About omniscience

[ericc]

I rather doubt that anyone would miss the psychopaths. And you need not worry about the details. “With God everything possible” - Matthew 9:26. Of course that is not exactly true, but omnipotence is defined to be able to do anything, except four sided triangles, married bachelors and other logical impossibilities.

Why stop at psychopaths? How about others? We are all sinners. I guess no one will miss anyone because none will be here. So who will decide who gets to stay? Who decide which traits to eliminate? You?

The details are extremely important because that will make or break your “better” world. And since you are not God, I don’t see how with that extreme lack of knowledge that you can hope to design a better world than he can. So far you think you can design psychopaths out of the better world but you are leaving the creating bit to God? These are my specs, built it that way? The problem is you will end up with a world with no freewill if everyone is programmed to do good only. Since you already know of the freewill defense, either you acknowledge it as valid or you need to dismantle that defense.

Just like this world. And you might not have realized that sentient and sapient are not interchangeable. We are called Homo Sapiens, not Homo Sentient. The two functions of the nervous system: “to think” and “to feel” can be separated.

Homo Sapiens are sentient too. So which one will populate your world? The thinkers or the feelers? Don’t you need both qualities to build a “better” world otherwise the thinker won’t be able to react if his hand accidentally went into a pot of boiling oil.? I haven’t quite figure out what kind of world you are planning on populating.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Why stop at psychopaths? How about others?

One step at a time. The world without psychopaths would already be immeasurably better than the current one. As a matter of fact just one fewer rape would make a better world.

We are all sinners.

I am not interested in “sinners”.

The problem is you will end up with a world with no freewill if everyone is programmed to do good only.

I urge you to think for yourself. One can have free will to choose between different levels of good and zillions of neutral actions.

Since you already know of the freewill defense, either you acknowledge it as valid or you need to dismantle that defense.

It is child’s play to invalidate it. I just did in in the previous sentence. The idea that “free will” necessitates cruelty, torture, rape, murder and other assorted behaviors is naïve and ridiculous. If you have the freedom to buy a chocolate or flowers for a get together with your friend, you have sufficient freedom.

If you wish to argue for freedom to torture, you need to show that torture is desirable for its own sake. That a world with torture is better than the world without it. You guys (or gals) have this “idée fixe” that one cannot love others unless she can hurt them. Especially since decent people do not WANT to hurt others.

Homo Sapiens are sentient too. So which one will populate your world? The thinkers or the feelers? Don’t you need both qualities to build a “better” world otherwise the thinker won’t be able to react if his hand accidentally went into a pot of boiling oil.? I haven’t quite figure out what kind of world you are planning on populating.

I already gave the details. A world with thinking trees, brushes and other vegetation. If they are damaged, they can regrow the damaged parts. The only rational argument for “pain” is the warning that something is out of whack.

I have to repeat. Technology is the key. If there is omnipotence, then the only impossible state of affairs are the logically impossible ones. No matter, how outlandish the solution sounds, an omnipotent being can provide the solution.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium

You should really get on it then, shouldn’t you? If it is possible to find a material or mathematical explanation for who we are, which would necessarily encompass why we are and reveal the Ground of our existence, you should pursue it. What can be more important? To live one’s life and not know, wouldn’t that constitute a complete waste of ones existence? But, instead you are here, revealing what you don’t know, and in your gut do know you will never find it using those methods. Telling this to people who are on to something, whose faith is taking them deeper into those answers.

That said, the beauty and order of mathematics and the overwhelming majesty and power of the material universe, may lead one to what is Beauty and Rationality itself - God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That said, the beauty and order of mathematics and the overwhelming majesty and power of the material universe, may lead one to what is Beauty and Rationality itself - God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

May? Why not April or June?

 

[Aloysium]

May? Why not April or June?

Things happen when they happen.
April’s gone.
June is to come.
Why not now, today?

 

[ericc]

One step at a time. The world without psychopaths would already be immeasurably better than the current one. As a matter of fact just one fewer rape would make a better world.

I am not interested in “sinners”.

You certainly did single out psychopaths. You left the non-psychopaths but killers anyway free to wander about? What about liars, cheats, rapists, sadists, etc God already designed that utopian world already. It is called Heaven. Anyone can get there. Some are already there. There is no point doing redundant work.

I urge you to think for yourself. One can have free will to choose between different levels of good and zillions of neutral actions.

I am thinking how can one have freewill if artificially bounded not to be able to do other non-good acts. That is not free will by any count. Yes, why would anyone with zillion of options to choose from, choose to do bad? Only you can answer for yourself. But off the top of my head I can say it is pleasurable to do certain things even if not good. Or overindulging can lead a good thing to be bad and one isn’t sure what one’s limits are. Or taking shortcuts to obtain efficiencies to enrich oneself i.e. stealing. It is good to enjoy the good life?

It is child’s play to invalidate it. I just did in in the previous sentence. The idea that “free will” necessitates cruelty, torture, rape, murder and other assorted behaviors is naïve and ridiculous. If you have the freedom to buy a chocolate or flowers for a get together with your friend, you have sufficient freedom.

You have not invalidated it at all. All you have done is just engage in fallacious argument that freedom to do bad is bad.

Bad choice of word “necessitate”. Free will allows you either directions to do good or bad or nothing. Your version of free will is a castrated form which is an incorrect definition of free will anyway. Yours is a prison while telling the inmates that they are free. But none of the inmates will buy it and you end up deluding yourself. Freewill allows you to choose, and that’s all. The minute you disallow choice no matter how persuasive you are with the reasons for disallowing it, don’t call that freewill. It is not free and there is no will. So don’t ask God to make a person with free will which is not free or requires God to ensure that person always do good which predetermines the free agent actions. That would be a contradiction, like 4 sided triangles. Either you are a free agent or you are not. You haven’t argued that having freewill is bad overall, just that a subset of possibilities are bad. Any child knows that a box with bad stuff is bad.

If you wish to argue for freedom to torture, you need to show that torture is desirable for its own sake. That a world with torture is better than the world without it. You guys (or gals) have this “idée fixe” that one cannot love others unless she can hurt them. Especially since decent people do not WANT to hurt others.

Out of topic. The argument is whether having freewill is better than no freewill, regardless or whether it is good or bad. If you take out freewill, we are all automatons. If you allow freewill, you allow people to do good as well as evil. Which one is better? God see fit to let us choose. If you don’t, can I tag you a dictator/brainwasher/programmer instead?

I already gave the details. A world with thinking trees, brushes and other vegetation. If they are damaged, they can regrow the damaged parts. The only rational argument for “pain” is the warning that something is out of whack.

Wonderful world but not sure what do trees, bushes, grass think about daily. Are they immortal? They reproduce I suppose. What happens when they run out of space? Cannibalize each other? What exactly is their purpose in life? What exactly is your purpose of creating such a world? Seems to be like keeping an aquarium of aquatic plants for visual relaxation. thisiscolossal.com/2014/01/the-incredible-underwater-art-of-aquascaping/

I have to repeat. Technology is the key. If there is omnipotence, then the only impossible state of affairs are the logically impossible ones. No matter, how outlandish the solution sounds, an omnipotent being can provide the solution.

Sure the omnipotent being can build one for you to your specs. But how do you know it is “better” in the long run? How do you know your design has no flaws holistically? If it is just a world for your own consumption, that’s great. You can indulge in it but many will disagree that it is “better” for them.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You certainly did single out psychopaths. You left the non-psychopaths but killers anyway free to wander about? What about liars, cheats, rapists, sadists, etc

Only for the sake of simplicity - as the first step. If you don’t comprehend that a world without psychopaths is a better world, then you are unworthy to talk to. Once you realize it - and admit it loud and clear, we can continue.

 

[ericc]

Only for the sake of simplicity - as the first step. If you don’t comprehend that a world without psychopaths is a better world, then you are unworthy to talk to. Once you realize it - and admit it loud and clear, we can continue.

Of course it is easier just to tackle one problem at a time but it hardly demonstrate your claimed ability to make a better world than God. I like to look at things holistically which I’m afraid you think I’m unworthy to talk to. Perhaps you are overwhelmed by the complexity and hide behind some rhetoric as if I am condoning psychopaths which is just another fallacious avoidance tactic commonly used.

Unfortunately the world is a complex holistic creation and claiming it is easy to design it one step at a time just show your inability or inadequate knowledge to do the details or comprehend the complexity of world designing while smugly championing concepts of what constitutes a better world for you only. A better place has already been made, Heaven. Don’t waste time trying to outdo or redesign it. We are in the freewill testing grounds. There is no necessity to redesign the testing grounds to only contain thinking plants and bushes either.

Thank you for the discussion and bye.

 

[Bradski]

I think it is the same world…

Do you claim that there was pain and cruelty and suffering before the fall?

 

[vz71]

Do you claim that there was pain and cruelty and suffering before the fall?

Wouldn’t that constitute a fall?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Of course it is easier just to tackle one problem at a time but it hardly demonstrate your claimed ability to make a better world than God.

One must take one step at a time to get somewhere. Every little improvement makes the world a better place. Preventing one rape would make the world a better place (and to HELL with the free will of the rapist). Getting rid of the EBOLA virus would make the world a better place. We, humans strive to make the world a better place. The problem is that we lack the wherewithal to do it in one fell swoop. So we do it one step at a time.

Perhaps you are overwhelmed by the complexity and hide behind some rhetoric as if I am condoning psychopaths which is just another fallacious avoidance tactic commonly used.

If you argue for unbridled “free will”, then you condone the existence of psychopaths.

We are in the freewill testing grounds.

An omniscient God does not NEED a testing ground.

There is no necessity to redesign the testing grounds to only contain thinking plants and bushes either.

It is just one simple solution to show the possibility of a better world.

Thank you for the discussion and bye.

Best wishes to you, too. The so-called “free will” defense is just as incorrect as the “greater good” defense.