This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I don't get why God being omniscient means that

#1_Rasl3rX_Posted 2/1/2013 7:26:41 PM
everything he does is good. everytime God does something reprehensible in the Bible or the basic problem of evil arises, people just claim that God's omniscience means that it's automatically okay. I don't get why that means anything, I have no problem admitting that a God would know everything there is to know to make a moral decision, but that doesn't mean that a God always does that choice. Especially when there are actions (such as the killing of children based on parent's sins, stoning rape victims who weren't loud enough, etc.) that are pretty much considered immoral by just about every set of morality we got, period. Of course, I guess every single one of these COULD be wrong based on the premise that humans can not achieve anything perfect(a claim without any evidence, btw), but there are several morality sets that at the very least one can not break up the logic of on their own.
#2OrangeWizardPosted 2/1/2013 7:36:12 PM(edited)
We just discussed this.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/65118435
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/65214196

Oh well. To 1000!


But "Omniscient" doesn't mean "everything he does is good". You shouldn't get how one means the other, because they don't.

Omniscience means "able to know everything". That says nothing about doing good.

However, the God of the Bible is perfect, and THAT is what means everything he does is good.
It's in the definition of "God of the Bible"

From: _Rasl3rX_ | #001
that are pretty much considered immoral by just about every set of morality we got, period.


So? Who says your petty human moral standards mean anything, especially when you have people like Hitler and serial killers running around with their own sets of moral standards?

Of course, I guess every single one of these COULD be wrong based on the premise that humans can not achieve anything perfect


Oh, good, you already recognize this. Saves me the trouble.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#3kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 7:31:11 PM
Being omniscient doesn't mean that by itself. Being omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent does.

Those three things together mean he knows the best possible thing, has the power to do it, and has the will to do it.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#4_Rasl3rX_(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 8:16:49 PM
hard to take ow serious since he's a self-admitted troll, but eh, im bored

anyways, the stem of God's morality is his omniscience; He knows the moral solution every scenario, period. omnibenevolence is a but a fancy way of saying you trust him even though you have never even seen him (as backed up by 1 Peter 1:8). if omnibenevolence is a literal definition of what God is (as opposed to an interpretation and assessment of the actions he's made in retrospect) then God is not omnipotent because he is incapable of bad. when we say it is just the end result of the assessment, then we have to assume that we trust him. becomes an appeal to emotion, really while ignoring evidence (and using a circular argument. it becomes infalsifible, I'm taking the premise "God is good in everything he does" then when I look to see if I can find anything God does is evil, I'm going to go ahead and take my premise as my conclusion, and call it good without letting it try and touch my premise)


also, if humans actually aren't capable of bringing up perfect systems (not to say imperfection doesn't mean the rest is illegitimate, especially if logically defensible. you might as well say that Egypt doesn't exist if a the torture of a bush wasn't an omniponent omnibenevolent God's way of communication) (also, mathematics is a disproof of this premise), then any assertion we make that leads us to believe God is real, or is moral, etc. can not be assumed to rational and is thus handwaved just as easily. this includes anything that would lead us to believe that the Holy Spirit is inside of us, so we can't really act like we're relying on him for guidance when our motivations for believing he is guiding us are just as humanly irrational as any argument that God isn't good (not to mention the whole thing is pretty much a more elegant method of saying that God is good cause he says he is good.) the thing is while I can agree that we cant ever assume we have something completely figured out, I try and fill those holes with evidence, where as a theist fills that hole up with faith and "eh, probably" (please don't accuse me of strawmanning without an explanation of what else theists fill this hole up with)

also, if a sinless man (I know this is 'impossible' but this is a hypothetical) were to do nothing to warrant punishment, and God decided to smite him (with excruciating pain and a slow death), would it be automatically good? Yes? then as i said, God is incapable of bad and is not omnipotent, making him a liar as well, taking away from benevolence (and making it not automatically good in the first place, hehe). If we are saying its not good, then we are subjectifying the actions of God, making him open to scrutiny. If I can say he's not good there, then why not other scenarios? it becomes clear when we say that its not automatically good, that we are evaluating morality based on circumstances, impacts, etc. instead of a deity, pretty much revealing the how much a theist is kidding himself when he hides in that 'I, as a fallible human, fallibly believe God is good thus God is good" fortress mentality.

If we can conclude that God wouldn't ever do something evil like that, well that doesn't really impact the point made by the hypothetical, but anyways we are still admitting that its not God who makes things moral, but God has a 'perfect' understanding of morality that does not necessitate him doing the moral option. if we say that God says he's omnibenevolent, well its not demonstrable. he can easily be lying while not violating omniscience and omnipotence. i can say im omnibenevolent, even. the fact that Im not omnipotent and Im not omniscient is irrelevant. If it was, then we'd be saying that his omniscience/omnipotence necessitated omnibenevolence, a point I've already demonstrated as both fallacious, and if true actually disproves his omnipotence.
#5OrangeWizardPosted 2/1/2013 8:52:27 PM
From: _Rasl3rX_ | #004
hard to take ow serious since he's a self-admitted troll


GameFAQs deserves a better class of troll. For years, it has been thought that "troll" and "serious" were mutually exclusive. That all ends here.

anyways, the stem of God's morality is his omniscience; He knows the moral solution every scenario, period.


That's not necessarily true. His morality could stem from him actually creating morality, and thus, knowing the moral solution in every scenario. One does not have to be omniscient in order to do all that. It helps, however.

omnibenevolence is a but a fancy way of saying you trust him even though you have never even seen him


Well, no. omnibenevolence is an attribute just like omniscience or omnipotence.

if omnibenevolence is a literal definition of what God is (as opposed to an interpretation and assessment of the actions he's made in retrospect) then God is not omnipotent because he is incapable of bad.


The attribute of omnipotence is not concerned with what one limits oneself in doing, it is only concerned about what one can do.

If I make a vow of silence, that doesn't mean that I can't physically speak, does it? No, it just means that I've restricted myself from speaking.

So same thing applies here.

becomes an appeal to emotion, really while ignoring evidence (and using a circular argument. it becomes infalsifible, I'm taking the premise "God is good in everything he does" then when I look to see if I can find anything God does is evil, I'm going to go ahead and take my premise as my conclusion, and call it good without letting it try and touch my premise)


Your grammar is a little screwy, but I'll try to parse and understand this run-on.

What evidence are we ignoring?
And this isn't circular, it's necessary.

If you hear a story about mother who abandoned her children and threw herself at men just so she could eat, you'd come to a much different conclusion based upon the immutable attributes of the mother in the story. If you thought it was a woman, you'd say "How horrible". If you thought it was a cat, you'd say "Oh, normal cat behavior".

This is how it should be. Immutable attributes should be considered first, and used to put the actions into context. This is not circular nor is it an appeal to emotion.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#6OrangeWizardPosted 2/1/2013 8:52:45 PM
also, if humans actually aren't capable of bringing up perfect systems (not to say imperfection doesn't mean the rest is illegitimate, especially if logically defensible. you might as well say that Egypt doesn't exist if a the torture of a bush wasn't an omniponent omnibenevolent God's way of communication) (also, mathematics is a disproof of this premise)


Please, stop with the parentheses. They're way too long and disrupt the flow of your words. You're also terrible at using them. Your entire line about Egypt is meaningless.

But perfection apart from God is subjective.

then any assertion we make that leads us to believe God is real, or is moral, etc. can not be assumed to rational and is thus handwaved just as easily.


Are you saying that something must be perfect for it to be rational? You're so bad at English I can't tell.

this includes anything that would lead us to believe that the Holy Spirit is inside of us, so we can't really act like we're relying on him for guidance when our motivations for believing he is guiding us are just as humanly irrational as any argument that God isn't good


Irrational how?

(not to mention the whole thing is pretty much a more elegant method of saying that God is good cause he says he is good.)


That doesn't even relate to anything that came before it, nor does it make a modicum of sense. Please, slap your English teacher for letting you out of that class without a failing grade.


the thing is while I can agree that we cant ever assume we have something completely figured out, I try and fill those holes with evidence, where as a theist fills that hole up with faith and "eh, probably"


You can try and do whatever you want, but how is this on-topic?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#7OrangeWizardPosted 2/1/2013 8:53:39 PM
also, if a sinless man (I know this is 'impossible' but this is a hypothetical) were to do nothing to warrant punishment, and God decided to smite him (with excruciating pain and a slow death), would it be automatically good? Yes?


No. This would be a clear contradiction.
Good thing this never happened.

If we are saying its not good, then we are subjectifying the actions of God, making him open to scrutiny.


1) That's not what that word means.
2) He was always open to scrutiny. It's just that nobody has found any clear contradiction to call him out over. Probably because that clear contradiction doesn't exist.

If we can conclude that God wouldn't ever do something evil like that, well that doesn't really impact the point made by the hypothetical


Your hypothetical doesn't really impact reality, as it is merely a "WHAT IF" scenario dreamt up in your head.

but anyways we are still admitting that its not God who makes things moral, but God has a 'perfect' understanding of morality that does not necessitate him doing the moral option.


Yeah.

None of those things are why God does the most moral option, nor does it necessarily follow that those things would lead God to do the most moral option.

Which is what we all told you at the beginning of this topic when we said that "omniscience" =/= "morality"

if we say that God says he's omnibenevolent, well its not demonstrable


Yeah. "Omni" traits aren't demonstrable at all.

If you have someone who's omnipotent, how much weight would you need him to lift in order to prove their omnipotence? An infinite amount. That test would never be finished, because you can't count to infinity.

So they're not demonstrable. What exactly is your point?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#8JonWood007Posted 2/1/2013 9:14:55 PM
Don't bother with OW.

Do yourself a favor.

Anyway, as mentioned in that 1000 post mess, it's all a bunch of assumptions.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#9LastManStandingPosted 2/1/2013 9:27:54 PM
God knows what is best for you.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#10OrangeWizardPosted 2/1/2013 9:33:32 PM
From: JonWood007 | #008
Don't bother with OW.



Yeah, don't bother with mean-ol OW because he'll trick you into losing arguments
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face