★★ [4.3 SECOND conversion] ★★: CONVERT religious to atheist, in roughly 4.3 seconds.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@Aristocatt

Non omniscience = probabilistic expression, as far as science goes.

In other words, there doesn't appear to be any scope, beyond omniscience, or probabilistic expression, so if you aren't omniscient, you do things probabilistically...

The first statement just isn't true.
Science has nothing to say about omniscience or the lack thereof.  Omniscience isn't a scientific idea, or an observable phenomena.
Science does have something to say about observations.

Nothing about your second sentence makes any sense.  It's neither a proof nor an appeal to evidence of any kind.  

I'm still stuck though.  Did you wrap up your first philosophy 101 class last semester, or are you just trolling?

Simply, see the uncertainty principle, which expresses that we don't have omniscience of any event; ie we measure things probabilistically.

---

@Alasdair Ham

I had not been aware of 'agnostic theism'.
It appears I have erred, in the expression of the original post.

Do you live in bullet time?

See the subsequent post of mine:

At most you've shown them to be agnostic theists. Try harder next time

I had not been aware of 'agnostic theism'.
It appears I have erred, in the expression of the original post.

Probable Erratum:

Perhaps I had not erred, despite my prior ignorance of 'agnostic atheism'.
It appears that the degree of belief (amid agnostic theism) falls in the 'absolute' domain.

As this appears to negate (1), are such beings but atheistic? @Aoi Magi

[Cyberman]

[Aristocatt]

I don't think you got my point.

How do humans observe the universe? Great question, science can try to help us figure it out.
Asking a physicist to discuss the impact of the uncertainty principle on omniscience, on the other hand, will be received with an awkward look.
That's because omniscience has nothing to do with science.
It is a philosophical device primarily used in metaphysics.
Saying science tells us X about omniscience is a nonsensical statement.
Science has as much to say about omniscience as it does about god, or any other metaphysical concept. Absolutely nothing.

You're argument is that science asserts that we can only have probabilistic knowledge of something. That's great, stick to that!
You seem to think the uncertainty principle is proof that we can't have absolute knowledge. Why?
The uncertainty principle says nothing about macro observations. It also says nothing about absolute knowledge on the whole. It says that a set of two specific measurements can't be made perfectly.

I am inclined to agree with the conclusion that absolute knowledge isn't possible. But your god awful at proving it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's a highly relevant response to ProgrammingGodJordan's highly important threads:

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still biting on that category error, I see.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah and I had no idea that computer programming involves so much being wrong about the dictionary. Clearly Tiberius has been doing it wrong all these years. What would we do without PGR to show us how it's done

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I don't think you got my point.

How do humans observe the universe?  Great question, science can try to help us figure it out.  
Asking a physicist to discuss the impact of the uncertainty principle on omniscience, on the other hand, will be received with an awkward look.
That's because omniscience has nothing to do with science.
It is a philosophical device primarily used in metaphysics.  
Saying science tells us X about omniscience is a nonsensical statement.
Science has as much to say about omniscience as it does about god, or any other metaphysical concept.  Absolutely nothing.

You're argument is that science asserts that we can only have probabilistic knowledge of something.  That's great, stick to that!  
You seem to think the uncertainty principle is proof that we can't have absolute knowledge.  Why?
The uncertainty principle says nothing about macro observations.  It also says nothing about absolute knowledge on the whole.  It says that a set of two specific measurements can't be made perfectly.

I am inclined to agree with the conclusion that absolute knowledge isn't possible.  But your god awful at proving it.

I tend to use the phrase 'as far as science goes'.

I have not once stated that absolute knowledge isn't possible, but instead, that as far as science goes, we don't measure any event with absolute certainty.

[Aristocatt]

Computer Scientists can be incredibly obtuse.
They can also be incredibly smart.

They are like anyone else in any other field.  The only difference is Computer Scientists know how to type on the same keyboard in tandem.







I love watching hacking scenes on youtube. It's a guilty pleasure.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Real Future: What Happens When You Dare Expert Hackers To Hack You