The so-called omnimax attributes

[Contarini]

I have serious problems with the so called “omnimax” attributes. These are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence, and they are not well defined. I have yet to see a coherent and rigorous definition of these terms. Take, whichever you want, and present a definition, so we can review it. Forget that these attributes are supposed to pertain to God. Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense. If the concepts themselves make sense, then (and only then) it can be examined if they can be properly attributed to God. If the concepts themselves are incoherent, they will not make sense, even if they are God’s attributes.

No. That’s not logical, and yet again shows that you do not understand what Christians mean when they say that they believe in God. The “omnimax” attributes are only meaningful when applied to God, because they are simply various ways of describing what it means for the being we call “God” to exist. You are posing a meaningless and self-defeating thought exercise. It would be pointless to take you up on it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I explicitly stated that I am interested in a purely philosophical discussion, not what is asserted about God’s attributes. If these terms cannot be defined without a reference to God and without a reference to God’s alleged attributes, then they are theological constructs and have no place in “pure” (non-theological) philosophy.

If you want to belong to a strict sectarian form of philosophy which maintains its “purity” by excluding most of the questions with which classical Western philosophy has concerned itself, then that’s your loss. But many folks will see little point in talking to you.

Edwin

 

[James_S_Saint]

omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence, and they are not well defined. I have yet to see a coherent and rigorous definition of these terms.

And you are not likely to “see” one either, because you refuse to “see” anything that leads to having to change your beliefs (the very definition of “ego”).

omniscience == possessing the “raw data” awareness of all reality.
omnipotence == unable to be defeated or abated.
omnibenevolence == possessing the will to support all of reality.
omnipresence == being existent in all places within all of reality.

A limited example would be the principle of addition.

Principle of addition == the whole is the count of the individual discrete items within all sets.

It is omniscient in that at no time can anyone sneak an item into the whole without rendering the same consequential count as would be obtained by adding it without sneaking it in. This reflects awareness of every item within the whole regardless of how it got there.

It is omnipotent in that no force can be applied to break the rule. No matter what you do, the rule still applies without fail.

It is omnibenevolent in that it supports (support = the “good”) any and all existence that depends on it. In the case of addition, this is a very limited concept but is still “omni” in that is still applies to truly all cases involved. It keeps your bank account accurate.

It is omnipresent in that no matter where you are in the universe, the principle is always ready for application. It cannot be avoided no matter how small or large, nor how far away from anything else you might be. If you move your bank account from one bank to another, the amount has no excuse for changing other than someone taking or giving to the sum.

All of what we call principles possess these characteristics as long as they are not conditional.

This concept is appropriately applied to God because God is defined as the whole of all such principles and thus carries equal attributes and applies to all things in all ways. God is the “Whole Spirit” (Holy Spirit), not merely any fraction thereof.

 

[tdgesq]

Yes, but the original question was whether a book “which was never written, since the author was never even born” could be known. Since there was no author to begin with, he could not have thought about the contents of the non-existing book.

And there another aspect of “non-existence”. Non-existence is “simple”, there is no difference between a non-existent book, or a non-existing ball, or a non-existent meal (for example). We might speak about different categories of non-existence objects, but that is a sloppy and meaningless proposition. Non-existence does not have (and cannot have) attributes.

Then are you claiming that possible worlds analysis is meaningless? I would think not since you’ve used it in prior threads. Even with our very finite and limited intellects (certainly not omniscient) we can imagine a person who writes a book that does not exist. We can even imagine the specifics of the book. The person does not actually exist. The book does not actually exist. Nevertheless, the proposition as possible exists.

If you want to claim that foreknowledge is impossible, then, well, I guess you disagree with all of those theoretical physicists that claim time travel is possible. It appears that you are the one way out there on this point.

 

[liquidpele]

Yes, but the original question was whether a book “which was never written, since the author was never even born” could be known. Since there was no author to begin with, he could not have thought about the contents of the non-existing book.

And there another aspect of “non-existence”. Non-existence is “simple”, there is no difference between a non-existent book, or a non-existing ball, or a non-existent meal (for example). We might speak about different categories of non-existence objects, but that is a sloppy and meaningless proposition. Non-existence does not have (and cannot have) attributes.

Ah, ok. My fault for jumping into the conversation then.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, we are getting to somewhere. We all must start with a few basic principles, namely: “I exist”, “whatever I experience is real”, “my mind functions weill”, “what I remember is correct”, etc… You posit an impossible scenario. In order to refute my little thought experiment, you say that I cannot know in I am sane, or if this omniscient guy was manipulating my memory. (You recall, I am sure the old saying: “you should keep an open mind, but not too open, lest it should fall out”.)

You see, I did not posit any “special characteristics” in my scenario, only “omniscience”. Looks like that omniscience cannot not stand on its own feet, it needs some other “powers” to overcome the paradox I presented. And that is called changing the goalposts. Let’s stick to the problem at hand, omniscience is assumed, but nothing else. If omniscience cannot be substantiated on its own merit, then it is an unintelligible proposition.

I love you Spock, you’re so delightfully stubborn! Could you try rereading what I wrote? I totally anticipated this kind of dogmatic objection. You’re not really going to tell me your memory *never *fails are you? I could remind you of a time or two… Btw, you’re obviously not “insane,” just 'cause nice omniscient guy is smart enough (duh, right?) to catch you napping!

Still, suppose Spock’s memory has never and will never fail, and neither does his attention (are you going to claim that too? you need to - but you still won’t save yourself): so omniscient guy gives his prediction in terms of conditions which you will only recognize as obtaining as the prediction is being fulfilled (i.e., when it’s too late for you to cheat). Again, nice omniscient guy can obviously do this (he knows everything, remember?), and so he passes your little test (okay, so it’s not yours, but no goalposts have been moved, so don’t pretend they have)! Tell me that’s not cool!

(I won’t get into the unreasonableness of some of your other dogmatic claims - I’ll just remind you of our recent exchange on ‘disordered reason’, where you proved in spite of yourself that there is such a thing.)

 

[Spock]

That is blatantly false.

You are presuming the total absence of a conscious mind. The whole point and purpose of having consciousness is to acquire information to add to whatever other influences are guiding you so that you can balance all of the guiding influences toward a goal.

You are “response-able” to choose A over B and thus are the object of blame when you do not respond.

The purpose of blame is to add more influence toward the goal.

Determinism has nothing to do with responsibility or blame.

Really? What a strange assumption. Would you blame a railroad car for running over someone? If there is determinism, there is no conscious mind… is that so hard to understand? I am not responsible for anything, if I am just a railroad car, running down my predetermind track…

 

[Spock]

No. That’s not logical, and yet again shows that you do not understand what Christians mean when they say that they believe in God. The “omnimax” attributes are only meaningful when applied to God, because they are simply various ways of describing what it means for the being we call “God” to exist. You are posing a meaningless and self-defeating thought exercise. It would be pointless to take you up on it.

Edwin

If these concepts are only meaningful if one presumes God, then they are not meaningful at all. Is “love” meaningful if God is not taken into consideration? But you are not under any obligation if you wish to stay away from this discussion. If you don’t understand or disagree with the propostion as presented, why do you even attempt to participate? Just to “rain” on our parade???

 

[Spock]

Then are you claiming that possible worlds analysis is meaningless? I would think not since you’ve used it in prior threads. Even with our very finite and limited intellects (certainly not omniscient) we can imagine a person who writes a book that does not exist. We can even imagine the specifics of the book. The person does not actually exist. The book does not actually exist. Nevertheless, the proposition as possible exists.

Imagination should not be confused with “knowledge”…

If you want to claim that foreknowledge is impossible, then, well, I guess you disagree with all of those theoretical physicists that claim time travel is possible. It appears that you are the one way out there on this point.

If there are some physicists who propose time travel, i would love to be acquainted with their reasoning. Especially, how do they hope to get over the “grandfather paradox”.

 

[Spock]

Ah, ok. My fault for jumping into the conversation then.

No fault!

 

[Spock]

I love you Spock, you’re so delightfully stubborn! Could you try rereading what I wrote? I totally anticipated this kind of dogmatic objection. You’re not really going to tell me your memory *never *fails are you? I could remind you of a time or two… Btw, you’re obviously not “insane,” just 'cause nice omniscient guy is smart enough (duh, right?) to catch you napping!

I do NOT have perfect recall, that is for sure. I cannot remember what I did when I was 3 years old - which was 60 years ago . And I am willing to admit that. But, I certainly can remember what happened a few minutes ago. If the OG (omnisicent guy) wishes to prove his omniscience - and he has only omniscience - then he cannot “manipulate” my memory just to “prove” his omniscience. That would be cheating, as I said.

 

[Spock]

If you want to belong to a strict sectarian form of philosophy which maintains its “purity” by excluding most of the questions with which classical Western philosophy has concerned itself, then that’s your loss. But many folks will see little point in talking to you.

Edwin

And yet, you are talking to me… why bother?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is not much of an argument to quote sensory depravation (which has serious psychological effects) or referring to relativistic speeds. The latter is especially incorrect, since relativity does not treat “time” as an independent variable, rather space-time where x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (cit) is an invariant. Also that time-dilation occurs in large gravitational fields does not make time an “illusion”.

first, im not talking about the equations, im talking about peoples memories. the guy on earth will have a lot of memories that the guy on the ship wont. they will have experienced the passage of time quite differently.

it goes to show that people would not have the same memories of time passing, given different situations, ergo, time is subjective. an illusion. change occurs.

You did not explain that somehow we recall events in a similar manner, despite time is being just an “illusion”.

yes, i did just above, we dont recall time in a similar manner in different situations. if we are recalling similar events then we have the same change, so we have a similar sense of the passage of time.

You should have, especially since the examples you quoted are irrelevant.

do you have any evidence that time is real? at all? ive asked several times now, and im beginning to think youre dodging the question.

 

[Spirithound]

Which is just another way of saying that the future is deterministic, with all its corollaries and ramifications.

No, I don’t think so. Unfortunately, since God is the only OG, there really can’t be an adequate analogy.

To try, however…referring back to watching a movie, you said that we are not in the movie’s time. I would say actually that we are. Time (within a particular scene, anyways) passes at the same rate, and if you’re watching an episode of “24”, then the entire episode is in real-time. A more adequate analogy is if you had each frame of the show laid out on the table so you could view them all simultaneously. But that is definitely not adequate, since once recorded, the actors don’t have any freedom.

Wouldn’t that be cheating? To avoid the unpleasant dilemma, just kill the other guy?

Didn’t you know? No man can look on the face of God and live
I can’t see an alternative…your thought experiment seems to be valid (waiting for someone smarter than me…), so the only possibility of maintaining free will and the Omniscient Guy is that he would never play your game.

But…how does he know not to play it? Perhaps the “things that are real” include things that were, are, and will be, and things that might have been, if an agent had made a certain choice. Still excluded are things that could never have been because the agent never existed.
What do you think?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Really? What a strange assumption. Would you blame a railroad car for running over someone?

If it had a conscious mind, I certainly would.

If there is determinism, there is no conscious mind… is that so hard to understand? I am not responsible for anything, if I am just a railroad car, running down my predetermind track…

Tell that to the judge at your trial.

Like I said, and maybe in your case it is true, but you assume no conscious mind to be response-able and thus blame-able.

 

[Spock]

first, im not talking about the equations, im talking about peoples memories. the guy on earth will have a lot of memories that the guy on the ship wont. they will have experienced the passage of time quite differently.

Why not? Because the equation is objective? And it shows that time and space (along with matter/energy) are intrinsically combined into one STEM?

it goes to show that people would not have the same memories of time passing, given different situations, ergo, time is subjective. an illusion. change occurs.

Is that an argument? If people are subjected to different experiences, then they will have different memories? Come on. That is worse than trivial. The “length” or “rate” of the change they perceive will be the approximately the same. Not precisely the same because we don’t have an equal and precise sense of time. That is why we use clocks and watches. Do they tick along subjectively, and it is just amazing coincidence that they happen to show the same time?

do you have any evidence that time is real? at all? ive asked several times now, and im beginning to think youre dodging the question.

Time is part of STEM. If STEM is real, then time is real. To assert that STEM is just an illusion, is equivalent to solipsism, as I already pointed out.

 

[Spock]

No, I don’t think so. Unfortunately, since God is the only OG, there really can’t be an adequate analogy.

To try, however…referring back to watching a movie, you said that we are not in the movie’s time. I would say actually that we are. Time (within a particular scene, anyways) passes at the same rate, and if you’re watching an episode of “24”, then the entire episode is in real-time. A more adequate analogy is if you had each frame of the show laid out on the table so you could view them all simultaneously. But that is definitely not adequate, since once recorded, the actors don’t have any freedom.

The movie analogy is as close as we can get. Not perfect of course. In a sense (not exactly) we omniscient and omnipotent in regard of a movie. We can slow it down, or speed it up, or put it in reverse… but no matter what we do, we cannot know the ending until it appears on the screen.

Your last sentence is very true, and has important ramifications. When something is done, the freedom to change it disappears. In the past there is no freedom. If the future would be real, then today would be past, and we would have no freeedom at all.

Didn’t you know? No man can look on the face of God and live
I can’t see an alternative…your thought experiment seems to be valid (waiting for someone smarter than me…),

My heartfelt thanks to you. You are one of the very few people, who have the intellectual honesty not to evade, and have the courage to say it. It is almost unprecedented. :extrahappy:

so the only possibility of maintaining free will and the Omniscient Guy is that he would never play your game.

Correct. If he never plays the game, then omniscience is relegated to the realm of faith. However, this faith is irrational - since the attempted proof to substantiate it leads to its refutation.

But…how does he know not to play it? Perhaps the “things that are real” include things that were, are, and will be, and things that might have been, if an agent had made a certain choice. Still excluded are things that could never have been because the agent never existed.
What do you think?

If the future, the past and the present all exist simultaneously, then there is no freedom. Then we really are just actors on the silver screen, playing out our predetermined parts.

 

[Spock]

If it had a conscious mind, I certainly would.

Pretty amazing. Having a conscious mind, where every thought is predetermined, having able body, where every muscle spasm is predetermined, and you would still blame the agent (the poor railroad car) running down on its predetermined path… what can I tell you?

Like I said, and maybe in your case it is true, but you assume no conscious mind to be response-able and thus blame-able.

Playing word games? I am game. Let’s analyze “responsible” (which is the correct spelling): The parts are “res” (Latin, means “thing”… res, rei) and “pon” - an abbreviation of “pontifex” (also Latin, means member of the clergy), “sib” - another abbreviation of “sibling” or “Sibilla” (still debated by the linguists - the best bet is Sibilla, the ancient predictress of the future… also Latin) and finally “le” - probably of French origin (the feminine version of the pronoun: “the” - and French is also of Latin origin). So “responsible” means the “things the ancient pontifex predicted about the pronoun”… crystal clear now I hope. The parts are all of ancient Latin origin, which cannot be a coincidence.

The only thing which is not clear; what the heck does all this have to do with the omnimax attributes… but leave me in the dark, if you would. I am not really interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not talking about God, or being outside of time. Only about omniscience. There are no other assumptions in this hypothesis. If additional “criteria” are needed, then omniscience cannot be analyzed on its own merit. Besides, being “outside” of time does not help. The spectator of a movie is outside of the movie’s time, and still cannot know what the ending will be, until it actually happens.

The idea of analyzing omniscience “on its own merit” is incoherent. Let me explain. Imagine that there was nothing we could experience in the universe except hydrogen (don’t ask me how! ). With only that experience, someone came from “beyond” and started talking about the property of cohesion. We would think it was nonsense, of course, and demand that he explain how some such phenomena could be explained. To which he would respond, “Well, in order to understand cohesion, you have to know something about water: let me tell you about water.”

Without water, there is no cohesion. Without God, there is no omniscience. The relationship of cohesion to water is analogous to the relationship between omniscience and God. You cannot “pull the two things apart” and look at them out of context.

Yes, indeed. You can see this in many manuals (from IBM, for example) where they say: “in such circumstances the program produces unpredictable results”. Now this can be due to the limitations of the programmers, but the computer program is a supposed to be a deterministic entity, and not a stochastic one. We can predict statistically how many uranium atoms will decay in a specific interval, but cannot predict “which ones” will decay. The radioactive decay is not a deterministic process, rather a stochastic one. But there is a deeper problem here, too. If we are “programmed” to perform, then free will is just an illusion.

No philosopher has satisfactorily explained how free will works, certainly not comprehensively, but theistic explanations have more merit than most. My idea, as we’ve discussed, is that God is capable of randomness (within certain parameters, which He sets out).

And how does one obtain knowledge? By obtaining information via some means. Whether one calls it a “measurement” or something else, if the phenomenon itself is impossible to “measure”, then it cannot be known.

Impossible for *humans *to measure. God sees everything. You may say that this seems unlikely to you, but it is by no means incoherent.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Since you asked again;

omniscience == possessing the “raw data” awareness of all reality.
omnipotence == unable to be defeated or abated.
omnibenevolence == possessing the will to support all of reality.
omnipresence == being existent in all places within all of reality.

A limited example would be the principle of addition.

Principle of addition == the whole is the count of the individual discrete items within all sets.

It is omniscient in that at no time can anyone sneak an item into the whole without rendering the same consequential count as would be obtained by adding it without sneaking it in. This reflects awareness of every item within the whole regardless of how it got there.

It is omnipotent in that no force can be applied to break the rule. No matter what you do, the rule still applies without fail.

It is omnibenevolent in that it supports (support = the “good”) any and all existence that depends on it. In the case of addition, this is a very limited concept but is still “omni” in that is still applies to truly all cases involved. It keeps your bank account accurate.

It is omnipresent in that no matter where you are in the universe, the principle is always ready for application. It cannot be avoided no matter how small or large, nor how far away from anything else you might be. If you move your bank account from one bank to another, the amount has no excuse for changing other than someone taking or giving to the sum.

All of what we call principles possess these characteristics as long as they are not conditional.

This concept is appropriately applied to God because God is defined as the whole of all such principles and thus carries equal attributes and applies to all things in all ways. God is the “Whole Spirit” (Holy Spirit), not merely any fraction thereof.