It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Omniscience - A little thought experiment.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
D) None of the Above




posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Skorpion
Have you read Dan Browns latest novel called Inferno?

I ask you this because the central figure in the book is such a man that you describe. I won't spoil the ending but my response would be

B) Allow him to live.

Maybe the world needs such a person to wreak havoc on the world once again. Lets shake up the current political status quo of the world and introduce new blood and ideas to shape the future of man. A new government that mass produces alternative energies for homes, transport and industry. Reduce combustion motors.

I am only assuming that such an evil person, would ultimately have good goals in mind.

Or does this sinner of yours wreak havoc on the world, so that evilness in all its forms can reign supreme, and every vileness that man can conjor is encouraged in its multitudes.

If your sinner is this kind of person, then I suppose I would choose C) and eliminate the suffering of the good man in the process.

S&F



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Trubeeleever
Skorpion
Have you read Dan Browns latest novel called Inferno?

I ask you this because the central figure in the book is such a man that you describe. I won't spoil the ending but my response would be

B) Allow him to live.

Maybe the world needs such a person to wreak havoc on the world once again. Lets shake up the current political status quo of the world and introduce new blood and ideas to shape the future of man. A new government that mass produces alternative energies for homes, transport and industry. Reduce combustion motors.

I am only assuming that such an evil person, would ultimately have good goals in mind.

Or does this sinner of yours wreak havoc on the world, so that evilness in all its forms can reign supreme, and every vileness that man can conjor is encouraged in its multitudes.

If your sinner is this kind of person, then I suppose I would choose C) and eliminate the suffering of the good man in the process.

S&F


Reminds me of something I read once...


"Hem-Hem... Thank you, headmaster, for those kind words of welcome. [...] The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of a vital importance. Although each headmaster has brought something new to this... historic school, progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be... prohibited!"


I know some of you are a little too old school to recognize the reference, but the quote comes from a sycophantic bigoted insecure woman who used people to enforce her own agenda. Enter progressive devolution. The art of parasitically feeding on society to further your own survival.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
Lets say God, in all His omniscience, knows of a genuinely good, kindhearted man who is to be born a few years from now. God also knows that this good man would father just one son, who would grow up to be the most evil person you can imagine. _________________________________________Now, God can either.... A) Make the son die as a child, causing lifelong grief for the good man...... B) Allow the evil son to grow up and ruin the lives of many other innocent people. ...... C) Not let the good man be born in the first place, so as to prevent his evil son from existing. ________________________________________which do you think is the best solution? And why? If you choose A) isn't it unfair for the son who was innocent as a child when he died? Why should the good man go through the pain of losing his son? If its B) is it fair that other people deserved to suffer by the evil son? If its C) does it mean you would remove good just to prevent an evil?
edit on 2-12-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Should Mohammed Ibn Abdullah have been drowned as a baby to prevent him from tearing up the Arab world for almost 1,500 years? Maybe we should go back and ask his first victims what they think about Mohammed. Wait, we did hear what they said just before they were killed.

Should Allah, if Allah is god, have in his omniscience seen what Mohammed would do in the name of Allah? But at every turn, Mohammed said "Allah says I can so I will" without there ever being any evidence that Allah said it, because Mohammed seemed to always find Allah saying he could just at the moments he was caught in his lies.

So who are you talking about, God or Allah? They aren't the same, so apply your question to your own god and see where the answer lies in that.

Should Mohammed have been drowned as a baby? Nope, his family should have been better and taught him right, but his father died four years before he was born...(How????) and his mother died when he was young. All that was left was his uncle and the men in the community. Mohammed became a megalomaniac narcissist, all because he didn't have adults that really cared about him in his childhood. He should be a cautionary tale to whole communities, to show what happens when children aren't taught respect for life and love. Do you think maybe there were days in his life when he thought he should have been killed as a baby, just to not live in a hellish childhood?

The biggest difference in Jesus and Mohammed, Jesus had a loving mother who cared for Him, Mohammed didn't. But the devil made war against Mary and still wages it today, because right after Jesus was born, the command came to kill every baby boy to prevent the coming Messiah and King of Israel. So think about that, the evil ones determine to kill innocent babies instead of investing time and love to teaching them right from wrong. The God of the Bible says to teach them what is good and right and to love them. So in the question of omniscience, God is also all wisdom, and wisdom is the foundation of all knowledge.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

Trubeeleever


Reminds me of something I read once...


"Hem-Hem... Thank you, headmaster, for those kind words of welcome. [...] The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of a vital importance. Although each headmaster has brought something new to this... historic school, progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be... prohibited!"


I know some of you are a little too old school to recognize the reference, but the quote comes from a sycophantic bigoted insecure woman who used people to enforce her own agenda. Enter progressive devolution. The art of parasitically feeding on society to further your own survival.


Wouldn't that then be Survival Of The Fittest?

And in the ultimate natural law, then how is that wrong? She would simply be artistically doing it, that's all. Nothing says Survival of the Fittest had to lead to a good place, only a place in which the fittest survive.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

WarminIndy
Wouldn't that then be Survival Of The Fittest?

And in the ultimate natural law, then how is that wrong? She would simply be artistically doing it, that's all. Nothing says Survival of the Fittest had to lead to a good place, only a place in which the fittest survive.


You're doing it wrong again....'Survival of the Fittest' doesn't mean the strongest, smartest, fastest, fittest will survive, in the correct context 'fittest' means having the highest average number of fertile offspring...



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Prezbo369

WarminIndy
Wouldn't that then be Survival Of The Fittest?

And in the ultimate natural law, then how is that wrong? She would simply be artistically doing it, that's all. Nothing says Survival of the Fittest had to lead to a good place, only a place in which the fittest survive.


You're doing it wrong again....'Survival of the Fittest' doesn't mean the strongest, smartest, fastest, fittest will survive, in the correct context 'fittest' means having the highest average number of fertile offspring...



Then why do really dumb and stupid people seem to have the most children? Why do rational, smart, logical people only have a few?

Have you ever noticed that?



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


But as a species with the ability to make more connections in our heads, and more variant connections at that, we are able to choose what we pay attention to and how we do things. We're able to switch it up and learn to enjoy it. In fact, we're able to sacrifice our happiness completely for that of another.

In short, what makes us humans is the ability to fly in the face of thousands of years worth of evolution by a simple choice. Such as throwing yourself in the path of a bullet or giving up food for an elderly homeless man to eat.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


But as a species with the ability to make more connections in our heads, and more variant connections at that, we are able to choose what we pay attention to and how we do things. We're able to switch it up and learn to enjoy it. In fact, we're able to sacrifice our happiness completely for that of another.

In short, what makes us humans is the ability to fly in the face of thousands of years worth of evolution by a simple choice. Such as throwing yourself in the path of a bullet or giving up food for an elderly homeless man to eat.


And that still doesn't say why stupid people breed so much easier and more often....

They aren't thinking with their heads, they are chasing something else.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


They make fewer connections for whatever reason. They are less "neurologically agile".
edit on 4-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


They make fewer connections for whatever reason. They are less "neurologically agile".
edit on 4-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


That might be so, but if the definition as the poster who replied said "survival of the fittest" is making the most offspring, then stupid people making a lot of babies must be the fittest, even if they are less neurologically agile. You would have to agree that if life imitates art, then Delivery Man is a frightening thing. You don't need neurological agility to spawn.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It's generally the nerds who come up with the best ideas, and the muscleheads who carry it out. Nerds are good at designing buildings and muscleheads are good at making them.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It's generally the nerds who come up with the best ideas, and the muscleheads who carry it out. Nerds are good at designing buildings and muscleheads are good at making them.


But that still doesn't answer the premise that if survival of the fittest means making the most offspring, then the stupid people making the most must be the most fit.

What does being nerds and muscleheads have to do with spawning offspring? Absolutely nothing, considering that nerds, muscleheads and stupid people are all capable of spawning without much thought going into the process. So, if survival of the fittest means being able to create the most offspring, then stupid people must be the fittest. That's according to the definition given in this thread.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



But that still doesn't answer the premise that if survival of the fittest means making the most offspring, then the stupid people making the most must be the most fit.


I don't know. What does it mean to be "the most fit". Fit for what? Survival? What is survival? What does surviving entail? Where's the breakoff between survival and prosperity? Where does fitness play into that? How much did fitness contribute to it? Did fitness happen on its own, or did it need help developing?

There's a lot of questions we're not answering here. Maybe before we address the premise, we need more information on what the premise is actually asking.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join