Yet they get upset when others worship God or gods. We live in a strange world, or what? — Apollodorus

Haha exactly. It is a strange world full of heavy opinion and popular belief which isn’t inherently correct just because it’s “popular”. It was popular belief that disease was caused by bad smells (miasma theory) in the past but it simply wasn’t true.

I don’t understand the arrogance of group thinking. The whole “there’s more of us that believe X therefore Y must be incorrect” because supposedly many minds are better than one mind.
The irony being that all scientific and tech advancements started off with merely a handful of proponents that persisted that it was correct/fact despite being rejected by the majority. Even today with scientific method applied correctly, skepticism is very hard to overcome.

But I think people ought to critically evaluate for themselves and not rely on bias and prejudice nor the “status quo” alone.

I think at most one can be agnostic - they do not yet know what they wish to pursue, worship or place as the object or goal of their purpose or the means by which they understand the nature of reality. But to say one is atheist? Atheist towards what precisely? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions and nuances towards the same “god/gods” both in a religious context and in a more metaphorically life pursuit sense.

One cannot deny outright a non exhaustive ongoing debate which has the potential to be improved refined and redefined.

The problem is that politics is about power and power tends to corrupt as well as seek more power. Without checks and balances, this ultimately leads to a corrupt dictatorship controlled by those who control resources, finance and economy. — Apollodorus

My question now is why? Why does power tend to corrupt people? What is it about being able to exert force/ impact on those around you that lends itself so easily to this distortion of morality/ ethics?

Is it that those who wish to be powerful are the wrong type of personality to have power? Or is it that upon attaining it there is somehow a complex of elitism that is developed or that the ego expands out of hand. Or is it simply that one can no longer sympathise with anothers struggle/ desperation once they themselves have been removed from it for long enough?

What if the state is unable to fulfill my needs? — Tzeentch

Damn they’re very good questions.what such unfulfillable needs do you suggest that the state couldn’t manage? Need being the key word rather than desire.
I suppose the issue that’s being posited here really is how do we a). define the border between the category of “leader” with authority and the “led/followers” - being provided for .

And b). with finite resources there is a state of personal attitude/ belief or expectation to have ones needs be met which is untenable. For example I need to be as well off as the leaders but I don’t wish to provide for others the same resources as I myself would have.

However need and desire are different. Maslows hierarchy of needs doesnt really feature mansions or porches or anything whilst it would feature a “comfortable and secure home” and “access to transport”.

Some people I guess will never be satisfied also even if they have more than enough for their needs. Which is another important thing to consider in which case the “well you get what you get” attitude is somewhat warranted I suppose.

Perhaps there is a third option: if you don’t with to pursue a position of leadership in which you will provide for others, nor do you wish/ are satisfied with position of follower in which perhaps your needs are decided for and fulfilled by others third last option is you lay leave the society and select another or create your own upon failing that.

The issue is territory is also finite and in the currently world most habitable territory is claimed. In essence true freedom to roam uninhabited land up for grabs is a thing of the past.

It’s true, the number, quality and dynamic of deities has always been changing and likely will continue to do so in the future.
Personally I believe that everyone has a “god/ gods” in a loose sense and everyone “worships”. It is simply those things - the number, quality and dynamic that changes.
It is what the term “god” - that most glorious and desired and loved thing really is/ means for each person that is important to clarify: for some it’s money, for some it’s another person (their spouse perhaps) for others it’s authority or recognition or success or their dream home etc. It can be material or it can be a metaphysical feeling or sense or state of being or experience.

But no one - absolutely no one - is without their own personal god, something they cherish more than all else. For some, that which is revered is simply the knowledge of their own free will to die. Some people worship the state of non- existence, they “idealise” it if they don’t find anything of worth or satisfaction in life.

Hi Jack I have some thoughts on wisdom. I guess I’m a little late to the party though haha.

Some observations: though many people become wiser with age you can be just as naive at 80 as you were at 20 and also some young people tend to have a surprising level of wisdom early on as the adage “old head on young shoulders” would suggest.

So it seems wisdom isn’t inherently restricted to experience. There must then be some form of logic , disposition or knowledge which if mastered correctly would enable one to be wise about issues and topics that have never affected them personally.

My understanding of wisdom is that it is the acknowledgment of that portion of knowledge which stays consistent between seemingly unrelated topics/ subjects. That is to say can be applied correctly to any case based on the fact that it is somehow more intrinsic than the differing superficial knowledge of disciplines.
Some examples:
“Buy when people are afraid/ uncertain and sell when they are confident/certain” - a cardinal slice of economic wisdom about the psychology of the global market. No matter how specific and complex you get in the nitty- gritty those who are successful never forget this big picture.
Others like “the more popular you become the more enemies you make” - because of jealousy, “if it seems to good to be true it is” - deceit. “Don’t count your eggs before they hatch” or “people will offer you an umbrella when the sun shines and demand it back when it rains”

All of these are simple truth pertaining to human behaviour. And while simple they are true and therefore consistently applicable. That’s the difference between the wise and the naive, wise people constantly apply basic rules rather then bank on the hope that maybe this time/ I myself may be an exception (naivety).

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking. — Bitter Crank

I believe the poor’s happiness is accounted for by “agency” rather than “money” and its simply that 90% of us subscribe to the capitalist regime that it merely “appears” that money provides us with happiness when really it gives us agency - the power to chose what we want for ourselves.

Think about it - both the poor and wealthy inherently have agency of their own. Because the wealthy have the financial means to choose what they wish to do and usually free up their time by using some of that money to offset their enterprise into the hands of assistants and managers.
The poor on the other hand often have a). Free time if they’re unemployed b). Social welfare from the state - bare needs are met c). A strong sense of community due to having that time to develop relationships. d). A lack of ambition - their sense of value and purpose comes from somewhere else other than the seismic monetary/ career ladder for which the vast majority of people are competing. By choosing a non- competitive life path they have surprisingly more opportunities and less regulation and restriction.

It’s the middle class that tend to be the least happy. Because they have the ideals, dreams and ambitions aligned with the upper class, but they are also the largest fraction and so have the greatest competition to get there, and because businesses don’t run themselves they also have to concede to investing the most time out of their life to earn a salary. Between all of these things they can often erode their identity and their agency if they can’t manage to find a work- life balance or manage their expectations.

Also it is of note that those with the least sense of agency are very often people with depression. The whole “what is the point”, “there’s no hope” etc. The most unhappy are those that feel they have absolutely zero impact, value, or worth in the world or place all of it on untenable values that they have repeatedly failed to achieve and therefore feel unsuccessful.

You can very easily be “successfully” poor or average.

Whilst much of what you said is true this is the reason why we have labour laws and employee benefits. Because whilst yes the boss has the power to decide how the enterprise shall be run it is most definitely restricted by law, health and safety.

As well as that the employers ability to fire an employee is only on the spot and immediate without monetary compensation for the first year or two. The longer an employee is committed to a company and has built their life around that reliable income the more costly it is to fire them as the employer has to pay compensation that is proportional to the time the employee spent there.

There will always be leaders and followers, bosses and employees, the powerful and the not so much. There’s nothing wrong with that necessarily provided two things are allowed: a). A follower can always become a leader/ a leader can assume follower status at any point in time. b). Leaders take care of their followers and followers enable leaders to do so.

If both those conditions are pursued then whatever establishment, enterprise or community it may be all the participants have little reason to disagree or become disenfranchised. Of course modern life is not an ideal and both of these requirements are often eroded or distorted in favour mostly of those in the leader position/ power. They forget themselves and who put them there.

All of societies problems come down to two things: a lack of gratitude and an over abundance of greed.

Time, I suppose, is the only thing I want more of**. — Kenosha Kid

See my previous comment above because I thought the exact same. We are all born wealthy in sense and die a poor man. But “money” is not the object of that kind of wealth

If you don't mind me asking, what are your career and life plans? What do you want your life to be like in 20 years--assuming the world doesn't go to hell in a big way? — Bitter Crank

Well, I can tell you what I don’t want for my life if that helps to narrow down what I do want haha.
I guess I still have a bit of the fiery anarchism of youth running through my veins - because I’m still deeply unsettled by the manipulative, coercive and controlling nature of politics and society as a whole.

I look around me and see people selling their precious time on earth for just enough money to fund their existence. As bleak as that sounds some people love their work and are quite satisfied with a meagre life and that’s fine. But I think time is more precious a commodity than money because unlike money time is not renewable. And thus, you should never convene/ accept or agree that your time is more disposable than anyone else’s. Income to life satisfaction ratio should reflect this. Either be paid little for something you love or be paid a lot for something you dread but never be paid little for something you dread.
You are given your time riches at birth and are free to spend it how you wish but you will never be given a “top up” and should never forget that you are always “spending” even when you’re “earning.”

In my country I see things like a suffocating and outdated planning process for building your own home. Someone in a suit is dictating whether, when and where you can have a home. And it’s such an arduous and longwinded task to get that permission that most opt to rent or buy something pre- built. Which comes with their own issues because the price of a home is grossly over- priced due to the lack of building as previously stated, and as for renting? Well that’s basically a mortgage except you get nothing after your 20 or so years of investment.

So I just step back for a moment and think... having considered all the elitism and rule makers in the world, and how we seem to constantly be trying to influence the behaviour of each other to suit ourselves, all of us are simply here for the first time. And all of us will be dead again and then the scales will be equalised. No dead man is more wealthy or powerful then the next. So why are we torturing each other in a rat race to the top?

I want my career to be wholesome, satisfying and “time well spent”. And I want money to serve or enable me in my career/purpose but not “be” the purpose.
I’m not particularly invested in material I prefer experiences and memory making, because again you possess those for life no one and nothing but ageing itself can take them from you. Also in the grand scheme of things one finds that 90% of their possessions are not exceptionally important or useful.
And mostly I want to be in a position of a). awareness of others and b). comfort that my needs are met in order to never find myself in a position where Im forced to sell my own pursuit for someone else’s agenda.
Career wise I’m studying medicine and two years away from graduation.

People can be unethical, not money — James Riley

Agreed any ethical concern comes from the animate aware conscious beings involved not the paper bills/ notes that sit there as a symbol of value and nothing else.

So I guess you’re right even if we remove money from the equation and used a bartering system the same phenomenon of poverty and wealth emerges.

So my question then would be is greed or sharing the more natural state of the human psyche? Or do we have equal capacity for both?
We know that the poor are somewhat looked after by people who are better off but interesting it doesn’t correlate with wealth. Most philanthropists are middle class do gooders not the wealthiest 1%.

I have my suspicions that it is when one has a taste of poverty and then becomes more affluent that they remember to give back. When one has never had to come even close to begging they cannot possibly sympathise.

This would not work. Any deviation from one's own moral code in your proposed world would mean to that person that it is bad morality. Since he, the individual (all individuals and every one of them) beleive their own code is the absolute moral, they MUST regard deviation as badness, and similarity as goodness. — god must be atheist

Again, no one need say they have the ultimate claim of morality. Some may simply be like this is what I believe. Do you think I’m pouting you in the right direction toward to good side or no? Anyone who claims they have the ultimate say on objective morality is saying they are the purest good themselves. And I would imagine that the true good end of the spectrum would never claim such a thing wouldn't you agree? Authentic people don’t draw attention to themselves and self praise.

1. Everyone thinks of himself as the person who is absolutely good, because they all obey their own moral code to the letter.
2. Every deviation from their moral code is judged by them as "bad", as their own is perceived as perfect, so deviations from it must seem as imperfections, which ab ovo heralds an immoral quality in personality. — god must be atheist

Nothing was implied that meant you believed your own moral code was correct. You can of course if you want claim that you are that extreme polarity of virtue. But i suspect many would be skeptical.

Or you can be of the type of person who admits they are simply a “middleman” and people ought not to take their word verbatim because perhaps they are closer to the immoral side than the moral side. They freely admit they do not know the true objective moral.
Which to me signals in an ironic paradox that perhaps they are more moral than they believe because they are inherently distrusting of their own agenda and seemingly humble. As is part of the game. In this hypothetical morality game we must judge or figure out who of us has the full deck of cards when we ourselves only have half the deck. And some would have you believe that their way is right when in fact they are the worst people of all.

Not because they can't see the immorality in it, but because they decide that they had rather kill, steal and cheat, than be moral.

In this world this is funny, because in your world everyone acts according to their best perceived morality. At least that is what I get from your description. — god must be atheist

No because remember the evil side is also aware of the true objective moral. How can it be truly evil if it does not know what is truly good? You cannot lie if you don’t know the entire truth from which you are trying to deceive. So being aware of something as immoral and doing it anyway is worst than being deluded - genuinely thinking you are helping and inadvertently causing harm

But I think of evil instead as being like a bit of grit that found its way into the custard, knowable and known by its grittiness, even as its proportion is one part in thousands. — tim wood

Interesting. I see what you mean it’s not necessarily proportional in quantity with good despite us acknowledging it as a terrible possibility. As maybe the same idea goes with how many of us fear becoming old and decrepit or the process of decline to death when actually 70% of our life is not this stage but one of health and able-bodiedness. Those last few years of a standard healthy lifespan are the grit in the otherwise long lived healthy custard so to speak.

ahhh I get you now apologies for having missed it. It is an interesting theory. There is a lot of confusion around the concept of “fields” and what they are exactly. Or around the ideas of “substance” or “stuff” and whether they are energies or materials of some sort.

I think it’s important here to remember that really energy and mass are equivalent. They are the same thing and actually what differs them is velocity and relativity (time) in accordance with the equation provided by the wise and noble Einstein.

What would be a true masterpiece to understand exactly how time, space, mass and energy all interdepend on one another, how they each come about, which came first or perhaps if they are all faces of the same fundamental substance

That is the dilemma though. You just reiterated the incoherence I was highlighting. The task of distinguishing between most perfect and the most imperfect as semi-imperfect “middle ground” beings. It seems it’s not possible.
If the objective morality is only held by one individual - “the best one” then it can’t be proven as objective, only subjective because it seems to apply just to one subject regardless of how valid it actually may be for all subjects.

So the only thing we could possibly accept as objective morality is the popular vote of all people. Even if one person truly was the most virtuous as having applied their personal theory to everyone we could receive an accurate account of who is really good and who is really bad (lies and deceptions and all that removed). What reason would we have to believe them? We would merely say you’re also imperfect and flawed and therefore your moral code is no better than anyone else’s.

What I was saying though is qualitatively speaking someone’s has to have the most ideal worldview even if we can’t identify which person it is. Which is frustrating for the benefit it could do everyone. Out of all peoples input on the planet there has to be someone who has the most workable, justifiable mode by which we should be living to maximise benefit for everyone or minimise harm etc, or whatever parameters true morality would lie on.

that’s an interesting way to see it. And true i suppose “if you have nothing to gain you have everything to lose.”

I definitely agree that most people look back at their former selves in their twenties and wish they valued their time or youth more or had the wisdom and attitudes of their older later life versions. So many times I hear my elders say “if only I was more....” in my twenties.

I’m sure it may be quite normal to have this perspective though. Hindsight is certainly clarifying but it’s also mute. Because of course we can see where mistakes were made after the fact but perhaps we still needed to make them to exchange naivety for wisdom.
Being in my 20s now I’m still looking at how I wish my career and mid life to go. I definitely don’t think pursuing money is a good path. Because we all have a type of currency we can only give away - time. We can exchange it for money but is it worth it? I don’t want to live for another's agenda unless it is also my own.

In the end - total, lasting satisfaction is not something that human experience. For evolutionary reasons it is not a state of mind we can acquire in nature. It can be achieved with some kind of mind hacking perhaps. — original2

That’s a good point. I also agree that we are creatures of change and we must always turnover the status quo whatever that may be to feel that we are progressing or having an impact. We are never satisfied because if we reached a state of satisfaction in evolution (perhaps as pandas might have) we would become wholly unmotivated and go extinct.

t has to do with the fact that energy in and by itself can't exist. It is CARRIED by matter. — god must be atheist

I disagree. Photons are massless. Nothing at the speed of light can possess mass. And they are most definitely energy. Wavelengths don’t carry the energy they are a measure of the intensity of the energy and it’s ability to penetrate matter. For example the light you can see from the sun can’t generally harm you but the shorter wavelength UV (higher frequency) light can give you a sunburn as it is of higher energy.

However I do agree with you if what you meant is the measurement of energy cannot exist without matter. This is definitely true. You can only measure/ observe/ be aware of light, heat, motion etc by interacting with it. If a light particle never hits a solid surface (our eye) we cannot see it.

this has an interesting resonance with a thought I recently had that “the only thing omniscience could not know is ignorance”. It cannot be omniscient then. It couldn’t conceive of the state of ignorance.

Because of entropy.
It’s a lot easier for a person to produce energy from matter than it is to produce matter from energy. You would need a colossal amount of energy to produce even a gram of matter, no less the amount you interact with on a day to day basis.
In this case your “mental energy-scape, mind or consciousness” would have to have the power of several million atomic bombs to manifest the physical world.

It just seems more intuitive that the energy from glucose coursing in your blood fuels a highly energy efficient biological machine which somehow generates awareness. Of pre-existing mass and external material.

It is a good question though in the sense that we should always work out why processes can’t be bi-directional because often many are.

As for another clue that consciousness (at least as it is in the human mind) probably doesn’t cause the existence of the physical world is because all of our sensory organs are clearly designed to maximise capture and focus the scattered waves, signals and stimuli of the external world.
If consciousness manifested its reality surely the organs would have evolved with a transmitter type architecture rather than a receiver type architecture.

. However I don't know if I could change my character. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don’t believe character is very concrete / set in stone. Sure there are some traits that seem to be a part of our deepest identity and are difficult to shift but if you dislike a particular part of yourself or maybe desire a specific trait for yourself, there’s nothing but some hard graft between you and it.

Though I can’t prove it necessarily, I have the belief based on intuition that people say they can’t change/ “one cannot truly change” because they either don’t want to, don’t understand how to, or don’t need to.
Also pessimism or cynicism can be hard to endure sometimes especially for the more upbeat optimists of the world but some of our best analytical or critical thinkers were pessimistic. I wouldn’t be too hard on yourself about changing it, don’t be so pessimistic lol

Why must we all get worked up about negatives?

I think it’s human nature to be perfectly frank. When confronted with a fearful or life-threatening situation (be it war, pandemics, a natural disaster, etc) the degree of distrust amongst us as a collective goes up.
You need only look at the volatility of the market to see it. Uncertainty leads to volatility.
It’s bound to.

When in the “fight or flight mode” every decision, every choice or path we could take has to be analysed in depth and the pros and cons weighed. It’s self preservation and that is an inherently “selfish” process - it doesn’t lend itself to thinking about what other people think or trusting other peoples motives especially if they are also “fighting for survival”.

So the sad truth is that no matter how golden the fruit is that you offer to someone, a small percentage will still point to the only blemish and say it’s poison. Sometimes (Probably more often then not, that small group lose out. And sometimes they are the last men standing.)

Besides nations don’t require that all people be vaccinated only around 70% or so. So there’s no reason to force the small few who don’t want it to conform/ mandatorily vaccinate.

Here i will like to distinguish between happiness and joy, where the latter isn't a sensation and cannot be a result that is sought. We may loosely say joy is the "long term" variant of happiness. — skyblack

Agreed hoy is more of a sensation in that it has a certain immediacy that ca be directly attributed to a singular act - eating chocolate, meeting a friend, a sexual encounter, while joy (but I would prefer contentment personally as my term of choice) is an atmosphere or mood developed gradually from a general sense of longterm satisfaction with ones circumstances.

But again it’s confusing because we use the term joy as a synonym for pleasure. When I saw my friend for the first time after several years I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. In this case it seems more immediate and reactionary.

This is something I'm on the fence about myself. — Down The Rabbit Hole

No I don’t believe it’s strictly an asymmetry what I was getting at is there’s an asymmetry between our use of the pair: the two opposites: we tend to use happy as the opposite of sad and we think of sad = depressed when really happy and sad are one thing (short term) and contentment and depression are another (long term).

It’s the way we use them synonymously despite them being different entities altogether that builds a “false asymmetry” where it seems very difficult to be happy all the time but quite common to be sad all the time (depressed). When people perhaps shouldn’t be focused on the idea of continuous happiness (a sort of nothing can go wrong for me) and focus more on contentment (things will often go wrong for me but it’s okay I’m not adverse to it and won’t try to control things as I’m peacefully anticipating both good and bad).

energy is finite in quantity but infinite in quality as it is the action of change, of transformation. Nothing is infinite in a specific moment, only when given time.

The way I see it is that time for the purposes of the external world minus consciousness time doesn’t really exist. Things just change. Constant creation and destruction happening simultaneously. Physics demonstrates that a definitive “now” doesn’t even exist due to time dilation under the influence of gravity.

As for the mind and how it perceives time: I think it’s all down to memory. If we did not have memories we would never be aware of a past. And therefore because we do not have a past to compare to the present we also wouldn’t be aware of a future. Future necessitates and awareness of a then and now and then doing simple maths to deduct that now will become a then. Therefore there is an anticipatory element of nows yet to come (the future).

I like to think of the brain as operating like a semi crystalline fluid. A biphasic phenomenon. The “crystals” are the structurally static memories we form from synapses and the fluid is the active present reformation and transformation of those structures constantly being modified. In this case the past are those parts of the brain not actively demonstrating their “plasticity” - ability to remould. This is demonstrated by the fact that every time you revisit a memory you change it because you incidentally add in current perspective, mood and knowledge. This is like the clarity of hindsight. Looking back at something often makes more sense than when it is the present moment because from the present we can track the linear progression of past.

What are the arguments for and against the responsibility that individuals might be thought to bear to accept a Covid 19 vaccine? What are the arguments for and against the right that individuals might be thought to enjoy to refuse a Covid 19 vaccine? — Janus

Arguments for: protection of ones health, protection of fellow man, protection of the vulnerable, collaboration and cooperation, developing trust, facing group adversity with a group effort, civil duty (just as washing your hands and practising good hygiene also protects everyone else),

Arguments against: not all people can take a vaccine, healthy skepticism and the maintenance of unbiased, uncensored debate about technologies and their impacts/ democratic process, personal health autonomy, reservations regarding long term impacts of something that hasn’t been trialled for longterm effects, religious freedom for those where using a technology is against their way of life, philosophy or spiritual beliefs (think Amish - they don’t use modern appliance technology as they wish to remain close to the land, nature and simple life or Mormons not taking blood).
Acceptance of the fact that simply everyone will never agree about virtually anything.

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Over all agree I would prefer to (and luckily do) live in a scientific based modern age than the barbarism of past societies. But I would like to make note that science, and technology as a whole, is a double edged sword.

I’ll reduce it simply to humanities ability to exploit energy or the natural power of the environment. At its most basic, civilisation correlated with a continuous increase in our capacity to harness energy and process it in all its forms: kinetic, nuclear, thermal and electro-magnetic etc.

Until the industrial revolution our capacity to harness energy was very much restricted to physical labour. The mechanisation of human life with machines (most notably steam engines) was the first huge step in tapping into the power of nature.

So it stands that “with great power comes great responsibility”. We are finally seeing the two sides of this with man-made adversity/issues such as climate change, pollution and all the impacts of population explosion and globalisation (most recently the ripeness of human density for pandemics) something that didn’t afflict isolated tribes to such a degree.

Science generates developments and new techs and they always come with a string of benefits and a string of side effects or negative complications.

However is we take human survival as the ultimate indicator of our control of the environment then it is clear - science has brought forth safety security and the capacity to self actualise despite the things we messed up along the way.

Our first tools were sticks and stones, then fire, then ploughs and domestic animal labour, followed by engines and now computers and a massive capability to innovate and adapt rapidly. Science is remarkable but it has to be taken with a healthy respect and not seen as the ultimatum. It is only a tool to seek answers but it is not “the” answer. It never will be.

And would that person still qualify as human? What if people start seeing them as superhuman or divine and decide to worship instead of resenting them? — Apollodorus

Yes indeed perhaps they would worship them. But I can’t help but feel they would be assassinated to the lament of their followers. After all we have countless cases of hero’s and superior personalities being obliterated by the worst and most selfish of us for very little more than fear and jealousy

People seem not to like smart alecs and so an omniscient being is going to be a pain in the ass. On the flip side, people have a low threshold of tolerance for morons. — TheMadFool

I wonder do morons have a low threshold of tolerance for smart alecs? Haha. The only type of idiocy I think is moronic is blatant refusal to acknowledge ones own limits. It’s the dunning- Krueger effect. I wouldn’t find someone who goes around telling people they aren’t very smart, in the case that it’s true, to be moronic. In fact it’s actually quite humbling and in a strange paradox makes me see them as much more perceptive and intelligent then they themselves give credit to.

I just wonder would an omniscient person empathise with morons despite their hostility towards people who most likely know better than them? An omniscient being would understand the reasons why moronic people are the way they are and also probably knowing how easy it is for anyone to behave like a Moron at least sometime during their lives, would accept this as normal and expected. It’s only human really we are all idiots at some stage. I would imagine an omniscient being would therefore empathise.

Supposing an omniscient person existed, as some of the other commenters rightly assessed, a lot of us would probably be skeptical as to the extent of their knowledge, knowing our own. But therein lies the paradox of, if the person is truly omniscient than any skeptic is a moron. Ignorant to omniscience. Unaware of it or refusing to believe it.
If an omniscient person existed we would probably only appreciate their intelligence if everyone did what Socrates did and admit that “I know that I know nothing”.

I think an omniscient person could only reveal themselves as such to someone receptive (ignorant) rather than someone who believes themselves to be partially omniscient to varying degrees.

Would we even recognise such as person as omniscient; would they not seem mad or malevolent to us? What ethical perspective es and behaviours would omniscience bring with it? — Tom Storm

Again another very valid point I feel. How would we identify them as human if they don’t have an intrinsic human quality - ignorance. We tend to believe people that don’t recognise their own ignorance as arrogant because we believe nobody (no human at least) can know everything therefore there is only the “humble” and the “arrogant”.

So it would be almost as if we were encountering an alien that was mimicking or appearing as us but isn’t truly one of us because they’re superhuman.
I would imagine the fear of that alone would make some people very aggressive and hostile towards such an entity.
As for the ethical principles I guess ethics is modified by the current state of knowledge. For example it would be unethical to withhold antibiotics from someone knowing they could save their lives. The dilemma only arises with the advent of antibiotics. For someone who is omniscient it would be like either “I must intervene on behalf of everyone or I must not interfere at all. But to intervene for only a few is favouritism” which is unethical.

Now is passivity or non-intervention truly ethical? On one side you’re allowing free will of people to figure it out for themselves but on the other hand you could have prevented a lot of suffering because a). You know when it’s going to occur b) to whom and c). How to stop it.

Only if you choose to. You can always find answers through your own efforts. Nobody is preventing you. — Apollodorus

True. But i feel people would kind of be like “oh why are you doing a thesis on such and such just ask person X they already know the answer you’re looking for.” Or “why are you trying to win that Olympic competition person x can already tell whether you have the physique and mental qualities required in order to be the best why waste you time trying just ask them if you’re the fastest strongest etc.” Or “why bother try and soul search for your purpose in life person x already knows what your perfect lifestyle and purpose is just ask them?”

I could see how for some the existence of such a human would really grate on their nerves. It sort of erodes our agency in a way doesn’t it?”

Yes. Kill the pig! Cut her throat! Spill her blood!
— T Clark
About. The problem is that an omniscient person will interfere with the usual way of life. Especially to the kings. — SimpleUser

Yeah this is the line of thinking I was looking to discuss. That’s interesting I had the same kind of unnerving feeling that people would hate such a person and demand they be destroyed.
They certainly would disrupt everyday life.

But my question then is why? Thinking of how much good this person could offer to humanity: cures for cancer, the means to be happy, ways to effectively combat all of humanities major burdens and problems, answers the the most profound and meaningful questions we could posit.
Why on earth should we want them to go away?

Do you mean Google? I don't know if it's a he or a she or an it, but don't people cherish it as the source of all answers? — Caldwell

No I don’t mean google. Google is not a person for a start and secondly it is not omniscient. It provides a lot of misinformation and useless information amongst the intellectual content. It’s more of the sum of all human data rather than a condensed unified understanding. Im talking about the existence of a single person who knows everything about everything, everyone and everywhere (correctly)

For example: I’m kind of thinking a king the lines that for anyone competitive or with a big ego or secrets to hide this person would terrify them but for someone who desperately needs understanding or has questions they’ve longed to have answers the person would be if the utmost importance to meet and talk to.

If anything they would hate us; because 90% of the time would be spent explaining it.
Especially for the closed minded. — Tiberiusmoon

Very true. However you could consider them as hyper-empathetic because they are fully and completely aware of each of our individual limited capacities and could address us at a level that we understand and work form there. Plus one would imagine if you knew everything you’ve a lot of time to spare for those who do not. Afterall what else is there left to do?

Why would you possibly "resent" that? There are always people who know more than you, aren't there? Do you propose to spend the rest of your life resenting that fact? — Apollodorus

Yes but I didn’t ask about people who know more than you do/are more intelligent perhaps, of course they exist, I’m talking about someone who is ultimate intelligence beyond everything else. There’s a big difference between the spectrum of human intelligence and the existence of a superhuman intelligence that is inconceivably beyond our own.
Someone who can literally address any and all queries accurately. Would we want that? It’s essentially surrendering our intellectual autonomy to an entity that knows all.

yes this paradox is exactly the type of thing I was looking for. When is a heap of sand not a heap Is a great analogy.

Yes, well your feelings are a separate matter, aren't they? — Tom Storm

Not really lol. I mean we are talking about personal beliefs in a god or lack thereof so obviously personal opinion is one facet.

All you said is very articulate and details well this failings of religion but my point still remains pretty basic.
If one person refers to the universe with one name while another refers to it with another what difference does it make? How can either be any less correct than the other provided they are based in reason.

As I said my only reason for referring to the universe as god is to outline the fact that it has parts that are conscious (people, animals, plants probably as well as maybe other systems of life we haven’t discovered) as well as the sterile mechanic objective reality of hard sciences.
We can’t ignore the fact that the reality we live in developed self awareness in the format of living things.

And whether ones “subjectivity” can ever be explained objectively or not is irrelevant to the fact that subjects and objects exist in tandem. So I chose to go by a term that denotes some intrinsic sentience as well as being physical.

The problem is other people’s assumptions about what I mean by the term god based on previous uses of the word. What I’m saying is terms are dynamic and change in meaning.

And while ones term for god can be absolutely absurd and ridiculous another's having reviewed the term, analysed it, incorporated modern knowledge, physics etc and generally given it an update would not be so absurd.