you can also quiz it about the past and present too
Yes, you'd have to.
The problem is, as stated many times, that unless you know all the answers, (you're omniscient), you couldn't determine whether the answers given were correct and thus cannot determine the beings omniscience.
well, if you are in favour of the notion of reading past statements, you might recall that you refused to accept inquiries into the past and present, since Xenu or something can read people's minds and is not really omnisicient
Not really, although it seems the way I stated things has got you confused. As such I shall try again:
1) Unless you know the answer, you cannot establish that an answer given is the correct one. For example let's say that you ask me what the capital of Botswana is. I tell you it's Banjul. Unless you know the answer, (it's Gaborone), you cannot establish that I gave you an incorrect answer. Of course in human terms you can go to the library/check the internet - but with the case of testing an omniscient entity you would have to be omniscient.
2) If you 'see' past or future events you cannot establish that those events are actual events unless you actually witnessed those events prior to being shown them. In saying you would have to be omniscient prior to testing another beings omniscience.
3) As omniscience cannot be tested unless you're omniscient, (which you are not), the claim to an entity being omniscient is worthless.
so now what you need are a few premises to support your statement rather than a few value statements about those who oppose it
Let's be honest here for a moment: I have explained in great detail why one cannot test omniscience without being omniscient and you have yet to offer any form of rebuttal to that. Do you have one?
therefore we have scripture to give us some understanding on the nature of god
Incorrect. You have scripture to give you a claim of the nature of a being - claims that you need to test. Omniscience, (one such claim), cannot be tested and is therefore a worthless claim. Omnipotence and omnipresence are equally untestable.
for instance if one is working out of the understanding (how? God knows) that two or more omnipresent entities can exist, it wouldn't be expected that they have the opportunity to progress in any sort of proper worship of god
I fail to see the value or even the relevance of your statement.
According to you, one should not worship such beings until they have proven their abilities to you.
You then changed tactic and stated that one should not worship beings unless they are aware of the claims concerning that being.
You now change it yet again to tell me some garbled nonsense about multiple entities.
Can you please adopt a clear and consistent idea? Once you have done that please do tell me what this has to do with testing that beings omniscience etc?
I can just go inquire from your family members and work colleagues and see whether there are clear examples of your non-omniscience
Interesting, this is how to test a humans claim to knowing everything. Surely you recognise that the same must be adopted with concerns to the same claim for any entity?
and how does this relate to our discussion
“
me - actually pure devotion to god is very clearly defined, including various symptoms,levels, points of progress, etc - Actually its the point of Bhagavad-gita
”
you - It seemingly differs from book to book.
”
me - what are such differences you are alluding to?
you - you said statues and (blah blah blah)
Actually no, I said: "animal/human sacrifice". Were you not paying attention?
indicates its time to go back to studying those books again I guess
I give you full opportunity right here and now to explain to me how one can test omniscience without being omniscient. Come on, this is your big moment - seize it. Or if you prefer, you can just continue with pointless, pathetic one liners.
to begin with we have standard definitions
Yes. We know this, we've covered this. What tests were ever conducted to show that standard definition is actually what the phenomenon is? The same is true of all 'supernatural' occurrences with the exception of UFO's.
if your wife said she was a ghost and she was not displaying anything even vaguely ghostly, it would seem strange
So.... because my wife is alive, and isn't transparent... that means a ghost must be a dead person? What a bizarre notion. I guess because my wife isn't a man and doesn't have wings that a mothman must be a moth.
as for your tirade about omniscience, you still haven't really explained why indications of knowledge from the future (since you ousted indications of knowledge from the past and present as possible mind reading) is not sufficient
Explained quite a few times, including in this post.
you see your wife
she's not dead
she's not transparent
you wouldn't even think she was a ghost, but she says "I am a ghost"
O...k. Do you just not understand the question or are you just trying to be silly? (It's an honest question).
No she isn't. Is a ghost? What tests were ever conducted to show that as being the case?
the first thing you would test is any anomalies to "ordinary existence" - in otherwords if your wife is alive and kicking and doing all those things she usually does and that other "ordinarily existing" people do, there is no foundation for defining her as a ghost
Until the phemomenon is tested you also therefore have no foundation for defining it as a dead person. Let's say for arguments sake that it is a hallucination brought about by fear etc. So it isn't a dead person at all, it's a mere hallucination. So.....
What tests were ever conducted to show that the phenomenon we called ghosts are actually dead people?
by determining exactly what a living person has that a dead person doesn't
Yes, and what test ever conducted showed that a living person has a soul?
doctors go to university for 6 years to become solely proficient in those things?
No, didn't realise you were being so specific. All I was told, (time and time again), is that I can't involve myself if I'm not qualified. Clearly I can.
I did
I gave a general indication
Aye, so it's blue and plays a flute. If it was different you'd need to explain that difference. However, I have seen how liars operate. They use the same avoidance tactics. You sir are a liar.
