The quickest definition I can come up with for knowledge is awareness. It is intirely possible that you are unaware that things are true without it affecting truth. But if you have knowledge of something it necessarily means that thing is true, if it is true it must be real, if it is really it must exist. The only things that you can actually be aware of are true things. Whle you may hold the belief that you are aware of things that are not true, that is merely a belief, because things that are not true can not be real, and things that are not real do not exist, and one would not be described properly as being "aware" of something if that something does not exist.
I conflated morality and value here because I thought it made the most sense. If one has actualy knowledge of right or wrong or good or bad, then necessarily those "right" and "wrong" must actually exist in the universe. If they exist in reality they must be true. It is wholly possible that one simply believes they are aware of morality or value, but that in reality the various ideas concerning what is right or good do not exist. If they don't actually exist then they can not be true. They would simply be relegated back to the realm of personal opinion and belief.
I am of the opinion that there is an inherent order to the universe. Things are bound by universal laws which they can not escape. My opinion comes from collective scientific observation. That observation is made solely through the use of conscious perceptions. In order for me to believe in the inherent order of the universe I must naturally have confidence or belief in conscious perceptions. If I have confidence in conscious perceptions I am making the assertion that consciousness is true (although it is not susceptible to rigorous proof). If they are true they are real, if they are real they exist independent of any of my ideas about what the properties of conscious percetions are. If it exists independent of my ideas it must be a property of the universe
-(because the only things sciencce believes to exist independent of the ideas about those things are properties of the universe. I know I am having trouble articulating this point, so let me attept fto clarify although I will probably fail (it may be a weakness in the arguemt))--- we have ideas about what a rock is, we have ideas for how it is formed or made, we have ideas about the properties of the rock, its density, luster, etc. Those ideas involve how matter is formed from subatomic particles, physics, time, pressure, heat, etc. Apart from this ideas, however, the rock can not exist. --- Those ideas are all thought to be functions of the universe, the actual processes and forces that are inherent to the universe, but not things that are found within it. I hope that at least begins to offer some sort of explanation for my claim .
If I believe consciousness is a force or property of the universe rather than an emergent function of complex systems (which is what I believe, but I do not have prrof for, which is why I can not argue for the existence of God) then I believe that consciousness interacts with all things in the universe, which could be called a belief in "God", although It doesn't NEED to be called a belief in God.
definitely not omniscient.
I conflated morality and value here because I thought it made the most sense. If one has actualy knowledge of right or wrong or good or bad, then necessarily those "right" and "wrong" must actually exist in the universe. If they exist in reality they must be true. It is wholly possible that one simply believes they are aware of morality or value, but that in reality the various ideas concerning what is right or good do not exist. If they don't actually exist then they can not be true. They would simply be relegated back to the realm of personal opinion and belief.
I am of the opinion that there is an inherent order to the universe. Things are bound by universal laws which they can not escape. My opinion comes from collective scientific observation. That observation is made solely through the use of conscious perceptions. In order for me to believe in the inherent order of the universe I must naturally have confidence or belief in conscious perceptions. If I have confidence in conscious perceptions I am making the assertion that consciousness is true (although it is not susceptible to rigorous proof). If they are true they are real, if they are real they exist independent of any of my ideas about what the properties of conscious percetions are. If it exists independent of my ideas it must be a property of the universe
-(because the only things sciencce believes to exist independent of the ideas about those things are properties of the universe. I know I am having trouble articulating this point, so let me attept fto clarify although I will probably fail (it may be a weakness in the arguemt))--- we have ideas about what a rock is, we have ideas for how it is formed or made, we have ideas about the properties of the rock, its density, luster, etc. Those ideas involve how matter is formed from subatomic particles, physics, time, pressure, heat, etc. Apart from this ideas, however, the rock can not exist. --- Those ideas are all thought to be functions of the universe, the actual processes and forces that are inherent to the universe, but not things that are found within it. I hope that at least begins to offer some sort of explanation for my claim .
If I believe consciousness is a force or property of the universe rather than an emergent function of complex systems (which is what I believe, but I do not have prrof for, which is why I can not argue for the existence of God) then I believe that consciousness interacts with all things in the universe, which could be called a belief in "God", although It doesn't NEED to be called a belief in God.
definitely not omniscient.
