Question of omniscience

[Perndog]

It's a matter of how right and wrong are defined, and you can't accuse me of equivocation because "right" has no standard definition; it has a unique meaning within every philosophical paradigm. In monotheistic religions, "right" or "good" means in accordance with divine will. In nontheistic systems such as Buddhism, "right" has different definitions or is subjective and defined individually. The only universal standard for what is right is that it is what people should do according to a given value system. In this model, "right" is defined as socially efficient, and the entire purpose of the system is to provide a definition that doesn't require a spiritual basis for it yet still allows it to be absolute. If you want a specific source for it, the source would have to be human psychology.

So if rightness is defined uniquely (and it must be) within every model, and this model defines rightness as social efficiency, then this model can be correct as long as a superceding source of morality is absent and so long as absolute standards of what works exist.

I doubt it's correct myself. I just want to show that it's possible.

I bet a lot of moral atheists are quite philosophical about it. And Ror said, in essence, that the only way morality is possible is if a deity is accepted as the static and absolute root of it. That's what I think would be objectionable, even to eggheads.