Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Mojo]

Just I was indicating maximum potential which one can inherit and acquire. Probably also, Omnipotence & omnipresence.

No, you can't inherit or acquire any of those characteristics.

 

[Kumar]

The statement does not make sense.

Hans

But I written in very simple language

 

[calebprime]

How much does omniscience weigh?

In pounds, please, I'm American. I don't do metric.

 

[Peregrinus]

But I written in very simple incomprehensible language

Fixed it for you.

 

[fagin]

How much does omniscience weigh?

In pounds, please, I'm American. I don't do metric.

Approximately 2 shillings and sixpence.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, where science couldn't yet reach. We are discussing in Religion & Philosophy forum. Omniscience is mass existing:

The discussion is happening in Religion & Philosophy, but it is treating subjects over which science has some traction. You do not hesitate to quote secular science when you think it confirms your religious beliefs. Hence you don't get to ignore science when it refutes them.

 

[JayUtah]

Does it not suggest about true religion and natural basis of religion?

No, it's merely the mystical claims of Jainism.

I think, it may also be someway be indicated in other religions.

Many western religions have some form of beautific vision. It's not the same as omniscience, which, in western religion, is reserved for God. The superficial similarity among religions does not mean there is one true religion and that it comes from nature. We've covered this already at length.

 

[Kumar]

The discussion is happening in Religion & Philosophy, but it is treating subjects over which science has some traction. You do not hesitate to quote secular science when you think it confirms your religious beliefs. Hence you don't get to ignore science when it refutes them.

Basic purpose shoúld be to understand a knowledges, best if can be available from science in A&F. But if it is not available, all sources shoúld be kept open

 

[Kumar]

No, it's merely the mystical claims of Jainism.



Many western religions have some form of beautific vision. It's not the same as omniscience, which, in western religion, is reserved for God. The superficial similarity among religions does not mean there is one true religion and that it comes from nature. We've covered this already at length.

Thanks. Actually, last who got omniscience, and nirvana is not too old. About 2500 yéars back. Hís lifè history is well recorded. So it can not be taken as superficial or supernatural. As I said, true religion will simply be defined as 'fullfillíng the natural duties. Since human beings are gífted with supreme consiciousness and intelligence, so it has supreme liability to fullfil supreme natural duties.

 

[Kumar]

No, you can't inherit or acquire any of those characteristics.

Whether in religion or in yet non A&F science?
However my true wish is science become A&F, so that we can get real undisputed knowledge, Best med treatments with full placebo.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

That will need Omnipotence.

Nope. Omniscience will do

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, true religion will simply be defined as 'fullfillíng the natural duties.

And as I said before, that's simply your religion, not any sort of inherently true or universal religion.

Since human beings are gífted with supreme consiciousness and intelligence, so it has supreme liability to fullfil supreme natural duties.

No. As we already discussed, your view of nature and intelligence simply conveys a unilateral responsibility on humans to defer to nature at all costs -- except that it's to defer to your religion's factually incorrect view of nature. Not all religions have deified nature as yours has.

You're simply trying to pretend Jainism is the religion everyone should follow, or somehow already follows.

 

[JayUtah]

Basic purpose shoúld be to understand a knowledges, best if can be available from science in A&F. But if it is not available, all sources shoúld be kept open

You didn't address the point I made. You want to take a selective approach to science. Any time someone points out that the factual claims of your religion are contradicted by science, you remind us that we're debating in the religion section of the forum. You seem to want science to take a back seat while you pontificate. But you don't hesitate to invoke science where you think it supports you. Your approach to science is to accept it only when it confirms what you already believe. Your subsequent dismissal of science is therefore hypocritical.

Please address that point.

 

[fagin]

Thanks. Actually, last who got omniscience, and nirvana is not too old. About 2500 yéars back. Hís lifè history is well recorded. So it can not be taken as superficial or supernatural. As I said, true religion will simply be defined as 'fullfillíng the natural duties. Since human beings are gífted with supreme consiciousness and intelligence, so it has supreme liability to fullfil supreme natural duties.

And who would that be?

 

[JayUtah]

Hís lifè history is well recorded. So it can not be taken as superficial or supernatural.

Of course it can. Do you really believe that just because a story is old and has been written down, it's necessarily true?

 

[Peregrinus]

And A&F (whatever you're struggling to make it mean) is still BOGUS.

 

[Peregrinus]

Since human beings are gífted with supreme consiciousness and intelligence, so it has supreme liability to fullfil supreme natural duties.

Wishful thinking in the extremest extreme; reality refutes that entirely.

 

[Kumar]

Of course it can. Do you really believe that just because a story is old and has been written down, it's necessarily true?

Not story but reality.

 

[Kumar]

And who would that be?

Lord Mahavir.

 

[JayUtah]

Not story but reality.

I'll ask again. Are you seriously arguing that just because a story has been written down and is centuries old, it must be true?