The logical fallacy of atheism

[religion99]

How would I know that I had attained it?

One of the things that you'll know when you attain it is "I am Omniscient".

 

[religion99]

How would I know that I had attained it?

We only have so many neurons.

Are you saying that neurons are the source of knowledge?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One of the things that you'll know when you attain it is "I am Omniscient".

But I might think "I am omniscient" - or even think "I KNOW I'm omniscient" -even if I wasn't omniscient but was somehow deluded or misled into thinking I was, so that's no guarantee.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying that neurons are the source of knowledge?

I'm saying that our knowledge resides in our neurons.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jainism anyway denies Omnipotence. So , there is no contest on this point. See my previous posts in this thread.

I should really have some sort of warning when it comes to this because I always exclude dharmic religions from usual religious discussions. Any religion which is overtly philosophical orientated which is pretty much every Indian and Chinese religions gets kicked from normal religious conversation.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jainism anyway denies Omnipotence. So , there is no contest on this point. See my previous posts in this thread.

Oh yes, I just noticed that you are a Jain. I did not pay that any attention until now . But I am heavily influenced by Hinduism I may add

 

[religion99]

Still doesn't work as a test for omniscience. "Very knowledgeable" is not the same as "omniscient".

All the indirect knowledge are subject to distortion because of the imperfect tools used in acquiring the knowledge. And this include Sensory knowledge. It also includes Deduction and Induction.

 

[LuisDantas]

I should really have some sort of warning when it comes to this because I always exclude dharmic religions from usual religious discussions. Any religion which is overtly philosophical orientated which is pretty much every Indian and Chinese religions gets kicked from normal religious conversation.

Which goes to show how odd expectations about religion have become.

 

[religion99]

I'm saying that our knowledge resides in our neurons.

There are two kinds of Knowledges: Direct and Indirect. Indirect knowledges requires tools and senses and Direct knowledges don't. Direct knowledges eminate directly from us without any kind of inter-mediation of the body parts like eyes , neurons and so on.

Examples of Indirect Knowledge is Memory , sensory knowledge , induction , deduction etc.

English Moksh Marg Prakashak -Dependent Functioning of Mati-Jnan-CHAPTER 2


Examples of Direct Knowledge are clairvoyance , telepathy and our favorite point of contention: OMNISCIENCE.

English Moksh Marg Prakashak -Functioning of Clairvoyance, Telepathy & Omniscience-CHAPTER 2

 

[Sha'irullah]

Just because you know IT doesn't mean you caused IT. Eg I know that I am not going to live more than 150 years. Does that mean that my knowledge of death caused my death when it happens?

This is another part of philosophy which dives into the omniscience issue.

There are actually different classes of omniscience but absolute omniscience in it's purest form denies free will. It means that an entity is able to perceive for what they will be.

If I was for example able to perceive the future it would not be omniscience. If I was aware of all things int he world I would still not be omniscient. The reason for this is that omniscience means "all knowing". I cannot be all perceiving and just be aware of choices available to me. I must be able to know how to act upon them and know which action I will make.

If a god does not know which action he will already make before he knows them he is not omniscient but at the same time he denies himself free will

 

[Sha'irullah]

Which goes to show how odd expectations about religion have become.

For some reason when I think of religion, Hinduism, Daoism, and Buddhism are the furthest thing from my mind. I have seen orthodox Hinduism which is very religious but as a whole a lot of it is not.
I just have to exempt them from the bunch

 

[religion99]

But I might think "I am omniscient" - or even think "I KNOW I'm omniscient" -even if I wasn't omniscient but was somehow deluded or misled into thinking I was, so that's no guarantee.

Omniscience is , by rule , always accompanied by Omnibelief ( perfect and correct Belief) and Ominperception (perfect and correct perception ) , so there is guarantee of no delusion.

 

[religion99]

For some reason when I think of religion, Hinduism, Daoism, and Buddhism are the furthest thing from my mind. I have seen orthodox Hinduism which is very religious but as a whole a lot of it is not.
I just have to exempt them from the bunch

For easterns , Religion and Philosophy are synonyms.

 

[Sha'irullah]

For easterns , Religion and Philosophy are synonyms.

Which is just my point, it opens a whole other problem. So I just draw a line down the middle and call Eastern religions philosophical praxes.

 

[LuisDantas]

For some reason when I think of religion, Hinduism, Daoism, and Buddhism are the furthest thing from my mind. I have seen orthodox Hinduism which is very religious but as a whole a lot of it is not.
I just have to exempt them from the bunch

Meanwhile, I find the Abrahamic Faiths rather exotic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which is just my point, it opens a whole other problem. So I just draw a line down the middle and call Eastern religions philosophical praxes.

Could we attempt to agree in a better or at least more specific name then? Because I don't think it is a good idea to deemphasize the religious meaning of Dharmic faiths.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Could we attempt to agree in a better or at least more specific name then? Because I don't think it is a good idea to deemphasize the religious meaning of Dharmic faiths.

I never said I had a good name for them. Just poor labels

 

[religion99]

This is another part of philosophy which dives into the omniscience issue.

There are actually different classes of omniscience but absolute omniscience in it's purest form denies free will. It means that an entity is able to perceive for what they will be.

If I was for example able to perceive the future it would not be omniscience. If I was aware of all things int he world I would still not be omniscient. The reason for this is that omniscience means "all knowing". I cannot be all perceiving and just be aware of choices available to me. I must be able to know how to act upon them and know which action I will make.

If a god does not know which action he will already make before he knows them he is not omniscient but at the same time he denies himself free will

Omniscience is , by rule , always accompanied by absolute non-desireness ie no desire whatsoever to harm or help anybody. At-least that is the position of Jainism. Otherwise , there will be paradox. What do you think?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Omniscience is , by rule , always accompanied by absolute non-desireness ie no desire whatsoever to harm or help anybody. Otherwise , there will be paradox. What do you think?

Knowing and having desire are not correlated int he slightest bit. Omnipotence and desire are correlated though.
You are becoming confused on this. An Omniscience being can foresee that he makes no actions at all. I am very sure that the concept of deities in Jainism are more deistic and inactive if I recall right. This of course is not the case for Abrahamic gods.

Omnipotence is where desire comes into play because to be omnipotent means to be able to use power. Power implies action so an action would most likely have a desire behind it.

...I am really loving this debate by the way .

 

[religion99]

Just realized that will = desire. So there is no contest here again. Do you agree?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/desire