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?

[theophile]

The bible is pretty clear that God isn't always there. God rests at the end of Genesis 1. God leaves Adam and Eve alone for times. God isn't there to save Jesus dying on the cross...

Again, it's a scaling problem. Perhaps even God can't be everywhere, and you're overestimating what God can do.

Or maybe God is never there and you are overestimating what God can do. We are tending the garden on our own, weeds and all.

I think that's a much better assumption than the other extreme, that God is omni-whatever. Frankly, I have no issue assuming this at all. (If 'God' is our stumbling block, we should do away with it.)

I'd say it is not so much a 'stumbling -block' as an insufficient answer, let alone a necessary one. I propose or reiterate that instinct, evolved and instructed, is a better explanation than a god (whichever one) as it explains why it (morals, etc and making it work) isn't as perfect as we would like it to be.

I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. We both reject the traditional God as some sort of founding assumption. (By which I don't mean the biblical God but rather what that God was turned into after 1000s of years of theology and popular belief.) I just see God as something that emerges as part of the process (or something like it) that you describe. Something closer to the living network of things that over time have come to share a certain end, and the spirit that unites them.

The church is the popular term for this network, but it is rooted in the deeper Pauline concept of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12 for instance), which is for all intents and purposes the physical manifestation of God. i.e., multiple members all working in unison toward the same end under the head of Christ.

And while this all may sound mystical and outlandish, it's really not. Pretty basic concepts we see all around us, albeit couched in religious terminology that can be a stumbling block for many.

[TRANSPONDER]

The bible is pretty clear that God isn't always there. God rests at the end of Genesis 1. God leaves Adam and Eve alone for times. God isn't there to save Jesus dying on the cross...

Again, it's a scaling problem. Perhaps even God can't be everywhere, and you're overestimating what God can do.

Or maybe God is never there and you are overestimating what God can do. We are tending the garden on our own, weeds and all.

I think that's a much better assumption than the other extreme, that God is omni-whatever. Frankly, I have no issue assuming this at all. (If 'God' is our stumbling block, we should do away with it.)

I'd say it is not so much a 'stumbling -block' as an insufficient answer, let alone a necessary one. I propose or reiterate that instinct, evolved and instructed, is a better explanation than a god (whichever one) as it explains why it (morals, etc and making it work) isn't as perfect as we would like it to be.

I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. We both reject the traditional God as some sort of founding assumption. (By which I don't mean the biblical God but rather what that God was turned into after 1000s of years of theology and popular belief.) I just see God as something that emerges as part of the process (or something like it) that you describe. Something closer to the living network of things that over time have come to share a certain end, and the spirit that unites them.

The church is the popular term for this network, but it is rooted in the deeper Pauline concept of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12 for instance), which is for all intents and purposes the physical manifestation of God. i.e., multiple members all working in unison toward the same end under the head of Christ.

And while this all may sound mystical and outlandish, it's really not. Pretty basic concepts we see all around us, albeit couched in religious terminology that can be a stumbling block for many.

Absolutely. I can see you are well on the way. I see the world of physics, material reality, biology and (oh yes) evolution and the world of human imagination, society, instinct and rules. You see a 'god' or some sort, a cosmic mind of the kind that many theists propose. I see no real need for it, but residual godfaith, but you appear to be doing ok.

Even though you still seem to see the Church and Paulinist Christianity as somehow the legitimate expression of all this. Maybe this is where you are now and it may be where you always were. I'm just saying that I see no reasonable or valid case to believe any of the Theist claims, let alone the religious -sectarian ones.

[theophile]

The bible is pretty clear that God isn't always there. God rests at the end of Genesis 1. God leaves Adam and Eve alone for times. God isn't there to save Jesus dying on the cross...

Again, it's a scaling problem. Perhaps even God can't be everywhere, and you're overestimating what God can do.

Or maybe God is never there and you are overestimating what God can do. We are tending the garden on our own, weeds and all.

I think that's a much better assumption than the other extreme, that God is omni-whatever. Frankly, I have no issue assuming this at all. (If 'God' is our stumbling block, we should do away with it.)

I'd say it is not so much a 'stumbling -block' as an insufficient answer, let alone a necessary one. I propose or reiterate that instinct, evolved and instructed, is a better explanation than a god (whichever one) as it explains why it (morals, etc and making it work) isn't as perfect as we would like it to be.

I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. We both reject the traditional God as some sort of founding assumption. (By which I don't mean the biblical God but rather what that God was turned into after 1000s of years of theology and popular belief.) I just see God as something that emerges as part of the process (or something like it) that you describe. Something closer to the living network of things that over time have come to share a certain end, and the spirit that unites them.

The church is the popular term for this network, but it is rooted in the deeper Pauline concept of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12 for instance), which is for all intents and purposes the physical manifestation of God. i.e., multiple members all working in unison toward the same end under the head of Christ.

And while this all may sound mystical and outlandish, it's really not. Pretty basic concepts we see all around us, albeit couched in religious terminology that can be a stumbling block for many.

Absolutely. I can see you are well on the way. I see the world of physics, material reality, biology and (oh yes) evolution and the world of human imagination, society, instinct and rules. You see a 'god' or some sort, a cosmic mind of the kind that many theists propose. I see no real need for it, but residual godfaith, but you appear to be doing ok.

Even though you still seem to see the Church and Paulinist Christianity as somehow the legitimate expression of all this. Maybe this is where you are now and it may be where you always were. I'm just saying that I see no reasonable or valid case to believe any of the Theist claims, let alone the religious -sectarian ones.

If you boil down what I said, all I'm really positing is an end. By which I mean an overarching intention or objective for what you call material reality. I don't think I require a "cosmic mind" to posit such a thing. Any human mind will suffice for its creation. What's required is recognizing such an end as divine, and the collective of those bringing it into being as God (i.e., the body of Christ).

As such, 'God' is more of an honorific that we choose to apply than it is the name of some pre-determined being out there.

[TRANSPONDER]

The bible is pretty clear that God isn't always there. God rests at the end of Genesis 1. God leaves Adam and Eve alone for times. God isn't there to save Jesus dying on the cross...

Again, it's a scaling problem. Perhaps even God can't be everywhere, and you're overestimating what God can do.

Or maybe God is never there and you are overestimating what God can do. We are tending the garden on our own, weeds and all.

I think that's a much better assumption than the other extreme, that God is omni-whatever. Frankly, I have no issue assuming this at all. (If 'God' is our stumbling block, we should do away with it.)

I'd say it is not so much a 'stumbling -block' as an insufficient answer, let alone a necessary one. I propose or reiterate that instinct, evolved and instructed, is a better explanation than a god (whichever one) as it explains why it (morals, etc and making it work) isn't as perfect as we would like it to be.

I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. We both reject the traditional God as some sort of founding assumption. (By which I don't mean the biblical God but rather what that God was turned into after 1000s of years of theology and popular belief.) I just see God as something that emerges as part of the process (or something like it) that you describe. Something closer to the living network of things that over time have come to share a certain end, and the spirit that unites them.

The church is the popular term for this network, but it is rooted in the deeper Pauline concept of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12 for instance), which is for all intents and purposes the physical manifestation of God. i.e., multiple members all working in unison toward the same end under the head of Christ.

And while this all may sound mystical and outlandish, it's really not. Pretty basic concepts we see all around us, albeit couched in religious terminology that can be a stumbling block for many.

Absolutely. I can see you are well on the way. I see the world of physics, material reality, biology and (oh yes) evolution and the world of human imagination, society, instinct and rules. You see a 'god' or some sort, a cosmic mind of the kind that many theists propose. I see no real need for it, but residual godfaith, but you appear to be doing ok.

Even though you still seem to see the Church and Paulinist Christianity as somehow the legitimate expression of all this. Maybe this is where you are now and it may be where you always were. I'm just saying that I see no reasonable or valid case to believe any of the Theist claims, let alone the religious -sectarian ones.

If you boil down what I said, all I'm really positing is an end. By which I mean an overarching intention or objective for what you call material reality. I don't think I require a "cosmic mind" to posit such a thing. Any human mind will suffice for its creation. What's required is recognizing such an end as divine, and the collective of those bringing it into being as God (i.e., the body of Christ).

As such, 'God' is more of an honorific that we choose to apply than it is the name of some pre-determined being out there.

I still think you are well on the way. The only diference I see is this residual (I guess) 'Divine' concept applied to the natural and human processes that drive Life, the Universe and Everything, as the Book title succinctly puts it.

I suggested it was a 'cosmic Mind' or Deist -god. We goddless can do business with Deists. But even while welcoming them as cousins, friends and allies in pushing religion back from its' position of authority and influence, we are obliged to ask, 'what evidence is there for this Cosmic Mind?' It isn't a hill to fight over (unless the Deist is one of those "agnostics" who battle atheists, apparently for political reasons) but it is a doubt and question of the last residual Theist faith.

Of course 'Divine' may mean something else to you than a Cosmic Mind' (and possibly a creative and even intervening one). In which case, just what does 'divine' as applied to apparently natural, material, physical and evolutionary processes, mean to you?

[theophile]

The bible is pretty clear that God isn't always there. God rests at the end of Genesis 1. God leaves Adam and Eve alone for times. God isn't there to save Jesus dying on the cross...

Again, it's a scaling problem. Perhaps even God can't be everywhere, and you're overestimating what God can do.

Or maybe God is never there and you are overestimating what God can do. We are tending the garden on our own, weeds and all.

I think that's a much better assumption than the other extreme, that God is omni-whatever. Frankly, I have no issue assuming this at all. (If 'God' is our stumbling block, we should do away with it.)

I'd say it is not so much a 'stumbling -block' as an insufficient answer, let alone a necessary one. I propose or reiterate that instinct, evolved and instructed, is a better explanation than a god (whichever one) as it explains why it (morals, etc and making it work) isn't as perfect as we would like it to be.

I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. We both reject the traditional God as some sort of founding assumption. (By which I don't mean the biblical God but rather what that God was turned into after 1000s of years of theology and popular belief.) I just see God as something that emerges as part of the process (or something like it) that you describe. Something closer to the living network of things that over time have come to share a certain end, and the spirit that unites them.

The church is the popular term for this network, but it is rooted in the deeper Pauline concept of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12 for instance), which is for all intents and purposes the physical manifestation of God. i.e., multiple members all working in unison toward the same end under the head of Christ.

And while this all may sound mystical and outlandish, it's really not. Pretty basic concepts we see all around us, albeit couched in religious terminology that can be a stumbling block for many.

Absolutely. I can see you are well on the way. I see the world of physics, material reality, biology and (oh yes) evolution and the world of human imagination, society, instinct and rules. You see a 'god' or some sort, a cosmic mind of the kind that many theists propose. I see no real need for it, but residual godfaith, but you appear to be doing ok.

Even though you still seem to see the Church and Paulinist Christianity as somehow the legitimate expression of all this. Maybe this is where you are now and it may be where you always were. I'm just saying that I see no reasonable or valid case to believe any of the Theist claims, let alone the religious -sectarian ones.

If you boil down what I said, all I'm really positing is an end. By which I mean an overarching intention or objective for what you call material reality. I don't think I require a "cosmic mind" to posit such a thing. Any human mind will suffice for its creation. What's required is recognizing such an end as divine, and the collective of those bringing it into being as God (i.e., the body of Christ).

As such, 'God' is more of an honorific that we choose to apply than it is the name of some pre-determined being out there.

I still think you are well on the way. The only diference I see is this residual (I guess) 'Divine' concept applied to the natural and human processes that drive Life, the Universe and Everything, as the Book title succinctly puts it.

I suggested it was a 'cosmic Mind' or Deist -god. We goddless can do business with Deists. But even while welcoming them as cousins, friends and allies in pushing religion back from its' position of authority and influence, we are obliged to ask, 'what evidence is there for this Cosmic Mind?' It isn't a hill to fight over (unless the Deist is one of those "agnostics" who battle atheists, apparently for political reasons) but it is a doubt and question of the last residual Theist faith.

Of course 'Divine' may mean something else to you than a Cosmic Mind' (and possibly a creative and even intervening one). In which case, just what does 'divine' as applied to apparently natural, material, physical and evolutionary processes, mean to you?

When our forebears looked at the sun and its life-giving power, many of them thought it divine. Same lightning strikes or rain. Or the earth itself, as some sort of fecund mother goddess.

In these and similar cases, we see an attribution of godliness to things in the world based on preconceived notions of divinity and how those things conform. And that's kind of my point: divinity is not something in itself, but something we conceive / recognize as such, and then apply. That's what I mean by 'God' as an honorific. 'God' is what ancient Israel chose to call that which conformed to their preconceived notion of divinity. Just as the Egyptians did with the sun. Both going on from there to personify it, tell stories about it, etc.

For me, and I think this is a persistent theme throughout the history of theology, that preconceived notion of divinity is that which brings life. All life-giving things have a divine aspect to them, and insofar as they foster life, or actively promote it and seek it as their end, they are God in my view. i.e., they are part of the network of things / collective that constitutes what Paul calls the body of Christ. Or what the author of Genesis 1 called Elohim (by which I mean the 'us' in "Let us".)

So you see, no cosmic mind here. Nor anything that conflicts with materialism per se. But just a life-giving spirit we can all recognize as such if we so choose. One that has been mindlessly (arbitrarily) at work through natural processes. One that we can mindfully become part of and take to the next level in our own lives. One that can become a cosmic collective and force in its own right, shaping our ultimate end. One that I can ultimately believe in, and readily identify throughout the world.