Omniscience and Morality

TortoiseDream · Aug 18, 2010

If God is all-knowing, then he knows everything that will happen in the future.

If that is the case, then we have no free-will as human beings because God already knows what we're going to do in the future, meaning our actions are predetermined.

If that is the case then there's no such thin g as morality because morality only makes sense when human beings have the free choice to make decisions, to choose good or evil.

If that is the case then why should anyone who believes in an all-knowing God praise/condemn or love/hate any person for doing good/evil (or anything, really) since they never had a choice in the first place? It would be like getting angry at the sun for setting.

Any thoughts?

obtuseobserver · Aug 18, 2010

yes.... I keep replying to this question asked in many threads that what you are referring to is often called "the problem of evil" and has been addressed by many philosophers over many generations

perhaps most famously is Theodicy by Leibniz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

he (as well as many other philosophers and theologians) have written libraries full of thoughts for you to peruse

connermt · Aug 20, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
If God is all-knowing, then he knows everything that will happen in the future.

If that is the case, then we have no free-will as human beings because God already knows what we're going to do in the future, meaning our actions are predetermined.

If that is the case then there's no such thin g as morality because morality only makes sense when human beings have the free choice to make decisions, to choose good or evil.

If that is the case then why should anyone who believes in an all-knowing God praise/condemn or love/hate any person for doing good/evil (or anything, really) since they never had a choice in the first place? It would be like getting angry at the sun for setting.

Any thoughts?

People only worship God out of fear of hell and/or the want to go to heaven forever and/or want to feel good about themselves. Otherwise, there's no real reason to worship any god IMO.
The concept of free will is basically an excuse for God. IMO, it's the result of people rightly blaming God for the problems. You see, no believer really wants to accept the fact that if God exists, then everything (this includes bad/evil) is his responsibility. Otherwise, he wouldn't be all powerful. People came up with the "free will" concept to take blame from God and put it on people, showing their god as just and perfect. If free will truly exists, then human beings shouldn't be punished in hell for not choosing to follow God. That is true free will - the ability to decide not follow something where there is no proof without eternal death and punishment.

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
yes.... I keep replying to this question asked in many threads that what you are referring to is often called "the problem of evil" and has been addressed by many philosophers over many generations

perhaps most famously is Theodicy by Leibniz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

he (as well as many other philosophers and theologians) have written libraries full of thoughts for you to peruse

No I'm well aware of the "problem of evil", that is not what I'm talking about. If you read my reasoning, where I tried to be as succinct as possible, I'm trying to argue that believing in an "all-knowing" entity (it doesn't even necessarily have to be a god, for that matter) and any system of morality are logically incompatible. In other words, if there exists such an entity, then there's no such thing as good or evil in the first place. There is hardly, then, a "problem of evil" if evil doesn't exist.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

you're still describing the problem of evil....................

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
you're still describing the problem of evil....................

Repeating yourself is not an argument. How about I said say, "No I'm not." Are we making progress yet?

Your Source said:
In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain the world's moral and natural evils (acts, events or states that bring about or constitute suffering, loss, privation and injustice) if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).

That's not what I'm saying.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

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

you conclude with: If that is the case then why should anyone who believes in an all-knowing God praise/condemn or love/hate any person for doing good/evil (or anything, really) since they never had a choice in the first place? It would be like getting angry at the sun for setting.

ok so you find free will and omniscent god incompatible with each other and morality... Kant to some degree but Schoppenauer to a greater degree examine this notion. rankly, I get quickly lost hopefully bored first when I try reading them.

personally I believe in free will, god and morality... but that's faith. The cool thing is that I don't wake up at night (often anyway) pondering such questions

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

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

you conclude with: If that is the case then why should anyone who believes in an all-knowing God praise/condemn or love/hate any person for doing good/evil (or anything, really) since they never had a choice in the first place? It would be like getting angry at the sun for setting.

ok so you find free will and omniscent god incompatible with each other and morality... Kant to some degree but Schoppenauer to a greater degree examine this notion. rankly, I get quickly lost hopefully bored first when I try reading them.

personally I believe in free will, god and morality... but that's faith. The cool thing is that I don't wake up at night (often anyway) pondering such questions

Well the point isn't to keep you up at night, but I believe I've found a logical inconsistency with religion.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

lol

one needn't look hard to find logical inconsistencies with religion

logic would tell you a virgin cannot give birth

logic would tell you a man cannot live 800 years

etc etc etc

I didn't think you were trying to keep me up, I was suggesting you seem the type to have problems shutting off that person in your head that is always asking you how things work

anyway, I'm not saying religion is incompatible with religion nor should it. I'm not saying that reason and religion are incompatible. I am saying that religion presents us with many paradoxes to unravel. Many have been and good explanations exist but those explanations almost always come down to opinions. Or, from a logocians pov, worse.... by assuming the conclusion in the premis... eg Anslem... God is that thing no greater than which can be conceived presumes God exists. At the end of the day Keirkegaard's comment abouit the leap of faith is, imo, what it comes down to. Believe or don't. Finding fancy proofs for or against are fun in an intellectual sense (masturbation) but, imo, they are ultimately unsatisfying because they limit and constrain God to human understanding. A principle of Christian faith is that god surpasses all human understanding. Which again, the premise assuming the conclusion.

TortoiseDream · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
lol

one needn't look hard to find logical inconsistencies with religion

logic would tell you a virgin cannot give birth

logic would tell you a man cannot live 800 years

etc etc etc

I didn't think you were trying to keep me up, I was suggesting you seem the type to have problems shutting off that person in your head that is always asking you how things work

anyway, I'm not saying religion is incompatible with religion nor should it. I'm not saying that reason and religion are incompatible. I am saying that religion presents us with many paradoxes to unravel. Many have been and good explanations exist but those explanations almost always come down to opinions. Or, from a logocians pov, worse.... by assuming the conclusion in the premis... eg Anslem... God is that thing no greater than which can be conceived presumes God exists. At the end of the day Keirkegaard's comment abouit the leap of faith is, imo, what it comes down to. Believe or don't. Finding fancy proofs for or against are fun in an intellectual sense (masturbation) but, imo, they are ultimately unsatisfying because they limit and constrain God to human understanding. A principle of Christian faith is that god surpasses all human understanding. Which again, the premise assuming the conclusion.

Which is kind of absurd, in my opinion. I could say that about anything, like a Flying Spaghetti Monster; it's not going to convince me to believe in it.

But more to the point, all I'm saying is that here is one logical inconsistency. Take that for what you my. Another related on is that an all-knowing being cannot logically be all-powerful. If he's all knowing, then he know what he will do in the future, so he's essentially powerless.

myp · Aug 20, 2010

It's a good point TortoiseDream, the contradiction certainly exists and I would agree with you. Someone could however make the argument that certain people are meant to be good and others evil, in which case morality can still exist, but with every person having a preset destiny of which side they'll fall on. If a religion that believed in omniscient god and morality also believed that some people are born to be evil and not everyone will be good, then your point might not apply there.

obtuseobserver · Aug 21, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
Which is kind of absurd, in my opinion. I could say that about anything, like a Flying Spaghetti Monster; it's not going to convince me to believe in it.

Sure, but everyone knows that Dawkins made up the FSM... and what's even more annoying is that he nicked it from Bertrand Russell (Russell's Tea Pot) and changed it ever so slightly to avoid some of the logical proofs that defeated the teapot.

TortoiseDream said:
But more to the point, all I'm saying is that here is one logical inconsistency. Take that for what you my. Another related on is that an all-knowing being cannot logically be all-powerful. If he's all knowing, then he know what he will do in the future, so he's essentially powerless.

I'm saying logical inconsistencies abound. Yes, you certainly point out one in this thread.

However, again, your inconsistencies rely on a definition of God that falls short of Anselm's which I've already noted runs in a circular argument. This, at the end of the day leaves us with Keirkegaard. Believe or don't... attempts at logical proofs to prove or disprove serve no more purpose than to amuse (or perhaps provide one's self with more reason to believe what they already believe....)

TortoiseDream · Sep 12, 2010

myp said:
It's a good point TortoiseDream, the contradiction certainly exists and I would agree with you. Someone could however make the argument that certain people are meant to be good and others evil, in which case morality can still exist, but with every person having a preset destiny of which side they'll fall on. If a religion that believed in omniscient god and morality also believed that some people are born to be evil and not everyone will be good, then your point might not apply there.

Another point my friend made me aware of was the following: if God knows everything, and our future is predetermined, then it's already predetermined which of us is going to hell or heaven. If that's the case...why do we have to live at all? Why can't we all just go to our respective places right now? What's the point of living our lives then?

TortoiseDream · Sep 12, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Sure, but everyone knows that Dawkins made up the FSM... and what's even more annoying is that he nicked it from Bertrand Russell (Russell's Tea Pot) and changed it ever so slightly to avoid some of the logical proofs that defeated the teapot.

I'm saying logical inconsistencies abound. Yes, you certainly point out one in this thread.

However, again, your inconsistencies rely on a definition of God that falls short of Anselm's which I've already noted runs in a circular argument. This, at the end of the day leaves us with Keirkegaard. Believe or don't... attempts at logical proofs to prove or disprove serve no more purpose than to amuse (or perhaps provide one's self with more reason to believe what they already believe....)

Absolutely. Godel "proved" that God exists, but that doesn't mean God exists. All it means is that his existence can be proven. A fun fact, Godel didn't believe in God.

obtuseobserver · Sep 12, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
Absolutely. Godel "proved" that God exists, but that doesn't mean God exists. All it means is that his existence can be proven. A fun fact, Godel didn't believe in God.

which makes the whole exercise kinda stupid

Believe me I've asked myself all of these questions (I grew up native left the church and came back a convert) you are presenting and at the end of the day our understanding and reasoning are not sufficient to "prove" or "justify" God. God is God. Believe or don't.

It is a matter of choice not proof/fact/justification (your own list of terms here).

The discussion can be fun in the intellectual sense but at the end of the day this will move few people to change their view.

I have had to come to the point where I needed to be able to tell a person that I have zero demonstrable evidence to offer to justify my faith. None. I believe because I choose to believe and I believe that I can only do so by the grace of God. How's that for circular logic.

TortoiseDream · Sep 12, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
which makes the whole exercise kinda stupid

Believe me I've asked myself all of these questions (I grew up native left the church and came back a convert) you are presenting and at the end of the day our understanding and reasoning are not sufficient to "prove" or "justify" God. God is God. Believe or don't.

It is a matter of choice not proof/fact/justification (your own list of terms here).

The discussion can be fun in the intellectual sense but at the end of the day this will move few people to change their view.

I have had to come to the point where I needed to be able to tell a person that I have zero demonstrable evidence to offer to justify my faith. None. I believe because I choose to believe and I believe that I can only do so by the grace of God. How's that for circular logic.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion to think it's "stupid", but I think mathematical proofs are fun.

As for belief in God, it's hard for me to do it because God is a self contradiction, like a square circle.

obtuseobserver · Sep 13, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion to think it's "stupid", but I think mathematical proofs are fun.

Well sure, puzzles are fun. But God is not a puzzle.

TortoiseDream said:
As for belief in God, it's hard for me to do it because God is a self contradiction, like a square circle.

lol

sure, but you are holding God to human understanding... which limits God to something less than God.

TortoiseDream · Sep 13, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Well sure, puzzles are fun. But God is not a puzzle.

Godel thought he was, apparently.

obtuseobserver said:
lol

sure, but you are holding God to human understanding... which limits God to something less than God.

You wouldn't be able to make that statement if God were beyond human understanding.

obtuseobserver · Sep 13, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
Godel thought he was, apparently.

ok - but that has zero bearing on the issue

TortoiseDream said:
You wouldn't be able to make that statement if God were beyond human understanding.

That doesn't make much sense.

It is perfectly reasonable to claim that something is beyond human understanding and for that to be true.

You're welcome to believe that God does not exist. However, for those of us who do, that is a primary defining notion.

alma111 · Apr 5, 2011

We're not discussing opinions or disagreements. We're discussing factual backings for it. At the same time, I don't see that TD is arguing that. All one would have to say is that God is not omniscient - then free will would unparadoxically exist in their belief, then Manson and Stalin would logically be immoral. It is the idea of omniscience that makes morality non-existent, not the arguments against omniscient.
However, from someone who doesn't believe in free will, that doesn't mean I don't believe in morality. Morality is an innate set of 'external' factors (as in, programmed through atomic reactions in the brain, outside of consciousness). It is not divine, but it exists and should be followed and enforced for the very reason we evolved to have it.

Omniscience and Morality

Similar threads