Deism!

[Wiccan_Child]

It would depend on this:


Internalism and externalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I add that if the good is known to be the better option, only acrasia or rational inconsistency would hold one back from pursuing it. But I dont think thay would apply to God unless he is a dialethist or something..

Again, this all hinges on the assumption that there is some moral feeling pursuant to God, yet this might not be the case. That God knows about human moral systems doesn't mean he is in any way moved by them, or that there is a One True Morality that God's omniscience tells him is right.

Even ignoring the aforementioned problem of whether there is a Good™ that can be known at all, that God knows being good is the better option doesn't mean God will act on it. Why can't God be contrarian, or simply malicious?

"I know what's best, and I'm going to do the opposite, because that's just how I roll".

He doesn't need to be a dialethist and throw logic out the window, he can simply be ambivalent, or wicked, or schizophrenic, or constrained (he is omnipotent, but every action allows Satan to do a commensurate act).

 

[KCfromNC]

So its not true that some things are beter, relative to the pursuit of your interests (what is good for you) than others?

Yep. Now all you need to do to connect this to what I wrote is to demonstrate that utilitarianism is the absolute correct approach to morality.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Yep. Now all you need to do to connect this to what I wrote is to demonstrate that utilitarianism is the absolute correct approach to morality.

But what if an individual believes that the slaughter of billions in the name of god is beneficial to society?

Is that not utilitarianism? I believe we are at base 0 still

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I suppose it may depend on xioms or assumptions.If we believe that knowledge implies rationality then if we assume ethical action is rational (either as a principle, or something true by defintion) then you have an all good god, simply stemming from knowledge and power.

However I fully accapt that is not the only way the logic can be configured. Different assumptions, different charachter to the god, different moral personality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I suppose it may depend on xioms or assumptions.If we believe that knowledge implies rationality then if we assume ethical action is rational (either as a principle, or something true by defintion) then you have an all good god, simply stemming from knowledge and power.

However I fully accapt that is not the only way the logic can be configured. Different assumptions, different charachter to the god, different moral personality.

I think it's more simple than that: omnipotence and omniscience simply do not themselves dictate behaviour, however much you jiggle the logic. As you rightly say, we need to add the 'perfectly rational' property to dictate God's behaviour, but that property is distinct from omniscience.

This is why logical puzzles like the Prisoner Dilemma usually end with the statement "Assume everyone is perfectly rational" - to predict behaviour, sheer knowledge isn't enough.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wonder is Gods knowledge is justified, as in TJB (true justified belief). Normally this is via a rational skill in humans, but in God omniscience is eternal, so it seems like his knowledge must be direct and intuitive rather than the function of a knoweledge making procedure.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We humans do mathematise ethics in a way philosophical grammar of "better" "worse" statements involving "more than" and "less than" statements in the language game of ethical life (at least for moral cognitivists who accept moral meaning and truth).

So if God knows he ought to be good, maybe that would imply his goodness as an algorithm for calculation entails a correct answer. It is possible to imagine an algorithmic math (and vice versa) where a positive answer is to be preferred over a negative, all else being equal. For instance a rule may imply we choose +3 if confronted with two calculations leading variously to +3 and -3 (e.g. if either 0+3, or 0-3 then 0+3 is to be preferred).

Then maybe if it is the ultimate nature of evil to want to escape existence (language game indicator: "dont do that, because of evil consequences" etc), then therefore in existential-ethical math the good is summoned a priori by its very nature into being in the eternal relam.

Likewise people argue that time's arrow stems from entrophy and therefore existential probabilities can be affected by maths (I heard it argued that the future is more probable than past, therefore time's arrow comes into being via probabilities). Similarily alongside a probability quotient there can be fields or world properties with desirability quotients in terms of functions of ethical choices and actions, and ultimately innate ontological status. Meaning there is an arrow for time, and an arrow of sorts pointing to God's moral charachter.


If p 0.5 is superceded by p 0.8 because the greater possibility is greater ontically, then maybe g 0 is is somehow less real than g 1 (p for possibility, g for goodness). So God's goodness is the a priori certitude, the necessary being must necessarily be more desirable than undesirable, because reality "clings" to desirability. But that's perhaps a digression....

^^ Admittedly this is perhaps a bit confused, and partisan, though possible valid in its own terms.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wonder is Gods knowledge is justified, as in TJB (true justified belief). Normally this is via a rational skill in humans, but in God omniscience is eternal, so it seems like his knowledge must be direct and intuitive rather than the function of a knoweledge making procedure.

It's often been remarked that God cannot know that he is God, and not a delusional mortal (as, indeed, some delusional mortals are convinced they're God). So God's omniscience means he knows everything, and his knowledge is true and accurate, but he can never be sure of that.

Unless he knows something we don't, but what're the odds of that

We humans do mathematise ethics in a way philosophical grammar of "better" "worse" statements involving "more than" and "less than" statements in the language game of ethical life (at least for moral cognitivists who accept moral meaning and truth).

So if God knows he ought to be good, maybe that would imply his goodness as an algorithm for calculation entails a correct answer. It is possible to imagine an algorithmic math (and vice versa) where a positive answer is to be preferred over a negative, all else being equal. For instance a rule may imply we choose +3 if confronted with two calculations leading variously to +3 and -3 (e.g. if either 0+3, or 0-3 then 0+3 is to be preferred).

Then maybe if it is the ultimate nature of evil to want to escape existence (language game indicator: "dont do that, because of evil consequences" etc), then therefore in existential-ethical math the good is summoned a priori by its very nature into being in the eternal relam.

Likewise people argue that time's arrow stems from entrophy and therefore existential probabilities can be affected by maths (I heard it argued that the future is more probable than past, therefore time's arrow comes into being via probabilities). Similarily alongside a probability quotient there can be fields or world properties with desirability quotients in terms of functions of ethical choices and actions, and ultimately innate ontological status. Meaning there is an arrow for time, and an arrow of sorts pointing to God's moral charachter.


If p 0.5 is superceded by p 0.8 because the greater possibility is greater ontically, then maybe g 0 is is somehow less real than g 1 (p for possibility, g for goodness). So God's goodness is the a priori certitude, the necessary being must necessarily be more desirable than undesirable, because reality "clings" to desirability. But that's perhaps a digression....

^^ Admittedly this is perhaps a bit confused, and partisan, though possible valid in its own terms.

It seems to be resting on a bed of assumptions, principally that this ethical calculus is real and isn't just a human conjuring. Besides, the same argument can be made using 'evil' instead of 'good', and therefore concluding God's ultimate wickedness. Since that's paradoxical, the argument must be flawed somewhere.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

This to me provides evidence for a hypothesis I made about Humanists years ago.

It went along the assumption that Humanists are incapable of accepting the undoubtedly proven neutrality or negativity of an entity. EVERYTHING must be inherently good.

If you give a anthropomorphic being omniscience it has no free will but even without it and only omnipotent and omnipresence is added it would add the chances to it being evil do to greed.
These would just cause for a good case of kakostheism

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It went along the assumption that Humanists are incapable of accepting the undoubtedly proven neutrality or negativity of an entity. EVERYTHING must be inherently good.

The power of positive thinking, it could change your life!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I could probably argue anything tho...

 

[Eudaimonist]

It went along the assumption that Humanists are incapable of accepting the undoubtedly proven neutrality or negativity of an entity. EVERYTHING must be inherently good.

I'm not certain what you are talking about. What gives you this impression about Humanists?

I have not seen anything like this in them, aside from viewing human nature as, in some sense, inherently good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wouldn't say human nature is inherently good, but that people have the capacity to become good. There is so little "nature" in us, we are more products of coulture and leaning than an an acquired inborn essence.

As for God When I believe I think is is in part pragmatic of me, so why not believe in a good God so those endoprhin pumps in my brain can get to work. This is the thinking man's alternative to the joint.