God and Music

[SnakeLord]

thats alright, but remember we are talking about seeing a "new species"

The operative word being seeing. (see earlier post that explained it).

it does inhibit one from knowing what one is seeing however

I know that, (see earlier post that stated the exact same thing).

and if you can't uncover anything greater than it?

Sorry, is that honestly supposed to mean much coming from a being that has difficulty getting out of their own country let alone off the planet?

correction
lol
they do it some of the time

Correction. In English "people do it all the time" is not an implication that one person does something continuously but that it can be witnessed all the time in different people. Perhaps it's just my job, but every single day of every single week I see people controlling their emotions. It's not a hard thing to do in the grand scheme of things.

book knowledge is not sufficient but it is a foundation

It's a proposal, but by itself is meaningless. The problem here is I need you to explain to me how you can test omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence unless you're omnscient. How you can test heavens and hells unless you're dead, how you can test " the claim of souls" when all scientific study has detected nothing of the sort etc.

Without being able to test these claims, these proposals.. it's meaningless, (you agreed to this).

ditto above

? Above you said to read a book. I have just got through informing you that you cannot use a books proposal as confirmation that the proposal is true. You need to do independent testing. So how do you test that this god of yours is the greatest thing in existence unless you know everything in existence?

what if persons claim the conclusion of the book...

It doesn't matter what people do, nothing changes what was stated:

"A book is not an confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. As an unavoidable result of that, the book cannot be used as confirmation of the proposal contained therein."

omnipotence is a given for god

'dead person' is a given for a ghost - and yet how is that tested? Same goes for gods.. How is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence tested? The only logical answer is that you can only test omniscience etc if you're omniscient.

You see a ghost - you label it a dead guy that's walking around. The phenomena could be one of a million things - the assertion of one is meaningless until you can test it, (you agree to this).

Do you have something like a "stopwatch" to cause us to review standard definitions of god's omnipotency or are you asking us to imagine that you do?

I am asking you what tests you have conducted to establish these standard characteristics as true. I still don't see how you can test omniscience unless you're omniscient.

but before you could even test god, you would have to use a process to approach him wouldn't you?

Certainly, that's not a problem or an issue. But then how do you test that beings omniscience unless you're omniscient?

without recourse to theory, how do you propose to determine anything?

How do you propose to test a claim to omniscience without being omniscient? Theory says this being is omniscient - how do you test that?

take a step inside any temple of Krishna and see for yourself

So.. you saw a young blue boy playing a flute?

as for directly hearing god that requires great qualification much like...

So, you didn't hear him?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
thats alright, but remember we are talking about seeing a "new species"
”
The operative word being seeing. (see earlier post that explained it).

ok
suppose a person encounters an elephant and they say "Wow I have just seen a new species of elephant" on their mobile phone - the person on the other end says "how do you know it is a new species?"
What would the person say in response to this? (being mindful that you advocate knowledge, particularly in relation to cladistics, is not an issue)

“
it does inhibit one from knowing what one is seeing however
”
I know that, (see earlier post that stated the exact same thing).

then where is the question of seeing with the understanding "this is a new species"

“
and if you can't uncover anything greater than it?
”
Sorry, is that honestly supposed to mean much coming from a being that has difficulty getting out of their own country let alone off the planet?

who are you talking about?

“
correction
lol
they do it some of the time
”
Correction. In English "people do it all the time" is not an implication that one person does something continuously but that it can be witnessed all the time in different people. Perhaps it's just my job, but every single day of every single week I see people controlling their emotions. It's not a hard thing to do in the grand scheme of things.

thats tight
lust can be controlled by envious silence, which is broken sometime later by pent up rage etc etc

“
book knowledge is not sufficient but it is a foundation
”
It's a proposal, but by itself is meaningless. The problem here is I need you to explain to me how you can test omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence unless you're omnscient. How you can test heavens and hells unless you're dead, how you can test " the claim of souls" when all scientific study has detected nothing of the sort etc.

Without being able to test these claims, these proposals.. it's meaningless, (you agreed to this).

you can test it by perceiving its universal form

“
ditto above
”
? Above you said to read a book. I have just got through informing you that you cannot use a books proposal as confirmation that the proposal is true. You need to do independent testing. So how do you test that this god of yours is the greatest thing in existence unless you know everything in existence?

testing is done after a framework of theory is developed
for instance testing of disease with dirty test tubes is not adequate (until one knows theoretically - perhaps after reading it in a book - that the testing equipment should be clean)
similarly testing the purity of god requires a degree of purity of the beholder (otherwise, much like using contaminated equipment, one simply sees one's own inherent contamination)
such standards of purity can be gleaned from normative descriptions in scripure

“
what if persons claim the conclusion of the book...
”
It doesn't matter what people do, nothing changes what was stated:

"A book is not an confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. As an unavoidable result of that, the book cannot be used as confirmation of the proposal contained therein."

and what if persons contravene the recommendations given in the book and insist that the conclusions of the book are false?

“
omnipotence is a given for god
”
'dead person' is a given for a ghost - and yet how is that tested?

for a start you wouldn't be testing living people

Same goes for gods.. How is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence tested? The only logical answer is that you can only test omniscience etc if you're omniscient.

for a start you have to know what it means
for instance if you are under the impression that omniscience can belong to two or more entities, it would probably pay to re-examine the significance of the term

You see a ghost - you label it a dead guy that's walking around. The phenomena could be one of a million things - the assertion of one is meaningless until you can test it, (you agree to this).

if you are capable of labeling an ordinary living guy as a ghost, you would have even more problems

“
Do you have something like a "stopwatch" to cause us to review standard definitions of god's omnipotency or are you asking us to imagine that you do?
”
I am asking you what tests you have conducted to establish these standard characteristics as true. I still don't see how you can test omniscience unless you're omniscient.

specifically

BG 11.7 O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything—moving and nonmoving—is here completely, in one place.

“
but before you could even test god, you would have to use a process to approach him wouldn't you?
”
Certainly, that's not a problem or an issue.

it is for persons who are outside of directly contacting god

But then how do you test that beings omniscience unless you're omniscient?

the first step is to come in direct contact with god

“
without recourse to theory, how do you propose to determine anything?
”
How do you propose to test a claim to omniscience without being omniscient?

there is a specific chapter on it in the Bhagavad gita

“
take a step inside any temple of Krishna and see for yourself
”
So.. you saw a young blue boy playing a flute?

much like someone could phone national geographic after seeing this

to tell them that they have seen a new species of elephant?

“
as for directly hearing god that requires great qualification much like...
”
So, you didn't hear him?

no

 

[SnakeLord]

ok
suppose a person encounters an elephant and they say "Wow I have just seen a new species of elephant" on their mobile phone

Once again: The operative word is seeing, not knowledge of what one is seeing.

who are you talking about?

Whoever the "you" was in your post. Saying "you" can't uncover anything greater, (even though you can't even test the beings greatness), is a worthless statement coming from a human.

lust can be controlled by envious silence, which is broken sometime later by pent up rage etc etc

Ok lol. :shrug:

you can test it by perceiving its universal form

Hmm, you linked me to some text. Once again:

Text is not an indication of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. As an unavoidable result of that, text cannot be used as evidence or confirmation of the proposal contained therein.

No lg, a piece of text is not a test of omniscience. The only way you can test omniscience is to be omniscient. Try again.

"I need you to explain to me how you can test omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence unless you're omnscient. How you can test heavens and hells unless you're dead, how you can test " the claim of souls" when all scientific study has detected nothing of the sort etc."

testing is done after a framework of theory is developed
for instance testing of disease with dirty test tubes..

Yes yes. So how do you test omniscience without being omniscient or test heavens and hells without being dead? Do tell... (is this where you once again tell me to read a book lol)?

and what if persons contravene the recommendations given in the book and insist that the conclusions of the book are false?

Your question is meaningless if one cannot test the book. Do tell me how you can test omniscience without being omniscient or how you can test heaven/hells without being dead.

for a start you wouldn't be testing living people

Clearly you missed the point.

How do you test ghosts to see whether they even are dead people? Why would they have to be dead people when there's countless other possibilities? Of course without being able to test - all possibilities, (including dead people), are meaningless.

for a start you have to know what it means
for instance if you are under the impression that omniscience can belong to two or more entities, it would probably pay to re-examine the significance of the term

Interesting way to avoid answering. Do tell me how you test omniscience without being omniscient.

if you are capable of labeling an ordinary living guy as a ghost, you would have even more problems

Uhh, think it possible that you could try and stop descending into pointless irrelevancy?

"You see a ghost - you label it a dead guy that's walking around. The phenomena could be one of a million things - the assertion of one is meaningless until you can test it, (you agree to this)."

How do you test it?

specifically

BG 11.7 O Arjuna...

Noooooo. A book is not a confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. How do you test omniscience without being omniscient?

the first step is to come in direct contact with god

And then... how do you test omniscience unless you're omniscient?

there is a specific chapter on it in the Bhagavad gita

Noooo. A book is not a confirmation of truth it is merely a proposal of it. How do you test omniscience without being omniscient?

much like someone could phone national geographic after seeing this

:shrug:

So you saw a blue guy playing a flute?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
ok
suppose a person encounters an elephant and they say "Wow I have just seen a new species of elephant" on their mobile phone
”
Once again: The operative word is seeing, not knowledge of what one is seeing.

but if you specify what they are seeing - a NEW species of elephant, then obviously there must be some foundation of knowledge to give such a statement significance

“
you can test it by perceiving its universal form
”
Hmm, you linked me to some text. Once again:

Text is not an indication of truth,

you were after a test
so I posted you one
:shrug:

“
testing is done after a framework of theory is developed
for instance testing of disease with dirty test tubes..
”
Yes yes. So how do you test omniscience without being omniscient or test heavens and hells without being dead? Do tell... (is this where you once again tell me to read a book lol)?

if the book tells you to do the equivalent of working with clean testing equipment, it would be helpful ....

“
and what if persons contravene the recommendations given in the book and insist that the conclusions of the book are false?
”
Your question is meaningless if one cannot test the book.

you cannot test the book if you refuse to do what the book recommends to test it - which is precisely where you are at ....

“
for a start you wouldn't be testing living people
”
Clearly you missed the point.

How do you test ghosts to see whether they even are dead people?

to begin with - you don't test living people

“
for a start you have to know what it means
for instance if you are under the impression that omniscience can belong to two or more entities, it would probably pay to re-examine the significance of the term
”
Interesting way to avoid answering. Do tell me how you test omniscience without being omniscient.

understand what the word means - for instance if you want to test what is an electron it could pay to do a bit research to distinguish it from an atom

“
if you are capable of labeling an ordinary living guy as a ghost, you would have even more problems
”
Uhh, think it possible that you could try and stop descending into pointless irrelevancy?

if you insist on arguing with blurred terms ("How do you test whether an entity is omnimax" while also entertaining "its possible for two or more personalities to be omnimax") its unavoidable

"You see a ghost - you label it a dead guy that's walking around. The phenomena could be one of a million things - the assertion of one is meaningless until you can test it, (you agree to this)."

How do you test it?

once again, the foundation for ALL knowledge (including ghosts, elephants, god and anything else) is

theory -> practice -> conclusion

if you want to persist in ramming square pegs into circular holes, its not my problem ....

“
specifically

BG 11.7 O Arjuna...
”
Noooooo. A book is not a confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it. How do you test omniscience without being omniscient?

how do you propose to test anything without giving reference to theory (like persons who have carried out such testing etc) - for instance can you provide with how someone can test an electron without reference to any scientific term or previous body of work by existing scientists?

“
the first step is to come in direct contact with god
”
And then... how do you test omniscience unless you're omniscient?

already referenced, in the case of Arjuna

“
there is a specific chapter on it in the Bhagavad gita
”
Noooo. A book is not a confirmation of truth it is merely a proposal of it. How do you test omniscience without being omniscient?

:shrug:

“
much like someone could phone national geographic after seeing this
”


So you saw a blue guy playing a flute?

phone national geographic now!!

You stand to make millions (if you can convince them of your logic of course ...)

 

[SnakeLord]

you were after a test
so I posted you one

Not really, no. You posted me a story.

The last two lines do mention that with undivided devotional service this god with his terrible teeth and divine smelly stuff can be seen directly and understood but what you do need to understand is that this is not a test of omniscience.

Btw.. I am omniscient. If you serve my needs well enough you'll know I'm omniscient.

if the book tells you to do the equivalent of working with clean testing equipment

Not an answer to the question. Try again.

you cannot test the book if you refuse to do what the book recommends to test it - which is precisely where you are at ....

You cannot test omniscience by using the story you provided or by offering "pure devotional service".

to begin with - you don't test living people

You're still missing the point. I forgive you, you've been away a while.

So a person sees a ghost and decides that the ghost is a person that used to be alive, is now dead, and is now wandering around the place in semi-transparent form. But how does he test that this is the case? For instance..

I don't know if you ever watched Star Trek Voyager but there was this episode where the crew and ship get stuck in some quantum rip or something. Basically the ship and everything inside it is duplicated - both ships occupy the same space - with a slight shift. At one stage Janeway sees herself walking across the deck and out the door. Basically she sees a 'ghost'. This is not a dead person, it is actually her recreated and leaving an image of her movements.

So again, how do you know it's a dead person? It could be one of many things - some brief image of a living person in another dimension or alternate reality, it could be that every human has an energy field and every now and then it surges and leaves a residue which is seen as a 'ghost' - kind of like a video clip of a past event. The list goes on.. How do you test?

understand what the word means - for instance if you want to test what is an electron it could pay to do a bit research to distinguish it from an atom

You're being purposely silly. How do you test omniscience? Let me try this.. I am omniscient. Test it.

once again, the foundation for ALL knowledge (including ghosts, elephants, god and anything else) is

theory -> practice -> conclusion

theory -> testing -> conclusion, sure.. How do you test omniscience, (or for that matter that ghosts are dead people)?

how do you propose to test anything without giving reference to theory

Nothing of the sort was stated, but there is only one accurate way to test omniscience.

I am omniscient. If you serve my ever need you'll know I'm omniscient.

Are you now going to serve my every need or do you finally realise that service to my needs doesn't test omniscience and that there is indeed only one method of doing so?

phone national geographic now!!

Why me? you're the one that claims to have seen this entity - I am just asking you to confirm what it looked like, it's hardly my fault you're cowardice or that you're lying prevents you from being able to do so.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
you were after a test
so I posted you one
”
Not really, no. You posted me a story.

a high school drop out also regards microbiology as a story too

The last two lines do mention that with undivided devotional service this god with his terrible teeth and divine smelly stuff can be seen directly and understood but what you do need to understand is that this is not a test of omniscience.

once again, your razor sharp discrimination has gone to the heart of the matter

Btw.. I am omniscient. If you serve my needs well enough you'll know I'm omniscient.

like this huh?

BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything — moving and nonmoving — is here completely, in one place.

“
if the book tells you to do the equivalent of working with clean testing equipment
”
Not an answer to the question. Try again.

once again, your ability to only look for the answers to questions that you already know is highly praiseworthy

“
you cannot test the book if you refuse to do what the book recommends to test it - which is precisely where you are at ....
”
You cannot test omniscience by using the story you provided or by offering "pure devotional service".

the same foundation of logic that a high school drop out uses to maintain his position

“
to begin with - you don't test living people
”
You're still missing the point. I forgive you, you've been away a while.

So a person sees a ghost and decides that the ghost is a person that used to be alive, is now dead, and is now wandering around the place in semi-transparent form. But how does he test that this is the case? For instance..

you miss the point

the very foundation would be that he wouldn't be testing a living person (ie he knows that a ghost must be a person already deceased) - so at least there is a theoretical foundation - if he didn't have that bit right, there would be no possibility of testing anything even remotely related to ghosts

I don't know if you ever watched Star Trek Voyager but there was this episode where the crew and ship get stuck in some quantum rip or something. Basically the ship and everything inside it is duplicated - both ships occupy the same space - with a slight shift. At one stage Janeway sees herself walking across the deck and out the door. Basically she sees a 'ghost'. This is not a dead person, it is actually her recreated and leaving an image of her movements.

then I guess they were testing for something else other than ghosts, eh

So again, how do you know it's a dead person?

standard definitions - if I say the word "ghost" but really mean "duplicated persons from a quantum rip", I should go back to basics

“
understand what the word means - for instance if you want to test what is an electron it could pay to do a bit research to distinguish it from an atom
”
You're being purposely silly. How do you test omniscience? Let me try this.. I am omniscient. Test it.

show me everything past, present and future in one place (arjuna made a similar request to see Krsna's universal form)

“
once again, the foundation for ALL knowledge (including ghosts, elephants, god and anything else) is

theory -> practice -> conclusion
”
theory -> testing -> conclusion, sure.. How do you test omniscience, (or for that matter that ghosts are dead people)?

to begin with you have to know what the word "omniscient" means, which is part of theory - if you try to test omniscience with the understanding that it can be present in two or more personalities, you have to go back to theory

“
how do you propose to test anything without giving reference to theory
”
Nothing of the sort was stated, but there is only one accurate way to test omniscience.

I am omniscient. If you serve my ever need you'll know I'm omniscient.

Are you now going to serve my every need or do you finally realise that service to my needs doesn't test omniscience and that there is indeed only one method of doing so?

we could avoid these meaningless discussions if you would pay attention

“
phone national geographic now!!
”
Why me? you're the one that claims to have seen this entity - I am just asking you to confirm what it looked like, it's hardly my fault you're cowardice or that you're lying prevents you from being able to do so.

you miss the point
if you think that krsna is simply defined as a boy with a flute, its a greater error than defining a hippo as a new species of elephant (after all they are both big and have four legs

 

[SnakeLord]

a high school drop out also regards microbiology as a story too

Uhh, lol?

"Determination of bacterial load by real-time PCR using a broad-range (universal) probe and primers set" is an example of a test, (not a story).

"Sañjaya said: O King, having spoken thus, the Supreme Lord of all mystic power, the Personality of Godhead, displayed His universal form to Arjuna" <-- is an example of a story, (not a test).

If you can't work out a simple thing like that no wonder you're struggling to such a degree.

once again, your razor sharp discrimination has gone to the heart of the matter

If you say so. Tell you what, I shall let you tell me what "omniscience" is and how you can accurately tell whether a being is omniscient. Do try and inject some logic into your explanation though.

like this huh?

?

once again, your ability to only look for the answers to questions that you already know is highly praiseworthy

Yeah, fail to answer questions posed and then blame the questioner. Good one.

the same foundation of logic that a high school drop out uses to maintain his position

Uhh.. ok. So explain it to me, (your own words). That certainly does more than your pointless one-liners.

you miss the point

No, you do.. as seen with your "(ie he knows that a ghost must be a person already deceased)"

How does he know? What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we commonly call ghosts are actually dead people? (I'm not talking dictionary definition of a word here, I'm talking actual reality of something and how without being able to test that something one can assert a definition of it other than it's basic components).

standard definitions - if I say the word "ghost" but really mean "duplicated persons from a quantum rip", I should go back to basics

Here is where your misunderstanding lies. Try and understand what is being said then get back to me.

show me everything past, present and future in one place

That involves power, not knowledge. I said I was omniscient, not omnipotent - (omniscient - all knowing, omnipotent - all powerful).

to begin with you have to know what the word "omniscient" means, which is part of theory

Clearly this applies to you first and foremost. No wonder we're having problems.

we could avoid these meaningless discussions if you would pay attention

Or if you didn't have such difficulty grasping logic.

you miss the point
if you think that krsna is simply defined as a boy with a flute, its a greater error than defining a hippo as a new species of elephant

You miss the point. I asked you what you saw, you said krishna. Standard image of krishna is a blue boy with a flute much like if you said you saw an elephant I would ask if it had a big trunk. If you don't have the courage, decency or ability to tell me what you saw, then there's very little I can do about it. Capiche?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
a high school drop out also regards microbiology as a story too
”
Uhh, lol?

"Determination of bacterial load by real-time PCR using a broad-range (universal) probe and primers set" is an example of a test, (not a story).

not if one accepts ( as a high school drop out might) that the above is just the invention of some fertile imagination (and thus they are not obliged to carry out the test to validate their opinions)

"Sañjaya said: O King, having spoken thus, the Supreme Lord of all mystic power, the Personality of Godhead, displayed His universal form to Arjuna" <-- is an example of a story, (not a test).

yes, if one accepts ( as an atheist might) that the above is just the invention of some fertile imagination (and thus they are not obliged to carry out the test to validate their opinions)

If you can't work out a simple thing like that no wonder you're struggling to such a degree.

who's struggling?

“
once again, your razor sharp discrimination has gone to the heart of the matter
”
If you say so. Tell you what, I shall let you tell me what "omniscience" is and how you can accurately tell whether a being is omniscient. Do try and inject some logic into your explanation though.

well here's a start

BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything — moving and nonmoving — is here completely, in one place.

“
you miss the point
”
No, you do.. as seen with your "(ie he knows that a ghost must be a person already deceased)"

How does he know?

ghost / Ñ gJUst; NAmE Ñ goUst/ noun, verbŒ noun 1[C] the spirit of a dead person that a living person believes they can see or hear:
Do you believe in ghosts (= believe that they exist)? Ç the ghost of her father that had come back to haunt her Ç He looked as if he had seen a ghost (= looked very frightened).

What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we commonly call ghosts are actually dead people?

whatever - but common usage implies significance

(I'm not talking dictionary definition of a word here, I'm talking actual reality of something and how without being able to test that something one can assert a definition of it other than it's basic components).

then I guess you need a new word for what you are proposing to investigate, since "ghost" doesn't fit the bill

“
show me everything past, present and future in one place
”
That involves power, not knowledge.

If you show me then i will know it

I said I was omniscient, not omnipotent - (omniscient - all knowing, omnipotent - all powerful).

if you can't show that you know everything past and present and future in one place you are clearly not omniscient

“
to begin with you have to know what the word "omniscient" means, which is part of theory
”
Clearly this applies to you first and foremost. No wonder we're having problems.

and your ability to entertain several omniscient personalities is commendable?

“
we could avoid these meaningless discussions if you would pay attention
”
Or if you didn't have such difficulty grasping logic.

ditto above

“
you miss the point
if you think that krsna is simply defined as a boy with a flute, its a greater error than defining a hippo as a new species of elephant
”
You miss the point. I asked you what you saw, you said krishna. Standard image of krishna is a blue boy with a flute much like if you said you saw an elephant I would ask if it had a big trunk. If you don't have the courage, decency or ability to tell me what you saw, then there's very little I can do about it. Capiche?

I told you to take a step inside any temple of krishna - you said a boy with a flute - obviously they are not just sticking any boy with a flute on the altar, much like they are not classifying anything that is big and has four legs as a species of elephant. Capiche?

 

[SnakeLord]

who's struggling?

You are, as stated earlier. The first example is a test - that one conducts or does not conduct depending on their choice or ability. The second is a story. It is about an archer named arjuna who begs to the lotus eyed and terrible toothed one to show him what he can see. That's a story lg, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the noah flood account, the Lord of the Rings. This does not mean that the story is ultimately true or false, merely that it is a story, not a test. Work it out.

BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine!

Giving someone else the ability to see everything takes power, not knowledge. You can know how to give them the ability but not have the power to do so, (omniscient but not omnipotent).

whatever

Wtf? It's the most important question and you pass over it with "whatever". Once again:

What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we commonly call ghosts are actually dead people?

then I guess you need a new word for what you are proposing to investigate, since "ghost" doesn't fit the bill

Incorrect. The phenomenon labelled a 'ghost' needs to be tested to work out whether the current definition is accurate or complete nonsense.

if you can't show that you know everything past and present and future in one place you are clearly not omniscient

Incorrect, it shows one is not omnipotent. Being omniscient I know that there are 39,223 other planets in this galaxy that harbor intelligent life. Lacking omnipotence I cannot show you all those people. You'll get there eventually... maybe.

and your ability to entertain several omniscient personalities is commendable?

Where did that happen? But regardless, tell me why it's a problem.

I told you to take a step inside any temple of krishna - you said a boy with a flute - obviously they are not just sticking any boy with a flute on the altar

Oh, so you saw a statue?

You know this would be made a lot easier if you actually had the balls to tell me what you saw.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord“

who's struggling?
”
You are, as stated earlier. The first example is a test - that one conducts or does not conduct depending on their choice or ability.

ithats the point - you are chosing not to apply the test by relegating it teh status of a story - if I accept Planck as a fictional person, and the whole schmozzle of physics as some invention of those with idle time, i also have a comfortable position to remain in ignorance

“
BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine!
”
Giving someone else the ability to see everything takes power, not knowledge. You can know how to give them the ability but not have the power to do so, (omniscient but not omnipotent).

and guess what - god is also omnipotent too


anyway, given that you couldn't even validate 6 simple statements about myself correctly (given that you also have the apparent ability to detect lies) its obvious that you are a few crumbs short of a bread stick in regard to omniscience

“
whatever
”
Wtf? It's the most important question and you pass over it with "whatever". Once again:

What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we commonly call ghosts are actually dead people?

maybe you should talk of what tests we apply to determine whether something is a ghost before you talk of what tests we apply to determine whether a ghost is a "living" ghost or a "dead" ghost.

“
then I guess you need a new word for what you are proposing to investigate, since "ghost" doesn't fit the bill
”
Incorrect. The phenomenon labelled a 'ghost' needs to be tested to work out whether the current definition is accurate or complete nonsense.

good luck mr. empiricist

“
if you can't show that you know everything past and present and future in one place you are clearly not omniscient
”
Incorrect, it shows one is not omnipotent. Being omniscient I know that there are 39,223 other planets in this galaxy that harbor intelligent life. Lacking omnipotence I cannot show you all those people. You'll get there eventually... maybe.

and you still can't determine my date of birth?
you will have to forgive me if I doubt your claims ....

“
and your ability to entertain several omniscient personalities is commendable?
”
Where did that happen? But regardless, tell me why it's a problem.

actually my mistake, it was omnipresent

“
I told you to take a step inside any temple of krishna - you said a boy with a flute - obviously they are not just sticking any boy with a flute on the altar
”
Oh, so you saw a statue?


You know this would be made a lot easier if you actually had the balls to tell me what you saw.

maybe if you had the balls to step inside a temple you would see a statue - much like a person not too well versed in biology may write a hippo off as a new species of elephant

 

[SnakeLord]

ithats the point - you are chosing not to apply the test by relegating it teh status of a story

I haven't relegated it to anything - it is a story by the very nature of it's writing: (it depicts a specific time, place and event - arjuna speaking to god and asking him for the ability to see through his eyes).

The 'test' part would come in the last sentence where there is a statement of truth made to the reader in general as opposed to just depicting an event from someone elses life. I will explain why that 'test', (devotional service), is not a test of omniscience in a moment.

given that you couldn't even validate 6 simple statements about myself correctly (given that you also have the apparent ability to detect lies) its obvious that you are a few crumbs short of a bread stick in regard to omniscience

Eureka!! We're finally getting somewhere. Given your above statement, how does one go about testing omniscience? You shouldn't need a clue now you're starting to understand.

maybe you should talk of what tests we apply to determine whether something is a ghost

Uhh, that's what I'm asking you lol. What tests were ever applied to determine that a certain phenomenon that we call 'ghosts' are actually what they are defined as being?

good luck mr. empiricist

There's the problem and the point. If a thing can't be tested, the claims of what that thing is or is not are inherently worthless.

and you still can't determine my date of birth?
you will have to forgive me if I doubt your claims ....

See, we're actually making progress now. I am impressed.

The only way to test omniscience is to check to see if this entity knows everything. The problem is that unless you also know everything, you'll never be able to determine that the answers it gives are valid. For example you ask something like: "how many worlds in this galaxy harbor intelligent life?" The entity replies "32,596". Without being omniscient yourself you'll never be able to determine if the answer is true or not - and thus a claim to omniscient remains worthless.

Now, your assumed idea of a test, (devotional service), is not a test of omniscience. If you apply devotional service and then get some ability to see through it's eyes or whatever, (an ability it gives you), you can't determine that it's not just making a false illusion in your mind. It might have the power to delude your mind - that is not an indication that it is omniscient.

Like I said, there is only one way to determine omniscience, (and I can see you recognise that - and argue merely because you can).

A claim to an entity being omniscient is worthless. It can't be tested, only claimed - it has no value.

maybe if you had the balls to step inside a temple you would see a statue

So you did see a statue? However, I shouldn't have to. As you saw it personally you should be able to explain what it looked and sounded like. Statues rarely provide proper insight into what a being looks like.

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
ithats the point - you are chosing not to apply the test by relegating it teh status of a story
”
I haven't relegated it to anything - it is a story by the very nature of it's writing: (it depicts a specific time, place and event - arjuna speaking to god and asking him for the ability to see through his eyes).

tests are some how carried out outside of a particular time, place and circumstance?

The 'test' part would come in the last sentence where there is a statement of truth made to the reader in general as opposed to just depicting an event from someone elses life. I will explain why that 'test', (devotional service), is not a test of omniscience in a moment.

you mean like this

BG 10.12-13: Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.

“
given that you couldn't even validate 6 simple statements about myself correctly (given that you also have the apparent ability to detect lies) its obvious that you are a few crumbs short of a bread stick in regard to omniscience
”
Eureka!! We're finally getting somewhere. Given your above statement, how does one go about testing omniscience? You shouldn't need a clue now you're starting to understand.

an omniscient person can determine anything from all time, places and circumstances - there are a variety of ways to determine this evidence (for instance your failure to correctly answer my questions is one), but the most exacting relates to displaying a universal form

eg

BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything — moving and nonmoving — is here completely, in one place.

“
maybe you should talk of what tests we apply to determine whether something is a ghost
”
Uhh, that's what I'm asking you lol.

no

you are talking about what tests we can apply to determine whether a ghost is a dead person or a quantum rip or something - actually its the nature of many of your arguments - before you are even properly versed in preliminary theoretical definitions you start launching off into advanced proposals ....

What tests were ever applied to determine that a certain phenomenon that we call 'ghosts' are actually what they are defined as being?

generally the first characteristic is that they apply to dead people

“
good luck mr. empiricist
”
There's the problem and the point. If a thing can't be tested, the claims of what that thing is or is not are inherently worthless.

assuming of course that classical empiricism has the monopoly on reality, yes

“
and you still can't determine my date of birth?
you will have to forgive me if I doubt your claims ....
”
See, we're actually making progress now. I am impressed.

The only way to test omniscience is to check to see if this entity knows everything. The problem is that unless you also know everything, you'll never be able to determine that the answers it gives are valid. For example you ask something like: "how many worlds in this galaxy harbor intelligent life?" The entity replies "32,596". Without being omniscient yourself you'll never be able to determine if the answer is true or not - and thus a claim to omniscient remains worthless.

therefore there is a special emphasis on displaying the universal form
especially

BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything — moving and nonmoving — is here completely, in one place.

Now, your assumed idea of a test, (devotional service), is not a test of omniscience. If you apply devotional service and then get some ability to see through it's eyes or whatever, (an ability it gives you), you can't determine that it's not just making a false illusion in your mind.

if one wants to say that, then there is no way to validate anything, since one could just tag "its making a false illusion in your mind" to any finding brought to light in any field of knowledge - such solophistry is not a commendable foundation for philosophical discussion

Like I said, there is only one way to determine omniscience, (and I can see you recognise that - and argue merely because you can).

A claim to an entity being omniscient is worthless. It can't be tested, only claimed - it has no value.

the difference between claiming there is no god (which requires omniscience) and the claim that there is a god (which requires that god reveals himself) is that god is omnipotent - if god could not enable vision of his omniscience, he would not be omnipotent, and thus would not be god

“
maybe if you had the balls to step inside a temple you would see a statue
”
So you did see a statue?

No I said thats what you would probably see, much like the uneducated may see a hippo as a new species of elephant

However, I shouldn't have to. As you saw it personally you should be able to explain what it looked and sounded like. Statues rarely provide proper insight into what a being looks like.

this doesn't provide insight into this ?????

 

[SnakeLord]

tests are some how carried out outside of a particular time, place and circumstance?

No. If you think that was what was implicated then we have a long way to go. By the way, I said "specific", not particular.

an omniscient person can determine anything from all time, places and circumstances - there are a variety of ways to determine this evidence (for instance your failure to correctly answer my questions is one), but the most exacting relates to displaying a universal form

You're being silly. The only suitable 'evidence' for omniscience is if you ask every possible question and it answers them all correctly. Alas you'll never know if they're correct unless you're omniscient - hence the worthlessness of the claim.

actually its the nature of many of your arguments - before you are even properly versed in preliminary theoretical definitions you start launching off into advanced proposals ....

Actually, working out a correct definition of something is the preliminary. If you want to assert that a certain phenomenon is a certain something then it is you that is launching off.

generally the first characteristic is that they apply to dead people

What tests were conducted to show that as being true?

assuming of course that classical empiricism has the monopoly on reality, yes

From the perspective of what entity? If human, most certainly.

therefore there is a special emphasis on displaying the universal form
especially

I could show you the universal form of my c***, it doesn't in any way imply omiscience.

You can argue displaying forms all you like, it is never an argument that an entity knows everything - arjuna or otherwise.

if one wants to say that, then there is no way to validate anything, since one could just tag "its making a false illusion in your mind" to any finding brought to light in any field of knowledge - such solophistry is not a commendable foundation for philosophical discussion

Actually, that is philosophy.

You see that tea cup in front of you? How do you know that's real? A tree doesn't exist unless you're in the forest to see it.. that's philosophy.

Can anything ultimately be validated? Not if you get all philosophical and state that we live in the matrix.

Question is, what are we left with? What we are left with are certain criteria with which to test something. If we cannot test that something the claim is inherently worthless, (ergo leprechauns, invisible unicorns, gods, ghosts blah de blah).

the difference between claiming there is no god

That was not the claim. No wonder we're having problems. Try again.

No I said thats what you would probably see, much like the uneducated

Ok, I'm uneducated and would just see a statue. So.. Uhh.. why tell me to do that in the first place instead of just explaining to me what you saw? Do you get some form of delight in pedantic games?

this doesn't provide insight into this ?????

I dunno, looking just at the statue I would say the guy had a square head and didn't say much. He was also clearly a grumpy bastard and had no eyeballs.

However, if you now assert that a statue is fine with which to get an understanding of an entity then fine.. the being you saw was a blue boy playing a flute. Why are you arguing against yourself? Seems strange. :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
tests are some how carried out outside of a particular time, place and circumstance?
”
No. If you think that was what was implicated then we have a long way to go. By the way, I said "specific", not particular.

ì par·ticu·lar / Ñ pJ'tIkjJlJ(r); NAmE Ñ pJr't-/ adjective, nounŒ adjective 1[only before noun] used to emphasize that you are referring to one individual person, thing or type of thing and not others
SYN specific:
There is one particular patient I’d like you to see. Ç Is there a particular type of book he enjoys?

ì spe·cif·ic / Ñ spJ'sIfIk; NAmE Ñ / adjective 1detailed and exact
SYN precise:
I gave you specific instructions. Ç ‘I’d like your help tomorrow.’ ‘Can you be more specific (= tell me exactly what you want)?’2[usually before noun] connected with one particular thing only
SYN particular:
children’s television programmes aimed at a specific age group Ç The money was collected for a specific purpose. Ç children with specific learning difficulties (= in one area only)

...... truly academic

“
an omniscient person can determine anything from all time, places and circumstances - there are a variety of ways to determine this evidence (for instance your failure to correctly answer my questions is one), but the most exacting relates to displaying a universal form
”
You're being silly. The only suitable 'evidence' for omniscience is if you ask every possible question and it answers them all correctly. Alas you'll never know if they're correct unless you're omniscient - hence the worthlessness of the claim.

an omniscient personality would know everything past and present and future, which is at least one up on a personality that is not omniscient

in other words one can determine whether a personality is omniscient if they meet this definition

BG 11.7: O Arjuna, whatever you wish to see, behold at once in this body of Mine! This universal form can show you whatever you now desire to see and whatever you may want to see in the future. Everything — moving and nonmoving — is here completely, in one place.

“
actually its the nature of many of your arguments - before you are even properly versed in preliminary theoretical definitions you start launching off into advanced proposals ....
”
Actually, working out a correct definition of something is the preliminary.

yes it is
the question is why you always avoid such an important principle

“
generally the first characteristic is that they apply to dead people
”
What tests were conducted to show that as being true?

I guess if someone rings up their local newspaper to inform them that they are a ghost, if they pass all standard medical checks one of the first questions the reporter would probably ask is why they are apparently alive - lol

“
assuming of course that classical empiricism has the monopoly on reality, yes
”
From the perspective of what entity? If human, most certainly.

given that the senses are subject to these four imperfections

1. imperfect senses.... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity .... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

it certainly seems like a weak monopoly

“
therefore there is a special emphasis on displaying the universal form
especially
”
I could show you the universal form of my c***, it doesn't in any way imply omiscience.

on the contrary, you can't - the reason is because you are insignificant
(perhaps you could post a photo, but its not quite the same - and even then its hardly universal, but rather hideously subjective )

You can argue displaying forms all you like, it is never an argument that an entity knows everything - arjuna or otherwise.

guess you missed the bit previously in bold - anyway, unless you can find your medication, maybe we should just drop the topic ...

“
if one wants to say that, then there is no way to validate anything, since one could just tag "its making a false illusion in your mind" to any finding brought to light in any field of knowledge - such solophistry is not a commendable foundation for philosophical discussion
”
Actually, that is philosophy.

according to who's definition?

You see that tea cup in front of you? How do you know that's real? A tree doesn't exist unless you're in the forest to see it.. that's philosophy.

and no matter what you say in the name of philosophy I can just tag "its making a false illusion in your mind" and refute your claims - see how childish it is?

Can anything ultimately be validated? Not if you get all philosophical and state that we live in the matrix.

once again - solophistry is not a commendable platform of philosophy, even though it may be a good central theme for a movie and making lots of money by appealing to the lowest common denominator ...

Question is, what are we left with? What we are left with are certain criteria with which to test something.

not if you want to tag "its making a false illusion in your mind" to what ever criteria you care to prsent

If we cannot test that something the claim is inherently worthless, (ergo leprechauns, invisible unicorns, gods, ghosts blah de blah).

test it by what?
classical empiricism?
maybe now would be a good time for you to present your philosophical platform of how our senses of perception are the most superior substance in the universe - good luck.

“
the difference between claiming there is no god
”
That was not the claim. No wonder we're having problems. Try again.

erm yes it was
someone - perhaps it was kenny, said (as many atheists are apt when blood rushes to their head) words to the effect that there is no god - I gave the standard refutation that this is absurd because it requires omniscience (which a conditioned soul is clearly not) then someone (perhaps it was you) jumped in and said that confirming god also requires omniscience, thus the positive claim of god's existence is also equally absurd

right now we are (hopefully) ta the point of discussing how god can reveal his omniscience to a conditioned soul

“
No I said thats what you would probably see, much like the uneducated
”
Ok, I'm uneducated and would just see a statue. So.. Uhh.. why tell me to do that in the first place instead of just explaining to me what you saw? Do you get some form of delight in pedantic games?

your original q was what does god look like - I gave you a general indication - if you want a more clearer understanding it will probably require a bit more on your part

“
this doesn't provide insight into this ?????
”
I dunno, looking just at the statue I would say the guy had a square head and didn't say much. He was also clearly a grumpy bastard and had no eyeballs.

its not all ironic that it bears a striking resembelance to the photograph

However, if you now assert that a statue is fine with which to get an understanding of an entity then fine..

if I tried to pass this off as a statue of karl Marx, what would be your response?

the being you saw was a blue boy playing a flute. Why are you arguing against yourself? Seems strange.

if I saw a hippo, I would see a large beast with four legs. Even though an elephant is a large beast with four legs, it doesn't mean I have seen a new species of elephant

 

[SnakeLord]

...... truly academic

Coming from the person that can't even work out the difference between a story and a test.. No more needs be said.

in other words one can determine whether a personality is omniscient if they meet this definition

If they indeed know everything past, present and future sure.. How do you propose to test the claim?

BG 11.7: O Arjuna

A story about a guy and a claim that he could see everything past, present and future. That's not a test of anything, it is a mere proposal of truth, (which doesn't even relate to you or people in general but to one specific guy named arjuna). Have you learnt nothing?

yes it is

Let me know when you're sure about that. One minute you seem to think it isn't, then it is.. etc.

the question is why you always avoid such an important principle

Actually it is you that's avoiding.

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/str...1-b43d93dee2fa

I see. I ask you a question and you think it best to paste a cartoon.

... Truly academic

Once again: What tests were conducted to show that as being true?

I guess if someone rings up their local newspaper to inform them that they are a ghost

Such ignorance it's astounding. Answer the question posed and we can move on.

given that the senses are subject to these four imperfections

Oh yeah! So I guess we'll just have to pass on that aspect because it's imperfect and do the alternative which is.... make it up? have faith? guess? read ancient books from people equally imperfect? Do tell..

guess you missed the bit previously in bold

No. Putting something in bold does not make that something true - nor is text claiming that it's true a confirmation that it is true. Have you not been listening?

"its making a false illusion in your mind" and refute your claims - see how childish it is?

Not really, but if you are under direct control of an external entity that shows you things through those senses of yours that are inherently faulty, then how do you judge that what you're seeing is what actually is?

test it by what?

You tell me. By what is written in old books perhaps?

your original q was what does god look like - I gave you a general indication - if you want a more clearer understanding it will probably require a bit more on your part

Wait up. You made a claim that you had seen this being, I asked you what it looked and sounded like and now it's somehow my fault that you can't give an adequate explanation?

Was he blue? Was he grey? 100 eyes? 3 feet? The explanation must surely come from the person claiming to have seen it as opposed to the person that didn't? If you think otherwise you're an idiot.

if I saw a hippo..

If I asked you what the hippo looked like, would it be that hard just to provide an explanation instead of fucking around for post after post on irrelevant nonsense? Just tell me what this being you saw looked like.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

...... truly academic
”
Coming from the person that can't even work out the difference between a story and a test.. No more needs be said.

lol - given that you work with a clear distinction between the words "specific" and "particular" to determine such a difference, yes, there is not much more to say

“
in other words one can determine whether a personality is omniscient if they meet this definition
”
If they indeed know everything past, present and future sure.. How do you propose to test the claim?

what part of the words "and whatever you may want to see in the future" don't you understand?

“
BG 11.7: O Arjuna
”
A story about a guy and a claim that he could see everything past, present and future. That's not a test of anything,

your tentative claims aside, it does however offer a "test" on how something could be deemed "omniscient"

it is a mere proposal of truth, (which doesn't even relate to you or people in general but to one specific guy named arjuna). Have you learnt nothing?

once again, your tentative claims aside, I can still utilize the test - for instance if you want to claim that you are omniscient (and also assuming that this apparent ability you have to detect lies worked at a slightly better ratio than 1:2), I could ask you to reveal to me what I will know in the future

“
yes it is
”
Let me know when you're sure about that. One minute you seem to think it isn't, then it is.. etc.

whatever - but lets hope it helps you work with clearer usages of the words "god", "omniscient" "omnipresent" or even "ghosts" or "elephants"

“
the question is why you always avoid such an important principle
”
Actually it is you that's avoiding.

lol

“
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/str...1-b43d93dee2fa
”
I see. I ask you a question and you think it best to paste a cartoon.


... Truly academic

Once again: What tests were conducted to show that as being true?

just in case you couldn't understand the cartoon, it tends to evoke humour because the notion of ghost being someone who is, for all intents and purposes, just as alive as any other run of the mill being, is absurd

“
I guess if someone rings up their local newspaper to inform them that they are a ghost
”
Such ignorance it's astounding. Answer the question posed and we can move on.

ditto above

“
given that the senses are subject to these four imperfections
”
Oh yeah! So I guess we'll just have to pass on that aspect because it's imperfect and do the alternative which is.... make it up? have faith? guess? read ancient books from people equally imperfect? Do tell..

anything but approach the personality who doesn't have imperfect senses, eh?

“
guess you missed the bit previously in bold
”
No. Putting something in bold does not make that something true - nor is text claiming that it's true a confirmation that it is true. Have you not been listening?

lets get this straight one step at a time

you asked "what is the test"

given that knowledge is made up of three aspects

1. theory
2. practice
3. conclusion
   
   which aspect do you think "test" falls under?

“
"its making a false illusion in your mind" and refute your claims - see how childish it is?
”
Not really, but if you are under direct control of an external entity that shows you things through those senses of yours that are inherently faulty, then how do you judge that what you're seeing is what actually is?

thats ok

its just making a false illusion in your mind to make you think that way

(btw - if you want to throw this little piece of solophistry into the arena I can just repeat it ad infinitum to counter ever you have to say)

“
test it by what?
”
You tell me. By what is written in old books perhaps?

once again, maybe now would be a good time for you to present your philosophical platform of how our senses of perception are the most superior substance in the universe - good luck.

“
your original q was what does god look like - I gave you a general indication - if you want a more clearer understanding it will probably require a bit more on your part
”
Wait up. You made a claim that you had seen this being, I asked you what it looked and sounded like and now it's somehow my fault that you can't give an adequate explanation?

once again

I gave you a general indication

Was he blue? Was he grey? 100 eyes? 3 feet?

all these questions were answered in the general indication

The explanation must surely come from the person claiming to have seen it as opposed to the person that didn't? If you think otherwise you're an idiot.

once again
both a hippo and an elephant are big and have four legs - one can go on to make further distinctions between the elephant and the hippo - all depends on how much you are willing to learn .....

“
if I saw a hippo..
”
If I asked you what the hippo looked like, would it be that hard just to provide an explanation instead of fucking around for post after post on irrelevant nonsense? Just tell me what this being you saw looked like.

once you settle down and locate your medication, please remember that it is the purpose of analogies to draw on something common to indicate something uncommon - Obviously you know what a hippo is. Obviously you do not know what god is - the whole purpose of taking this whole detour into the realm of elephants and hippos (or Karl Marx and Caesar) is meant to illustrate how a foundation of knowledge enables a difference in seeing, even though the act of seeing is done through the same method of moist balls in one's head

 

[SnakeLord]

lol - given that you work with a clear distinction between the words "specific" and "particular".

Not really, no.. but if you cannot establish such simple things as the difference between a story and a test then it's best not to confuse yourself further by using words different to those stated.

what part of the words "and whatever you may want to see in the future" don't you understand?

What part of the words "it's a story" do you not understand? A story is a proposal, not a confirmation. The book of Lenny, page 237 says: "whatever you may want to see in the future you can when I imbue my Lenny power on you". Is that a test? NO.

So, as asked.. How do you propose to test the claim? When it's omniscience you're testing there is only one valid way - and it requires you to also be omniscient. You can faff about with a story of arjuna's adventures all you like, it changes nothing. If you think it does, let's finish this here.

it does however offer a "test" on how something could be deemed "omniscient"

If an entity knows everything then it is omniscient. There's only one valid way to test that an entity knows everything - which requires you to also be omniscient.

once again, your tentative claims aside, I can still utilize the test - for instance if you want to claim that you are omniscient I could ask you to reveal to me what I will know in the future

At moments it seems like you're getting somewhere, but alas it never lasts long with you. Ok so, I claim to be omniscient and you now want to know what you will know in the future. The thing is, if I tell you - how do you propose to determine whether what I tell you is true or not? Unless you're omniscient or wait until that time arrives, you can't. It's made even worse when I say to you: "show me pure and undivided worship and you will be able to..", because such a claims have no fixed goalposts. You could worship me non-stop for a decade and I say it wasn't pure enough etc. Now, I actually did show everything to some guy named jarundo several thousand years ago. According to you, my simple saying that it happened is confirmation that it did. I find the notion quite bizarre myself, but each to their own.

whatever

Bwahahaha.

just in case you couldn't understand the cartoon, it tends to evoke humour because the notion of ghost being someone who is, for all intents and purposes, just as alive as any other run of the mill being, is absurd

And that was established how? (That is the question after all). Would you like to just continue giving me your interpretation of cartoons?

What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we call ghosts are actually dead people?

Do you not understand the question? (You'd be the first but it seems likely). Perhaps, and it seems pertinent given your behaviour, you'd prefer me to draw it for you?

anything but approach the personality who doesn't have imperfect senses, eh?

Who would that be and what exactly establishes this personality as even existing? Oh and wait, given that your senses are imperfect - you can't establish that even if you did see such a being that it wasn't only your imperfection making yet another of its typical mistakes. So what now.. Oh yes, as asked: we guess, have faith, make it up?

lets get this straight one step at a time

Ah, I'm going too fast for you - my apologies.

1) A book is not a confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it.

2) To determine that the proposal within that book is true one must test the proposal.

3) To test omniscience one must be omniscient. To test omnipresence one must be omniscient or omnipresent. To test omnipotence one must be omniscient.

thats ok

No it isn't. Saying "that's ok" is not an answer to the question. Try again.

once again, maybe now would be a good time for you to present your philosophical platform of how our senses of perception are the most superior substance in the universe

I'm happy to go along with whatever you say - our senses aren't superior, (although clearly superior to your non-sense). So, what do we use instead? (I've asked you several times now. Instead of answering you keep trying to claim I said our senses are more superior to... whatever else it is you haven't proposed as an alternative).

I gave you a general indication

But threw a hissy fit when I looked at a statue and asked you if that was what you meant, (considering you told me to look at a statue). Stop being a lemon.

Once you grow some balls, message me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord“

lol - given that you work with a clear distinction between the words "specific" and "particular".
”
Not really, no.. but if you cannot establish such simple things as the difference between a story and a test then it's best not to confuse yourself further by using words different to those stated.

yes, spare me a citation on the essential distinctions between "specific" and "particular"

save it for your next thesis

“
what part of the words "and whatever you may want to see in the future" don't you understand?
”
What part of the words "it's a story" do you not understand? A story is a proposal, not a confirmation. The book of Lenny, page 237 says: "whatever you may want to see in the future you can when I imbue my Lenny power on you". Is that a test? NO.

are you asking for a test or something else?

So, as asked.. How do you propose to test the claim?

well if I propose that you can test whether object A is god by applying process B, the first step would be approaching object A

When it's omniscience you're testing there is only one valid way - and it requires you to also be omniscient.

aside from your or my opinion that it is a story or not, what part of the words "and whatever you may want to see in the future" don't you understand?

it does however offer a "test" on how something could be deemed "omniscient"

If an entity knows everything then it is omniscient. There's only one valid way to test that an entity knows everything - which requires you to also be omniscient.

another way would be to ask it to reveal knowledge of the future

“
once again, your tentative claims aside, I can still utilize the test - for instance if you want to claim that you are omniscient I could ask you to reveal to me what I will know in the future
”
At moments it seems like you're getting somewhere, but alas it never lasts long with you. Ok so, I claim to be omniscient and you now want to know what you will know in the future. The thing is, if I tell you - how do you propose to determine whether what I tell you is true or not?

quite easy
I ask what will I have for breakfast tomorrow and you tell me, and tomorrow morning at breakfast time I see whether its true or not

Unless you're omniscient or wait until that time arrives, you can't.

you have a problem waiting for the results of your tests to come through?
If funding bodies had such issues there wouldn't be much done in the name of research

It's made even worse when I say to you: "show me pure and undivided worship and you will be able to..", because such a claims have no fixed goalposts.

I don't understand what you are saying here

You could worship me non-stop for a decade and I say it wasn't pure enough etc.

yes you could - that would be because your claims stand outside of the realm of classical empiricism (if during that ten year period I observed an endless stream of incidents of your inability to recall the past, anticipate the future or even operate out the present in terms of your own personal affairs, I could probably put 2 and 2 together ....)

Now, I actually did show everything to some guy named jarundo several thousand years ago. According to you, my simple saying that it happened is confirmation that it did. I find the notion quite bizarre myself, but each to their own.

I am not aware at which point the topic of argument switched from "how does one test an omniscient being without being omniscient" to "what are the credible foundations for the Bhagavad-gita".

“
just in case you couldn't understand the cartoon, it tends to evoke humour because the notion of ghost being someone who is, for all intents and purposes, just as alive as any other run of the mill being, is absurd
”
And that was established how? (That is the question after all).

sounds like a monty python skit

Reporter - so Mr Carthwell, you are a ghost?
Mr Carthwell - Yes that's right
Reporter - well, erm, I must say you don't look like a ghost
Mr Carthwell - (defensive) what makes you say that!

Would you like to just continue giving me your interpretation of cartoons?

I could go on a bit further with them, but if you have to explain a joke to someone it tends to be a bit of a fizzer

What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we call ghosts are actually dead people?

ROTFLMAO

“
anything but approach the personality who doesn't have imperfect senses, eh?
”
Who would that be

God and the liberated soul

and what exactly establishes this personality as even existing?

much like any other claim in the field of knowledge, persons in the position of direct perception

Oh and wait, given that your senses are imperfect - you can't establish that even if you did see such a being that it wasn't only your imperfection making yet another of its typical mistakes.

if the ultimate substance of our selves are our blunt senses, yes

So what now.. Oh yes, as asked: we guess, have faith, make it up?

no

once again

approach the person with perfect senses

“
lets get this straight one step at a time
”
Ah, I'm going too fast for you - my apologies.

its not so much the speed that you progress with a topic but the speed between one unresolved topic and another - what you posted below is such an example

1) A book is not a confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it.

2) To determine that the proposal within that book is true one must test the proposal.

3) To test omniscience one must be omniscient. To test omnipresence one must be omniscient or omnipresent. To test omnipotence one must be omniscient.

perhaps we can discuss this after - but to get back to my original query

you asked "what is the test"

given that knowledge is made up of three aspects

1. theory
2. practice
3. conclusion

which aspect do you think "test" falls under?

“
thats ok
”
No it isn't. Saying "that's ok" is not an answer to the question. Try again.

its just making a false illusion in your mind to make you think that way
“
once again, maybe now would be a good time for you to present your philosophical platform of how our senses of perception are the most superior substance in the universe
”

I'm happy to go along with whatever you say - our senses aren't superior, (although clearly superior to your non-sense). So, what do we use instead? (I've asked you several times now. Instead of answering you keep trying to claim I said our senses are more superior to... whatever else it is you haven't proposed as an alternative).

ok lets put this into a simple everyday scenario

Fred is a simple man who works at a local supermarket collecting the trolleys - one day he comes down with a huge black lump growing out his neck. What do you think Fred should do

1. examine the lump at home
2. examine the lump at home after buying a medical text book
3. see a doctor who has greater means of medical perception and understanding than the conglomerate of Fred's senses with or without the purchased text book

“
I gave you a general indication
”
But threw a hissy fit when I looked at a statue and asked you if that was what you meant, (considering you told me to look at a statue). Stop being a lemon.

Once you grow some balls, message me.

and it wasn't sufficient to answer your questions

“
Was he blue? Was he grey? 100 eyes? 3 feet?

 

[SnakeLord]

well if I propose that you can test whether object A is god by applying process B, the first step would be approaching object A

And then.. how do you test omniscience without being omniscient? You can't. The point.

what part of the words "and whatever you may want to see in the future" don't you understand?

Yeah, I remember Lenny saying them. Whatever is your point? Further to which, if this being gives you the ability to see and know everything then my argument is shown to be entirely valid, (you'd be omniscient). Thus to test omniscience one must be omniscient.

You have this extraordinary ability to dig yourself big holes and then fill them up with mud once dug.

Now we just need to establish whether there is a god or Lenny and whether this god or Lenny can indeed give you this ability. Hate to break it to you, but a claim in an old story does not make it so.

another way would be to ask it to reveal knowledge of the future

In which case you'd now be omniscient, (if you knew everything it knew), and thus my statement that you quoted which said: "There's only one valid way to test that an entity knows everything - which requires you to also be omniscient" remains. What exactly are you trying to argue against? Lol..

I ask what will I have for breakfast tomorrow and you tell me, and tomorrow morning at breakfast time I see whether its true or not

Right, as I stated quite clearly: "Unless you're omniscient or wait until that time arrives". You're not too quick on the ball are you? The question is of course whether my omniscience must bow to your requests or not. Must it?

you have a problem waiting for the results of your tests to come through?

Clearly you didn't understand the point of the statement, although you actually did because you mentioned it on your very last statement lol. Are you purposefully being silly with me? Ah yes, it's one of your tactics.. I forgot.

I don't understand what you are saying here

Ok..

-> Show me pure devotion and worship and I shall show you everything.

What does pure devotion and worship entail? The very second you think of anything other than me I can say you've failed in showing pure devotion and worship to me. Pure devotion and worship has no set goalposts and thus is always movable dependent upon your actions.

yes you could - that would be because your claims stand outside of the realm of classical empiricism (if during that ten year period I observed an endless stream of incidents of your inability to recall the past, anticipate the future or even operate out the present in terms of your own personal affairs, I could probably put 2 and 2 together ....)

Actually no, unless you can establish that omniscience must serve you, (that I know what you'll have for breakfast tomorrow means I must tell you if you ask). You'll have an exceedingly difficult time trying to establish such a thing. So therefore you will get the answer when you show pure devotion and worship. Until such time you'll get whatever answer I deem fit. There's the problem with movable goalposts.

I am not aware at which point the topic of argument switched from "how does one test an omniscient being without being omniscient" to "what are the credible foundations for the Bhagavad-gita".

I dunno... it was some 30+ posts ago where I stated "a book is not a confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it", which I have used quite consistently ever since. You didn't notice it? Shame.

sounds like a monty python skit

I'm truly pleased. Now can you answer the question???

"And that was established how? (That is the question after all)"

ROTFLMAO

Not much of an answer. Try again:

"What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we call ghosts are actually dead people?"

I had this discussion today with my brother and a few dozen people on irc. I have had this discussion many times in the past and it needs to be stated that in all those times you are the only person that doesn't understand what is being asked. Is it perhaps a language barrier?

God and the liberated soul

What tests have been conducted to show that there is a god or a soul? Oops.

much like any other claim in the field of knowledge, persons in the position of direct perception

It's not like other fields of knowledge, you know that and people have been telling you ever since you started squirting the notion out. But I shall give you the opportunity to establish and confirm that these supposed people have direct perception.

you asked "what is the test"

given that knowledge is made up of three aspects

1. theory
2. practice
3. conclusion

which aspect do you think "test" falls under?

No I didn't, you're evading. The 'test' in question would be testing omniscience. You can't test omniscience without being omniscient. What more needs be said?

examine the lump at home
examine the lump at home after buying a medical text book
see a doctor who has greater means of medical perception and understanding than the conglomerate of Fred's senses with or without the purchased text book

I see... 3 options that involve those human senses that you were so adamant to tell me are faulty and crap.

and it wasn't sufficient to answer your questions

ROFLMFAO! No, it wasn't.. that's what I've been telling you. Why not just cut out all this bullshit and explain to me what you saw in detail. Are you incapable of doing so? Just say so and I'll stop asking.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
well if I propose that you can test whether object A is god by applying process B, the first step would be approaching object A
”
And then.. how do you test omniscience without being omniscient? You can't. The point.

process B in this case would be quizzing object A about knowledge in the future

“
what part of the words "and whatever you may want to see in the future" don't you understand?
”
Yeah, I remember Lenny saying them.

we can talk of lenny later if you like, but rather than having you switch topics with retinal after image speed, perhaps we should clear up the nature of testing omniscience first

Whatever is your point?

testing the nature of omniscience .. I was under the impression it was your point too??

Further to which, if this being gives you the ability to see and know everything then my argument is shown to be entirely valid, (you'd be omniscient).

if it is revealed to one what they will know in the future, how does that make them omniscient?

You have this extraordinary ability to dig yourself big holes and then fill them up with mud once dug.

I think your over-confidence gets the better of you

Now we just need to establish whether there is a god or Lenny and whether this god or Lenny can indeed give you this ability. Hate to break it to you, but a claim in an old story does not make it so.

lol - did your mother ever tell you to chew your food properly before you swallow?

“
I ask what will I have for breakfast tomorrow and you tell me, and tomorrow morning at breakfast time I see whether its true or not
”
Right, as I stated quite clearly: "Unless you're omniscient or wait until that time arrives". You're not too quick on the ball are you? The question is of course whether my omniscience must bow to your requests or not. Must it?

Its not clear how knowing what I will have for breakfast tomorrow makes me aware of what all the living entities in the universe will be having for breakfast tomorrow

“
you have a problem waiting for the results of your tests to come through?
”
Clearly you didn't understand the point of the statement, although you actually did because you mentioned it on your very last statement lol. Are you purposefully being silly with me? Ah yes, it's one of your tactics.. I forgot.

erm - did you have a point or are you satisfied to blather?

“
I don't understand what you are saying here
”
Ok..

-> Show me pure devotion and worship and I shall show you everything.

What does pure devotion and worship entail? The very second you think of anything other than me I can say you've failed in showing pure devotion and worship to me. Pure devotion and worship has no set goalposts and thus is always movable dependent upon your actions.

actually pure devotion to god is very clearly defined, including various symptoms,levels, points of progress, etc - Actually its the point of Bhagavad-gita

“
yes you could - that would be because your claims stand outside of the realm of classical empiricism (if during that ten year period I observed an endless stream of incidents of your inability to recall the past, anticipate the future or even operate out the present in terms of your own personal affairs, I could probably put 2 and 2 together ....)
”
Actually no, unless you can establish that omniscience must serve you, (that I know what you'll have for breakfast tomorrow means I must tell you if you ask). You'll have an exceedingly difficult time trying to establish such a thing. So therefore you will get the answer when you show pure devotion and worship. Until such time you'll get whatever answer I deem fit. There's the problem with movable goalposts.

you miss the point - if I observe you or I hear news of your activities ands its clear that you are fumbling about in a state of non-omniscience, there's no need for viewing you as a worshippable object

“
I am not aware at which point the topic of argument switched from "how does one test an omniscient being without being omniscient" to "what are the credible foundations for the Bhagavad-gita".
”
I dunno... it was some 30+ posts ago where I stated "a book is not a confirmation of truth, it is merely a proposal of it", which I have used quite consistently ever since. You didn't notice it? Shame.

and 30 posts later you are still reluctant to admit the distinction between practice (ie tests) and valuations (ie truth), which was the issue raised some 60 posts ago

[

"What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we call ghosts are actually dead people?"

to begin with there are some very elementary ones - the first being that if a person is alive and apparently "normal" by all means, its not clear how they could be catagorized a "ghost", even if they say "hey I am a ghost" (if your wife told you she was a ghost would you believe her?)

“
God and the liberated soul
”
What tests have been conducted to show that there is a god or a soul? Oops.

the same as any test in any field of advanced knowledge - carried out by qualified persons - who else?

“
much like any other claim in the field of knowledge, persons in the position of direct perception
”
It's not like other fields of knowledge, you know that and people have been telling you ever since you started squirting the notion out. But I shall give you the opportunity to establish and confirm that these supposed people have direct perception.

given their qualifications and reluctance to even theoretically entertain the qualifications , hardly surprising ... and you wonder why I harp on about high school drop outs ...

“
you asked "what is the test"

given that knowledge is made up of three aspects

1. theory
2. practice
3. conclusion

which aspect do you think "test" falls under?
”
No I didn't, you're evading. The 'test' in question would be testing omniscience. You can't test omniscience without being omniscient. What more needs be said?

regardless of whether we are testing omniscience or how full a gum ball machine is, given that knowledge is made up of three aspects

1. theory
2. practice
3. conclusion

which aspect do you think "test" falls under?

“
examine the lump at home
examine the lump at home after buying a medical text book
see a doctor who has greater means of medical perception and understanding than the conglomerate of Fred's senses with or without the purchased text book
”
I see... 3 options that involve those human senses that you were so adamant to tell me are faulty and crap.

there is a special advantage that lies in one of them - can you guess which one?

“
and it wasn't sufficient to answer your questions
”
ROFLMFAO! No, it wasn't.. that's what I've been telling you. Why not just cut out all this bullshit and explain to me what you saw in detail. Are you incapable of doing so? Just say so and I'll stop asking.

I am sure that if you took a step inside any Krsna temple these questions can be answered

Was he blue? Was he grey? 100 eyes? 3 feet?