Reason, Omnibenevolence and Unknowns

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Reason, Omnibenevolence and Unknowns

Postby Certainly real » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:26 pm

Omnibenevolance is often defined as all-loving or infinitely good. If this contributes to Existence existing perfectly, then it is a necessary trait. If not, then it's irrelevant to the definition of true perfection.

Let's be rational ahead of being emotional. With that in mind, consider the following:

The problem of evil is cited as being irreconcilable with Existence being perfect. Let's break down why this happens and then assess whether it's a meaningful argument or not. 

I will start with the outline or conclusion: Existence being perfect and doing perfectly is something that is known via pure reason (see previous posts on the nature of Existence). How it does perfectly is something that pure reason dictates to be unknown to us because we lack omniscience. Essentially this means:

For there to be a counter argument to Existence doing perfectly, there'd have to be an objective instance of something not existing as maximally well as it can exist. For us to establish an objective instance of something existing not as maximally well as it can exist, we'd have to have full knowledge of it and its world and everything that relates to it including its future. Everything in Existence is connected or related in some way. So ultimately, we'd require omniscience to establish an objective instance of something not existing as maximally well as it can exist.

Simply put: 1) omniscience is required to know if something is not existing as well as it can do, and 2) no being can become omniscient from a non-omniscient state. Therefore 3) We as non-omniscient beings can never rationally establish an instance of something not existing as well as it can exist. It would be paradoxical. Since 3 is taken for granted and empiricism is paradoxically treated as such that it can override that which is known apriori, I will address 3 in more detail.

It is paradoxical to say something like P: All things considered, it is hypothetically impossible for Q to amount to a maximally good outcome.

Here's why:

Can P be demonstrated without omniscience? No. We lack omniscience which means we cannot consider all things. Can we ever become omniscient? No. Therefore P is clearly absurd. It's not even an unknown where we'd be able to say something like perhaps one day we'll be in a position where we can demonstrate P. We will never be able to demonstrate P and where we might have thought we did, we were clearly being irrational.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Reason, Omnibenevolence and Unknowns

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:00 pm

God will never and has never known what it's like to not be god. This is an impossibility as you define god as distinct from us.

That means every being in existence knows something god cannot possibly know, without not being god anymore.

Since the knowledge is lacking and knowledge is a form of presence, this means presence is lacking as well. Existence is not omnipresent.

All power is contained in existence, existence however is not all powerful.

How can it possibly be perfect for god to create by your own axiom, and infinite number of imperfect beings who live in a state of imperfection forever?

That's your God with your own logic. A jerk. God could have just not created all these infinite imperfect beings in the first place and been nice.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7210
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Reason, Omnibenevolence and Unknowns

Postby Certainly real » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:45 pm

Ecmandu wrote:God will never and has never known what it's like to not be god. This is an impossibility as you define god as distinct from us.

That means every being in existence knows something god cannot possibly know, without not being god anymore.

Since the knowledge is lacking and knowledge is a form of presence, this means presence is lacking as well. Existence is not omnipresent.


We've already discussed this Ecmandu. God can never become anything other than God. That would amount to being two different things at the same time. Like a square-circle or a married-bachelor. That is blatantly absurd.

Existence being anything other than omnipresent is paradoxical. Do you understand Existence as immaterial, material, or both?

Again, knowing what it's like to be x does not require being x. It requires the sufficient tools to decipher the information that amounts to the knowledge of: what it's like to be x.

All power is contained in existence, existence however is not all powerful.


How is this not paradoxical? All power is in Existence yet it is not all powerful.

How can it possibly be perfect for god to create by your own axiom, and infinite number of imperfect beings who live in a state of imperfection forever?


Imperfect beings aren't necessarily bad or pure evil. The potential for imperfect beings to exist really well is there. If we use our free-will and develop ourselves rationally and morally, then we'd have the potential to be existing in an awesome manner. If we don't, then that's a different matter. I can give various hypothetical possibilities to account for why we have evil people in the world or how they ultimately bring about the maximum amount of good. This is possible. However, as I've already mentioned in my OP, P is impossible.

That's your God with your own logic. A jerk. God could have just not created all these infinite imperfect beings in the first place and been nice.


It doing so is a part of it being perfect and doing perfectly. Again, P is absurd.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]