RE: ★★ [4.3 SECOND conversion] ★★: CONVERT religious to atheist, in roughly 4.3 seconds.
January 16, 2017 at 11:32 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2017 at 12:08 am by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
(January 16, 2017 at 6:28 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:(January 16, 2017 at 5:22 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: @Aristocatt
So, how do you know God is true/absolute, without knowing whether or not truth is possible?
Science, the same thing that built your computer, says that humans observe things probabilistically, never observing any total/absolute information.
(ie humans are non omniscient)
Lets break this hypothetical down.
I accept that I am not omniscient.
I accept that I want to believe that god absolutely exists.
Not being omniscient does not prevent me from knowing something absolutely. Not being omniscient simply means that I do not know everything.
Here is a walk through:
Take the set U = [1,2,3]
By accepting that I am not omniscient with respect to U, I have simple admitted that I do not know 1,2, and 3 although I may not be aware of these, so I would not express it in such a way.
This does not mean that I cannot claim absolute knowledge of 1, or of 2, or of 2 and 3, and so on.
You're original argument is not valid.
Now you want to bring science into the equation. Cool! However, what you are doing now is attempting to fill in you "4.3 second conversion" argument with assertions about epistemology, probability, and science.
So now let's try to make your argument obviously valid.
It seems as though your point is that non-omniscience infers absolute knowledge is impossible.
So please define absolute knowledge, omniscience, and fill this mental gap into the argument. Maybe we can make your argument a 10 second conversion. That would still be pretty damn impressive!
The point is, human has zero awareness of absoluteness, as we observe things probabilistically.
God is said to be an absolute quantity.
So, as the original argument expresses, there is no empirical method of calculating of absolutes in science.
Keep in mind that we don't have absolute conviction for any event, neither for 1, or 2, or 1 and 2 etc.