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?

[1213]

...
Really, you think that a society based on killing people we don't like is a happier society? ...

Some could think so and use utilitarianism to justify it. For example:

If there would be 100 people and 90 of them would be not happy because of the 10 and the 10 would be extremely unhappy because of the 90 existing, the 10 could justify killing the 90 by saying: "it ends their misery, and it also makes us happy. And the result would be much happier society".

Not for the majority who are dead. Not for the few that might have had loved ones killed. Not for the remaining people who wonder if you will decide to kill them too. And not for the killers, who have to wonder if people will kill them in their sleep to avoid them doing the same.

Wikipedia says about utilitarianism:
"is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

If that is correct, then it could be used as I told, to maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals. I think it is not a good ethical or moral idea. I like more of the Biblical idea that murder is wrong always, even if it would make someone happy.

[1213]

A construct like that on paper might look as though it was valid, or at least a spurious validity forced on the Other side, but it ignores so many things. Like for instance #The 10% is not happy? Let's find out why and improve their situation". That really didn't occur to you? "I would be happier if those people weren't there" Maybe, but if you were the 10% the 90% would be better off without, it would be valid to do away with you? Even I, a secularist, wouldn't not entertain such a thing. Either you are psychotic in thinking that is a valid proposition, or you are dishonest in suggesting that is how secularism thinks.

I only wanted to show how it could be used for bad things, which is why I think it is not a good ethical or moral rule.

[TRANSPONDER]

A construct like that on paper might look as though it was valid, or at least a spurious validity forced on the Other side, but it ignores so many things. Like for instance #The 10% is not happy? Let's find out why and improve their situation". That really didn't occur to you? "I would be happier if those people weren't there" Maybe, but if you were the 10% the 90% would be better off without, it would be valid to do away with you? Even I, a secularist, wouldn't not entertain such a thing. Either you are psychotic in thinking that is a valid proposition, or you are dishonest in suggesting that is how secularism thinks.

I only wanted to show how it could be used for bad things, which is why I think it is not a good ethical or moral rule.

Just as the Biblical 'don't murder' - already a wiggle as killing is not murder (a crime) if God says it's ok shows that the Biblical morality can also be misused. The point is to take all these sociological (and indeed religious) ideas and use them in the best way we can (in theory) with Reciprocity (Golden Rule) as the touchstone in all cases. Everyone has rights, including even those we think are wrong and even dangerous.

The danger is not human moral ideas and systems when we temper them with reason and empathy, but those who are convinced they should do whatever they want and damn the Rights of anyone else, because their god says so.

[Hawkins]

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

That's quite a No. God sets up Law and He mostly works what Law permits. God's first job on earth is to literally kill everyone as a duty enforced by Law. Eveyone dies in one way or another as a curse brought us by Adam's sin. What God cares on the other hand, is where our soul will end up with after we died. That sets the base of God's morality which is to save every soul possible (i.e., God's sheep and God's Elect as signified by His omniscience). Law is an open stardard applied, God's omniscience is irrelevant whereever Law is applicable. An analogy is, if your mayor knew in advance that you are a criminal, is it good for him to put you in jail right away without going through a trial of laws? Law is an open stardard followed up by an open Final Judgment. God's omniscience is rather irrelevant in the process. What relevant is that you can verify afterward with the Book of Life to see how accurate God's foreknowledge can be.

God's second but most important job on earth is to provide salvation for humankind. This includes the removal of Canaanites to establish Israel as a vessel for God's message to reach today's humans for them to be saved. God's opposing force for His salvation job to be done is from the devil who religious controls the Canaanites, making them ready to outnumber the Jews and stop the Jews from settling down in Canaan.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

The 'sorting out' has already been done,so to speak. But there is still a lot of discussion, reasoning and modification to be done. It won't do itself.

What is there to "sort out" and "why"?

[boatsnguitars]

...
Really, you think that a society based on killing people we don't like is a happier society? ...

Some could think so and use utilitarianism to justify it. For example:

If there would be 100 people and 90 of them would be not happy because of the 10 and the 10 would be extremely unhappy because of the 90 existing, the 10 could justify killing the 90 by saying: "it ends their misery, and it also makes us happy. And the result would be much happier society".

Not for the majority who are dead. Not for the few that might have had loved ones killed. Not for the remaining people who wonder if you will decide to kill them too. And not for the killers, who have to wonder if people will kill them in their sleep to avoid them doing the same.

Again, you have such a poor understanding of ethics because you've been taught there is a Divine King that establishes morality by fiat, and not that we have to figure out how to co-exist.

Your answer is completely in line with Yahweh flooding the world and commanding genocide: you think these are good things, if they result in the happiness of a few people. That's not the only calculation. Whether it makes God happy, or a minority happy at the moment, or if it makes a majority happy at the moment isn't the only calculation to make in Utilitarianism.

Even if you were to establish that killing 90 people to make 10 happy - AND you had proof that it would, long term, be a better solution overall, there are still factors to consider: like are there other means? This is the part you are missing. Your next ploy will be to come up with such a specific and restricted hypothetical like: "If the ONLY way to make society happy, long term, and there are no other options, would be to kill 90% of the population (Like God flooding the world) - then it's justified under Utilitarianism!"

Duh! It's the ONLY option! There are no other means.

But, look what you've done - you've equated Divine Command theory with Utilitarianism!

I think maybe he has because the idea must be based on the idea that absolute knowledge that the deed should be done for the common good and only God would know that. The problem with humans doing it is that no god is telling them so they are merely being misguidedly evil.

But that is just what you get when religious fanatics think their god is telling them to such things. Humanists know they can't be so sure so don't come to such conclusions.

It gets so absurd, right?

Here we have someone telling us that the means (genocide) are appropriate if God says so (because they simply accept that the guy commanding the genocide speaks for God). But then they tell us this genocide (the flood) is to stop humanity from suffering from sin - then they tell us the world is awash in sin!
And, the cherry - it's just a story! There was no Flood, so wth are they even talking about?!
And, not for nothing, how do they even know God knows genocide stops sin?! It doesn't - demonstrably - but how do they even know (if God exists) that he's as smart as they claim!?!? His track record is abysmal! He failed to create a Paradise on Earth (Eden), he failed with HumanityBeta, he's failed with Humanity 2.0, he failed by sending his son/himself to save the world, he keeps failing - and Yahwehists keep calling him smart! It's Trump all over again! They think their heroes are playing 9 dimensional chess, when in reality they are still trying to figure out checkers - and the followers don't even know what checkers is.

It's like a big joke and the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Peter Principle are all part of the punchline somehow...

Honestly, I can't imagine a fate worse than being religious.

[1213]

...
The danger is not human moral ideas and systems when we temper them with reason and empathy, but those who are convinced they should do whatever they want and damn the Rights of anyone else, because their god says so.

It is interesting that when God gave the rules for the judges, He said:

So says Jehovah of hosts, saying, Judge true judgment, and practice kindness and pity...
Zec. 7:9

What do you think that means?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

The 'sorting out' has already been done,so to speak. But there is still a lot of discussion, reasoning and modification to be done. It won't do itself.

What is there to "sort out" and "why"?

Human social and moral codes and ethics. As I said, this has basically been done. But obviously we have had to modify and go forward in the past and will probably have to do so in the future

...
The danger is not human moral ideas and systems when we temper them with reason and empathy, but those who are convinced they should do whatever they want and damn the Rights of anyone else, because their god says so.

It is interesting that when God gave the rules for the judges, He said:

So says Jehovah of hosts, saying, Judge true judgment, and practice kindness and pity...
Zec. 7:9

What do you think that means?

"Do as I say, not as I do, at least until I order some atrocity or other".

[theophile]

It gets so absurd, right?

Here we have someone telling us that the means (genocide) are appropriate if God says so (because they simply accept that the guy commanding the genocide speaks for God). But then they tell us this genocide (the flood) is to stop humanity from suffering from sin - then they tell us the world is awash in sin!
And, the cherry - it's just a story! There was no Flood, so wth are they even talking about?!
And, not for nothing, how do they even know God knows genocide stops sin?! It doesn't - demonstrably - but how do they even know (if God exists) that he's as smart as they claim!?!? His track record is abysmal! He failed to create a Paradise on Earth (Eden), he failed with HumanityBeta, he's failed with Humanity 2.0, he failed by sending his son/himself to save the world, he keeps failing - and Yahwehists keep calling him smart! It's Trump all over again! They think their heroes are playing 9 dimensional chess, when in reality they are still trying to figure out checkers - and the followers don't even know what checkers is.

It's like a big joke and the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Peter Principle are all part of the punchline somehow...

Honestly, I can't imagine a fate worse than being religious.

While I hate to barge in, I feel a defense is called for. Note: I am by no means defending what may have been said before, but am reacting to your post alone here.

A few points.

1. Einstein used extreme (/ridiculous) thought experiments (/stories) like trains travelling at the speed of light to unpack relativity. If this approach (i.e., ridiculous stories) can yield value for us here, then why not in the bible?

2. More importantly, on genocide, you have to situate the flood in the context of the goal God is trying to achieve, which from Genesis 1 is a world filled with life, where all kinds of life can flourish and be. The flood story is an extreme case (see 1) meant to show the extreme means we may need to take to get there.

e.g., Picture a garden that has become completely overgrown with weeds that are choking out all the other plants. You are the gardener looking down. What do you do? No different here.

3. On God's failures, sure, God has so far failed to achieve God's end. We can argue all the reasons why but this is absolutely true. While it may mean God is stupid, it doesn't mean God's end is wrong, nor the extreme means we may need to take to get there.

[boatsnguitars]

It gets so absurd, right?

Here we have someone telling us that the means (genocide) are appropriate if God says so (because they simply accept that the guy commanding the genocide speaks for God). But then they tell us this genocide (the flood) is to stop humanity from suffering from sin - then they tell us the world is awash in sin!
And, the cherry - it's just a story! There was no Flood, so wth are they even talking about?!
And, not for nothing, how do they even know God knows genocide stops sin?! It doesn't - demonstrably - but how do they even know (if God exists) that he's as smart as they claim!?!? His track record is abysmal! He failed to create a Paradise on Earth (Eden), he failed with HumanityBeta, he's failed with Humanity 2.0, he failed by sending his son/himself to save the world, he keeps failing - and Yahwehists keep calling him smart! It's Trump all over again! They think their heroes are playing 9 dimensional chess, when in reality they are still trying to figure out checkers - and the followers don't even know what checkers is.

It's like a big joke and the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Peter Principle are all part of the punchline somehow...

Honestly, I can't imagine a fate worse than being religious.

While I hate to barge in, I feel a defense is called for. Note: I am by no means defending what may have been said before, but am reacting to your post alone here.

A few points.

1. Einstein used extreme (/ridiculous) thought experiments (/stories) like trains travelling at the speed of light to unpack relativity. If this approach (i.e., ridiculous stories) can yield value for us here, then why not in the bible?

Yeah... no, I'm not going to equate the incredible understanding Einstein had with that of people who told stories about people living in fish for 3 days. Einstien was trying to explain something he understood. Religionists will regularly tell you they are trying to explain the unexplainable.

Let's not - for another second - think that religion is like science in any way.

2. More importantly, on genocide, you have to situate the flood in the context of the goal God is trying to achieve, which from Genesis 1 is a world filled with life, where all kinds of life can flourish and be. The flood story is an extreme case (see 1) meant to show the extreme means we may need to take to get there.

Does it show that? Did we get there? No.
But, more importantly, isn't it a story written by Men trying to explain something that can't possibly know?
And, what would it show, even if it was God: that sometimes God is allowed to wripe us out to... save us? Or is it that we are sometimes allowed to wipe everyone out if we think it's best?
Under your argument, all Hitler had to do was say, "Sorry, God told me to. You'll have to like it now. You know, for the good of all Life."

e.g., Picture a garden that has become completely overgrown with weeds that are choking out all the other plants. You are the gardener looking down. What do you do? No different here.

You'd burn down the garden?
How about remove the weeds? Just the weeds? Does God not have the capability to remove the weeds without touching the fruits?
Wouldn't that be the actual, more valuable lesson from a wise person: remove only that which is necessary to allow most things to flourish?
That certainly isn't the story from the Bible: it's kill all the men, women, children, livestock, and threaten everyone with Hell.
Maybe that works for a few people, but it's not a good managerial strategy.

3. On God's failures, sure, God has so far failed to achieve God's end. We can argue all the reasons why but this is absolutely true. While it may mean God is stupid, it doesn't mean God's end is wrong, nor the extreme means we may need to take to get there.

I also doesn't mean God right, does it? How would you know?

Maybe you should be angry with God for not knowing what the heck he is doing... but, wait, a guy wrote in the Bible that you shouldn't question God, so, I guess you have to listen to that guy....