On Claims Of Knowledge About The Absolute, Ultimate Ontology Of Reality

I have argued in the past, and I will continue to argue, that gnostic atheism and gnostic theism are both intellectual abortions, and both for exactly the same reason. Both evince the exact systemic epistemic error which needs to be addressed in order for empirical rationalism to function.  The utility of the null hypothesis does not disintegrate under the presupposition of knowledge.

Spiral golden

Definition 1: “omniscience” is defined as – knowledge of the ultimate and absolute nature of reality, and absolute, perfect epistemic fitness in all matters including absolute true justified belief in the fact that there can be no possible unknowns to know and no possible sources of error, misinterpretation, or imprecision in your knowledge.

Axiom 1: while omniscience might be possible in general, for humans in specific it is a physical impossibility governed by the hard limits of human biology and neuroelectrochemistry and is necessarily false in humans.

Premise 1: A definitive statement on something’s existential nature is a claim of ultimate, absolute knowledge about that thing.

Premise 2: A definitive claim made about an entity, for which the claimed margin of error is 0.0%, requires absolute, perfect epistemic fitness.

Premise 3: A claim of absolute, perfect epistemic fitness about reality itself, would require that there can be no possible unknowns to know and no possible sources of error, misinterpretation, or imprecision in your knowledge.

Premise 4: Claims made of the ultimate and absolute nature of reality, claims which are purported to have absolute, perfect epistemic fitness and no possible sources of error, misinterpretation, or imprecision –
are claims to omniscience.

Premise 5: If those claims are being made by humans, then they are necessarily false.

Given 1: Those claims are being made by humans.

Those claims are necessarily false.



9 thoughts on “On Claims Of Knowledge About The Absolute, Ultimate Ontology Of Reality

  1. Since knowledge of a thing consists of a mental model of a thing, any claim to have perfect knowledge of a thing fails in light of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which demonstrates that the spread of the probability function of the velocity (the combined speed and direction) of a particle increases as the spread of the probability function of the location of a particle is reduced, and vice versa. However, omniscience can be retained if one makes the claim that a supreme being’s knowledge of a particle is not separately modeled but is instead encoded in the particle itself. God as the “Matrix” and other such ideas of that ilk.

    • Thanks for your comment, but as a quick factual correction first:

      dx dp ≥ ℏ/2 does not relate the velocity of a quanta to its position, but its momentum to position. Speed is scalar and has no direction. Velocity is vector and is speed in a certain direction. Momentum is not speed in a direction, momentum is a product of an object’s mass and its velocity. p = mv,

      And yes, there would be all sorts of ways to posit omniscience in an entity. As those sorts of hypotheticals are no more fruitful than discussing standard god-claims, I decided to focus on the human capacity for justified certainty.

  2. The truth value of a claim is not negated by the fallibility or limitations of the claimant. A correct conclusion here would be that no human can make such a definitive claim which requires such epistemic fitness (as you outlined). It would also be correct to assert that humans can’t have such knowledge (because being right accidentally doesn’t satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge.)

    Another way to understand this is as a reverse appeal to authority. Just because someone can be wrong doesn’t mean that his claims must be wrong. Eric Hovind is (and other presuppositionalists are) particularly fond of this argument when he asks people “Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?” The implication is that if you concede “yes” that you are also conceding that you are, in fact, wrong about everything you think you know, and that what you think you know is, therefore, wrong.

    • Thank you very much for your comment Pavlos, as always. I think there’s a bit of a miscommunication between us, though. I’m not saying that someone’s claims about ultimate, absolute reality are necessarily false, but I am saying that their claims to *know* such things are necessarily false. It’s certainty that I take issue with, not objective truth claims.

      Does that clarify?

  3. The nature of God is that there is and will always be some one who is smarter than you, more authority, more responsibility, more caring, more generous, etc. whether they are up or down the ladder from you. It’s a concept that does exist, a human couldn’t survive without it, like Geese who fly in V formation, leader dropping to the back to rest. Try to analyze and confirm the concept and you have just word groups chasing their own tails around in circles like a dog!

    • First, Randy, I’m struggling to see how this is at related to my proof. How do you contend it’s either invalid or unsound?

      Anyways, in an attempt to answer your points: you may very well claim that as the nature of your deity, but that’s just a naked claim. The smartest human being on the planet, whoever that happens to be, does not in fact have someone smarter than them. Let alone the fact that your claim requires an infinite series and evinces the Special Pleading fallacy, since you’re not claiming that there’s a super-god above your deity.

      And the idea that humans “couldn’t survive” without claiming deities, or an infinite chain of ‘betternes’, is absolutely bizarre. What on Earth are your evidence and warrant for such a sweeping claim?

  4. So everyone let be reasonable because
    As 4 God almighty He dousnt hve beginin and he dousnt hav an endin He is free from al human qualities wether u believ it or not we shal meet him and by that day those who acuse God and think that he does not exist shall be of the regretful one saying “had i know i would hav believe” but by then it shall be too late and surely they shall be among the loosers because they have no hope in the life after death.

    • I was born in the titanic creation of spacetime and matter-energy themselves.
      I was born in the sea of pure energy as it condensed to a slow vibration and began to form leptons.
      I was born in fire and light, by forces so massive that many of the stars at the center of a galaxy are crushed by it, and die as supermassive black holes.
      I was born in hydrogen atoms being fused together into helium and then bootstrapping up the periodic table until they hit iron, and continued on up.
      I was born in a billions of supernovas that scattered heavy elements through spacetime, and I flew serene and undisturbed through the great black sea.

      The hemoglobin in my blood that lets me use the oxygen in my lungs for ATP synthesis comes from the fires of supernovas from across the known universe.
      I am a part of the universe experiencing itself, I am what happens when you leave enough hydrogen around long enough to ask “Why am we here?”
      So, as to any magical threats of hell fire that you may have for me?
      Give it your best shot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s