Omni

[Resha Caner]

In your scenario, preferences is not the weakness/mistake; unfair actions are.
The reason it is a mistake is because he was unfair about his decision making. you can have preferences without being unfair about it.

I covered both possibilities. To prefer is to discriminate between at least 2 things. One either considers all things in making that choice or one doesn't. If one doesn't include all things in the decision, the decision is less than perfect. If all things are included in the decision, then regardless of who makes the decision, it will be the same.

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you equating omni qualities with our concepts of morality?

No, not really, though I suppose that would be another facet to discuss.

IOW ... how are you defining "perfect" ?

I meant it more as "complete". No more is needed as more would not change the result.

 

[elopez]

Stuff like that has always been a question. Theologians got their shorts in enough of a bunch over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or the Father and the Son that it split the church.

Yes it is that doctrine of procession that split the church. Westerners for the latter and the East for the former. Though, does this controversy deal specifically with the omni issue we're talking about? Do not both say each person has the same nature and essence?

Another big debate has been over Jesus' nature. Did he always appeal to the Father because he temporarily put himself in that condition or because he is always in that condition?

Again is this relevant to the omni-properties? I still would think each side maintains each person has the same divine nature and shares the same attributes.

The Athanasian Creed makes a few things clear, such as that all 3 are eternal, but it doesn't go through a laundry list of omni-properties, discussing each one ... and it's a pretty long creed.

I didn't intend this thread to be a specific debate about the Trinity. Whatever the case, I think God has what is needed to get the job done.

I'm saying though does it really need to? We've already deduced that all three persons must share the same attributes. The doctrine is that is they share the same divine nature.

And I don't intend for this to be a debate about the Trinity. Though depending on your position it'd be interesting. The reason I brought up the Trinity is that it relates to the OP, as each person is said to be have omni-properties. Even if we wish to not discuss that, it still has a question begged of whether or not two omnipotent beings could exist:

In the scenario of two omnipotent beings destroying each other, why is even assumed in the first place that they are attempting to destroy one another? Suppose they are not, and they get along, and simply Co - exist, doing different things each exercising their omnipotence. Just not against one another.

 

[Ken-1122]

I covered both possibilities. To prefer is to discriminate between at least 2 things. One either considers all things in making that choice or one doesn't. If one doesn't include all things in the decision, the decision is less than perfect. If all things are included in the decision, then regardless of who makes the decision, it will be the same.

That only works for robots. If I prefer apples over oranges, it doesn't mean everyone will prefer apples if they include all things in the decision that I did!
Preferences are subjective because we have freewill. If we were programmed preferences would be objective and there would be a correct fruit to choose between the two.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes it is that doctrine of procession that split the church. Westerners for the latter and the East for the former. Though, does this controversy deal specifically with the omni issue we're talking about? Do not both say each person has the same nature and essence?

It gets into the whole "first among equals" thing. For example, Rome graciously offered to the other bishops that Rome was not superior, it was just the first among equals. The other bishops weren't too keen about that. Why does Rome get to be the first among all those equals and not Constantinople? No, wait. What about Antioch? etc. etc.

Same thing here. When Rome offered that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it had "first among equals" types of implications. If you ain't the first, are you really omnipotent?

Again is this relevant to the omni-properties? I still would think each side maintains each person has the same divine nature and shares the same attributes.

Same issue. If Jesus is asking the Father for info, is he omniscient?

The Byzantine Greeks spent a lot of time arguing about whether the Trinity was one being in 3 persons, or 3 beings, or etc. etc. There are a thousand heresies named after all those arguments.

We've already deduced that all three persons must share the same attributes.

Well, you deduced that.

And I don't intend for this to be a debate about the Trinity. Though depending on your position it'd be interesting. The reason I brought up the Trinity is that it relates to the OP, as each person is said to be have omni-properties. Even if we wish to not discuss that, it still has a question begged of whether or not two omnipotent beings could exist:

In the scenario of two omnipotent beings destroying each other, why is even assumed in the first place that they are attempting to destroy one another? Suppose they are not, and they get along, and simply Co - exist, doing different things each exercising their omnipotence. Just not against one another.

I didn't mean to imply they would destroy each other. Just that it would be impossible to distinguish between them.

 

[Resha Caner]

That only works for robots. If I prefer apples over oranges, it doesn't mean everyone will prefer apples if they include all things in the decision that I did!
Preferences are subjective because we have freewill. If we were programmed preferences would be objective and there would be a correct fruit to choose between the two.

First, I made no statement that these beings had to have free will. If rolling up all the omni-traits causes determinism, then let the chips fall. Regardless, I'm not sure it would actually take away their free will as long as they have creative power.

Second, I wasn't arguing the omni-being would prefer one thing all the time. As I said, that means they fail to appreciate the other options - a weakness. I said they would make the perfect choice to fit the situation. It might be oranges for breakfast and apples for lunch. But if there is a perfect choice (A choice made on complete information), all omni-beings will make the same choice. If there isn't a complete choice, we're somehow saying omni-beings are impossible.

 

[Ken-1122]

First, I made no statement that these beings had to have free will.

No you didn’t; You asked is it possible! I gave you a scenario of it being possible assuming they have free will.

Second, I wasn't arguing the omni-being would prefer one thing all the time.

Neither was I.

As I said, that means they fail to appreciate the other options - a weakness.

Wrong again! If you prefer apples over oranges, it doesn’t mean you don’t appreciate oranges, it just means you appreciate apples more.

I said they would make the perfect choice to fit the situation.

There is no perfect choice when it comes to apples and oranges; it’s all subjective.


Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

No you didn’t; You asked is it possible! I gave you a scenario of it being possible assuming they have free will.

I did? I don't remember asking for a scenario that included free will.

Wrong again! If you prefer apples over oranges, it doesn’t mean you don’t appreciate oranges, it just means you appreciate apples more.

I can tell you prefer exclamation points. Other than that, all you're doing is making a statement, not substantiating it. I can't see that you're indicating anything more than a personal choice, which implies limited information.

There is no perfect choice when it comes to apples and oranges; it’s all subjective.

As others in the thread have suggested, a final resolution of such things is probably beyond us. But, if you can formalize how integrating all information about a state leaves that state indeterminate, I'd be very interested in such a thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

I can tell you prefer exclamation points. Other than that, all you're doing is making a statement, not substantiating it. I can't see that you're indicating anything more than a personal choice, which implies limited information.

How do you conclude preferring apples to oranges involves limited information? Please explain.

As others in the thread have suggested, a final resolution of such things is probably beyond us. But, if you can formalize how integrating all information about a state leaves that state indeterminate, I'd be very interested in such a thing.

That is impossible, just like an all capable being is impossible; which is what we are discussing. I am just stating my opinion I have no way of proving it. If you disagree with my opinion; perhaps you can state why.

Ken

 

[KCfromNC]

My left hand looks different than my right hand, but they are part of one being.

Yes, they're all part of the universe. But they're still two different hands. That is, things can fit into various groupings. Some groups identify multiple things. Others don't. You can play word games like this, but generally we identify beings with unique identifying features as unique beings even though they're simultaneously part of groups with more than one member (i.e. Fred and Bob are different people even though they're both male, Canadian, humans, mammals and so on).

 

[elopez]

It gets into the whole "first among equals" thing. For example, Rome graciously offered to the other bishops that Rome was not superior, it was just the first among equals. The other bishops weren't too keen about that. Why does Rome get to be the first among all those equals and not Constantinople? No, wait. What about Antioch? etc. etc.

Same thing here. When Rome offered that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it had "first among equals" types of implications. If you ain't the first, are you really omnipotent?

Well I know the church doesn't hold the Father as more omnipotent than the Son or Spirit. So, are you meaning to say the church thinks Jesus less omnipotent because of the procession doctrine?

Same issue. If Jesus is asking the Father for info, is he omniscient?

Yes. And every Trinitarian would say the same. This goes into the whole two nature's of Christ, and in such instances like this he is displaying that human nature he had to take on. Doesn't make him any less divine, or any less God, though, does it?

The Byzantine Greeks spent a lot of time arguing about whether the Trinity was one being in 3 persons, or 3 beings, or etc. etc. There are a thousand heresies named after all those arguments.

Which has lead us to where we're at now: One God in three persons.

Well, you deduced that.

From the doctrine of the Trinity at that too. What I mean is that it's been deduced in general.

I didn't mean to imply they would destroy each other. Just that it would be impossible to distinguish between them.

I just meant the general paradox. Why need to assume they destroy each other anyway, right? In such case they'd be using their omnipotence in different instances for different tasks. Their actions, and the consequences from their actions are what would differentiate them I'd think, not that it would be impossible.

 

[Resha Caner]

How do you conclude preferring apples to oranges involves limited information? Please explain.

1. I thought you might not like the term I first used (weakness), and that calling it a "limitation" might be more acceptable - closer to a moral neutral.

2. I'm assuming the being makes a choice of fruit because it is beneficial - for whatever reason: pleasure, nutrition, to employ fruit growers, whatever. IOW, it's not an arbitrary choice, because I don't see how the terms "preference" and "arbitrary" logically fit together.

3. I'm assuming it's possible for this amazingly gifted being to maximize the benefit of its choice. It is within the ability of this being to gather all the data needed and to process that data to determine a maximum. Further, the necessary data exists. Anything else would constitute a limitation. Or, if there are 2 maxima of exactly equal value, we're back to this being an arbitrary decision, and therefore not a preference.

4. If there are 2 different beings, the maximal choice of eating an apple or an orange might be different for them. This might seem to create a conundrum for answering the question if both were perfect beings, so I approach it this way: separate the mind from the body. A perfect mind will make the choice for a body, regardless of which being the mind and the body belongs to. Since there is only one maximal choice for that one body, any mind that happens to be perfect will find that maximal choice.

Therefore, all perfect minds will make the same choice for a particular body and cannot be distinguished based on this choice. The only thing that would distinguish them would be one of the limitations listed above.

Along this line of reasoning, I did a little digging around suspecting that someone might have already pondered this issue of preferences. Sure enough, it's something that comes up in the field of computing. Computer science is interested in the idea of the "heuristic", which is defined as an algorithm that will "find a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal, but good enough for a given set of goals." Heuristic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason for this interest is that computing a decision based on all the information can be very slow, so a heuristic seeks a decision based on limited information because it can come very close to the goal in a much shorter time and get a "good enough" answer.

It just so happens that computing a decision based on limited information is called a "preference heuristic". The idea is to bias the algorithm in some way so it will make a decision even though the information is incomplete. You can find papers on the topic such as this one:
Using preference based heuristics to control abductive reasoning - Springer

Or, there is a preview at Google Books that lists some of the types of preferences (biases) these algorithms use:
https://books.google.com/books?id=s...w#v=onepage&q=preference is heuristic&f=false

 

[Resha Caner]

Well I know the church doesn't hold the Father as more omnipotent than the Son or Spirit. So, are you meaning to say the church thinks Jesus less omnipotent because of the procession doctrine?

No, I'm saying the church has wrestled with the issue, and it's an issue people still wrestle with. Theodicy discussions come up all the time in this forum.

Personally, I think part of the reason people wrestle with it is because Scripture doesn't give a clear, definitive answer on the relationship of the Trinity - maybe because we wouldn't understand it if it did. I have enough trouble trying to understand my relationship to my wife.

And yet, in spite of my clumsiness, somehow this thing with my wife is working out. So, I think it's going to work out with God as well. IOW, I don't think it's necessary for us to understand it. It may make for an interesting philosophical discussion, but it's not necessary.

So it shouldn't bother Christians to think that we may not have it right. We should try to get comfortable with telling unbelievers who ask these questions, "I don't know." Or, at least qualify answers with, "This is just my opinion."

 

[elopez]

No, I'm saying the church has wrestled with the issue, and it's an issue people still wrestle with. Theodicy discussions come up all the time in this forum.

Personally, I think part of the reason people wrestle with it is because Scripture doesn't give a clear, definitive answer on the relationship of the Trinity - maybe because we wouldn't understand it if it did.

Sure the church has wrestled with the idea and that struggle continues stilll, yet we can come to a censuses that 1) The Trinity is true 2) All 3 persons are the same divine God and 3) the doctrine of eternal generation and procession is true. The only difference being whether one thinks the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or both Father and Son.

I'd agree Scripture isn't clear, but I'd aso point out its not completely silent, either. There are verses that signify the Trinity and doctrine of eternal generation.

Either way I'd have to change my answer to the OP, and say depending on the definition of "being" the answer is yes.

 

[Ken-1122]

2. I'm assuming the being makes a choice of fruit because it is beneficial

The choice he makes is based strictly on which taste better.

3. I'm assuming it's possible for this amazingly gifted being to maximize the benefit of its choice. It is within the ability of this being to gather all the data needed and to process that data to determine a maximum.

If this being already knows it prefers apples to oranges, it would be foolish to go thru all that trouble to make a decision he already has an answer to. Such foolishness would be a weakness/flaw

4. If there are 2 different beings, the maximal choice of eating an apple or an orange might be different for them. This might seem to create a conundrum for answering the question if both were perfect beings,

No it doesn’t Just because their minds are equal doesn’t mean their taste buds are going to be identical


Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

No it doesn’t Just because their minds are equal doesn’t mean their taste buds are going to be identical

Yes, I covered that.

If this being already knows it prefers apples to oranges, it would be foolish to go thru all that trouble to make a decision he already has an answer to. Such foolishness would be a weakness/flaw

The best choice is a foolish choice? That's an interesting approach.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I covered that.



The best choice is a foolish choice? That's an interesting approach.

You added meaning to his post. That is not what he implied.

 

[Ken-1122]

The best choice is a foolish choice? That's an interesting approach.

No, what you're calling the best choice is actually the foolish choice because there is no need to analyze to the extent you are suggesting when you already know the answer. Omniscient also means you know which one you prefer between the apple and the orange.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

If you recall, we are working from my assumptions and definitions in this case. I provided several examples, both anecdotal and specific (from computer science) where a "preference" means a decision made on limited information. If you wish to address any of those examples, I will entertain what you have to say. So far, your reply amounts to little more than, "Because I said so."