The logical fallacy of atheism

[religion99]

name some.

Mahavira
Parsva
Indrabhuti
Agnibhuti
Vaayubhuti
Sudharma
Jambu

Incidentally , last five were not Jains by birth but they were converts.

 

[outhouse]

Omniscience

There is no such thing.

 

[religion99]

Those would count tentatively as evidence. The past, being no longer existent, can only be evidenced indirectly.

Unless they are contradicted by the direct evidence , in which case , indirect evidence will prevail , right?

Eg Bible says God is Omnipotent and Benevolent , but this is contradicted by direct evidence ( problem of evil , impossibility of creation without raw material) and hence indirect evidence should be discarded.

Another book says that there was an Omniscient Man walking on the Earth. This cannot be contradicted by direct evidence and hence indirect evidence should prevail, right?

 

[Willamena]

Unless they are contradicted by the direct evidence , in which case , direct evidence will prevail , right?

Eg Bible says God is Omnipotent and Benevolent , but this is contradicted by direct evidence ( problem of evil , impossibility of creation without raw material) and hence indirect evidence should be discarded.

Another book says that there was an Omniscient Man walking on the Earth. This cannot be contradicted by direct evidence and hence indirect evidence should prevail, right?

There is no direct evidence of the past, direct evidence is here and now.

 

[religion99]

There is no direct evidence of the past, direct evidence is here and now.

I obviously know that. There was a typo in my previous post and I have corrected it now.

 

[religion99]

There is no such thing.

If you say so , YOU ARE OMINISCIENT. Without examining the entire Universe , its past and presence ; you cannot make this claim. But as you are making this claim , it follows that you have examined entire Universe , its past and its presence. But that is precisely the definition of an Omniscient Person. That proves that YOU are Omniscient Person.

 

[Mycroft]

Now in terms of here he is, there he is.... there is no tangible evidence for the existence of God as it would be understood in the most basic definition. However, to say that God does not exist because of a lack of evidence is a fallacy. That fallacy is called argument from ignorance. Therefore, the die-hard atheist is practicing a belief system because they believe there is nothing after death. A truly scientific mind would question both view points & contemplate how to test the theory. Just saying....

Atheists don't say god doesn't exist. They say: 'There is no evidence to suggest god exists.' Which is accurate.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What is with this heavy usage of the word omniscient. If a being was omniscient it would have no free will and create a paradox since it's own actions are predetermined by itself. If it's own actions are predetermined by itself it cannot determine them and thus creating a paradox.
A being or person that limits itself through knowledge also limits it's ability to have power which removes omnipotence.

 

[outhouse]

If you say so , YOU ARE OMINISCIENT. Without examining the entire Universe , its past and presence ; you cannot make this claim. But as you are making this claim , it follows that you have examined entire Universe , its past and its presence. But that is precisely the definition of an Omniscient Person. That proves that YOU are Omniscient Person.

Then if you can pervert the definition that easily, one can see exactly how man created deities. just that easy

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you say so , YOU ARE OMINISCIENT. Without examining the entire Universe , its past and presence ; you cannot make this claim. But as you are making this claim , it follows that you have examined entire Universe , its past and its presence. But that is precisely the definition of an Omniscient Person. That proves that YOU are Omniscient Person.

If it's possible for omniscience to exist, then this implies that problems like the problem of solipsism (i.e. "how do we know the outside world exists and we aren't just brains in vats/hallucinating/deluded/etc.?") can be solved. Philosophers much smarter than me say that this problem can't be solved.

Tell you what: can you tell us how would someone tell whether they are actually omniscient or just deluded into thinking they're omniscient?

 

[religion99]

What is with this heavy usage of the word omniscient. If a being was omniscient it would have no free will and create a paradox since it's own actions are predetermined by itself. If it's own actions are predetermined by itself it cannot determine them and thus creating a paradox.
A being or person that limits itself through knowledge also limits it's ability to have power which removes omnipotence.

A very valid point. Let me think about it.

 

[religion99]

If it's possible for omniscience to exist, then this implies that problems like the problem of solipsism (i.e. "how do we know the outside world exists and we aren't just brains in vats/hallucinating/deluded/etc.?") can be solved. Philosophers much smarter than me say that this problem can't be solved.

Tell you what: can you tell us how would someone tell whether they are actually omniscient or just deluded into thinking they're omniscient?

One thing is sure. That you guys are very smart and can't be fooled easily. And I like that because it helps me clear my own doubts. I have to put a lot of stress on my brain to answer your question. Let me think about it and get back to you.

 

[religion99]

Tell you what: can you tell us how would someone tell whether they are actually omniscient or just deluded into thinking they're omniscient?

That is actually very easy to prove. Just ask the Omniscient Man a lot of questions whose answers only you know. If he is able to answer them all correctly, he is Omniscient.

 

[religion99]

A being or person that limits itself through knowledge also limits it's ability to have power which removes omnipotence.

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is actually very easy to prove. Just ask the Omniscient Man a lot of questions whose answers only you know. If he is able to answer them all correctly, he is Omniscient.

Not necessarily. That would only tell me that he knows as much as me, but I'm not omniscient.

Maybe he just watched the same TV shows and read the same books as me. Maybe he's psychic and can see the answers in my mind. How could I tell the difference?

Edit: anyhow, I wasn't talking about how we'd figure it out from outside; I'm talking about how he'd figure out for himself that he really is omniscient. Presumably, he feels like he's omniscient, but is he really omniscient or is he deluded? If he can't know whether he's really omniscient, then he doesn't know everything and is therefore not omniscient. How do you solve this problem?

 

[religion99]

Not necessarily. That would only tell me that he knows as much as me, but I'm not omniscient.

Maybe he just watched the same TV shows and read the same books as me. Maybe he's psychic and can see the answers in my mind. How could I tell the difference?

Make a phone call to your friend on the other side of the world and ask him to ask the Omniscient man some questions. Since your friend is not in front of the Omniscient , psychic readings cannot be used to answer the questions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Make a phone call to your friend on the other side of the world and ask him to ask the Omniscient man some questions. Since your friend is not in front of the Omniscient , psychic readings cannot be used to answer the questions.

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

 

[religion99]

What is with this heavy usage of the word omniscient. If a being was omniscient it would have no free will and create a paradox since it's own actions are predetermined by itself. If it's own actions are predetermined by itself it cannot determine them and thus creating a paradox.

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?

 

[religion99]

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

Will you believe its existence if you yourself attain it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Will you believe its existence if you yourself attain it?

How would I know that I had attained it?

Regardless of whether you can demonstrate that omniscience is even possible at all, I don't think it would be possible for a human being to have it. We only have so many neurons.