Is God Always Right Due to Omnipotence?

[Paraprakrti]

This thread is inspired by atotalstranger's thread - http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ates/82965-all-powerful-god-always-right.html - where he says that if such a God exists, he (atotalstranger) would regard God as always morally right due to God being omnipotent, creator of the universe, etc.

Although theists tend to agree that God is always morally right, do you think that is because God is all-powerful? Or are these two characteristics - omnipotence and being always morally right - not logically linked?

Edit: Fixed

 

[3.14]

wel technicly they are, exept for god's point of view, since if he would be wrong he could fix's it before he made the mistake thus being the only one who knows he was ever wrong

but your right if god does not fix his mistake's there not linked

 

[Paraprakrti]

I should have clarified what I meant.

By "always right" I mean "always morally right" as I think is implied in atotalstranger's thread. This hasn't to do with omniscience.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

So this amounts to "Does might make right?" and if so, then does "Does ultimate might make complete rightness?"

MTF

 

[Storm]

I don't hold to this. As MTF mentioned, it basically boils down to might makes right, which is simply untrue.

 

[TheKnight]

This thread is inspired by atotalstranger's thread - http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ates/82965-all-powerful-god-always-right.html - where he says that if such a God exists, he (atotalstranger) would regard God as always morally right due to God being omnipotent, creator of the universe, etc.

Although theists tend to agree that God is always morally right, do you think that is because God is all-powerful? Or are these two characteristics - omnipotence and being always morally right - not logically linked?

Edit: Fixed

Neither. It is not because God is all-powerful or because He just has intrinsic moral rightness. In fact, God doesn't even have to be all-powerful to always be morally right.

God created us, that's enough for Him to have a sufficient understanding of morality that far surpasses our own. And even if He doesn't have sufficient understanding of morality, we have know way of knowing that He does. Even if we did, the fact that He made us (and therefore we are His property) means that we should do as He asks morally (unless He allows us to do differently which He does) Besides, other then mutual agreement of morality, there is no way that we as a humanity can determine what is and what is not moral. At least not objectively.

 

[Paraprakrti]

So this amounts to "Does might make right?" and if so, then does "Does ultimate might make complete rightness?"

MTF

Sort of. But I'm approaching the issue from the other side, so to speak.

This thread is granting (at least for the sake of discussion) that there is a being known as "God," who is omnipotent and always morally right and then I'm asking whether or not the latter characteristic is necessarily a logical inference from the former.

I am not asking if might makes right. Rather, my question is basically: Does classical theism necessarily include a "might is right" ideology?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Neither. It is not because God is all-powerful or because He just has intrinsic moral rightness. In fact, God doesn't even have to be all-powerful to always be morally right.

So what do you propose as a third option?

God created us, that's enough for Him to have a sufficient understanding of morality that far surpasses our own. And even if He doesn't have sufficient understanding of morality, we have know way of knowing that He does. Even if we did, the fact that He made us (and therefore we are His property) means that we should do as He asks morally (unless He allows us to do differently which He does) Besides, other then mutual agreement of morality, there is no way that we as a humanity can determine what is and what is not moral. At least not objectively.

(emphasis added)

The portion of your response that I am emphasizing implies a "might is right" ideology.

 

[Storm]

Sort of. But I'm approaching the issue from the other side, so to speak.

This thread is granting (at least for the sake of discussion) that there is a being known as "God," who is omnipotent and always morally right and then I'm asking if the latter characteristic is necessarily a logical inference from the former.

I am not asking if might makes right. Rather, my question is basically: Does classical theism necessarily include a "might is right" ideology?

Oh, ok. I would have to say no, then. Classical theism is not limited to Abrahamism, and came up with the Euthyphro dilemma in the first place.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Oh, ok. I would have to say no, then. Classical theism is not limited to Abrahamism, and came up with the Euthyphro dilemma in the first place.

Are you implying that Abrahamism necessarily entails a "might is right" ideology? If so, how have you come to that conclusion?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

To be perfectly fair though: the notion of "Who are you to argue with God?" does arise out of classical theism as well.

Of course there is a rational side to this. Even if an all-powerful being was wrong, would you really be able to call him on it? And I'm not just talking courage here... How do you propose to even show that they are wrong if they can just remake reality?

MTF

 

[Storm]

Are you implying that Abrahamism necessarily entails a "might is right" ideology? If so, how have you come to that conclusion?

No, that was not my intent. I should note that it seems to be espoused by most of the Abrahamics I've discussed the Dilemma with, but I don't think it's necessitated by the theology.

 

[Storm]

To be perfectly fair though: the notion of "Who are you to argue with God?" does arise out of classical theism as well.

Of course there is a rational side to this. Even if an all-powerful being was wrong, would you really be able to call him on it? And I'm not just talking courage here... How do you propose to even show that they are wrong if they can just remake reality?

WEll, take the Christian God. According to Genesis, we have knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, we have the ability to recognize which one describes a given action, even when that action is God's.

Which is not to say you'd win the argument, of course. But I just don't buy that God can do whatever He wants and we're just supposed to approve because He can smite us.

 

[Paraprakrti]

To be perfectly fair though: the notion of "Who are you to argue with God?" does arise out of classical theism as well.

Sure. But I am not asking if what God deems as morally right is in fact morally right. I am granting that God is always morally right and then asking if this characteristic comes out of or is due to the characteristic of God being omnipotent.

 

[Paraprakrti]

WEll, take the Christian God. According to Genesis, we have knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, we have the ability to recognize which one describes a given action, even when that action is God's.

This assumes that what is good and what is evil rests inherently in the mechanical motion (or series of motions) of an action itself.

 

[Storm]

... No, not really.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

And that answer is unequivocally no. Actions by themselves are completely amoral. Actions acquire morality due to the context of the circumstances in which they are used. Simply being able to do everything is irrelevant. Being able to do everything simply means that you are not constrained by circumstances to utilize "less beneficial" or "more harmful" options than absolutely necessary (i.e. you can adhere to perfect morality).

But simply being able to adhere to perfect morality doesn't mean that your ability to adhere is the source of your being morally correct. Capability and willingness are two separate things.




Storm:

I agree about might not making right. Don't agree because God could smite you; agree because exactly how do you know when God is wrong?

MTF

 

[Storm]

I agree about might not making right. Don't agree because God could smite you; agree because exactly how do you know when God is wrong?

When He orders genocide, for example. When the reason and compassion He wrote into your being tells you so.

You may be wrong, but at least you had the courage of your convictions.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

When He orders genocide, for example. When the reason and compassion He wrote into your being tells you so.

You may be wrong, but at least you had the courage of your convictions.

And I don't agree about genocide either. I've written consistent arguments on the other thread to that effect. I don't believe that "He" wrote anything into our being; I think that our souls predispose us toward certain things, but that none of this is set by the Creator Being.

And as far as reason goes I want the most reasonable option to effect the most benefit and cause the least harm, and when dealing with a nearly omniscient or totally omniscient being I can think of no more reasonable option than doing exactly what they say.

Courage of my convictions doesn't mean spit if not doing as a super-being tells you to and then dooming a whole species to extinction instead of just a sub-set. Platitudes won't make things ok when not killing every single member of a set of disease carriers infected with super plague dooms the human race to exinction.

MTF

 

[Storm]

None of what you say is necessary for an omnipotent being, unless said being is simply being spiteful. Further proof that it's unworthy of your groveling.