Question of omniscience

[Big McLargehuge]

One thing that has always bothered me about God (especiall the Christian version) is how can we have free will if there is an omniscient God that knows all past, present, and future? I mean, wouldn't it's knowledge of th future set the path of the future?

[Sethomas]

SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY HASN'T READ MY THESIS, OR ELSE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN OLD NEWS TO HIM. >:

[The_Rorschach]

Hate to break it to you Thomas, but your Thesis isn't exactly groundbreaking.

That question was old long before your great grand pappy was popping cherries.

[Sethomas]

I know that I wasn't the first person to come up with that. In my thesis I allude to the rebuttles to it made by Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas, all of them having dealt with the stoic philosophy that had been around since pre-Hellenistic Greece.

[The_Rorschach]

Is that the nerd equivilant to name dropping?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even smart enough to be a nerd, but it kind of struck me as funny how you phrased that, it comes out sounding either desperately defensive, or haughty. Either tone is kind of smirk worthy.

You might like Phaedrus, Seth. Brilliant man, if disturbed. Opened my eyes a bit. No pretension though. Rather proletarian by Ivory Tower standards, but insightful. Not so much concerned by What Lies Beyond as he was with what was lying before him.

[Big McLargehuge]

NO i didn't read your thesis, and I don't want to, do me a favor and sum up what you (and others) have said.

[DamnthatDavid]

Paths in existance. Breaking off, going millions of ways.
I always figured God Knows all possible Futures, all possiblities, all choices. And the choices we make narrows down the possible futures to 2 outcomes.

Otherwise, why create humanity? Why not just dump a truck load of souls in hell, and a few in heaven instantly? Why bother with all this Earth Shit.

Or, it could be like watching a Movie you have already seen.
If you seen it once, why watch it again?

[Sethomas]

Lazy cunt. >:

Boethius and Aquinas copped out by addressing the issue and reaffirming the existence of free will without rationalizing it with God's prescience. Augustine explained that humans have free will, but free will itself is a process that may be sufficiently understood by an infinite intelligence. That is, God knows the future because he knows what you will choose in your life, but he doesn't do the choosing himself.

I found Augustine's answer satisfactory only in a context that ignores the principles of determinism. That is, it's a good answer for the idiot's guide to metaphysics, but it doesn't withstand a modernist perspective. In my theory, the question is superfluous since conscious will is an illusory feeling, a passive emotion. This bounces the issue back to the concept of ethereal will, which is unique to my theory. In my theory, God does not prognosticate ethereal will because both EW and God himself are eternal and abiding, so chronology goes out the window.

[Big McLargehuge]

Are you suggesting that free will is an illusion? Cause if so that is an excellent way to side-step the argument but it doesn't really resolve the problem.

[Sethomas]

I avoid the term "free" will, and generally hold that it doesn't exist. Conscious will, its equivalent in psychology and my theory, exists merely as an illusion.

The most metaphysically fundamental explanation is that God sees all of time at once as eternity is parallel to every moment, so knowing humanity's every action isn't anything remarkable.

If you don't want to understand my theory, the only alternative befitting the "voice of reason" is to adopt determinism, in which the whole issue is moot because free will doesn't exist anyways.

[Perndog]

So how does the theory that conscious will is an illusion affect you? Do you act or think differently when you believe that you're not actually in control? This has always been the most intriguing detail of the subject for me.

[Sethomas]

My slogan for a couple of months was "The sensation of time is not the active deliberation of thoughts and actions but rather the passive discovery of those thoughts and actions one was predisposed to make." I thought it was catchy.

So, yeah, I often found myself thinking outside of my body, wondering as a distant observer what the hell the chemicals in Seth's head would make him do next. There have been pleasant and dire surprises. Things became simpler when I resumed belief in the soul, but I was then challeneged to rationalize conscious will in terms of Coeternalism. I had an explanation held in abstraction in my head that was good enough for me, but Spinster pointed out the drastic need for me to articulate this matter. So I wrote two sentences tonight in the FAQ on my computer and decided that I won't look at it again at least until tomorrow after class.

“The reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal. It has to be accepted as it is, not because we like it, but because that is the way the world works." - Steven Weinberg.

This is why I'm so passionate about my theory. Either accept that the soul is Coeternal with God, or ethics and emotion go down the shitter.

[DamnthatDavid]

You know... all this fuss, all this stress, all this wasted time coming up with beliefs that are, most likely, totally wrong.

It just seems like a waste of time. Go through your life, and suceed in something worthwhile, and not bother with the finer details.
Why don't you try manually working your stomach? Or increasing the blood flow to parts of your body on command? Scientist understand how that works, and you will have alot more success in that then trying to understand how God works.

[AChimp]

Why is it always the belief of religious people that without God and/or a soul, ethics are meaningless?

That's a bunch of crap. I think of myself as sitting on the atheist/agnostic border. I really depends on which side of the bed I wake up on in the morning, and in the end, I really don't give a damn either way. That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between good and bad according to my cultural norms.

Seth, you should post an abstract of your thesis... if you've written one already, your site is blocked at my work for some reason. :(

[Brandon]

Why is it always the belief of religious people that without God and/or a soul, ethics are meaningless?
Because they're narrow-minded?

[Emu]

Because the concept of a human being working toward good cause without the Ultimate Good on his side is ludicrous at best. :rolleyes

[The One and Only...]

Because morality is necessarily absolute if good is to exist, and most have the view that morality must be transcendent if it is to be absolute (the only exception I can think of was Rand, and her form of morality was hardly sufficiently proven).

We must not forget that it has been proposed that free will is a requirement for good and evil to exist in the first place.

[Brandon]

We must not forget that it has been proposed that free will is a requirement for good and evil to exist in the first place.
Well, it's a requirement for people to be held responsible for good or evil actions.

[AChimp]

Because morality is necessarily absolute if good is to exist, and most have the view that morality must be transcendent if it is to be absolute (the only exception I can think of was Rand, and her form of morality was hardly sufficiently proven).

Crap. The concept of good evolves over generations and is dictated by culture. If I was an Aztec, I'd think that sacrificing humans was a good thing.

[The One and Only...]

True, but that is merely the Aztec's perception of good. Good is not good because we think that it is good.

We must not forget that morality cannot contradict itself if it is to exist. Thus, if good is to truly exist, it must be absolute so as to avoid the contradictions of relativism.

[mburbank]

Shouldn't you be in school?

[Sethomas]

I posted an abstract in the thesis thread for you jerks.

[The One and Only...]

Shouldn't you be in school?

Teacher work day.

[AChimp]

Absolute good only exists in your imagination. The universe is true neutral.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Shouldn't you be in school?

Teacher work day.

:lol

Achimp: tis possible to have universal good, we can never find it though. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Proving existence itself can't really be done with certainty so it's easier to say - it doesn't exist.

And just in general, Descartes was a fuck head...that is all.

[Perndog]

What if absolute morality is regarded as simply a product of society? Is there a set of norms for a given group of humans (or for humanity in general) that will result in the most harmonious and/or efficient society possible? If so, I would call that the absolute good in the absence of a divinely mandated value system.

[The One and Only...]

Absolute morality can never come from society. The values of various societies change; but absolute moral rights and wrongs are, by their nature, eternal.

[kellychaos]

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that all possible outcomes already exist for the past and the future and any illusion of free will (hell, even the passage of time in general) is based on an individual's perspective or his very chemical composition. In other words, we're trapped in a blob of amber a la "Slaugtherhouse Five". Sprinkle in a little chaos theory or quantum physics just for fun. Discuss.

[Sethomas]

My, what provocative thinking! :posh

[kellychaos]

Let's see where it goes. :)

[Sethomas]

let's say that all possible outcomes already exist for the past and the future

Assuming God doesn't play dice with the universe, there is only one possible outcome in the first place.

[AChimp]

You can't have an absolute for an abstract concept. What do you compare absolute good to in order to determine that it's the absolutest, or even "good"? The same goes for evil.

[Perndog]

Absolute morality can never come from society. The values of various societies change; but absolute moral rights and wrongs are, by their nature, eternal.

That's why I proposed right and wrong to be defined as whether an act is salutary to the society (thus no longer an abstract, Chimp), and under this thesis cultural relativism would simply be evidence that no culture figured out the absolutes yet.

[Mr. Vagiclean]

One thing that has always bothered me about God (especiall the Christian version) is how can we have free will if there is an omniscient God that knows all past, present, and future? I mean, wouldn't it's knowledge of th future set the path of the future?


but if that's true, how can we even think of the word to describe "free will"? i can't really explain it in a detailed, comprehensive manner, but wouldn't free will = non-existence?

[Sethomas]

In short, no.

[Big Papa Goat]

True neutral :)

[The One and Only...]

[quote=The One and Only...]That's why I proposed right and wrong to be defined as whether an act is salutary to the society (thus no longer an abstract, Chimp), and under this thesis cultural relativism would simply be evidence that no culture figured out the absolutes yet.

The manner in which you wrote was misleading. But what makes you think that your version of morality is true in the absense of transcendence? What makes the actions morally right or wrong?

Moral laws are not abstractions if they exist, Chimp. They are concrete.

[kellychaos]

let's say that all possible outcomes already exist for the past and the future

Assuming God doesn't play dice with the universe, there is only one possible outcome in the first place.

I'm talking about a variety of avenues, both backward and forward and sideways (alternate dimensions), wherein time is not a factor. Being so, there would be no outcome, so to speak. The world would not evolve into something or move toward anything. That thing would already exist ... somewhere. The universe would be static and the passage of time in all directions would be an illusion, sort of like a billion-fold version of the "choose your own adventure" books.

[Perndog]

The manner in which you wrote was misleading. But what makes you think that your version of morality is true in the absense of transcendence? What makes the actions morally right or wrong?

This is just a possible model, and I'm not even sure if it would work, so I can't say that I think I'm right. I'm basically just making it up for fun as I go along, (at least trying to keep it consistent with itself) so don't take it *too* seriously.

But within the model, morality is redefined as social efficiency (as opposed to morality as accordance with divine will or some other abstract); thus the social outcome of an action would determine its rightness.

[The One and Only...]

Then the point is lost. If your form of morality requires a new definition for the word, it is not morality as has been discussed in this thread.

In other words, somewhere in this thread an equivocation has been made.

[Perndog]

Morality is simply the concept of right and wrong, which fits perfectly well if right and wrong are understood to be products of social outcomes.

I think the problem is that morality itself doesn't *have* a concrete definition because no one can agree on what really constitutes right and wrong. I thought that's what we were discussing.

[The One and Only...]

Then you still haven't answered my question. How can your view on morality be correct without any transcendent right or wrong? How can there be a natural morality?

[Perndog]

It can be correct if there is a particular set of guidelines that can be applied to make all of humanity coexist with the greatest possible harmony. Or it can be right on a micro scale if there is a such a system for a given group of people but a different system for another group.

[The_Rorschach]

I'm with OaO on this one. Right and Wrong are established by legal cannon. Laws are a reflection of what a society finds acceptable, and therefore have nothing to do with Morality, and are essentially dynamic

Good and Evil are established by doctrine. Morality, is a spiritual concept, and the only the paradigm which can support such is one where God -Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus' God, Muhommed's Allah, the Sikh's Void or Baha'u'llah's "Central Orb"- is accepted as the Absolute from which Morality stems and remains static.

[Perndog]

What if the dynamic nature of laws only shows that the right set of laws hasn't yet been discovered? If the "right laws" do exist, it wouldn't be a matter of acceptability but rather of what works best for a society.

As for morality being solely spiritual, I think millions of atheists who consider themselves moral people will have a serious problem with your statement, especially as you're saying all deity-worshipping religions are acceptable as sources of morality but not atheistic belief systems. The entire purpose of my suggestion was to describe the only possible way (unless someone wants to propose another) that absolute morality could exist without spirituality. Of course, if you and other folks want to classify me as amoral because I am entirely devoid of a spiritual life, I'm fine with that.

By the way, Zoroaster was a living prophet of the god Ahuramazda.

[The One and Only...]

It can be correct if there is a particular set of guidelines that can be applied to make all of humanity coexist with the greatest possible harmony. Or it can be right on a micro scale if there is a such a system for a given group of people but a different system for another group.

You still haven't answered my question yet. What makes actions that create the greatest possible harmony objectively right? What force makes them correct?

I would imagine that those atheists who consider themselves moral are not arguing over morality as has been in the strictly philosophical sense. For example, most of us - even nihilists - would say that we shouldn't kill people, but that does not necessarily reflect on our beliefs regarding an absolute right or wrong.

[Perndog]

It's a matter of how right and wrong are defined, and you can't accuse me of equivocation because "right" has no standard definition; it has a unique meaning within every philosophical paradigm. In monotheistic religions, "right" or "good" means in accordance with divine will. In nontheistic systems such as Buddhism, "right" has different definitions or is subjective and defined individually. The only universal standard for what is right is that it is what people should do according to a given value system. In this model, "right" is defined as socially efficient, and the entire purpose of the system is to provide a definition that doesn't require a spiritual basis for it yet still allows it to be absolute. If you want a specific source for it, the source would have to be human psychology.

So if rightness is defined uniquely (and it must be) within every model, and this model defines rightness as social efficiency, then this model can be correct as long as a superceding source of morality is absent and so long as absolute standards of what works exist.

I doubt it's correct myself. I just want to show that it's possible.

I bet a lot of moral atheists are quite philosophical about it. And Ror said, in essence, that the only way morality is possible is if a deity is accepted as the static and absolute root of it. That's what I think would be objectionable, even to eggheads.

[AChimp]

This is all you need to decide morality.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.


>:

[Emu]

Does using dark magic make you a bad person if you use it for a good end? :/

[AChimp]

That's up to the DM.

[Perndog]

He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

Where did that come from; since when does being lawful evil make one prejudiced? >:

According to that description of the system, I'm True Neutral, but I think I'm Neutral Evil in the 1st edition AD&D DM guide I've got (I can't check because it's at my parents' house).

I like the turn this thread is taking.

[AChimp]

That's from the 3.5 rules. LE is kind of a boring alignment; NE makes for a much more interesting campaign because there's just as much scheming without all the predictability. :)

[Brandon]

I'm going to agree with OAO on this one, actually. It's hard for an atheist to claim that he or she is "moral," since the objective standard of right and wrong does go out the window along with belief in a higher power. The question then becomes.. moral according to whom? Society? Tradition? One's personal standards?

I also wonder how many nonbelievers would really have the balls to follow through and stand by a rejection of good and evil absolutes when questions like "do you think the Holocaust was evil?" are asked.

[The_Rorschach]

I like the old Lawful Evil. It gave birth to the sort of Paladins one might associate with the Spanish Enquisition. :)

[Brandon]

Some problems with making moral absolutes contingent on the existence of God:

If the difference between right and wrong is based on God's order, then for God Himself there is no right and wrong, and it is meaningless to claim that God is "good."

If, on the other hand, God is good, then good and evil have meanings independent of Him.

[The One and Only...]

Nevermind.

[Sethomas]

This thread has taken a turn for the suck.

[CLAspinster]

I'm going to agree with OAO on this one, actually. It's hard for an atheist to claim that he or she is "moral," since the objective standard of right and wrong does go out the window along with belief in a higher power. The question then becomes.. moral according to whom? Society? Tradition? One's personal standards?


Disagree. The Greek philosphers believed in objective virtues without necessarily making recourse to divinity. At the very least, the gods didn't go about saying 'you must do this, you must do that' in the Judeo-Xian way.

[CLAspinster]

Some problems with making moral absolutes contingent on the existence of God:

If the difference between right and wrong is based on God's order, then for God Himself there is no right and wrong, and it is meaningless to claim that God is "good."

If, on the other hand, God is good, then good and evil have meanings independent of Him.

What about Augustine's solution, that evil is the absence of good, or distance from God?

[Brandon]

The Greek philosphers believed in objective virtues without necessarily making recourse to divinity. At the very least, the gods didn't go about saying 'you must do this, you must do that' in the Judeo-Xian way.
Those virtues, however, were dependent upon the existence of a "higher" realm of ideas. There was still an element of mysticism in that line of thought.

What about Augustine's solution, that evil is the absence of good, or distance from God?
Doesn't good need the alternative of evil in order to be defined as good? Good can't exist without evil.

EDIT: It's similar to how "truth" is a meaningless term if there isn't a possibility of falsehood. In Augustine's definition, it ceases being a choice between "good and evil" and becomes a choice between mere "obedience and disobedience."

[CLAspinster]

Those virtues, however, were dependent upon the existence of a "higher" realm of ideas. There was still an element of mysticism in that line of thought.

I wouldn't call it mysticism. Knowledge of say, the Platonic forms, was akin to knowledge of mathematics. They are not hazy and vague but made clear by the light of reason.


Doesn't good need the alternative of evil in order to be defined as good? Good can't exist without evil.

EDIT: It's similar to how "truth" is a meaningless term if there isn't a possibility of falsehood. In Augustine's definition, it ceases being a choice between "good and evil" and becomes a choice between mere "obedience and disobedience."

It depends on whether you take the statement "God is good" as an identity statement or a subject-predicate one in the sense of "apples are red". Granted, there is probably an equivocation here and both interpretations probably have some truth in Xian doctrine (Seth?), but I have always thought of God as not just "something that is good" but the source of all good. And so, evil being the absence of good (God) makes both the terms good an evil dependent on Him.

[Brandon]

I wouldn't call it mysticism. Knowledge of say, the Platonic forms, was akin to knowledge of mathematics. They are not hazy and vague but made clear by the light of reason.
Despite the fact that they're both abstract concepts, I don't see many similarities between math and morality.

It depends on whether you take the statement "God is good" as an identity statement or a subject-predicate one in the sense of "apples are red". Granted, there is probably an equivocation here and both interpretations probably have some truth in Xian doctrine (Seth?), but I have always thought of God as not just "something that is good" but the source of all good. And so, evil being the absence of good (God) makes both the terms good an evil dependent on Him.
If this is true, God isn't anything morally. He's neither good nor evil, since those terms are only applied to human actions after the fact. "God is good because He says He's good."

[Big McLargehuge]

Also if God is the only benchmark by which you measure good the concept of "God is good" becomes "good is good" and is there fore meaningless.

[ProfessorCool]

God is good only in movies and television.

[kahljorn]

I've said this like a million times before but everyone discounts my thoughts like day old bread at the bakery, assholes.

Omniscients is KNOWING EVERYTHING. Let's think about the word everything. Everything means everything. Not just where every speck of dust is at the same time, but knowing where all the blank spaces in between are at. A truely Omniscient person would kn ow: THE TRUTH, THE FALSE, AND UGLY. It wo uld also have to know the unconceived thin gs, so they can be conceived.
Someday you will have an epiphany and realize there is no real "Truth" anyway, so acting on the false is just as valid.
So in response to your question of freewill, imagine it like this: GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING, this means God also knows ALL POSSIBLE RESULTS OF EVERY OCCASION, when you decide if you're going to take a piss or not he knows that one way You will take a Piss and another he won't. That is true omniscient nature, and that is what most wise people attempt to capulate. Knowing not that what you do and say will have a specific effect, but evolving beyond that into picking the effects and trying to set it into motion.
All that is deep rooted is psychology and sociology, in order to set a little thought from up, a little living domino effect... you just have to consider that everything you do and say, effects everything. Yet what you did was just a result of someone else's shit.

I hope that's not too incoherent.

[The_Rorschach]

I understood it :)

:scooby snacks and mud puddles