God's Omniscience: Ends Justify Means?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?

If so, this would explain God's special moral privilege. God, and only God, can do whatever he wants in service of his ends, not only because his goals are ultimately good, but because he alone can be absolutely certain he will achieve them. This would explain why mortals do not have the same moral privilege, and why we're not supposed to murder to achieve our ends. It's not because our ends are necessarily evil, but because, even if we have good goals, we can't be absolutely certain this act will actually achieve that goal. And isn't it inherent in the idea that "ends justify the means" that those ends must actually be achieved?

But here's a real doozy of a sub-question: Is it even logically possible for a being to know for certain if it is really omniscient? It knows everything it knows, but isn't the idea that this is all... fundamentally an assumption? Isn't it logically necessary that for any being, "I am omniscient," simply assumes nothing exists outside the breadth of its knowledge, when it always might? I exist in three spatial dimensions: Length, width, and breadth. I can't say there aren't four, or five, or twenty million dimensions of space, and critters flying around me in the "new upward" where I can't possibly crane my neck and look, but they can still reach down, and affect me. God exists in, what, 26 spatial dimensions? Can he say there aren't 27? It's possible to never have made a mistake. It's possible to never have got one thing wrong in your life. But is it possible to say this trend will necessarily, absolutely continue, with 100% certainty?

...And if it can't make that determination, that it is omniscient, with 100% certainty, doesn't that then cast its actions for the sake of its grand Plan, in the same light as any of our actions, when we do something horrid to try and achieve a better end?

[boatsnguitars]

No, because the negative impact to others is part of the equation. Cutting off ones arm to cure a hangnail isn't justified under utilitarianism since it not having an arm is worse Utility than having a hangnail.
Would you like to argue otherwise?

I think it could be used to justify for example killing of a group of people that majority doesn't like. When the idea is to maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals, one could argue that it is achieved by killing for example people who annoy some people. It could be also used to limit freedom of people and for example to control number of population. However, in many cases it can become very arbitrary, because the idea of maximum happiness is very subjective.

OK , Hitler! Haha!

Really, you think that a society based on killing people we don't like is a happier society? You mean like ISIS?
You want to live in a world where you and your family might be killed because you wore white after Labor Day, or prayed to Jesus?

This is why I keep reminding people that Christians don't understand morality.

[boatsnguitars]

So, you think amputation is not a good idea, it would be better to let person die than amputate? In some cases I think it really could maximize persons happiness and well-being, although I hope no one would have to make that decision. however, I think Bible is not recommending people to cut their body parts, only showing that consequences of sin can be more severe than losing eyes.

Have you ever looking at a woman lustfully? Pluck out your eyes.

Go on. Take your God's own advice. What if you're an alcoholic? Do you cut out your stomach or your brain?

Tell us all about how Christians use amputation to address morality! We are all dying to know... but it's weird... I don't see many Christians plucking out their eyes, or cutting off limbs... is it because they are perfect, or just don't think Hell is that bad?

Why not? What does God do in Heaven to keep people from sinning?

It seems to me that you would like God to be similar tyrant as world leaders. I think God wanted people to be free. That means they can choose good or evil. But, God has sent people to teach how to live well. For some reason many people love evil more than good. I think it is nice that God allowed people to choose.

Except when he's flooding the Earth, right? Hardening the Pharaoh's heart? Telling his armies to kill all the men, women, children and livestock? Turning people into pillars of salt?

Did the babies he had killed have a chance to choose?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?

It appears to be the case, or generally Bible believers appear to be arguing that this is the case.

But here's a real doozy of a sub-question: Is it even logically possible for a being to know for certain if it is really omniscient?

In terms of the concept of an overall Mind knowing everything about an overall Universe, I think it is logically possible.

I think it is also possible for an individual personality/mind to be omniscient about it's subjective reality being experienced...although I also think that most of that data is held at subconscious level of said personality/mind and are thus not consciously experienced as a block of information, but rather are "fetched" from the subconscious by conscious will to do so.

This "process" may be how an overall Universal Mind might function as well. It may be a case of "having access ( to information ) when required" and we individual Minds, - whether housed within the experience of being human, or in some other form ( Planet/Star/Galaxy ) act as those "subconscious" levels within the overall Universal Mind - and are "accessible" re that.

[Purple Knight]

What God wants is moral not because God says so (and because God is all powerful), but because the end that God seeks is one that we can stand behind, and join in on. It's more a path to objectivity through universal (subjective) acclaim, than it is anything intrinsic to the goal or ordained by God that makes it so.

I'm glad you admit this because I think this is the central issue and both 1) why I'm an atheist and 2) why I also feel I have an obligation to heed morality I don't agree with - because it isn't right for me to tear down that universal subjective consensus.

I can point out that this is not (in my opinion) a good hub for consensus, that we have alternatives that give everyone a voice, but if everyone agrees and I don't, and even a bad consensus is better than no consensus, in the end, when it comes to actions, I must do what is moral according to everybody else.

[Purple Knight]

The apologetics are faithbased and demand falsification of the unfalsifiable (there is a divine plan and it is Good) and such apolgetics are defiance, denial and little more than thumbing the nose at atheist 'You can't disprove the undisprovable'. But it was never about disproving the believer which they will never accept even with compelling evidence, but about the case that can be made to Moe public.

This is correct but I don't think falsifiability is the right battleground for this particular battle. We can't argue that we just win in the absence of evidence, because logic. It needs to be fought in terms of what we can and cannot know, and what is and isn't righteous, given that knowledge. Fall back from existence of God (which doesn't matter, actually) and fight on the moral issue. What is it moral to do, when we don't know that we can trust somebody?

Okay, the God of the Bible exists. Let's say he knows best. Does that mean he does best? Does that mean he doesn't lie? You can believe he doesn't lie, but that doesn't mean it's true. I can prove he lies (or at least, assumes and then states his assumption as truth) because he says he's omniscient and no being can guarantee its own omniscience. I think it's probably easier to get people to see that it's morally irresponsible to just trust whoever says they know best, even if they're powerful.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #24]

I can point out that this is not (in my opinion) a good hub for consensus, that we have alternatives that give everyone a voice, but if everyone agrees and I don't, and even a bad consensus is better than no consensus, in the end, when it comes to actions, I must do what is moral according to everybody else.

This highlights the tension between personal beliefs and societal norms. It raises questions about the nature of consensus and whether it can be a reliable guide to morality.

I think this is the philosophy decent members of German Society followed and why, with the event of Naziism, those same decent citizens where able to transition from being "decent" to being "indecent" ( re appearances and moral values ) without flinching or even questioning the contradiction involved with the transition, and even went to the gallows without remorse, because they were serving a greater thing than themselves and "being a supportive citizen" to the country they were born in so a death sentence was seen as an honor and they saw themselves as martyrs, if not outright victims.

20/20 hindsight is great, but what can be learned from this?


The lessons that can be learned from this historical example include the dangers of blind obedience to authority, jumping on the band-wagon of popular belief, evading personal responsibility for moral compass, and creating the potential for ordinary individuals to commit atrocities when they believe they are serving a greater cause.
The importance of individual moral responsibility appears to be underestimated.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #24]

even a bad consensus is better than no consensus, in the end, when it comes to actions, I must do what is moral according to everybody else.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #25]

I think it's probably easier to get people to see that it's morally irresponsible to just trust whoever says they know best, even if they're powerful.

How to bridge this apparent contradiction?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #24]

I can point out that this is not (in my opinion) a good hub for consensus, that we have alternatives that give everyone a voice, but if everyone agrees and I don't, and even a bad consensus is better than no consensus, in the end, when it comes to actions, I must do what is moral according to everybody else.

This highlights the tension between personal beliefs and societal norms. It raises questions about the nature of consensus and whether it can be a reliable guide to morality.

I think this is the philosophy decent members of German Society followed and why, with the event of Naziism, those same decent citizens where able to transition from being "decent" to being "indecent" ( re appearances and moral values ) without flinching or even questioning the contradiction involved with the transition, and even went to the gallows without remorse, because they were serving a greater thing than themselves and "being a supportive citizen" to the country they were born in so a death sentence was seen as an honor and they saw themselves as martyrs, if not outright victims.

20/20 hindsight is great, but what can be learned from this?

That questioning the established morality has to be built in as part of that morality. That people must have a right to speak freely, even if their opinions are despised; that the government and society must stand up for and protect this. That "you can't question X because questioning X is evil" has to be immediately torn down whenever it rears its head, even if that particular head is beautiful and obviously righteous.

The lesson to be learned is not that people don't have to go along with actions. It means people ordered to send the Jews to the camps should send them to the camps, even if they know it's wrong. It means people who like the idea of a purge society should still not commit murder even if they think it's okay.

However, it means that both of these people should be free to speak out.

And if you don't trust that when the marketplace of ideas weighs, measures, and judges these fellows, that it will come out in favour of not sending Jews to camps, and that it will shoot down legalised murder, then you believe in blind authoritarianism anyway because you believe the masses are too stupid to sort a good idea from a bad one without government help.

[TRANSPONDER]

The apologetics are faithbased and demand falsification of the unfalsifiable (there is a divine plan and it is Good) and such apolgetics are defiance, denial and little more than thumbing the nose at atheist 'You can't disprove the undisprovable'. But it was never about disproving the believer which they will never accept even with compelling evidence, but about the case that can be made to Moe public.

This is correct but I don't think falsifiability is the right battleground for this particular battle. We can't argue that we just win in the absence of evidence, because logic. It needs to be fought in terms of what we can and cannot know, and what is and isn't righteous, given that knowledge. Fall back from existence of God (which doesn't matter, actually) and fight on the moral issue. What is it moral to do, when we don't know that we can trust somebody?

Okay, the God of the Bible exists. Let's say he knows best. Does that mean he does best? Does that mean he doesn't lie? You can believe he doesn't lie, but that doesn't mean it's true. I can prove he lies (or at least, assumes and then states his assumption as truth) because he says he's omniscient and no being can guarantee its own omniscience. I think it's probably easier to get people to see that it's morally irresponsible to just trust whoever says they know best, even if they're powerful.

This is indeed the case. The Bible supposedly presents a god that is Good, just, hates evil, loved righteousness. Right from the start the problem of evil questioned this and the answer was 'God's logic'. This means that the human reasoning is wrong and the Good God does it is not comprehensible to us.

One either buys that (God's plan is good, even if it looks bad) or we make a general assessment that the Bible is wrong about some things, not coherent in morals and has every sign of being a couple of man made books with different agendas. The 'default' is to say that the Bible claim (Godclaims) are not credible and the burden of proof falls back on the believer to show that they are.

'God's plan is good in a way we can't grasp or even know' is not an answer but an excuse or evasion. It comes down to a matter of Faith, not reason or logic because human reason is limited and God's logic is different from ours. So the apologetic goes.

So, it is back to faithbased 'believe or not' and while unfalsifiable, is not reasonable, logical or credible, not to anyone who uses reason or logic.

The claim I got was the not unfamililiar smirk and middle finger to atheists 'I don't care what you say, I still believe si I win, or at least tongue out to you atheists'. That's what the Theist case amounts to. And we had it just now with a post of a smirking face and 'You have not convinced me'.

Let them have their fun, but it isn't any kind of case.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #28]

How to bridge this apparent contradiction?