Let's think this through ... God

Yes, you could argue this; but my point above involves taking these generally abstract, scholastic assessments of the relationship between an omniscient God and mere mortals, and situating it out in the world of actual human interactions.

Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

To argue then that an all-knowing God does not know whether Jane will abort or not about her unborn baby, or that Jack will or will not report her to the authorities, seems to ascribe the meaning of the word “omniscient” to God as but one more manifestation of His “mysterious ways”. And, of course, the faithful can always fall back on that to rationalize anything with respect to Him.

Similarly if a bat could only be as God intended it to be how could this omniscient God not know what it is like to be a bat? It is as though this all-powerful entity set life itself into motion such that it would evolve on its own into minds [ours] able to probe these questions self-consciously.

In other words, whatever that means.

And [thus] we are still back to square one: connecting all of these endless “intellectual” and “theoretical” speculations to an actual extant God.

A God, the God, your God.

And not theirs.

Or, sure, maybe it’s just me. My inability to reconcile the idea of an omniscient God able to be the “perfect predictor” with mere mortals able to choose behaviors that would be both “free” and wholly [necessarily] in sync with God’s prediction of what it will be.

And what then is the limit to that which mortals are able to think, feel and behave autonomously?

Are they able to prove the existence of God if God does not want His existence able to be proven? Are they able to teach themselves to behave in such a manner that God is not aware of it? Can they discover how to trick God? To defy God with impunity?

As long as there is a gap between what mere mortals think, feel and do and God’s awareness of this, it would seem to make this relationship considerably more problematic.

For example, am I “free” to not believe in God? Or, as some Christians [among others] insists, “free” or not, will my refusal [inability] to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior result [necessarily] in eternal damnation?

And [of course] always this: with so much at stake how/why is it that God makes answering these crucial questions so seemingly elusive?

Iambiguous, you surprised me…

That was extremely well thought and worded

Since this is important to me, I don’t want my earlier reply to not get read iambiguous… We posted about the same time.

I want to add for James other examples,

People who are non idolatrists roil in pain when the see crosses, churches, weddings, baptisms…

Most people who think they are good are evil as fuck, not only do people actually do these things … But even those that don’t do not speak out against such evil. That’s called being the asshole through omission … The magnitude of evil in this planet is astonishing…

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 2#p2652632

The “problem”, as you formulated it, is unsolvable so you can freely move on to solving other problems which potentially do have solutions.

They can believe that other people are silly or stupid or ignorant and they can just walk away.

You don’t need to save the whole world.

Why problem in scare quotes…

It’s the biggest problem in existence, and philosophic zombie universes solves it

It’s in quotes because it’s not a real problem.

“philosophic zombie universes” are nonsense.

There is one universe, deal with it.

No, there are an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, and if you’ve learned anything from dreaming, there are many different rule sets in the cosmos

It doesn’t matter how many universes there are … there is no communication between universes. If you could see another universe from this universe, then that other universe would just be another part of this universe. That follows simply from the definition of ‘universe’.

Hence, my point. I’ve seen a lot of different universes with a lot of different rule sets.

I remember what it was like to be a person like you.

Thanks for showing me that it’s time.

Way to be vague. Time to leave the thread??

Have you ever remembered your dreams before phyllo?

Think very deeply about them.

…doesn’t seem to be related to anything that I said.

You asked me what I meant.

You’re stuck on discipline though…

Try disciplining yourself to not hurt others , if that’s the only thing you got from my posts

…nor that. :confused:

I actually spent a lot of time thinking about the posts I replied to you with… This reply is very thoughtless and rude in context of the thread

Sorry that you spent so much time studying the wrong posts.

James, being thoughtful and not rude is at a minimum, sending a hyperlink to the post in question.

I’ve inadvertently missed posts several times on ILP

The solution to this problem is to realize that the definition of ‘hurt’ has always been flaky, and to ditch utilitarianism forever and move on to something reasonable.

Self reports of hurt are the ONLY thing that’s not flaky. Axioms from this are also not flaky.

You live in flatland.