The Problem of Suffering

[Me Myself]

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".

Honest and well wiching persons can be dumb. I´ve met a lot of them.

That said I wish I could be as pure as them. But well, each has it´s own qualities I guess.

One can make honest mistakes even with a pure heart, good intelligence and an honest intention.

It just happens.

 

[religion99]

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.

extraordinary experience requires extraordinary hard work, extraordinary study , extraordinary concentration , extraordinary meditation , extraordinary devotion , extraordinary religion.

 

[religion99]

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?

Very good point.

Primary justification for the existence of omniscience is the omniscient himself.

 

[religion99]

Honest and well wiching persons can be dumb. I´ve met a lot of them.

In that case , they will say: "I don't know".

Honest and well wiching persons can be dumb. I´ve met a
That said I wish I could be as pure as them. But well, each has it´s own qualities I guess.

I agree.

One can make honest mistakes even with a pure heart, good intelligence and an honest intention.

It just happens.

I can understand small mistakes here and there , but not a mistake as big as proclaiming "existence of omniscients".

 

[Me Myself]

In that case , they will say: "I don't know"

To know that you don´t know it´s a form of knowledge. A form of knowledge that most dumb or ignorant people can be lacking of. Again, I´ve met more than one.

I can understand small mistakes here and there , but not a mistake as big as proclaiming "existence of omniscients".

Why? Everyone effs up. Smart good intended people do too, and they can eff up badly too. It´s just part of being human. They would just need to have a strong allucination and maybe a pair of circunstancial evidences here and there (if any). Strong emotional shock can make us incredibly gullible.

 

[religion99]

To know that you don´t know it´s a form of knowledge. A form of knowledge that most dumb or ignorant people can be lacking of. Again, I´ve met more than one.

In that case person is not honest. You can verify this with prior encounters.

Why? Everyone effs up. Smart good intended people do too, and they can eff up badly too. It´s just part of being human. They would just need to have a strong allucination and maybe a pair of circunstancial evidences here and there (if any). Strong emotional shock can make us incredibly gullible.

You obviously should have multiple sources. And all sources should agree with each other.

 

[Me Myself]

In that case person is not honest. You can verify this with prior encounters.

The problem is that the person is honestly mistaken, so when talking to other people says what he honestly beleives he beleives (that happens to be wrong)

You obviously should have multiple sources. And all sources should agree with each other.

Good luck with that.

 

[religion99]

The problem is that the person is honestly mistaken, so when talking to other people says what he honestly beleives he beleives (that happens to be wrong)




Good luck with that.

I indeed have very good luck with that.

 

[Meow Mix]

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

I think meditation is a sound idea -- for health benefits and to achieve altered states of consciousness. I have no problem with it.

 

[Meow Mix]

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".

No matter how well-meaning a person is they are probably prone to error and mistakes just like anyone else. I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly to a delusional person who's well meaning for trying to kill the car key stealing gnomes by setting your couch on fire (since they live in the couch, of course).

That's an extreme and made up example, but you get what I mean: good intentions and earnestness aren't a guarantee of being correct.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can understand small mistakes here and there , but not a mistake as big as proclaiming "existence of omniscients".

There are a lot of well-meaning, honest, and earnest Christians. There are a lot of well-meaning, honest, and earnest Hindus. There are a lot of well-meaning, honest, and earnest Muslims. (Repeat for nearly all religions)

Do you see the problem here? According to your arguments, we should believe all of them, but they can't all possibly be correct because they all say contradictory things.

 

[PolyHedral]

Semi-reletedly, I am fairly confident that it is impossible for any entity to know everything about everything. Not only would there be an infinite many things to know, but, strictly speaking, "everything" is not a coherent concept. It must be limited to "everything, in the context of this thing."

 

[Willamena]

Semi-reletedly, I am fairly confident that it is impossible for any entity to know everything about everything. Not only would there be an infinite many things to know, but, strictly speaking, "everything" is not a coherent concept. It must be limited to "everything, in the context of this thing."

Right! Just so!... This is why my image of "omniscience" isn't "knowing about things," but put more simply "things."

Of course, this is also my image of "omnipotence" and "omnipresence."

 

[PolyHedral]

Right! Just so!... This is why my image of "omniscience" isn't "knowing about things," but put more simply "things."

Of course, this is also my image of "omnipotence" and "omnipresence."

But there an infinite amount of things, and doesn't actually get around the fact "everything" isn't meaningful.

 

[Willamena]

But there an infinite amount of things, and doesn't actually get around the fact "everything" isn't meaningful.

"Everything" is meaningful --we use it in sentences everyday.

Quantity isn't really an issue. Only one thing is required in order to have omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence, provided there is only one thing (in a monastic sense).

I believe omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence is very much an image of monism.

 

[PolyHedral]

"Everything" is meaningful --we use it in sentences everyday.

"This sentence is false" is valid English, but it's still not meaningful. Also, I'm not sure we are referring to everything - we refer instead to "everything in the universe," or "everything in the world," or "everything in this room." Everything not only refers to everything that exists, but everything that can and cannot possibly exist, as well as to all possible abstract statements about all those things. This idea of everything collides with Russel's paradox, and so isn't meaningful.

Quantity isn't really an issue. Only one thing is required in order to have omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence, provided there is only one thing (in a monastic sense).

But there is an infinite amount of sentences that can be said about that one thing. An infinity of these, but by no means all of them, will be true. Infinity is fun like that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not contradicting myself; the definition of malevolence includes harmful or injurious as synonyms. Yes, evil is also part of the definition in a context, but that's irrelevant: it's still a malevolent action to cause harm by definition of what "malevolence" is even if for whatever reason we're existing in la la land where causing harm isn't evil. It's not the "evil" that makes it malevolent, it's the causing harm.

Ok then, describe for me why causing harm is evil.

Besides, are you playing Devil's Advocate here or are you really questioning whether or not causing suffering is morally permissable? I mean, we could discuss that if you'd like, but it's really irrelevant because the contradiction still exists: the word "omnibenevolence" implies being never malevolent, and the word malevolence includes causing harm or suffering regardless of any moral implications of suffering.

The suggestion is that allowing suffering is wrong. In order to justify that position it needs to be ascertained as to why or else the suggestion is wrong. Until the wrongness is established then there is no sense and arguing for or against it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

An "Indifferent God" is as much plausible explanation as "No God" to the "Problem of Suffering".

As I keep asking, what is the "problem" with suffering?

 

[religion99]

There are a lot of well-meaning, honest, and earnest Christians. There are a lot of well-meaning, honest, and earnest Hindus. There are a lot of well-meaning, honest, and earnest Muslims. (Repeat for nearly all religions)

Do you see the problem here? According to your arguments, we should believe all of them, but they can't all possibly be correct because they all say contradictory things.

Honesty of Christians , Hindus and Muslims is refuted by their refusal of acceptance of absence of almighty God in the presence of "Problem of Suffering", the very subject of this thread. I think there is already an agreement between you and me that there is no almighty God. Dishonesty of Christians , Hindus and Muslims is the logical conclusion of this agreement. I thought this is already a "settled issue" and I am shocked that a smart and intellectually honest person like you is bringing this issue again to prove the point.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Who told you that omniscience doesn't exist?

I would think that proving omniscience to someone who is not omniscient is impossible since how would the non-omniscient person be able to know?