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]

Wholly disagree. As a story, it makes sense. As an actual strategy it doesn't.

Why doesn't it work as a strategy?

Well, did it actually get rid of sin?

Well, point in time it did. But no, it didn't get rid of the possibility of sin. I don't think that was the objective though.
Nor do I think that would be possible without similarly compromising the end goal. e.g., God would have had to wipe out humankind entirely. In which case, not all kinds of life would be included at the end and there would be nobody to help God achieve it.

So, there are people alive today that are sinning - just like people back then who were sinning, but God decided to kill them and not all the people since who have sinned? He never gave them a chance to repent? Sorry, it's not a good strategy - as evidenced. As a story, it's easy to reduce it to a simplistic message, but as an actual strategy for management (or whatever god thinks he's doing, if he exists)

Wouldn't the lesson be: God is a jerk? That's what comes across to me. God is a jerk, not smart and has no plan.

First, there is a difference in degree. Imagine a garden with a single weed growing in it. One with a bunch of weeds but where many of the other plants are still getting by. One that is a tangled mess of weeds where all the other plants are dead or in an emaciated state.. The hope is repentance (to your point) up until the point of no return. But sometimes things just get progressively worse and you need to make the call.

Second, there very well could be a powerful being looking down at us any moment wondering the very same thing as God in Genesis 5-6. About to open the floodgates on us. But more likely not. Recall, a core part of God's plan and means to the end is us. So it's not like God is constantly watching and weeding. Rather we should assume God is at rest or dealing with God-knows-what and the responsibility is ours.

You may think that's a bad plan to trust in us, and maybe it is. But you gotta scale somehow, right? Even if you're God.

[brunumb]

So it's not like God is constantly watching and weeding. Rather we should assume God is at rest or dealing with God-knows-what and the responsibility is ours.

You appear to be limiting God. He is after all the ultimate multi-tasker. If you really cared about your garden and knew the consequences of leaving that one weed to grow, you would pull it out.

[theophile]

So it's not like God is constantly watching and weeding. Rather we should assume God is at rest or dealing with God-knows-what and the responsibility is ours.

You appear to be limiting God. He is after all the ultimate multi-tasker. If you really cared about your garden and knew the consequences of leaving that one weed to grow, you would pull it out.

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.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #71]

First, there is a difference in degree. Imagine a garden with a single weed growing in it. One with a bunch of weeds but where many of the other plants are still getting by. One that is a tangled mess of weeds where all the other plants are dead or in an emaciated state.. The hope is repentance (to your point) up until the point of no return. But sometimes things just get progressively worse and you need to make the call.

Second, there very well could be a powerful being looking down at us any moment wondering the very same thing as God in Genesis 5-6. About to open the floodgates on us. But more likely not. Recall, a core part of God's plan and means to the end is us. So it's not like God is constantly watching and weeding. Rather we should assume God is at rest or dealing with God-knows-what and the responsibility is ours.

You may think that's a bad plan to trust in us, and maybe it is. But you gotta scale somehow, right? Even if you're God.

From the information I have been able to stitch together, part of the "fruit" of the garden the gardener harvests, are "Human Personalities", which become useful in other ways not directly related to the growths on Planet Earth.

Also, "God" is many layered and I think you are principally referring to the overall rather than the parts God-Consciousness "plays" in the Galactic Gardens created to be experienced.

If any mindful entity is watching and monitoring us (as a good gardener/scientist-God would do) and if the planet itself were that conscious/mindful/creative entity, it would make a great candidate for the local "God/Gardner/Scientist-Role", even explaining the reason the Bible-God exists and is able to commune with human-personalities attuned to that particular frequency.

The Deist-Type God you speak of, may not be so aware/interested/whatever, but as far as the stories go, the God of the Bible - and indeed - Jesus' understanding of said God (The Father) is that "He" is much closer to us than your statement implies....and watchful at that.

Further to that, my understanding is that the "watching" is done, not from some lofty position "above", but actually through the eyes of the attuned human personality, which allows for said God to understand implicitly/explicitly what the personality required in any given moment and pass that data into the awareness of the personality directly.

[boatsnguitars]

Wholly disagree. As a story, it makes sense. As an actual strategy it doesn't.

Why doesn't it work as a strategy?

Well, did it actually get rid of sin?

Well, point in time it did. But no, it didn't get rid of the possibility of sin. I don't think that was the objective though.
Nor do I think that would be possible without similarly compromising the end goal. e.g., God would have had to wipe out humankind entirely. In which case, not all kinds of life would be included at the end and there would be nobody to help God achieve it.

So, there are people alive today that are sinning - just like people back then who were sinning, but God decided to kill them and not all the people since who have sinned? He never gave them a chance to repent? Sorry, it's not a good strategy - as evidenced. As a story, it's easy to reduce it to a simplistic message, but as an actual strategy for management (or whatever god thinks he's doing, if he exists)

Wouldn't the lesson be: God is a jerk? That's what comes across to me. God is a jerk, not smart and has no plan.

First, there is a difference in degree. Imagine a garden with a single weed growing in it. One with a bunch of weeds but where many of the other plants are still getting by. One that is a tangled mess of weeds where all the other plants are dead or in an emaciated state.. The hope is repentance (to your point) up until the point of no return. But sometimes things just get progressively worse and you need to make the call.

That's a weak God that can't tackle the problem, without resorting to murder.

Second, there very well could be a powerful being looking down at us any moment wondering the very same thing as God in Genesis 5-6.

No there couldn't. Not "very well" at all. More like absolutely unreasonable to think.

[theophile]

Wholly disagree. As a story, it makes sense. As an actual strategy it doesn't.

Why doesn't it work as a strategy?

Well, did it actually get rid of sin?

Well, point in time it did. But no, it didn't get rid of the possibility of sin. I don't think that was the objective though.
Nor do I think that would be possible without similarly compromising the end goal. e.g., God would have had to wipe out humankind entirely. In which case, not all kinds of life would be included at the end and there would be nobody to help God achieve it.

So, there are people alive today that are sinning - just like people back then who were sinning, but God decided to kill them and not all the people since who have sinned? He never gave them a chance to repent? Sorry, it's not a good strategy - as evidenced. As a story, it's easy to reduce it to a simplistic message, but as an actual strategy for management (or whatever god thinks he's doing, if he exists)

Wouldn't the lesson be: God is a jerk? That's what comes across to me. God is a jerk, not smart and has no plan.

First, there is a difference in degree. Imagine a garden with a single weed growing in it. One with a bunch of weeds but where many of the other plants are still getting by. One that is a tangled mess of weeds where all the other plants are dead or in an emaciated state.. The hope is repentance (to your point) up until the point of no return. But sometimes things just get progressively worse and you need to make the call.

That's a weak God that can't tackle the problem, without resorting to murder.

Second, there very well could be a powerful being looking down at us any moment wondering the very same thing as God in Genesis 5-6.

No there couldn't. Not "very well" at all. More like absolutely unreasonable to think.

What, you think benevolent alien life with powers that far surpass ours (including the ability to reach and observe us) is absolutely unreasonable to think? Okay... I said it was "not likely" myself, but it's far from being absolutely unreasonable.

Also, I get why folks do it, but it's a bit of a strawman to assume so much power of God, e.g., that God is everywhere, all the time, and able to do all things. That's not the God of the bible, at least not until the end times so far as I can tell. And it makes the various stories ridiculous, to your point.

I would say that such a God-notion is a good example of something that is absolutely unreasonable to think, at least given where we are right now.

[brunumb]

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.

[William]

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.

This is why I wrote Post #74.

Perhaps what we think of as doing "on our own" is more the case of doing what we were designed to do - locally speaking.

Only - as Post #74 implies, we are simply (by and large) unaware of the influences in/at play and these influences are not disrupted by any particular position on such matters, that we may adopt and support re our beliefs.

They are simply interpreted through the lens of said positions. Examples being Materialist philosophy arguing that morality is derived from the natural causes of human evolution, while the supernaturalist philosophy say that morals derive from an influence they call "God" which they claim is outside of nature. (See “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”)

Those are not the only positions one can hold on the question.

[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.)

[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.