|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness
#17830895 - 02/19/13 03:19 PM (11 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Ignore for the moment many of the fundamental objections to utilitarianism.
Now, let us suppose that instead of defining God not as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, we define God as an omniscient, omnipotent being who is committed to maximizing utility over the entirety of existence. We can call this God the "Maximally Good God" or simply MGG. Now, here is the question:
Is it in any way inconsistent for an MGG to create all possible universes in which overall utility is positive?
And, to sloppily anticipate partly the first objection, is the cardinality of the set of an infinite number of all possible universes larger than the cardinality of the set of an infinite number of worlds with maximum utility?
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17831074 - 02/19/13 03:49 PM (11 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
don't care, nice avatar though
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Memories
Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: MushroomTrip]
#17831180 - 02/19/13 04:11 PM (11 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: don't care, nice avatar though
|
DisoRDeR
motional
Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: sonamdrukpa] 1
#17833114 - 02/19/13 10:00 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Is it in any way inconsistent for a FSM to create all possible universes in which the overall appearance of spaghetti is positive?
Edited by DisoRDeR (02/19/13 10:01 PM)
|
AlphaFalfa
imagine
Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 3,857
Loc: 3 Seconds Ago.
Last seen: 10 years, 20 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17836185 - 02/20/13 01:59 PM (11 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: Ignore for the moment many of the fundamental objections to utilitarianism.
Now, let us suppose that instead of defining God not as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, we define God as an omniscient, omnipotent being who is committed to maximizing utility over the entirety of existence. We can call this God the "Maximally Good God" or simply MGG. Now, here is the question:
Is it in any way inconsistent for an MGG to create all possible universes in which overall utility is positive?
And, to sloppily anticipate partly the first objection, is the cardinality of the set of an infinite number of all possible universes larger than the cardinality of the set of an infinite number of worlds with maximum utility?
Omnipotent beings do not have desires.
It's not a matter of whether or not the can or cannot have desires.
Only beings who are limited in some way, can have desires because desires arise out of not having, a state of being that an unlimited being could never experience.
If god wants/commits to anything, he clearly is not unlimited, perfect or all powerful.
Therefore, omnipotent and omnibenevolent/utilitarian gods cannot exist.
-------------------- if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: AlphaFalfa]
#17841837 - 02/21/13 01:58 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
You don't have to use the word "desire" or require the being to want at all...just define your omnipotent being as a being that necessarily creates state X. For example, an omnipotent that necessarily creates the universe, that necessarily gives mankind free will, that necessarily blah di blah di blah. Of course it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize an infinite being, but neither does it make sense to require that being not to do things.
--------------------
|
AlphaFalfa
imagine
Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 3,857
Loc: 3 Seconds Ago.
Last seen: 10 years, 20 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17842006 - 02/21/13 02:27 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: You don't have to use the word "desire" or require the being to want at all...just define your omnipotent being as a being that necessarily creates state X. For example, an omnipotent that necessarily creates the universe, that necessarily gives mankind free will, that necessarily blah di blah di blah. Of course it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize an infinite being, but neither does it make sense to require that being not to do things.
doing things is based on a sense of lacking.
It's like a puzzle you cannot put the missing piece of a puzzle into a puzzle that is complete.
In order for god to do something he has to have been limited by something initially, which has stopped him from doing it, through which he can choose to fullfill, the doing of or leaving it undone.
If god is unlimited there is nothing he hasn't done because there is nothing that can limit him from having done it in the first place.
-------------------- if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...
|
AlphaFalfa
imagine
Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 3,857
Loc: 3 Seconds Ago.
Last seen: 10 years, 20 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: AlphaFalfa]
#17842017 - 02/21/13 02:29 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Something can only be done if such a thing is in the state of 'undone' initially. You can not type while you are typing because type has already been accomplished by typing.
It's like asking a man who is walking to walk, he will turn to look at you and say "by god, I am already walking'
-------------------- if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...
Edited by AlphaFalfa (02/21/13 02:37 PM)
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: AlphaFalfa]
#17842276 - 02/21/13 03:10 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AlphaFalfa said:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: You don't have to use the word "desire" or require the being to want at all...just define your omnipotent being as a being that necessarily creates state X. For example, an omnipotent that necessarily creates the universe, that necessarily gives mankind free will, that necessarily blah di blah di blah. Of course it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize an infinite being, but neither does it make sense to require that being not to do things.
doing things is based on a sense of lacking.
Now YOU'RE anthropomorphizing. Gravity does things, but it doesn't have any sense of lacking.
Quote:
It's like a puzzle you cannot put the missing piece of a puzzle into a puzzle that is complete.
In order for god to do something he has to have been limited by something initially, which has stopped him from doing it, through which he can choose to fullfill, the doing of or leaving it undone.
If god is unlimited there is nothing he hasn't done because there is nothing that can limit him from having done it in the first place.
What if the thing that gets done is something like "have lightning strike the president of the Morristown, PA Freemasons at 3pm on Feb. 4th, 1972"? There is nothing contradictory about an omnipotent being "waiting" to do things if the being "wants" them to get done at a particular time.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: AlphaFalfa]
#17842885 - 02/21/13 04:48 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AlphaFalfa said: Therefore, omnipotent and omnibenevolent/utilitarian gods cannot exist.
I kinda agree. I think there might exist tremendously more intelligent and powerful beings than us in the universe. Beings that are to us like we are to bacteria. How much can a bacterium understand about our powers? Close to nothing. In the same way, we might not be capable of understanding much about the powers of the most powerful beings in the universe ( if there are such beings ). The universe is however very big, and even if there might exist super-super-super powerful beings which we barely can comprehend I don't think there are any omnipotent omnibenevolent beings in the universe. Simply because our planet would be a much better place if there was an omnipotent omnibenevolent being in the universe.
|
AlphaFalfa
imagine
Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 3,857
Loc: 3 Seconds Ago.
Last seen: 10 years, 20 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17843091 - 02/21/13 05:19 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:
AlphaFalfa said:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: You don't have to use the word "desire" or require the being to want at all...just define your omnipotent being as a being that necessarily creates state X. For example, an omnipotent that necessarily creates the universe, that necessarily gives mankind free will, that necessarily blah di blah di blah. Of course it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize an infinite being, but neither does it make sense to require that being not to do things.
doing things is based on a sense of lacking.
Now YOU'RE anthropomorphizing. Gravity does things, but it doesn't have any sense of lacking.
Quote:
It's like a puzzle you cannot put the missing piece of a puzzle into a puzzle that is complete.
In order for god to do something he has to have been limited by something initially, which has stopped him from doing it, through which he can choose to fullfill, the doing of or leaving it undone.
If god is unlimited there is nothing he hasn't done because there is nothing that can limit him from having done it in the first place.
What if the thing that gets done is something like "have lightning strike the president of the Morristown, PA Freemasons at 3pm on Feb. 4th, 1972"? There is nothing contradictory about an omnipotent being "waiting" to do things if the being "wants" them to get done at a particular time.
Thats called adhering the definition of omnibenevolence and attempting to reconcile it with omnipotence.
Inherently, benevolence is an anthrpomorphic term it cannot apply to god and this is all I am saying, to say it in a way your would understand.
Get it through your head, omnipotent beings exists in state of perfection, it is impossible for them to ever have a desire/want for anything.
-------------------- if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17843224 - 02/21/13 05:38 PM (11 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I specifically made a distinction between omnibenevolence and "maximal goodness" here and wanted to talk about the latter...not to mention that we were only discussing the qualities of an omnipotent being, regardless of its moral fiber. I still don't see any valid argument from you as to why an omnipotent being can't do things. In fact, that seems to be a blatant contradiction of the definition of omnipotent.
Quote:
AlphaFalfa said: Get it through your head, omnipotent beings exists in state of perfection, it is impossible for them to ever have a desire/want for anything.
We already covered this:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: You don't have to use the word "desire" or require the being to want at all...just define your omnipotent being as a being that necessarily creates state X. For example, an omnipotent that necessarily creates the universe, that necessarily gives mankind free will, that necessarily blah di blah di blah. Of course it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize an infinite being, but neither does it make sense to require that being not to do things.
You're getting caught up in misleading semantics.
--------------------
|
|