God and Music

[SnakeLord]

the reason I asked was because science does not operate on the principle of testing everything - I raised the issue earlier with Sarkus whether a group of physicists seeing a bolt of lightning in the distance would say "it was the activity of electrons" or "we can not say what it was because we were not there to test and record if it was electrons"

Ok, so everytime you test a lightning bolt you establish that it "was the activity of electrons" which in comparison means every time you test god you must establish that it is omniscient. You can't do this once, let alone the repeat test after repeat test that "real" things get.

To even establish that it is electrons, (omniscient), you must at least conduct the test fully once. You can't do that without being omniscient and thus it is a whole different ball game. We are of course also talking test after test after test. How many times other than absolute zero have you tested a claimed gods omniscience - which you can't do unless you're omniscient?

in other words determining the nature of a lightning bolt is asserted from taking something to be true (testing a particular lightning bolt in a particular circumstance) and extrapolating that to the greater world - after all, how many of the world's lightning bolts have been tested in comparison to ALL the lightning bolts (quite certainly less than 10%, don't you think?)

Yes, which is why there is no such thing as an absolute: "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms" (T.O)

So no, I suppose it is possible that there will or has been a lightning strike that involved no electrons but instead was the work of magical pixies - but test after test after test has shown, (as far as truth can be measured), that lightning involves electrons. How many tests other than absolute zero have ever been done to show that a claimed being is omniscient, (which is impossible unless you are omniscient)?

so in other words, if you want to dismiss testing omniscience by inquiring into the future, you have to establish what a living entity would have recourse to (other than omniscience) that would enable them to determine future events

Joseph and his amazing technicolour dreamcoat managed just fine, and I doubt we'd hear LG claim he was omniscient. Likewise the same goes for Nostradamus, (dependant upon interpretation), and Mystic Meg.

The ability to read the future is not a sign of omniscience. What is you ask me about events in the future and I happen to guess right? How many questions do you think is a minimum amount to ensure that I am not guessing/just know those things you ask?

tomorrow's breakfast is not an event?

Sure it is.. Read my statement carefully. I will italicise the important word:

"I'm glad it now entails more than just your breakfast tomorrow."

So lg, how many questions should you ask just to be on the safe side?

So lucky guesses, crystal balls and thorough investigation of our existing environments enable us to anticipate future events with 100% accuracy?

Worked fine for Joseph and he was asleep at the time. Was Joseph omniscient? :shrug:

(in other words I am sure we could think of another suitable query if we felt that "what will I have for breakfast tomorrow" was insufficient - although its certainly sufficient to determine if you are omniscient or not)

Complete and utter bollocks. You think if asked around this entire forum that someone couldn't guess right? What if we asked your mother, (who was cooking that breakfast)? Is she omniscient? Oooooooh my mother got the question right! *bows down to mother*

I know my daughter is going to finish school at 3pm. WOW! I'm omniscient. I know my daughter is going to have corn flakes for breakfast tomorrow.. WOW! I'm omniscient. I know that I am going to make myself a cup of tea in 30 seconds time. WOW! I'm omniscient..

Sec, putting the kettle on..

Do me a lemon.

I mentioned that earlier - depends on your persistence versus your doubt - 1, 10, 1000000

What do you think is a fair average?

the inability to anticipate the future is not a clear indication of non-omniscience (ie nescience)???

One must then determine inability vs not wanting to share.

like who exactly?
Do they have 100% success rates?

Joseph.

Yes.

What now, card tricks?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Snakelord

the reason I asked was because science does not operate on the principle of testing everything - I raised the issue earlier with Sarkus whether a group of physicists seeing a bolt of lightning in the distance would say "it was the activity of electrons" or "we can not say what it was because we were not there to test and record if it was electrons" ”
Ok, so everytime you test a lightning bolt you establish that it "was the activity of electrons" which in comparison means every time you test god you must establish that it is omniscient.

yes

You can't do this once, let alone the repeat test after repeat test that "real" things get.

Why not?

To even establish that it is electrons, (omniscient), you must at least conduct the test fully once. You can't do that without being omniscient and thus it is a whole different ball game. We are of course also talking test after test after test. How many times other than absolute zero have you tested a claimed gods omniscience - which you can't do unless you're omniscient?

in short this is an argument is incredulous – you have not seen god, so therefore no one has seen god and any one who says otherwise is obviously telling lies – I think we have been over it numerous times before, but if you want me to bring up the topic of a high school drop out, just continue with such persistence
“

in other words determining the nature of a lightning bolt is asserted from taking something to be true (testing a particular lightning bolt in a particular circumstance) and extrapolating that to the greater world - after all, how many of the world's lightning bolts have been tested in comparison to ALL the lightning bolts (quite certainly less than 10%, don't you think?) ”
Yes, which is why there is no such thing as an absolute: "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms" (T.O)

So no, I suppose it is possible that there will or has been a lightning strike that involved no electrons but instead was the work of magical pixies - but test after test after test has shown, (as far as truth can be measured), that lightning involves electrons. How many tests other than absolute zero have ever been done to show that a claimed being is omniscient, (which is impossible unless you are omniscient)?

more incredulity ...
“

so in other words, if you want to dismiss testing omniscience by inquiring into the future, you have to establish what a living entity would have recourse to (other than omniscience) that would enable them to determine future events ”
Joseph and his amazing technicolour dreamcoat managed just fine, and I doubt we'd hear LG claim he was omniscient. Likewise the same goes for Nostradamus, (dependant upon interpretation), and Mystic Meg.

that’s okay, but what exactly are you saying these personalities are having recourse to in determining the future?

The ability to read the future is not a sign of omniscience. What is you ask me about events in the future and I happen to guess right? How many questions do you think is a minimum amount to ensure that I am not guessing/just know those things you ask?

you couldn’t anticipate what I had for breakfast the other day, so that was sufficient for me to determine that state of your omniscience
“

tomorrow's breakfast is not an event? ”
Sure it is.. Read my statement carefully. I will italicise the important word:

"I'm glad it now entails more than just your breakfast tomorrow."

So lg, how many questions should you ask just to be on the safe side?

depends on how persistent and doubtful you are – what such a figure would be I can’t say
“

So lucky guesses, crystal balls and thorough investigation of our existing environments enable us to anticipate future events with 100% accuracy? ”
Worked fine for Joseph and he was asleep at the time. Was Joseph omniscient?

once again, what exactly are you saying he had recourse to in determining the future
“

(in other words I am sure we could think of another suitable query if we felt that "what will I have for breakfast tomorrow" was insufficient - although its certainly sufficient to determine if you are omniscient or not) ”
Complete and utter bollocks. You think if asked around this entire forum that someone couldn't guess right? What if we asked your mother, (who was cooking that breakfast)? Is she omniscient? Oooooooh my mother got the question right! *bows down to mother*

I know my daughter is going to finish school at 3pm. WOW! I'm omniscient.

No chance she will get abducted or got hit in the traffic during lunch time, which is what unfortunately happens occasionally?

I know my daughter is going to have corn flakes for breakfast tomorrow.. WOW!

no chance your wife could accidently spill water on the cereal box and have to throw them in the rubbish?

I'm omniscient. I know that I am going to make myself a cup of tea in 30 seconds time.

no chance you won’t live to take your next breath?

WOW! I'm omniscient..

puffed up perhaps, omniscient absolutely not – seems like you forgot that you have already goofed up in six questions earlier ....

Sec, putting the kettle on..

careful you don’t get electrocuted - after all, you’re not omnisicient


“

I mentioned that earlier - depends on your persistence versus your doubt - 1, 10, 1000000 ”
What do you think is a fair average?

I don’t know – how many times do you think a thing has to be tested? tell you what – how about you tell me how many times you had to test that an iron actually becomes hot when you plug it in before you accepted it as a fact .....
“

like who exactly?
Do they have 100% success rates? ”
Joseph.

Yes.

What now, card tricks?

can you name anyone who is not on the shelves of the fiction at your local video store?

 

[SnakeLord]

Why not?

Explained in detail in former posts.

in short this is an argument is incredulous – you have not seen god, so therefore no one has seen god and any one who says otherwise is obviously telling lies

That's not the argument at all, you know that. The argument is that one cannot test omniscience unless one is omniscient. This is clearly shown to be the case:

1) The only way to establish omniscience is to ask every possible question.

2) Unless you know the answer to all those questions prior to asking, (thus you're omniscient), you cannot establish that the given answers are correct.

3) I have allowed you a decent figure of only 10%. This is the equivalent of only asking 10 questions out of a possible 100 and thinking you can assert that I know the answer to all 100 by simply getting 10 right. However, I will allow the 10% even though that 10% is not really an acceptable percentage with which to establish 100% success rates. So tell me lg, how many questions is 10% of every possible question?

4) The ability to see the future does not imply omniscience - I'll go into this a bit more further on in this post.

5) Until a claim can be tested, (which in this instance you can't), it has no genuine merit.

that’s okay, but what exactly are you saying these personalities are having recourse to in determining the future?

Your question is a bit strange. Needless to say, these people have the ability to see into the future. If you want to assert that Nostradamus was omniscient because he could 'see into the future' then fine although you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone else of it.

you couldn’t anticipate what I had for breakfast the other day, so that was sufficient for me to determine that state of your omniscience

It was sufficient for you to determine that I am not omniscient. What if I had have got it right? Would you claim that I was omniscient based upon that alone? Would you keep going until I got one wrong or you had run out of questions?

No chance she will get abducted or got hit in the traffic during lunch time, which is what unfortunately happens occasionally?

A small while back you were trying to impress to me that one simply waits until the outcome happens to determine omniscience - so as long as my daughter doesn't get abducted or hit by traffic then I would, to you, be omniscient. It is only if something else happens that you can claim otherwise.

no chance your wife could accidently spill water on the cereal box and have to throw them in the rubbish?

Not if it doesn't happen - which is how you seemingly determine omniscience.

no chance you won’t live to take your next breath?

Didn't happen - I made myself a tea as predicted. I am omniscient.

how about you tell me how many times you had to test that an iron actually becomes hot when you plug it in before you accepted it as a fact .....

I still don't accept it as a fact - because, (perhaps the wife spills the milk or the child gets hit by traffic). Of course my iron only gets hot or doesn't get hot, it isn't claimed that my iron knows everything. If it was claimed, one would have to ask it everything to be able to validate the claim.

can you name anyone who is not on the shelves of the fiction at your local video store?

Joseph is a biblical character. If you assert that he's fictional take it up with jews/christians. I'm sure you'll both have good fun.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

Why not?
”
Explained in detail in former posts.

theists are "imagining" "deluded" "fantasizing" etc?
if so, how do you propose to give your "former posts" the status of anything grander than "belief"?

“
in short this is an argument is incredulous – you have not seen god, so therefore no one has seen god and any one who says otherwise is obviously telling lies
”
That's not the argument at all, you know that.

lol - once again you are telling me what I know, huh

The argument is that one cannot test omniscience unless one is omniscient. This is clearly shown to be the case:

1) The only way to establish omniscience is to ask every possible question.

just like the only way to test that lightning bolts are composed of electrons is to test all lightning bolts?

2) Unless you know the answer to all those questions prior to asking, (thus you're omniscient), you cannot establish that the given answers are correct.

no, the trick lies in not asking questions that one is not likely to be patient enough to anticipate – for instance if its more in line that you wait 24 hours instead of 24 years, perhaps a better line of inquiry would be “What will I have for breakfast tomorrow?” as opposed to “What will I have for breakfast 24 years from now?”

3) I have allowed you a decent figure of only 10%. This is the equivalent of only asking 10 questions out of a possible 100 and thinking you can assert that I know the answer to all 100 by simply getting 10 right. However, I will allow the 10% even though that 10% is not really an acceptable percentage with which to establish 100% success rates. So tell me lg, how many questions is 10% of every possible question?

erm - at a rough guess slightly less than 10% of every lightning bolt

4) The ability to see the future does not imply omniscience - I'll go into this a bit more further on in this post.

I hope you do so by presenting something new - since your first three points are not progressions

5) Until a claim can be tested, (which in this instance you can't), it has no genuine merit.

like for instance if I want to claim that empiricism can determine the nature of reality, that has to be tested?

“
that’s okay, but what exactly are you saying these personalities are having recourse to in determining the future?
”
Your question is a bit strange. Needless to say, these people have the ability to see into the future. If you want to assert that Nostradamus was omniscient because he could 'see into the future' then fine although you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone else of it.

you still didn't answer what they were having recourse to
(the reason I would have difficulty convincing others that Nostradamus was omniscient is because he clearly admitted that he wasn't - there were things he was uncertain of)

“
you couldn’t anticipate what I had for breakfast the other day, so that was sufficient for me to determine that state of your omniscience
”
It was sufficient for you to determine that I am not omniscient. What if I had have got it right?

Then I would be taken aback and probably ask you a more tricky range of questions

Would you claim that I was omniscient based upon that alone?

no, but I purposely chose an ultra mundane question just to illustrate how you don't come even close to fitting the bill of omniscience

Would you keep going until I got one wrong or you had run out of questions?

no - since we are dealing with the issue of you personally, i would probably ask another 2 or 3 ultra mundane questions

“
No chance she will get abducted or got hit in the traffic during lunch time, which is what unfortunately happens occasionally?
”
A small while back you were trying to impress to me that one simply waits until the outcome happens to determine omniscience - so as long as my daughter doesn't get abducted or hit by traffic then I would, to you, be omniscient. It is only if something else happens that you can claim otherwise.

obviously this was just another ultra mundane question - in other words its the nature of the life of parents to be anything but omniscient when it comes to the safety of their children (ie plagued by a sense of concern for one's children)

“
no chance your wife could accidently spill water on the cereal box and have to throw them in the rubbish?
”
Not if it doesn't happen - which is how you seemingly determine omniscience.

“
no chance you won’t live to take your next breath?
”
Didn't happen - I made myself a tea as predicted. I am omniscient.

I asked these ultra mundane q's for one important reason - you already failed

“
how about you tell me how many times you had to test that an iron actually becomes hot when you plug it in before you accepted it as a fact .....
”
I still don't accept it as a fact - because, (perhaps the wife spills the milk or the child gets hit by traffic). Of course my iron only gets hot or doesn't get hot, it isn't claimed that my iron knows everything. If it was claimed, one would have to ask it everything to be able to validate the claim.

you miss the point
if one is convinced that they are dealing with the real Mccoy, a certain single experiment in a certain environment is all that is required - other wise one can potter around with a hundred ultra mundane experiments and still not be convinced
"OK snakey what is it? heads or tails? Nope ..... Okay how about I give you just one more chance - heads or tails ? Alright!! You're the man!! What is it this time - heads or tails"
:yawn:

“
can you name anyone who is not on the shelves of the fiction at your local video store?
”
Joseph is a biblical character. If you assert that he's fictional take it up with jews/christians. I'm sure you'll both have good fun.

depends if I use references to the musical production

 

[SnakeLord]

theists are "imagining" "deluded" "fantasizing" etc?

Wtf? We're talking about testing omniscience.. I explained in detail why you cannot test omniscience without being omniscient.

Hmmm...

lol - once again you are telling me what I know, huh

Ok, I give you more credit than you deserve. Noted.

just like the only way to test that lightning bolts are composed of electrons is to test all lightning bolts?

Go back to the earlier statement made:

"Yes, which is why there is no such thing as an absolute: "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms" (T.O)

So no, I suppose it is possible that there will or has been a lightning strike that involved no electrons but instead was the work of magical pixies - but test after test after test has shown, (as far as truth can be measured), that lightning involves electrons. How many tests other than absolute zero have ever been done to show that a claimed being is omniscient"

no, the trick lies in not asking questions that one is not likely to be patient enough to anticipate – for instance if its more in line that you wait 24 hours instead of 24 years, perhaps a better line of inquiry would be “What will I have for breakfast tomorrow?” as opposed to “What will I have for breakfast 24 years from now?

Not a very good 'trick' given that if you die before tomorrow morning, you will never have a conclusion to the test. There would be a conclusion, but you'll never have access to it and thus the test was inherently pointless. And once again: the ability to determine future events is not a sign of omniscience. After all, your mother probably knows what you're going to have for breakfast tomorrow.

erm - at a rough guess slightly less than 10% of every lightning bolt

Ok, that's lightning bolts settled. What about omniscience?

you still didn't answer what they were having recourse to

The question doesn't make sense.

Then I would be taken aback and probably ask you a more tricky range of questions

Ok, and I get them right too. What now? See, it's the question.. at what stage do you determine that I am actually omniscient? How many questions do you think are suitable?

no, but I purposely chose an ultra mundane question just to illustrate how you don't come even close to fitting the bill of omniscience

And I get it right - say by pure luck of the draw.. What then?

no - since we are dealing with the issue of you personally, i would probably ask another 2 or 3 ultra mundane questions

I see, so 2 or 3 is suitable?

I asked these ultra mundane q's for one important reason - you already failed

How many ultra mundane (?) questions have you tested these god beings with?

if one is convinced that they are dealing with the real Mccoy, a certain single experiment in a certain environment is all that is required

I see, so as long as someone is convinced that I am in fact omniscient, one question is enough heh?

depends if I use references to the musical production

Is there any chance you could apply some maturity? You asked for a person, I gave you one and now you resort to this pathetic, pointless bullshit?