelyhood of knowing) and the fact that I know what she's going to do doesn't mean she has no free will.

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream
I think pre-determined choices are non-sense. I don't think a choice can be made if the outcome is already determined, a choice seems to imply either outcome is still possible. So if things are predetermined, no one chooses their actions, they are simply going through the motions of choices already made for them by something else (science, God, fate, etc).

have fun with that one there

(COMMENT)

It on what powers you assign your Supreme Being. If the Supreme Being was omniscient, knowing infinitely the facts of what will happen (universal & unlimited knowledge), including the choices made into the future, then no human has could deviate from what the Supreme Being knows will happen. This is not a guess or an intuition by the Supreme Being --- it is and will be. The human cannot alter in the future what the Spreme Being knows as a fact today. Thus, there is no choice on the part of the human, it actions are predetermined. This is the consequence of the Supreme Being haveing been assigned this conceptual power of "omniscients."

However, when you combine powers or eliminate powers, the consequence changes. If you combine "omniscients" with "omnipotence" (unlimited or universal power, over all the forces, properties and qualities of the infinite cosmos), then free will is possible by other means (simultanteous existance over the entire cosmic timeline).

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

Respectfully, I don't think that's an argument. The length of time a set of ideas survives in human society has no bearing on the philosophical truth of those ideas.

(COMMENT)

Truth is not an issue. Relevance is the issue, belief in the idea of the Supreme Being is a powerful factor.

Most Respectfully,
R

TortoiseDream · May 27, 2011

obtuseobserver said:
But it has a lot of bearing on whether or not people take religion seriously. Anecdotally it is sound.

Agreed, but irrelevant to my point...

obtuseobserver said:
much overstated assertion. the ancients knew the world was round. those who had reason to know, knew

I don't know whether you are right or not but again, it is irrelevant to my point...

obtuseobserver said:
But the chooser has free will even if some one else knew.

Sorry but all you've done is state the opposing viewpoint, and have not offered any argument in support of that view.

obtuseobserver said:
Example: I can watch my kid knowing she's gonna make a certain choice (not know but have an extraordinarily high likelyhood of knowing) and the fact that I know what she's going to do doesn't mean she has no free will.

That (what I bolded) makes all the difference. The argument I am making depends on the omniscience of God - I even use that word in the title. Briefly again, although you can read the OP and my latest post on the matter, the omniscience of God I claim removes choice altogether.

TortoiseDream · May 27, 2011

RoccoR said:
obtuseobserver, TortoiseDream, et al,

We are in agreement as to the outcome, but for different reasons.

(COMMENT)

It on what powers you assign your Supreme Being. If the Supreme Being was omniscient, knowing infinitely the facts of what will happen (universal & unlimited knowledge), including the choices made into the future, then no human has could deviate from what the Supreme Being knows will happen. This is not a guess or an intuition by the Supreme Being --- it is and will be. The human cannot alter in the future what the Spreme Being knows as a fact today. Thus, there is no choice on the part of the human, it actions are predetermined. This is the consequence of the Supreme Being haveing been assigned this conceptual power of "omniscients."

However, when you combine powers or eliminate powers, the consequence changes. If you combine "omniscients" with "omnipotence" (unlimited or universal power, over all the forces, properties and qualities of the infinite cosmos), then free will is possible by other means (simultanteous existance over the entire cosmic timeline).
Originally Posted by TortoiseDream
Respectfully, I don't think that's an argument. The length of time a set of ideas survives in human society has no bearing on the philosophical truth of those ideas.

I'm having trouble understand your post, so let me ask you if I've got it right.

You seem to be saying that, supposing a supreme being exists, that free will of human beings is contingent on the powers of that being. In the case of omniscience alone, free will is lost because of the pre-determination of actions. This was my original argument. It appears that you say if the supreme being is omni-potent, that free will is regained by humans. If that is your claim, I don't understand the reasoning for such a thing.

RoccoR said:
Truth is not an issue. Relevance is the issue, belief in the idea of the Supreme Being is a powerful factor.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm a little astounded at the claim that truth is not an issue... if not, then what is?

RoccoR · Jun 1, 2011

TortoiseDream, et al,

I apologize for being so tardy in my reply. I am currently in time limited enviroment.

TortoiseDream said:
You seem to be saying that, supposing a supreme being exists, that free will of human beings is contingent on the powers of that being. In the case of omniscience alone, free will is lost because of the pre-determination of actions. This was my original argument. It appears that you say if the supreme being is omni-potent, that free will is regained by humans. If that is your claim, I don't understand the reasoning for such a thing.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you have it; essentially. I agree with your original argument if, and only if (IIF), your concept of a Supreme Being (SB) is limited in powers.

However, if your SB has the combined powers of "omnipotence" and "omniscience," then the SB has the abilitiy to exist across the entire spectrum of time.

What is in the future of the human is something the "omnipotence" and "omniscience," sees, within its frame of reference, as something that happened in the past; because the SB is all-powerful and does exists in in the future (as well as the past and present); it will not interfere with "free will" because it observed the "free will" choice as an event in the past.

TortoiseDream said:
I'm a little astounded at the claim that truth is not an issue... if not, then what is?

(COMMENT)

The concepts of what is "True or False" and "Right or Wrong," is a matter of consequence within a given frame of reference; compromised by the fact that within humanity, there is imperfect knowledge.

What is relevant are the results of the decision (or choice) and how those results are peer reviewed in retrospect; and how the review changes over time.

In the 15th Century, mainstream humanity believed the Earth was center of the solar system. The human relevance of the time, whether true or false, was that if you advocated a heliocentric view ? you were subject to prosecution as in "Galileo" . To believe in something you might call true (factual in evidence) could have adverse consequences.

There are many examples of this.

Most Respectfully,
R

TortoiseDream · Jun 19, 2011

I'm sorry RoccoR, I cannot understand your argument. Can you define what you mean by the "spectrum of time"?

obtuseobserver · Jun 20, 2011

TortoiseDream said:
That (what I bolded) makes all the difference. The argument I am making depends on the omniscience of God - I even use that word in the title. Briefly again, although you can read the OP and my latest post on the matter, the omniscience of God I claim removes choice altogether.

THe problem here is that you want to use your understanding of time, God and Morality and apply them to God. God is not some really smart guy that lives a long time who can see into the future. He's God and limiting him to human understanding in order to find him moral, good, bad or purple is a waste of time. Because God knows what you'll do doesn't mean you do. Further, there is plenty of evidence that God changes his mind in the Bible and evidence that he didn't know what outcome would result. Which, can be argue to say that God is not omniscient. The apparent conflict between omniscience and good (moral) is the crux of the problem of evil. For without free will we cannot be said to be evil but robots doing as programmed. The problem is ancient and has been written on ad nauseum by many people all of who are much much more clever and wise than me. Come to whatever conclusion you like. Or don't.

TortoiseDream · Jun 23, 2011

obtuseobserver said:
THe problem here is that you want to use your understanding of time, God and Morality and apply them to God. God is not some really smart guy that lives a long time who can see into the future. He's God and limiting him to human understanding in order to find him moral, good, bad or purple is a waste of time. Because God knows what you'll do doesn't mean you do. Further, there is plenty of evidence that God changes his mind in the Bible and evidence that he didn't know what outcome would result. Which, can be argue to say that God is not omniscient. The apparent conflict between omniscience and good (moral) is the crux of the problem of evil. For without free will we cannot be said to be evil but robots doing as programmed. The problem is ancient and has been written on ad nauseum by many people all of who are much much more clever and wise than me. Come to whatever conclusion you like. Or don't.

Placing God above human reason is not a solution to any problem, and frankly just a cop-out. When God gives you a $.50 raise at work, God is good and merciful. When God kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children with earthquakes and tsunamis, God is "mysterious" and "beyond human reason". Sorry, but in my view that's an extremely inconsistent position to take.

RoccoR · Jun 25, 2011

TortoiseDream, et al, ,

I have to just chuckle a bit.

TortoiseDream said:
I'm sorry RoccoR, I cannot understand your argument. Can you define what you mean by the "spectrum of time"?

(COMMENT)

Time is define as 1/frequency. If you look at time and history in spectrum, you are examining time from the beginning (or the zero moment point) through the each event [a mark (moment) in the frequency spectrum] to infinity.

Currently, science can estimate time from 10 to the negative 43rd exponent seconds (after the Big Bang); and it increases serially after that point. In the frequency spectrum, that would be 1/(10^-43) seconds immediately following the Big Bang; along each of the infinite number of radials that represent multiple dimensions.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR · Jun 25, 2011

TortoiseDream, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

TortoiseDream said:
Placing God above human reason is not a solution to any problem, and frankly just a cop-out. When God gives you a $.50 raise at work, God is good and merciful. When God kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children with earthquakes and tsunamis, God is "mysterious" and "beyond human reason". Sorry, but in my view that's an extremely inconsistent position to take.

(COMMENT)

So, you're say (if there is a Supreme Being), it is possible for humanity to understand the wisdom and reasoning of the Supreme Being?

If there is such a being, then one of the two states must be true:

Either the Supreme Being is not be "all-knowing;"
................ or ...............
Humanity can achieve the same level of understanding as the Supreme Being.

In either case, that would bring into the realm of possibility that the Supreme Being is NOT a deity and would assign the attribute of foul-ability to it.

The would not be a description of a "Being" that we would normally associate with the "universal creator."

Again, I apologize. I just returned from assignment in Yemen, this week, and have been tardy in keeping up with the thread.

Most Respectfully,
R

TortoiseDream · Jun 27, 2011

My point is that placing God above reason effectively takes away any possible null-hypothesis from the discussion. If God is simply above human reason, then no rational thought can discredit God, i.e. there is no criteria for disproof.

RoccoR · Jun 28, 2011

TortoiseDream, et al ,

Philosophy is a science, arguably (maybe) a "soft science."

TortoiseDream said:
My point is that placing God above reason effectively takes away any possible null-hypothesis from the discussion. If God is simply above human reason, then no rational thought can discredit God, i.e. there is no criteria for disproof.

(COMMENT)

It is not the part of science to prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being (or any number of them). Science simply doesn't have the tools to evaluate that which has no tangible evidence to examine, no physical presence, or no observable effect on the physical universe (our limited understanding of it) that can be directly tied to the action/influence of the Supreme Being (or any number of them).

All science is subject to rigid tests and evaluations that can be independently reproduced and verified.

Theology is different. It is not dependent on physical evidence or observable effects on that which is detectible. It is based on "faith." It is not objectively subject to rigid testing. It is totally subjective in a cultural belief.

If you cannot describe the attributes assigned to a "Supreme Being" --- then it cannot be discussed in a way that the parties to the discussion can agree on any probably outcomes.

In order to prove that any particular event is associated to the induced effect of a Supreme Being (with no corresponding "null-hypothesis), one would have to have:

a Supreme Being detector and make a direct correlation to a observable event beyond any other influence;
and the ability to observe a special event (that of which is beyond the influence of anything except the influence of the Supreme Being);
and, the observational experiment must the independently reproducible and verifiable.

Unfortunately, none of these things can be done under the current level of technology. Under our current understanding of the universe (theoretically a construct of the Supreme Being), the mere fact that we could observe a "special event" means that we could not eliminate the possibility of the observation effort (in and by itself) exerting an influence over the outcome (Heisenberg "Uncertainty Principle"). The evaluation is made even more complex in an environment absent the possibility of a "null-hypothesis."

Thus, while it is possible to discuss the concept of a theoretical Supreme Being, at some point - the attributes of the "theoretical" being.

Just My Thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Omniscience and Morality

Similar threads