God unlimitedly complex?

[theist]

Comparing apples and oranges Melvin.

[sant]

 

Sant, I think melvin is right. Let’s agree to disagree on this issue. I think by now I’ve made my definition of knowledge perfectly clear, and I’m not going to discuss any definition of logic. If you still don’t understand my point of view, then you can reread my last posts. I don’t think that I can make it any clearer for you. And if you disagree, then that’s fine. All I can say is that my definition of knowledge is the general scientific definition, which works for me, and which is what is generally understood as (scientific) knowledge.

You had said that definiton of knowledge is being argued upon.

 

Heres one-

knowledge is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information

[primate]

 

You had said that definiton of knowledge is being argued upon.

 

Heres one-

knowledge is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information

Information is much too broad a term for my taste to be used in any definition of knowledge. The concept of fact in philosophy is equivalent with my definition of knowledge. Fact in science is a part of the scientific method that leads to knowledge. Objective empirical observations or facts, in combination with logical proof or theoretical understanding, is what I call knowledge.

 

This is my last post on the subject. Again, you are free to disagree with me. But I don’t think continuing this discussion will be productive in any way.

 

Best of luck.

 

 

 

In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs reported by a [logically] true proposition.

 

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning. In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

 

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Information as a concept has a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. Generally speaking, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.

 

Information - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sant]

No wait you havent understood what im saying.

ITs so basic.You only disagreed to it.

DOnt you beleive that you decide things based on the information you have.

[melvin]

 

No wait you havent understood what im saying.

ITs so basic.You only disagreed to it.

DOnt you beleive that you decide things based on the information you have.

 

Sant, believing is one thing. Seeing is another thing. In short, I don`t decide things based on information only. I have to see it in order to believe. This is what I think is knowledge. For example. I received an information from Mrs X that Mr X, a close relative have met an accident and needs my assistance to pay for his major operation. I have to see or call if possible Mr X first to verify if indeed Mr X is seriously ill before I decide to give money to Mrs X. Knowledge is obtained when I`m able to talk to Mr X on the phone or see him confined in the hospital.

[sant]

jai ram

[primate]

 

Sant, believing is one thing. Seeing is another thing. In short, I don`t decide things based on information only. I have to see it in order to believe. This is what I think is knowledge. For example. I received an information from Mrs X that Mr X, a close relative have met an accident and needs my assistance to pay for his major operation. I have to see or call if possible Mr X first to verify if indeed Mr X is seriously ill before I decide to give money to Mrs X. Knowledge is obtained when I`m able to talk to Mr X on the phone or see him confined in the hospital.

Melvin, knowledge is factual, i.e., knowledge concerns what exists and what doesn’t, or what is true and what is not. Seeing something is generally not enough to know it is true. If you see a patient who appears to be seriously ill, you still have to examine the patient and apply scientifically established true medical knowledge and insight, in order to verify that the patient is indeed seriously ill and that he is not faking the illness or only has a minor illness that can be left untreated. Although medicine is not an exact science, only then you can say that you have knowledge of the patient’s illness, as opposed to just information and belief.

 

If one day you happen to see God, how would you know this is true and that you are not hallucinating? Unless somehow God makes it absolutely clear to you that He is indeed the Absolute Truth, you can’t be sure. Therefore, if I were God, I would reveal myself by altering your consciousness, such that you can directly experience and understand the absolute oneness of everything in God, including your own conscious being. That could proof His existence as set forth in Vedic literature. If you are able to understand absolute oneness, it can be logically inferred that everything else must necessarily be based on it. Thus, even God or Absolute Truth might be knowable as true fact, based on logical understanding. Only when you understand absolute oneness as the single axiomatic fact of reality, you can say that you have absolute knowledge..

[melvin]

 

Melvin, knowledge is factual, i.e., knowledge concerns what exists and what doesn’t, or what is true and what is not. Seeing something is generally not enough to know it is true. If you see a patient who appears to be seriously ill, you still have to examine the patient and apply scientifically established true medical knowledge and insight, in order to verify that the patient is indeed seriously ill and that he is not faking the illness or only has a minor illness that can be left untreated. Although medicine is not an exact science, only then you can say that you have knowledge of the patient’s illness, as opposed to just information and belief.

 

My View: Mr X was involved in an accident. So, It`s common sense or logical to ask Mrs X why Mr X met an accident. or what could Mr X`s injuries possibly be before giving my money to Mrs X after having been informed by Mrs X that Mr X being seriously ill needs assistance for a major operation. But there are people like me who don`t believe what is being said until they see it for themselves. So, in this case, I would rather not ask questions from Mrs X how and why but , without ado, go and see Mr X right away to the hospital where he is confined. Just seeing Mr X admitted in the ICU erases my disbelief. This acquired information is knowledge.

 

If one day you happen to see God, how would you know this is true and that you are not hallucinating? Unless somehow God makes it absolutely clear to you that He is indeed the Absolute Truth, you can’t be sure. Therefore, if I were God, I would reveal myself by altering your consciousness, such that you can directly experience and understand the absolute oneness of everything in God, including your own conscious being. That could proof His existence as set forth in Vedic literature. If you are able to understand absolute oneness, it can be logically inferred that everything else must necessarily be based on it. Thus, even God or Absolute Truth might be knowable as true fact, based on logical understanding. Only when you understand absolute oneness as the single axiomatic fact of reality, you can say that you have absolute knowledge..

 

 

MY View: Apostle Thomas didn`t believe in the risen Christ until he saw and felt his Master`s wounds.

 

 

 

 

[primate]

Well, before I would give Mrs X my money for the operation of Mr X, I would like to know if Mr X actually has to be operated. Mr X is in the ICU, but Mr X’s condition may have been stabilized, and Mr X may in fact be likely to leave hospital within a few days. Of course you can ask the physician responsible for the treatment of Mr X, but he may have struck a deal with Mrs X to split your money among themselves. There’s only one way to be sure. You must examine Mr X yourself in order to acquire true knowledge.

 

And Thomas didn’t belief Jesus Christ had risen, even after seeing his wounds. He first needed to examine the wounds with his own hands. Then he knew..

[theist]

Nothing wrong with doubt and healthy skeptcism. The Bhagavad gita is about Arjuna clearng away his doubts. But he did not rely upon his own mind and senses to do this. He had his doubts cleared by approaching God Himself.

 

This is the process. In the doctor example above primate has the third person clearing his doubt about the need for an operation by investigating perwonally examining the patient. But what qualifies him for making a medical evaluation? How can he trust his own opinion?

 

Only the Lord Himself is the clearer of doubts.Only the Lord grants knowledge to an individual.

 

Even an atheist is dependent on God for everything he knows. Without God we could not even remeber our own names.

[theist]

 

TRANSLATION Bg 10 11

Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

 

 

PURPORT

When Lord Caitanya was in Benares promulgating the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, thousands of people were following Him. Prakāśānanda, a very influential and learned scholar in Benares at that time, derided Lord Caitanya for being a sentimentalist. Sometimes philosophers criticize the devotees because they think that most of the devotees are in the darkness of ignorance and are philosophically naive sentimentalists. Actually that is not the fact. There are very, very learned scholars who have put forward the philosophy of devotion, but even if a devotee does not take advantage of their literatures or of his spiritual master, if he is sincere in his devotional service he is helped by Kṛṣṇa Himself within his heart. So the sincere devotee engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness cannot be without knowledge. The only qualification is that one carry out devotional service in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

The modern philosophers think that without discriminating one cannot have pure knowledge. For them this answer is given by the Supreme Lord: those who are engaged in pure devotional service, even though they be without sufficient education and even without sufficient knowledge of the Vedic principles, are still helped by the Supreme God, as stated in this verse.

The Lord tells Arjuna that basically there is no possibility of understanding the Supreme Truth, the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, simply by speculating, for the Supreme Truth is so great that it is not possible to understand Him or to achieve Him simply by making a mental effort. Man can go on speculating for several millions of years, and if he is not devoted, if he is not a lover of the Supreme Truth, he will never understand Kṛṣṇa or the Supreme Truth. Only by devotional service is the Supreme Truth, Kṛṣṇa, pleased, and by His inconceivable energy He can reveal Himself to the heart of the pure devotee. The pure devotee always has Kṛṣṇa within his heart; therefore he is just like the sun that dissipates the darkness of ignorance. This is the special mercy rendered to the pure devotee by Kṛṣṇa.

Due to the contamination of material association, through many, many millions of births, one's heart is always covered with the dust of materialism, but when one engages in devotional service and constantly chants Hare Kṛṣṇa, the dust quickly clears, and one is elevated to the platform of pure knowledge. The ultimate goal of Viṣṇu can be attained only by this chant and by devotional service, and not by mental speculation or argument. The pure devotee does not have to worry about the necessities of life; he need not be anxious because when he removes the darkness from his heart, everything is provided automatically by the Supreme Lord, for He is pleased by the loving devotional service of the devotee. This is the essence of the Gītā's teachings. By studying Bhagavad-gītā, one can become a completely surrendered soul to the Supreme Lord and engage himself in pure devotional service. As the Lord takes charge, one becomes completely free from all kinds of materialistic endeavors.

[melvin]

 

Well, before I would give Mrs X my money for the operation of Mr X, I would like to know if Mr X actually has to be operated. Mr X is in the ICU, but Mr X’s condition may have been stabilized, and Mr X may in fact be likely to leave hospital within a few days. Of course you can ask the physician responsible for the treatment of Mr X, but he may have struck a deal with Mrs X to split your money among themselves. There’s only one way to be sure. You must examine Mr X yourself in order to acquire true knowledge.

 

My View: But what if I`m not allowed to examine Mr X inside the ICU? Your Mr X story is a catch 22, Primate. Actually, it all boils down to who gave us the information if indeed Mr X is seriously ill. Seeing Mr X confined in the ICU and his doctor telling me Mr X`s real situation is knowledge. Not true knowledge for the doctor could be wrong in his impression. True knowledge is obtained if Mr X undergoes an operation. In fact, there are many doctors who thought their patients had acute appendicitis after a very thorough laboratory and physical examination only to be mistaken when they opened their patient`s abdomen and found the appendices to be normal.

 

And Thomas didn’t belief Jesus Christ had risen, even after seeing his wounds. He first needed to examine the wounds with his own hands. Then he knew..

 

 

My View: Apostle Thomas got lucky he was allowed by Jesus to touch his wounds. This reminds me of a joke. Guy 1 to Guy 2, " Do you believe you have a brain?" Guy 2 to Guy 1, Yes!" Guy 1 to Guy 2, " If you believe you have a brain, can you see and touch your brain?":)

 

 

 

[melvin]

 

Even an atheist is dependent on God for everything he knows. Without God we could not even remeber our own names.

 

Yes, Theist. There was once upon a time I felt so inadequate why I can`t memorize and quote verses from scriptures like the others do. Or why I can`t simply interpret an ECG tracing. Maybe I didn`t study well when I was in med school or maybe I just couldn`t understand what our teacher in cardiology taught us. Until I read in the Bhagavad-gita that Krsna is the cause of our forgetfulness, remembrance and intelligence.

[primate]

 

... This reminds me of a joke. Guy 1 to Guy 2, " Do you believe you have a brain?" Guy 2 to Guy 1, Yes!" Guy 1 to Guy 2, " If you believe you have a brain, can you see and touch your brain?"

 

My answer would be: "I only told you I believe I have a brain. I didn’t say that I know I have a brain"..

[theist]

I know I have a brain. The evidence is there is the fact that I can see at all.

 

I also know when the wind is blowing outside even when I am inside because I can see the effects of the wind on the trees.

[primate]

 

I know I have a brain. The evidence is there is the fact that I can see at all.

 

I also know when the wind is blowing outside even when I am inside because I can see the effects of the wind on the trees.

If we are 'not our body', then how can we be sure that we have a brain? Ultimately it all comes down to Absolute Truth. Most likely, in reality, there exists only one true axiom or fundamental proposition..

[melvin]

 

My answer would be: "I only told you I believe I have a brain. I didn’t say that I know I have a brain"..

 

Where does belief come from? Does it come from knowing? Or knowing comes from believing? Even without seeing? How can a blind man distinguish the real from the unreal? Does he have to touch it to know and believe it`s real? What if the blind man has Hansen`s disease(leprosy)? How will he know what the object is when the blind man can`t even feel if what he`s touching is rough or smooth, hot or cold?

 

When Sukadeva Goswami preached Srimad Bhagavatam to Maharaja Pariksit everyone who heard Sukadeva were enlightened about God. The audience didn`t see or touch God to know God after hearing Sukadeva Goswami yet they believed what they heard.

 

Similarly, you have to believe the drug your doctor gives you if you want to be healed of a disease. If you don`t take the drug, both you and your doctor will never know what your disease was. Knowldege is obtained from the results of the drug you took. If you got well, then your doctor`s impression was correct. If not, then it`s time you have to look for a new one.

 

The bottom line, Primate, is whether if you believe or not what your informant tells you. We only believe what the informant says if it`s authorized. It`s a matter of being credible or not. If not then the informant`s views is simply incredible.

Edited July 15, 2009 by melvin

[theist]

 

If we are 'not our body', then how can we be sure that we have a brain? Ultimately it all comes down to Absolute Truth. Most likely, in reality, there exists only one true axiom or fundamental proposition..

 

We know we have a brain primate through several sources. We have been taught by medical science we have a brain and what some of it's basic functions are. Those functions we can witness in our daily lives.

 

So we have heard from authorities on the matter and it is verifiable by us.

 

We can observe the brains of those that have died or those undergoing brain surgery. I have some interesting material on anatomy.

 

One is called the color atlas of anatomy and it describes every detail of the bodt in photgraph. Not illustration but color photography. I also have a series of VHS tapes on anatomy that covers everything in the human form and that was done but taping corpses as the teacher shows the viewer what he is looking at.

 

Yes bodies have a brain.

 

This is not a good track to argue from. It only can lead one place and that is mayavada philosohy. The end point of this arguement is since you can't verify anything through your senses that leaves you with only one verifiable object and that is yourself. I mean how can you prove there is anyone else on this forum except yourself. We might just all be projections of your mind, just dream characters in your great cosmic dream.

 

This is why impersonalists ultimately take to chanting So Ham, I am or Iam That etc.

 

Impersonalism is a pitifull lonely philosophy.

[theist]

 

If we are 'not our body', then how can we be sure that we have a brain? Ultimately it all comes down to Absolute Truth. Most likely, in reality, there exists only one true axiom or fundamental proposition..

 

You are right. There is only one fundamental truth which is the basis of everything and that is Krishna. But here is the kicker; Krishna is variegated as everything and everyone and at the same time independently existing as Himself apart from everything.

 

All states of being-be they of goodness, passion or ignorance-are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything-but I am independent. I am not under the modes of this material nature. BG 7.12

[melvin]

 

 

All states of being-be they of goodness, passion or ignorance-are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything-but I am independent. I am not under the modes of this material nature. BG 7.12

 

 

Krsna is within everyone as the Supersoul and without as Time.

[theist]

Yes but not just time, everything.

[melvin]

 

Yes but not just time, everything.

 

 

The Supersoul and Time are not subject to the modes of material nature. That doesn`t include everything.

[primate]

 

...

The bottom line, Primate, is whether if you believe or not what your informant tells you. We only believe what the informant says if it`s authorized. It`s a matter of being credible or not. If not then the informant`s views is simply incredible.

I’m not denying that in everyday life, we constantly need to believe in the truth of what we perceive with our senses or what is told to us by some credible authority or by people we trust. This is simply because we neither have the time nor the means to verify the truth of everything that we base our actions on. It wouldn’t be practical and ultimately impossible. But I think it’s good to realize that most of the time we are making decisions based on unverified beliefs and hypotheses, which is of course the root of all kinds of widely held falls beliefs and incorrect prejudices and unreasonable fears, etcetera.

 

Actually, to verify that anything we consciously perceive is absolutely true, we must logically prove it to be true all the way down to the most fundamental quantum level of reality and Absolute Truth, which is ultimately impossible. Even science and the scientific method can only provide relatively true statements, which are based on some formal theory and confirmation through repeatable experimental observations. No matter how often we repeat an experiment, we can never be absolutely sure that it will have the same outcome next time. All we can say is that it’s extremely unlikely that, for example, the next time I drop a solid object it won’t fall down to the ground. This is not absolute knowledge. Nevertheless, I would say that we know that solid objects fall down. Any statement about reality that is not logically derived from other (relatively) true statements or is not (scientifically) tested to be true beyond a certain level of chance occurrence, I call belief.

 

So only when logic or scientific tests indicate that a statement about reality (e.g. this drug is a cure for Hansen’s disease) is true beyond a certain level of speculation, I call it knowledge. Otherwise I call it belief. If I’m correct, the pharmaceutical industry accepts the effectiveness of a drug as true knowledge if tests have shown that the statistical probability of it being not effective is less than 5%.

 

Obviously this distinction between knowledge and belief is largely irrelevant for our everyday functioning. Most often we just have to trust our common sense and at best we can make educated guesses about the true state of affairs we encounter. However, in some situations we want to be as sure as possible about the outcome of our actions. For example, when you diagnose a patient to have a certain illness and prescribe a certain drug to cure the illness. That’s when knowledge is applied, not just belief or common sense.

 

Finally, in discussing the true nature of reality, it is pointless to base an argument on belief. When an argument is based on true statements about reality, any conclusion that is logically derived from it will also be true. Thus we obtain knowledge of reality and not just speculation.

[primate]

 

You are right. There is only one fundamental truth which is the basis of everything and that is Krishna. But here is the kicker; Krishna is variegated as everything and everyone and at the same time independently existing as Himself apart from everything.

 

All states of being-be they of goodness, passion or ignorance-are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything-but I am independent. I am not under the modes of this material nature. BG 7.12

Yes. That’s the conclusion we reached earlier. We may be able to logically understand or know physical reality in terms of oneness (Brahman), but beyond fundamental oneness must be a person (Krishna), simply because our consciousness is personal.

 

Our material consciousness is a fraction of absolute reality or total consciousness. In this sense everything we consciously perceive is real, including other conscious beings. But underneath all duality in this world lies a single unifying principle or Absolute Truth which is ultimately personal.

 

The fact that you and other conscious beings exist can be known by me beyond the level of speculation. Their physical appearance and the effects of their actions are consistently and verifiably present within my individual conscious experience of reality. And although your consciousness is localized differently from my consciousness, we obviously experience a common reality. This can also be logically inferred to be true from a principle of absolute oneness.

 

Consciousness must be the limit of what can be known or logically understood. The true nature or origin of consciousness cannot be understood through logical inference. We simply have to accept the fact that it exists.

[melvin]

 

Finally, in discussing the true nature of reality, it is pointless to base an argument on belief. When an argument is based on true statements about reality, any conclusion that is logically derived from it will also be true. Thus we obtain knowledge of reality and not just speculation.

 

I believe, Primate, for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows.