Undeniably Reality is some way.

Surely best-ness tautologically or lexicographically implies goodness, which implies benevolence.

Would one expect Reality, or the nature and character of what-is, to be other than best?

With the infinitely-many possibility-worlds, there will inevitably societal worlds of which some will be be good, and some will be, shall we say, distinctly less than perfect (...something not unfamiliar to us)..

But Reality, the overall nature of all-that-is --if it's to be one way, because there's only one of it--wouldn't it be the best way? There's no random variation of amounts of imperfection,when we're talking about the nature or character of all that is, and it's only one way, because there's only one of it.

As I've discussed elsewhere, there are reasons suggesting an impression that what-is is good, and that good is the basis of what is, which is like saying there's good intent behind what is, or, in fact that Reality is Benevolence.

But what I was saying before the paragraph before this one is about a justification for faith, by which I mean trust without or aside from the reasons mentioned in the paragraph before this one.

Michael Ossipoff

For me, there can be more than one reality (I say this because I can distinguish between virtual reality, dreams, and my waking reality) I cannot however distinguish between more than one Existence. It encompasses all worlds/realities. Everything that exists, does so in Existence.

Existence is perfect and so it does perfectly. A discussion of what constitutes doing perfectly with full accuracy is impossible to have in light of pure reason as that would require omniscience.

For anything that we consider as there being a better way, or for anything that we say "this is better than this" we might be right (provided that it's not reflective of the grand scheme of things), but we'd be misguided in saying this is certainly the best way or this is certainly the best thing (unless of course we are referring to God) as we don't know the full potential of all things and their outcomes.

It's also not just a matter of faith. Saying that all things considered, the creation of our world is not going to amount to something maximally good, would be paradoxical. We cannot consider all things therefore we cannot understand what doing perfectly constitutes. But we can understand Existence as being perfect and doing perfectly.

Hi Philosopher19,
I really enjoyed your post and I found many things true. However, I did have some refutations to some of your premises and ideas, so when you get a chance, it would be nice if you could clarify them. I have re-outlined your arguments as follows, I hope that is ok?

1) Either omniscience is not required to know if something is not existing as well as it can do, or it is.
2) It is not true that omniscience is not required to know if something is not existing as well as it can.
Therefore 3) Omniscience is required to know if something is not existing as well as it can exist.

Although I do see where you are coming from, there are still some questions that arise from your argumentation. As first point, it seems that you are trying to argue that omnibenevolence is a true aspect of God. However, you then move to say that God is all-knowing, providing no internal link as to how human’s non-omniscience relates to the God’s omnibenevolence. Simply put, I do not think you resolve for the problem of evil since you do not provide a link between God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence. You are just arguing that God is all knowing, and we aren’t and so what? How does that relate to omnibenevolence? I hope this is making sense. This leads me to my second point, that even if you resolved your reasoning to include a link that shows how God’s omniscience and human’s non-omniscience relates to God’s omnibenevolence, your whole argument is based on the lack of knowledge (because humans do not know everything “non-omniscience”). I believe that this type of reasoning can easily be interpreted as the fallacy of ignorance. So, I am questioning your entire premises one and two on the basis of no internal links to the conclusion of omni-benevolence.

I then question your entire last paragraph “Can P be demonstrated without omniscience? No. We lack omniscience which means we cannot consider all things. Can we ever become omniscient? No. Therefore P is clearly absurd. It's not even an unknown where we'd be able to say something like perhaps one day we'll be in a position where we can demonstrate P. We will never be able to demonstrate P and where we might have thought we did, we were clearly being irrational,” on the fact that I don't believe that human ignorance means God is omni-everything. It sounds a bit disingenuous to me and it would be nice if you could specify why not. Thanks!!!

Hi Flight747

I'm glad you enjoyed the post.

I did have some refutations to some of your premises and ideas, so when you get a chance, it would be nice if you could clarify them. I have re-outlined your arguments as follows, I hope that is ok?[/quote]

That's absolutely fine. I'll do my best to clarify.

Simply put, I do not think you resolve for the problem of evil since you do not provide a link between God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence

Do we agree that the problem of evil only holds true when P) All things considered, an objective instance of something not amounting to the maximum possible good is demonstrated?

Can P ever be demonstrated by us? We cannot consider all things because considering all things requires omniscience. Do we agree on this?

You are just arguing that God is all knowing, and we aren’t and so what? How does that relate to omnibenevolence?

It's not just omniscience. God is Perfect so it always does perfectly. Doing perfectly amounts to bringing about the maximum amount of good at all times. This is the same as being omnibenevolant. So we logically establish omnibenevolance in this manner.

Pure reason dictates that we can never empirically verify Omnibenevolance as that would require omniscience. So, Omnibenevolance is clearly established via pure reason (God being Perfect and dong Perfectly). This, coupled with our lack of omniscience means that we can never question this.

on the fact that I don't believe that human ignorance means God is omni-everything. It sounds a bit disingenuous to me and it would be nice if you could specify why not. Thanks!!!

Elsewhere, I argued that Existence is necessarily Perfect (Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent) Here's the argument:

(1) There is existence

(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence

(3) We are fully dependent on existence

(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

(5) Given 4, anything that is meaningful, necessarily belongs to existence (by this I mean existence accommodates it such that it is either necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is paradoxical or meaningless is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can ever exist. Such phrases are absurd and make no sense)

(6) Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, are meaningful concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing (Can you think of something that has meaning or is not paraodixcal but can never exist?). Therefore, either:

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent , or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent

(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.

(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.

(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.

(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.

Hi @Philosopher19 thanks for responding and sorry about the late response.

Do we agree that the problem of evil only holds true when P) All things considered, an objective instance of something not amounting to the maximum possible good is demonstrated?

Yeah, so I was thinking about your argument recently and I wanted to ask your thoughts on the possibilities of knowing everything about a certain topic, couldn't that illustrate a case where humans can technically be omniscient about a certain domain. For example, a human can be omniscient on the parts of car, or omniscient about the current domain such as research methods and testing. If it were the case that humans can be omniscient in certain domains, I believe that this would undermine the divinity of God. In other words this would entail that because humans are omniscient, God must also not be completely omniscient. I hope this is making sense, but the idea is that because human beings can be all-knowing about a certain topic, it is possible that God is not all knowing. I believe that God is not all-knowing in the sense of sin. It is often argued that God does not know what sin is, because he is all-good, and sin is bad. In view of this, could it also be argued that God does not know evil because he is all good? In other words, he might not know/see the evil in the world because he can only see or feel the good, because he is all good? Yeah. I'd love to hear your response to this. Thanks!

No worries about the late reply. I hope I address all your questions effectively.

Yeah, so I was thinking about your argument recently and I wanted to ask your thoughts on the possibilities of knowing everything about a certain topic, couldn't that illustrate a case where humans can technically be omniscient about a certain domain

The following statement was inspired from a movie (Anchorman):

1) 60% of the time, object x works every time (100%) of the time.
2) Another way of saying this is to say: Object x works 60% of the time

If I'm not mistaken, both sentences say the same thing. Would it not be more accurate/efficient to go with 1 as opposed to 2?

To know a 100% of a part (60%) of something is not the same as knowing a 100% of that thing. Do we agree on this?

To be Omniscient is to know all that there is to know. It is not to know all that is to know + within a finite boundary. So just as statement 1 amounts to object x working 60% of the time, knowing 100% of a part (60%) of something amounts to knowing 60% of that thing. Not a 100% of that thing.

For example, a human can be omniscient on the parts of car, or omniscient about the current domain such as research methods and testing.

All domains interlap and related to other domains. Ultimately, all domains are a part of Existence. So even if we know a domain fully, we are not omniscient. As in we don't know all that there is to know. We still have to add to this statement and say something like we know all that there is to know about triangles.

I hope this is making sense, but the idea is that because human beings can be all-knowing about a certain topic, it is possible that God is not all knowing. I believe that God is not all-knowing in the sense of sin. It is often argued that God does not know what sin is, because he is all-good, and sin is bad. In view of this, could it also be argued that God does not know evil because he is all good? In other words, he might not know/see the evil in the world because he can only see or feel the good, because he is all good? Yeah. I'd love to hear your response to this. Thanks!

Knowing what something is like, need not amount to experiencing it. So I believe that knowing what pain is like is knowable without ever experiencing it. Everything amounts to information. Once the information is taken in and understood with the appropriate capacity/tools/senses, It amounts to knowledge.

Just because we have knowledge of something, doesn't mean that that knowledge is exclusively ours. This includes knowing what it's like to sin or feel pain and so on. Where the information is there along with the appropriate capacity and tools/senses to understand them, we have knowledge/understanding of that information.

Existence existing perfectly, — Philosopher19

Does this mean existence existing perfectly as existence, i.e., as itself? Or does it mean existence existing perfectly by something not itself?

As itself. Existence is perfect and it exists perfectly.

If existence is the perfection of existence, then it seems to me the universe is filled with perfection, and nothing less than perfect, because it's all perfect as itself. My name is God, then, and yours as well. Or do you have other criteria?

It's more a case of Existence is Perfect, it exists Perfectly, and we are a part of it. We're a part of Existence, but we are not Existence. Our name is not God, we are a part of God. We don't have any of God's core traits (infiniteness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolance) so we are clearly different semantically speaking.