religion99
Active Member
Is there any contradiction in justifying existence of consciousness as CAUSE for the omniscience?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Problem of Suffering
- Thread starter victormeldrew
- Start date
religion99
Active Member
Also , I personally know a person who has seen an omniscient in her previous birth. She has written a book about it. She in no longer alive , unfortunately.
Yes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I have no evidence that consciousness in myself or in any other people "causes" omniscience in any sense.
You mean she claims to have done so. I'm guessing she probably hasn't left behind any reliable epistemic justification for this assertion?
religion99
Active Member
Omniscience is nothing but expression of consciousness to its fullest extent. We readily see that some people are smart ( eg you ) and some people are idiot ( eg me ) . So , consciousness , though present in all people , is not realized equally among all people. Extrapolating this argument, some people may have consciousness developed to such an extent that they know everything.
I'm not smart and you're not an idiot, we're just maybe good at different things. Omniscience is a possible thing, I agree, but I'm saying that there's no reason to believe an omniscient being actually exists until there is evidence for it.
Think of it this way. Lots of things are possible. That doesn't mean we should believe that every possibly existing thing actually exists. We should only believe in the actual existence of something when we have good epistemic justification to do so.
I don't mind browsing links if they expand upon a point; but I find it difficult to respond to posts in which only a link is provided. Can you maybe choose the strongest points that you'd like to discuss and quote them, or put your argument in your own words?
religion99
Active Member
1. There is evidence of Omniscience through Testimony.
2. Omniscience is not impossible through any other justification.
3. The potential cause of Omniscience (Consciousness) is real.
Therefore , the most reasonable conclusion is : Omniscience exists in you and me just as a potential , but it is actual and real for some other people.
2. Omniscience is not impossible through any other justification.
3. The potential cause of Omniscience (Consciousness) is real.
Therefore , the most reasonable conclusion is : Omniscience exists in you and me just as a potential , but it is actual and real for some other people.
Testimony is never sufficient to justify alone; so given (1) and (2) the rational conclusion should be "It isn't rational for anyone to believe omniscience exists."
religion99
Active Member
Who told you that omniscience doesn't exist?
religion99
Active Member
Without knowing 100% of all the actualities , you or any person cannot say conclusively say Omniscients don't exist. Do you agree?
religion99
Active Member
In that case , you or any person who says that Omniscients don't exist is himself an Omniscient.
I didn't say that it doesn't exist. I said it's not rational to assert that it does without justification (and testimony enough is never sufficient). Think of it like this: how could testimony alone be sufficient to justify something?
Let's use a common example where testimony plays some part in the justification for believing an idea: how about a scientific journal. Let's say that I'm reading about this amazing idea called relativity. It sounds really bizarre: it mentions things like time slowing down, mass increasing for objects moving at high velocity, etc.
If I wanted to, I could trace the testimony from this hypothetical journal to the publisher. I could then trace it from the publisher to the paper submitter. I could then trace it from the paper submitter to his professor in college, etc. etc. etc., all the way back to Einstein himself.
Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this: Einstein doesn't believe relativity is true based on testimony. It's ultimately founded in REAL justification: all of the experiments that have been done since Einstein that show relativity is in fact approximal to the truth. In fact, it's never been the testimony that justifies relativity: that's just the mode of transmission for the desire to check the belief for justification. The real justifier for relativity is and always has been the actual primary modes of justification: perception and reason.
Things like memory, testimony and introspection only serve as conduits for these primary modes of justification -- they don't justify in and of themselves. If you remember a knock on the door, which leads you to believe later in the day that the mailman maybe stopped by -- that belief isn't ultimately justified by the memory but rather ultimately justified by the original perception. Likewise with testimony, nothing is ever justified by the testimony but rather from the original primary justification, whatever that happens to be -- some form of perception or reason.
So, what is the original, primary justification for the existence of omniscience?
Of course I agree. I've never said omniscience doesn't exist; I've just said that there's no rational reason to believe that it does. Saying that there is no rational reason to believe X is true is not the same thing as asserting that X is false.
religion99
Active Member
Believing omniscience through Testimony based justification is the starting point. Experiencing it through primary justification by converting potentiality of the Omniscience to actuality is the end-goal.
This is the right order of achieving anything in life:
1. First you believe in something through indirect justification. (Omniscience through Testimony)
2. At the same time , you make sure through primary justification that you have potential. (Consciousness)
3. Then you actually realize it through hard work. (Convert your incomplete knowledge to your omniscience)
This is the right order of achieving anything in life:
1. First you believe in something through indirect justification. (Omniscience through Testimony)
2. At the same time , you make sure through primary justification that you have potential. (Consciousness)
3. Then you actually realize it through hard work. (Convert your incomplete knowledge to your omniscience)
No, what you're describing -- belief before (and therefore without) justification -- is irrational by definition.
I have an invisible dragon in my garage.
Do you believe me based on my testimony? If not, why not?
religion99
Active Member
I will believe you if you have proved yourself honest in all previous encounters.
Then you're bringing something other than testimony into the picture: reason; in this case, justification through induction, correspondence with previous knowledge, and extrapolation based on current knowledge (subtly different from induction). You're also bringing in memory. You're also bringing in perception.
As I said, testimony is never sufficient alone.
Regardless, if a person is honest in all previous encounters it doesn't mean that they aren't prone to error, delusion, hallucination, or mistake, either. It's still not very justified to believe an otherwise honest person when their statement is out of the ordinary from what you already know. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I agree with basically everything of that.
I still would say to try out meditation if just for its health benefits.
If you find glimpses of posible omniscience after some time of practice I wouldn´t be too surprised though
religion99
Active Member
An honest and well-wishing person will take utmost care and make sure he is not making any mistake when he makes a statement as extraordinary as "existence of omniscient".