Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by iambiguous »

Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Logic: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

Given, say, a particular context?

The only reason logic came to exist at all is because the human species was around to invent it. And it was invented because language was invented by the human species and rules had to be thought up to differentiate what was rational -- epistemologically sound -- to say and what was not. That being important because what we think, feel, and say is often of fundamental importance in regard to what we do. And it is in regard to what we do that actual consequences unfold.

In other words, when we connected our words to the world that we lived in. And then interacted with others such that they connected the words to the same world differently. What then? Well, among other things, the birth of morality.

But you tell me:

Where does human logic come into play in regard to questions such as this:

Why does something exist instead of nothing?
Why does this something exist instead of something else?
Where does the human condition fit into a definitive understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of the multiverse?

To wit: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" here.

We can't even logically pin down whether or not this entire exchange itself is not but a necessary component of the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Let alone the part that I attribute to dasein in the is/ought world here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

As for omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenevolence and omnipresence and the like: pin them down logically.

God or No God.

And [of course] taking into account Rummy's Rule:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

And, what, you thought that this was just in reference to the war in Iraq?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by attofishpi »

Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Do you think something can be omnipotent without being omniscient?
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by promethean75 »

hey AC u can't just drop deep philosophical questions like that and then just disappear bruh.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:12 pm hey AC u can't just drop deep philosophical questions like that and then just disappear bruh.
This was my favorite take of the day :lol:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by iambiguous »

Gee, Astro Cat, what about my take above? 8)
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:33 pm Gee, Astro Cat, what about my take above? 8)
I’m trying to respond today since I have insomnia anyway
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:59 am I have never liked this 'omni' arguments re God, because personally I don't believe God is omni<x>
The post is mostly aimed at those who do.
attofishpi wrote: Sure, just take away their free will. No thing can be omniscient.
Omniscience doesn't necessarily interfere with free will: either definitionally (some define omniscience as simply knowing all true propositions available at the time for instance) or metaphysically (e.g., pointing out that knowing a future freely chosen action will occur doesn't mean the future action wasn't freely taken).
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:31 am What if two omnipotent beings were completly in sync with each other. So, they just never want to force the other one to do anything. If one did suddenly want to control, even destroy, the other, this would be coupled with the that's one's desire to be controlled or destroyed (metaphorically a bit like entangled particles: they simply are in synch at all times).
That's interesting and might merit its own topic; I suspect there will be weird consequences with identity in such a scenario.
Iwannaplato wrote: I wonder what happens when two omniscient beings meet (especially in a universe with free will, thought even without that). It sounds a bit like what would happen if you had two perfect mirrors perfectly opposite each other. Since we make choices, often, based on what others are like, these two omniscient humans would be simultaneously getting complete information about the complete information that the other one was getting (about each other, about the effects of actions, etc.). It seems to me you suddenly flood them both with infinite information - which would not happen if they encountered someone with limited knowledge. A realizes that B knows X as B is realizing that A knows...................................................................infinite chains of explosing information.

Let's say they are walking toward each other on the sidewalk and don't want to bump into each other, reading eachother's body language to decide.................infinite knowledge.

Let's say, because we are fantasizing and don't need to worry about neuronal capacity or even that the information unfolds over time. They each get it all all at once.

Uggh. How unpleasant. To suddenly (or always) have so much utterly uninteresting information.
Maybe it wouldn't be unpleasant. For instance, if I believe that it's raining, then I believe that I believe that it's raining. If I believe that I believe that it's raining, then I believe that I believe that I believe that it's raining, and so on. This experience doesn't seem to be unpleasant, and it's trivially the case that we recognize this recursion in introspection about our beliefs and knowledges.

In any case, God doesn't have to give full omniscience, but it's a legitimate question as to why God doesn't give information that's really important to know in theistic cases where God is expecting people to make decisions (for instance in some religions where God expects people to believe in God and punishes those that don't). You don't have to tell me how monstrous that idea is, I already know, I'm just commenting on the internal consistency of such views: if there is a choice with infinite consequences, why don't gods give mortals the knowledge to make it an informed choice?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:50 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Logic: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

Given, say, a particular context?

The only reason logic came to exist at all is because the human species was around to invent it. And it was invented because language was invented by the human species and rules had to be thought up to differentiate what was rational -- epistemologically sound -- to say and what was not. That being important because what we think, feel, and say is often of fundamental importance in regard to what we do. And it is in regard to what we do that actual consequences unfold.

In other words, when we connected our words to the world that we lived in. And then interacted with others such that they connected the words to the same world differently. What then? Well, among other things, the birth of morality.
Humans don't invent logic, though: logic is about the rules of reality (yes, conducted through language when humans do it, but humans are only inventing the terms and symbols with which to describe logic). For instance, consider the Aristotlian laws of logic, that A = A, that A or not-A, and that not-(A and not-A) at the same time and in the same respect. Humans and language aren't inventing this, they're just describing it in the same way that we don't invent trees, we just describe them with the word "tree."

Two different minds across the universe would be able to independently describe the same logic because it is discovered and not created. It's not because of humans that things, if they exist, exist as themselves, and must exist without contradiction at the same time and in the same respect, etc. We just invent ways to talk about that and to relay it as a concept via language, but that's not inventing the thing being described itself.
iambiguous wrote:But you tell me:

Where does human logic come into play in regard to questions such as this:

Why does something exist instead of nothing?
Why does this something exist instead of something else?
Where does the human condition fit into a definitive understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of the multiverse?
I don't see how this is on topic to the OP.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Iwannaplato »

Astro Cat wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:27 pm Maybe it wouldn't be unpleasant. For instance, if I believe that it's raining, then I believe that I believe that it's raining. If I believe that I believe that it's raining, then I believe that I believe that I believe that it's raining, and so on. This experience doesn't seem to be unpleasant, and it's trivially the case that we recognize this recursion in introspection about our beliefs and knowledges.
With us, given our limited knowledge, we never go beyond a couple of layers. I mean, it doesn't happen. If someone questions us or we try to check on more layers, well then, briefly, we go a few layers deeper. I would not find it pleasant as I got towards the boundary where I can't really conceive of the next layer. An omniscient entity would simply know the entire line, period, directly.
In any case, God doesn't have to give full omniscience, but it's a legitimate question as to why God doesn't give information that's really important to know in theistic cases where God is expecting people to make decisions (for instance in some religions where God expects people to believe in God and punishes those that don't). You don't have to tell me how monstrous that idea is, I already know, I'm just commenting on the internal consistency of such views: if there is a choice with infinite consequences, why don't gods give mortals the knowledge to make it an informed choice?
Going back to the original post...
Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
There are a number of answers to this - do they work...that's another story. But I don't think we can demonstrate they are false, since one would need, if not omniscience, some kind of objective perspective of possible universes we don't have. That said, one idea is that evil is necessary (and or suffering) to bring out the best. Without suffering/evil some ultimate goodness cannnot manifest. And the universe/reality would not be as great without this.

I don't like this idea at all, but I don't know how to demonstrate it is false.

But, of course, anyone pro such an explanation cannot demonstrate it is true.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Gary Childress »

Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Because Christianity is an evil religion. Born of evil, for the evil-minded. No sane person in this day and age should worship a god who allegedly drowned/murdered literally almost all the world's population in a flood according to the holy babble. No sane person should follow the likes of Paul, Moses, et al. No sane person should follow Jesus who saves the wretched and condemns the noble. No sane person should believe that God is a resentful, angry, psychopath. If there is a God, then I prefer a good God or else no God at all. The desert religions are not based on the notion of a good god, rather on a god who takes sides and condones genocide. I call BS!
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Belinda »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:35 am
Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Because Christianity is an evil religion. Born of evil, for the evil-minded. No sane person in this day and age should worship a god who allegedly drowned/murdered literally almost all the world's population in a flood according to the holy babble. No sane person should follow the likes of Paul, Moses, et al. No sane person should follow Jesus who saves the wretched and condemns the noble. No sane person should believe that God is a resentful, angry, psychopath. If there is a God, then I prefer a good God or else no God at all. The desert religions are not based on the notion of a good god, rather on a god who takes sides and condones genocide. I call BS!

But Jesus was one of those who moderated the old tribal Jahweh so he became more universal.
Jesus 'saves' the wretched but he also saves the "noble" if by "noble" you mean successful. The Samaritan actually had the money to spend and the animal transport to help the injured Jew. Out of the desert religions plus the Greek culture grew socialism.

Omniscience i.e. truth and omnibenevolence i.e. goodness are mutually compatible. Omnipotence is the attribute that needs to be scrapped. Love does not conquer all(Amor vincit omnia is incorrect in Latin too !).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Immanuel Can »

Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Hello again, AC.

Can I put my oar in the water on this one? Let me float some first-glance problems I see in the formulation of your dilemma. They're not all that I think needs saying, but they at least open up some awareness that the problem is not so straightforward as it seems at first.

The terms, "omniscience," "omipotence" and "omnipresence," are sometimes predicated of God, and are not hard to find in theology generally. However none of them is found in the Bible itself; and as such, they must be recognized as invented, shorthand descriptors for characteristics of God, as contrived by people trying to think about Him, but not disciplining themselves strictly to usages the Bible would choose.

As such, they are approximately useful, and applicable in a very general way, perhaps. However, the explanations of each have to be filled out, because as descriptors, they're a bit vague. I should prove that, before going on.

For example, does "omnipotence" imply that the being in question can do contradictory and absurd things, like the famous, "making a rock so big even He cannot lift it," or does it have to imply God can do things that are contradictory to good character, such as lying, making mistakes, performing evil acts, being unholy, and so on -- things which we sometimes perhaps think of as being "abilities," but are perhaps of dubious logical coherence or moral integrity? If that's what's meant, then the Bible actually tells us God's not "omnipotent." Biblically, He always acts according to the goodness of His own nature, and is the one Being uniquely able never to violate that nature.

Is violating one's own nature a power required of "omnipotence," or is adherence to the perfection of one's own character a proof of "omnipotence"? The answer would have to depend on what the questioner thought was entailed in "omnipotence," wouldn't it?

As for the term "omnibenevolence," it's even more problematic, because it has two weaknesses: one, like the others, the word has no uses in the Bible itself so we can't look there to find out what it might mean or imply, and two, because "benevolence" means different things in different contexts and situations, and is understood quite differently by different people.

For example, let's say a father and mother are discussing the academic progress of their daughter. Both are concerned that she's not getting the marks in high school she needs for university.

The mother says, "I know what we need to do: we need to go in to see her teacher and straighten that woman out. Our daughter is gifted; and if she's not getting the teaching she needs, then we need to do something about it, and right now."

The father says, "I suspect our girl has not been working at her academics as much as she ought to. She's been playing on the computer a lot, and I haven't seen her crack a book lately. She needs to learn that her choices have consequences. So let's let her see her "A" average slip this semester, and fall off the honour list, and then have a talk with her about how she expects to fund her university without her scholarship. That should help her see what she needs to do in order to keep it."

Either could plausibly be right. Which one is "benevolent"?

You see, the interpretation of the circumstances determines what "benevolence" in a given case would look like, and what it would involve. What is the objective of the situation: is it to produce a daughter that is protected from the consequences of her actions, no matter what they are, or is it to produce a girl who has a mature understanding of how actions and consequences should justly relate? The father's actions don't look, in the immediate, to be "benevolent," since they involve some pain and humiliation for the daughter. He's advocating for a sharp lesson for her. By contrast, the mother's actions are immediately protective and are likely to result in less immediate pain for the girl; but is it "benevolent," if they result in a girl who is lazy and irresponsible in her choices?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:37 am
Astro Cat wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:35 am It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?
Do you think something can be omnipotent without being omniscient?
That’s an interesting question. I think the answer is yes. The followup question would be whether omnipotence includes the capacity to bestow omniscience, which I think is also an interesting conundrum (how to give knowledge without that knowledge?)
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Omniscience and omnibenevolence

Post by Astro Cat »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:54 pm Hello again, AC.
Hi! Sorry for the truncated quote (it should still link to your post), I’m tapping away on my phone and it’s difficult to highlight and c/p quotes here.

Regarding omnipotence: when I present the PoE I generally define omnipotence as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs: this resolves the “rock so heavy He can’t lift it” paradox nicely. I think this also applies to a being acting against its nature (which would effectively be asking A not to be logically identical to A).

Regarding omnibenevolence, when I have the time, I usually try to make a sidebar on this term because of the three omni’s, this one is the most wiggly to nail down (followed by omniscience).

As a matter of fact, I’ve been moved at times to nix the premise of omnibenevolence and replacing it with something like “never malevolent,” with malevolence being the willful action of inflicting suffering for suffering’s sake (or so I would define it). Edit: also, it would be malevolent to act in a way that harms another (say, out of self-interest) when it’s possible to still meet one’s goal without harming the other. Malevolence needs its own sidebar, lol. Maybe I mean something like “never malevolent AND never negligent.”

If the theist in question thinks that God willfully inflicts suffering for the sake of suffering and not as a means to an end, for instance, then the PoE that I typically give just doesn’t apply to that concept of God: its premises are moot/not met.

A lot of people have this intuition, though, that God is never malevolent. So the apparent incongruence with the physical suffering we see in the world is what my version of the PoE highlights in an attempt to get people with that sort of intuition to introspect.
Post Reply