Apparently. If he evolves, he's not omnipotent, necessary, and all those other divine thingies.
Bit of a failure, it seems. — Banno
You see, he's just a man. — The Merovingian (to his thugs when he sees Neo bleeding)
But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right? — TheMadFool
But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right?
— TheMadFool
Evolution is not teleological. No higher or lower. The premise is muddled. Like in that silly film. — Banno
It deals with many philosophical issues.
— TheMadFool
Badly — Banno
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about evolution. Let's keep this simple. Yes, a person who's acquired a PhD in some field can lose everything that the PhD stands for e.g. if he suffers a stroke, brain trauma in an accident, and so on but we're here talking about a being that has achieved omniscience - there's nothing this being (God) doesn't know - and I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being can be bad at anything let alone his job. — TheMadFool
Those that can do, those that can’t teach. — Ennui Elucidator
While not a universal principle in the same way as the Peter Principle, it is well known that that one can know the particulars and yet be unable to execute. This is intimated in the tension between “knowledge that” and “knowledge how”. In an uncritical view of god’s omniscience, one might simply accept that god’s omniscience includes all forms knowledge and of necessity, knowledge how includes the ability to execute that knowledge. Consider the person that knows how to add and when presented with all of the relevant figures still comes to the wrong sum. This person, engaged purely in intellectual endeavor, didn’t know something and is clearly not god. But now imagine that an invisible being, who knows both everything about strutting down a runway (knowledge that and knowledge how) and has the desire to do so, struts down the runway. In some abstract way, it is probably the best runway strutting anyone would be able to do, but no one saw it - indeed no one was capable of seeing. In this way, necessary features of god can preclude the meaningful manifestation of god’s knowledge. Though far afield, perhaps this accounts for “god the teacher” who provides instruction on how to make the world a better place. Remember, though, if knowledge how is actually not knowledge, and god is imbued with only knowledge that (acquaintance knowledge is taken for granted because god knows everyone), it may be that god’s incompetence is has additional explanations. — Ennui Elucidator
In any event, given enough time (which an infinite god has surely had) god will reach god’s maximum level of competence and thereafter function at least at god’s lowest level of incompetence (which may or may not be the most god can get away with and keep the job). At this level of incompetence, god can be unable to do despite complete knowledge of what to do, how to do it, and the consequences of the incompetence god will manifest in attempting to do so. The Peter Principle does not preclude god functioning at the highest possible level of potency, it merely highlights that superlatives are of necessity ordinal and being number one (in spirit, character, or count) for god says nothing about god’s invariant competence. — Ennui Elucidator
For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window but if that, you would be arguing against not God but something else entirely, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, non-omniscient being - that's not God. — TheMadFool
For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window — TheMadFool
he Peter Principle, though often thought of as a mere hypothesis, rests not on empirical observation (whether such is employed to support the hypothesis or not), but simple self evident truths combined with the rules of thought as articulated from Aristotle to the present. — Ennui Elucidator
A quibble - This is not true. The Peter Principle was developed by Dr. Laurence Peter based on his empirical research. — T Clark
What is it about the world being an instantiation of the forms which must exist of necessity? — Ennui Elucidator
It is a generalization from observations. — T Clark
For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window
— TheMadFool
Again, knowing and doing are two separate things. A paralyzed Olympian knows how but can't do. A marginally competent god is the same way. Omniscience is not the problem with what I am saying, it is omnipotence. Can there be a constraint on god and it still be omnipotent? You'll find that people have historically argued that god can do anything logically possible. What I have done is suggest that the Peter Principle is a necessary logical constraint on god. Random Wiki on Omnipotence — Ennui Elucidator
Liberal theology has come along way since the formulation of God as omniscient( see process theology, open theism). — Joshs
I appreciate your seeming sincerity, but one can be a flirt only so long. This post is largely an example of Poe’s Law — Ennui Elucidator
That said, there are some things to be gleaned from an absurd analysis of the Omni-god, but as this is a philosophy forum (which is concerned primarily with method), I will not elaborate in a way that would strike of being religious.
I will, however, tell you that this story is an absurd expansion of an actual sermon which is timely for Jews thinking about the themes of some upcoming holidays. Charity and humility (the acceptance that others will suck at their jobs while we suck at our own) are virtues that go a long way towards maintaining relationships and allowing ourselves and others to seek and give forgiveness for our failings. The Peter Principle (empirical as it is) is a relatively contemporary tool for framing the abundant incompetence we see and highlighting the systems and systemic forces that foster it. — Ennui Elucidator
Who promoted God to beyond His competence? — unenlightened
So, God wasn't what you wanted to discuss. What you really wanted was an opinion on human failings, incompetence, and how it would be better if we cut each other some slack to avoid unnecessary headaches. We did discuss that too, although only superficially — TheMadFool
It would be such a nice explanation, even if it isn’t. — Ennui Elucidator
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.