Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheist can't know anything...

ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty. You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong. Knowledge presupposes certainty.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does. The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

Welcome Envisage. Thx for the comment. The fact is all ultimate athorities are circular. No one can escape that. The point of presup is that unless you start with God you cannot account for things like knowledge. My worldview says that God has revealed things to all men(and woman; including atheist) such that they can know it for certain. That's my presupposition. With that, I can account for knowledge.

But you said alot of things so before we go to far and get all scattered, lets back up a little. I'm unsure where you stand epystomologically. Do you believe that you can know things to be true. If so, how?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:58:48 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

Welcome Envisage. Thx for the comment. The fact is all ultimate athorities are circular. No one can escape that. The point of presup is that unless you start with God you cannot account for things like knowledge. My worldview says that God has revealed things to all men(and woman; including atheist) such that they can know it for certain. That's my presupposition. With that, I can account for knowledge.

It it just question begging. How do you know it for certain, what is the mechanism? And how do you know if that process is true or not. Just asserting as much is just a bald assertion, none does not support your position whatsoever.

But you said alot of things so before we go to far and get all scattered, lets back up a little. I'm unsure where you stand epystomologically. Do you believe that you can know things to be true. If so, how?

Yes I do believe that, I believe that because by definition knowing something is to hold a justified true belief. I hold justified beliefs, so it's just a matter of whether or not they are true.

Also I have axiomatic beliefs... Where it is self-defeating to claim they are false. Such as this sentence is true. Or I exist.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them. Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

Thx for your example. It will help. You said you can know the bridge can hold your weight. Before you walk accords how can you justify that?

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:20:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

I would also disagree with your distinction between knowledge and certainty. It's artificial. You cannot know something if you could be wrong. By definition, knowledge must be justified AND true. There are things the atheistic worldview must admit to be possible, that precludes the possibility of every being able to know if something is true.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:21:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:13:45 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

Thx for your example. It will help. You said you can know the bridge can hold your weight. Before you walk accords how can you justify that?

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

You have not addresses what I said about your claim to certainty being question begging.

Take for example a perfectly evil god, who will perfectly deceive someone if they attempt to ground their worldview in God. How could you tell that which you claim to know is true, if that perfectly evil entity gives you that same claim to know for certain.

You claiming as much doesn't solve anything, and it's very conceivable that non-divine entities would also induce the same sorts of beliefs, in fact we have abundant evidence if such, of people who claim to know things for certain which are in contradictions with one another.

Certainty as I already said, doesn't say anything to the truth of a claim.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:26:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:20:38 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

I would also disagree with your distinction between knowledge and certainty. It's artificial.

Bare assertion.

You cannot know something if you could be wrong.

You are mixing around the words I have used.

My knowledge claims can be knowledge if they are true, and they are not knowledge if they are false. What I *actually* know of course cannot be knowledge if it could be wrong, but this is "post verification" or "post fact" talk, where knowledge claims themselves are "pre verification". You can't mix up the two.

By definition, knowledge must be justified AND true.

Yup.

There are things the atheistic worldview must admit to be possible, that precludes the possibility of every being able to know if something is true.

You have yet to establish that. It's basic definitions... Knowledge is just a subset of belief/justified belief.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:21:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:13:45 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

Thx for your example. It will help. You said you can know the bridge can hold your weight. Before you walk accords how can you justify that?

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

You have not addresses what I said about your claim to certainty being question begging.

Take for example a perfectly evil god, who will perfectly deceive someone if they attempt to ground their worldview in God. How could you tell that which you claim to know is true, if that perfectly evil entity gives you that same claim to know for certain.

You claiming as much doesn't solve anything, and it's very conceivable that non-divine entities would also induce the same sorts of beliefs, in fact we have abundant evidence if such, of people who claim to know things for certain which are in contradictions with one another.

Certainty as I already said, doesn't say anything to the truth of a claim.

We'll get to how I can account for knowledge in a moment. I'm trying to focus in on your worldview right now. Atheist are always forcing Christians to the defense, I want you to defend your worldview for a moment. I got another hour. You can always message me. I won't run away. I promise. ;-)

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Well, I assume you are aware of the problem of induction. It assumes the future will be like the past. Atheism has no basis for assuming this. If the universe really is an unguided entity that is constantly changing then there is no reason for you to assume that the law of gravity will still be in effect when you wake up tomorrow.

Evidence is subject to ones presuppositions. To examine evidencr requires you to assume things that you have not come to know by the process of examining evidence. Like assuming your senses are valid so you can use them to examine the evidence.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

This is a correspondence theory. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. The problem with that definition is that you have to presuppose what is real. My reality has a Triune God. Yours doesn't. How can you know which reality is true whiteout begging the question?

,
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:42:03 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:21:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:13:45 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:07:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 7:05:19 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:44:42 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

Excellent, I have been waiting for a presuppositionalist

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty.

No you don't. Knowledge by definition is justified true belief. You can hold justified beliefs that may or may not be true. Certainty has nothing to do with this, certainty is only an indication of one's confidence, which has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong.

Yes you can. That's why it is called a *claim* to knowledge instead of a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes certainty.

No it doesn't.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

We work off induction, which means we work within the limits that we can measure and experience. Meaning that the tonne of stuff that falls outside our scope of experience we rightly don't make significant knowledge claims about.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does.

Just flatly false.

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.

A claim to knowledge is a justified beliefs that may or may not be true. So I can know them if they are true. For example, I can claim to know this bridge will take my weight, which may or may not be true. I walk across the bridge and it doesn't collapse, after which my claim to know the bridge will take my weight is clearly a much stronger knowledge claim, and philosophically IS knowledge.

Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

Thx for your example. It will help. You said you can know the bridge can hold your weight. Before you walk accords how can you justify that?

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

You have not addresses what I said about your claim to certainty being question begging.

Take for example a perfectly evil god, who will perfectly deceive someone if they attempt to ground their worldview in God. How could you tell that which you claim to know is true, if that perfectly evil entity gives you that same claim to know for certain.

You claiming as much doesn't solve anything, and it's very conceivable that non-divine entities would also induce the same sorts of beliefs, in fact we have abundant evidence if such, of people who claim to know things for certain which are in contradictions with one another.

Certainty as I already said, doesn't say anything to the truth of a claim.

We'll get to how I can account for knowledge in a moment. I'm trying to focus in on your worldview right now. Atheist are always forcing Christians to the defense, I want you to defend your worldview for a moment. I got another hour. You can always message me. I won't run away. I promise. ;-)

You can challenge me to a debate in this if you want. I am very familiar with the presuppositionalism arguments and I have run them in devils advocates too.. So it would be worth your time.

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Well, I assume you are aware of the problem of induction. It assumes the future will be like the past. Atheism has no basis for assuming this.

I don't know why you just randomly throw atheism in there, but yes we do. And the problem of induction is a ohilosophycal position, which isn't necessarily a self defeating one. Also I see induction as a tool that is tacked onto a rigid deductive framework.

If the universe really is an unguided entity that is constantly changing then there is no reason for you to assume that the law of gravity will still be in effect when you wake up tomorrow.

You need to actually support your assertions instead if just making them. Unguided entity and stuff not being there anymore is a non-sequitur. The default position is to reject claims unless given reason to suspect they are different. There is no reason to assume gravity will disappear tomorrow, the default position is to assume it will not change.

Evidence is subject to ones presuppositions. To examine evidencr requires you to assume things that you have not come to know by the process of examining evidence. Like assuming your senses are valid so you can use them to examine the evidence.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

This is a correspondence theory. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. The problem with that definition is that you have to presuppose what is real. My reality has a Triune God. Yours doesn't. How can you know which reality is true whiteout begging the question?

Again it is just question begging your god claim. And I don't see why presuppositions need to be made there other than the fact it exists at some basic level. It doesn't even matter if it's a false reality, since our observations and experiences are contained within it, so our truth claims are correspondent to any specific sub- reality.

Anyway, feel free to send a debate challenge.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:05:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Absolute" is an odd word. It's like 'infinity' or 'perfection'. We use these words all the time, but strictly speaking, we humans could not actually verify that such conditions even exist. To do so would require a ruler of metaphysical proportions, and none of is has one.

So to claim that knowledge must be absolute to be knowledge, is to claim that no human can possess real knowledge. Which I could agree with. Although it's a moot point; both of us being human, and having no choice but to live by the flawed knowledge that we have.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:35:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty. You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong. Knowledge presupposes certainty.

Problem is this is just pure assertion, plain and simple.

Second, it's false. By even the most cripplingly sceptical standard, I know a triangle has three sides and that I exist.

Third, what's your alternative? Presupposing theism? Why can't I just presuppose that knowledge can be accounted for atheistically? I fail to see why you get to assume an extravagant and highly contentious saga of assumptions why the atheist has to run around and solve some of the hardest problems in philosophy. It's a clear double standard.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

Yeah, you don't know 100% that the past "really" happened, or that your experiences aren't influenced by some evil demon and so on, where does that leave things like revelation. So again, either you have to swim in the same toxic scepticism or you're special pleading.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does. The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

I know all triangles have 3 sides, by definition. It is the essence of a triangle to have such characteristics. A non-3 sided triangle is a contradiction in terms - a meaningless statement. In fact, even if triangles only exist conceptually, it is still true in every possible world that it has three sides.

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:17:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty. You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong. Knowledge presupposes certainty.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does. The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

Ok Sye..
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:44:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.

A faulty premise makes the entire argument unsound. That's all there is to it. Moreover claims to knowledge via. Revelation from God does absolutely nothing to solve the issue as it just pushes the problem one step further back. It just begs the question, is the revelation from an omniscient god, and if it is, it is a true one, or a lie.

Almongst a whole host of other problems. It also usually begs circularity.

It seems to me you were implying that you can only claim to know things, but you can't really know them.



Whould that be an accurate assessment of what you wrote?

No.

Thx for your example. It will help. You said you can know the bridge can hold your weight. Before you walk accords how can you justify that?

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

You have not addresses what I said about your claim to certainty being question begging.

Take for example a perfectly evil god, who will perfectly deceive someone if they attempt to ground their worldview in God. How could you tell that which you claim to know is true, if that perfectly evil entity gives you that same claim to know for certain.

You claiming as much doesn't solve anything, and it's very conceivable that non-divine entities would also induce the same sorts of beliefs, in fact we have abundant evidence if such, of people who claim to know things for certain which are in contradictions with one another.

Certainty as I already said, doesn't say anything to the truth of a claim.

We'll get to how I can account for knowledge in a moment. I'm trying to focus in on your worldview right now. Atheist are always forcing Christians to the defense, I want you to defend your worldview for a moment. I got another hour. You can always message me. I won't run away. I promise. ;-)

You can challenge me to a debate in this if you want. I am very familiar with the presuppositionalism arguments and I have run them in devils advocates too.. So it would be worth your time.

Inductively, deductively, with evidence, with corroborating other knowledge claims, etc.

Well, I assume you are aware of the problem of induction. It assumes the future will be like the past. Atheism has no basis for assuming this.

I don't know why you just randomly throw atheism in there, but yes we do. And the problem of induction is a ohilosophycal position, which isn't necessarily a self defeating one. Also I see induction as a tool that is tacked onto a rigid deductive framework.

I am strictly dealing with the atheist worldview. That's why I threw it in there. But I never said the problem of induction was self defeating. You said it was a means for you to know things. I am merely pointing out that, anything you know to be true based upon induction, you can not be certain will be true even 5 seconds from now. That is something you have to admit. You should be living as if it is a legitimate possibility that gravity will cease to be in effect tomorrow. Or that when you squeeze your toothpaste tube tomorrow basic laws of pressure will cease to exist and nothing will come out. To live consistently a an atheist, would result in maximum paranoia. You certainly would not make plans to jump on a trampoline. But you don't live like that. You live like me. Confident that the universe will remain the way it is. My worldview can account for that, yours can't.

If the universe really is an unguided entity that is constantly changing then there is no reason for you to assume that the law of gravity will still be in effect when you wake up tomorrow.

You need to actually support your assertions instead if just making them. Unguided entity and stuff not being there anymore is a non-sequitur. The default position is to reject claims unless given reason to suspect they are different. There is no reason to assume gravity will disappear tomorrow, the default position is to assume it will not change.

It's not a non-sequitur. My conclusion follows perfectly. If there is nothing guiding the universe, and it is always changing, it follows logically that if gravity is a law of the universe it can change as well. I have never heard anyone with knowledge on the topic argue against that. But you say that the default position is to assume that it won't. Your wrong. The default position is to hope that it won't. An the absurdity of that speaks for itself. You feel like you can assume that it won't, but that is only based upon your past experience. But since the universe is constantly changing, you can't be sure that the condition that brought about the results of your last experience, will be the same the next time. Just think of how many scientific proofs rely upon the principle of induction. All of them could change if atheism is true. And you have no reason to assume that it won't.

The reason you do assume that it won't is because you know that God exist. You know that he is controlling the universe. You are simply suppressing that knowledge. I urge you to repent, and turn to Christ.

Evidence is subject to ones presuppositions. To examine evidencr requires you to assume things that you have not come to know by the process of examining evidence. Like assuming your senses are valid so you can use them to examine the evidence.

Also, I would like to know what is truth in your worldview?

I'll take the first like of Wikipedia... Because Wikipedia is always right...

"Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal."

This is a correspondence theory. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. The problem with that definition is that you have to presuppose what is real. My reality has a Triune God. Yours doesn't. How can you know which reality is true whiteout begging the question?

Again it is just question begging your god claim. And I don't see why presuppositions need to be made there other than the fact it exists at some basic level. It doesn't even matter if it's a false reality, since our observations and experiences are contained within it, so our truth claims are correspondent to any specific sub- reality.

If that's your position then fine. But you've proved my point. Atheist can't know anything to be true. If you don't know which reality is the right reality, you cannot correspond anything to it. Sub- realities are merely the reality you assume to be right but are not necessarily. Corresponding something to a theorized reality, is purely subjective.

Anyway, feel free to send a debate challenge

I just may. It think it would be helpful to readers. There isn't many presuppositionslist on DDO. I'll get back with you. I have 2 debates coming up. One in July and one in Nov. I could fit you in, but the format and conditions that I require you'd have to agree to. I'll send you a message. See my previous debates for examples. Take care. And God bless.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:48:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:35:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty. You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong. Knowledge presupposes certainty.

Problem is this is just pure assertion, plain and simple.

Second, it's false. By even the most cripplingly sceptical standard,

I know a triangle has three sides

A triangle is a shape which is an universal, invariant, abstract entity . A worldview that believes all is matter, all is in constant change, and all is subjective, such as atheism, cannot account for shapes. If atheism is true, shapes could not exist. But shapes do exist therefore atheism is false.

and that I exist.

How do you know that...?

Third, what's your alternative? Presupposing theism? Why can't I just presuppose that knowledge can be accounted for atheistically?

Good question. Yes I believe the only way you can make sense out of things like logic, knowledge, ect. is if you start with God. The reason you can't presuppose atheism is because the necessary prerequisites for these things cannot exist in an atheistic world view. Take what I wrote about shapes above for example.

I fail to see why you get to assume an extravagant and highly contentious saga of assumptions why the atheist has to run around and solve some of the hardest problems in philosophy. It's a clear double standard.

It's not a double standard. We are only telling you of the only starting point that can answer the toughest questions in philosophy. The reason why the problem of induction is actually a problem is because you don't start with God. Everyone has to start with some presupposition. I start with God, and with that starting point I can account for all of these basic concepts of human existence. The atheist start with a naturalistic materialist presupposition that precludes the existence of God and with that starting point none of these basic concepts are accounted for.

But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

Yeah, you don't know 100% that the past "really" happened, or that your experiences aren't influenced by some evil demon and so on, where does that leave things like revelation. So again, either you have to swim in the same toxic scepticism or you're special pleading.

Well, if my God exist, the God of the bible, could he not reveal things to his creatures in such a way that they can know them for certain? He most certainly can. If you grant that to me, then at least I have an avenue.(by the way it logically follows that God can do that, given His nature as described in the bible). But what avenue do you have to account for these things?

But I'm not here to defend my theism. They're plenty of forums where you guys(atheist) are challenging Christians to defend their claims. I'm just challenging Atheist on this forum to do the same.

So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does. The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...

I know all triangles have 3 sides, by definition. It is the essence of a triangle to have such characteristics. A non-3 sided triangle is a contradiction in terms - a meaningless statement. In fact, even if triangles only exist conceptually, it is still true in every possible world that it has three sides.

I agree with everything you said in the above statement. But as I pointed out earlier, the concepts of shapes make no sense in an atheistic world.

Thx for your thoughts. If you wanna chat further, hit me up in the message box. God bless and good night.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:54:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
What sort of worldview does an agoblikist have?
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:54:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
What sort of worldview does an agoblikist have?

You made it up. You tell me? But be clear, do you believe it exist? I want to know.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:02:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:56:34 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:54:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
What sort of worldview does an agoblikist have?

You made it up. You tell me? But be clear, do you believe it exist? I want to know.

No, you just claimed to be an agoblikist, which gives you a worldview according to your assessment of atheism, so what is the worldview of an agoblikist?
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:07:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:02:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:56:34 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:54:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
What sort of worldview does an agoblikist have?

You made it up. You tell me? But be clear, do you believe it exist? I want to know.

No, you just claimed to be an agoblikist, which gives you a worldview according to your assessment of atheism, so what is the worldview of an agoblikist?

I don't follow. What are you trying to get at?
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:07:36 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:02:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:56:34 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:54:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
What sort of worldview does an agoblikist have?

You made it up. You tell me? But be clear, do you believe it exist? I want to know.

No, you just claimed to be an agoblikist, which gives you a worldview according to your assessment of atheism, so what is the worldview of an agoblikist?

I don't follow. What are you trying to get at?

You claim that there is an atheist worldview, when atheism is one answer to one question.
Do you accept the claim that god/s exist?
No
.'. atheist.
Do you accept the claim that gobliks exist?
No
.'. agoblikist

Explain the worldviews you can conclude from the above information?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:37:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:34:16 PM, ChrisL wrote:
Atheist can't know anything according to their worldview.

The reason being is, God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. In order to know something you must have certainty. You can't claim to know something if you admit you could be wrong. Knowledge presupposes certainty.


But certainty presupposes absolute knowledge. If you have 99% knowledge, you must be open to the possibility that something in the 01% can contradict what you believe to know.

Yes. Being open to the possibility that you could be wrong I think is a good thing.

Now compare that to the people who have the mindset that what they believe can't possibly be wrong cause they have Gods...revelation/word/law/spirit/church/prophet/etc etc


So the only way to have knowledge of anything is to know all things or have revelation from someone who does. The atheistic worldview precludes both of these prerequisites. Therefore if knowledge is exist, atheism cannot be true.

My first reaction would be that your right on the first wrong on the second.

It's possible that some one who has absolute knowledge is lying or not telling your the full story. And in order to know for certain they are not lying you would require absolute knowledge.


I'd be interested if an atheist can tell me one thing they know and how they know it...


Pls keep it civil. We are all mature adults. Pls act like it. Thx.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dvande28
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:12:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Following Envisage's definition of knowledge as justified true belief, the requirements of knowledge would entail:

1. A is true
2. B believes that A is true
3. B has justification for believing that A is true.

So lets pretend that evolution is true, thus fulfilling premise 1. I believe that evolution is true, fulfilling premise 2, and I have justification for believing that evolution is true, meaning I know that evolution is true. Although I am not certain that evolution is true, if it is true, I know it is true. The measure of certainty has nothing to do with knowledge.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:04:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:17:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:07:36 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:02:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:56:34 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:54:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:53:20 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:46:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
This is a fascinating conversation.

I just don't know how the answer to a single question constitutes a worldview.

Do you believe my claim that gobliks exist?

No. Do you believe gobliks exist?
What sort of worldview does an agoblikist have?

You made it up. You tell me? But be clear, do you believe it exist? I want to know.

No, you just claimed to be an agoblikist, which gives you a worldview according to your assessment of atheism, so what is the worldview of an agoblikist?

I don't follow. What are you trying to get at?

You claim that there is an atheist worldview, when atheism is one answer to one question.
Do you accept the claim that god/s exist?
No
.'. atheist.
Do you accept the claim that gobliks exist?
No
.'. agoblikist

Explain the worldviews you can conclude from the above information?

Ahh... I see.

I reject the claim that atheism is merely rejecting the existence of God. When you reject God there is an entire network of presuppositions that go along with it. That network of presuppositions is what philosophers call a world view.

Let me try and illustrate this for you.

Lets say you ask me, "does kobe Bryant exist"?

I say "no".

When I say no, I have commited to his non existence. So when I examine Basketball history I am going to view everything I examin as if kobe Bryant does not exist. That means I will believe that Shaq did not play with Kobe bryant. If you show me the stats I will say someone made it up because someone who does not exist cannot produce statistics. If you show me video I will say that is not Kobe bryant because kobe bryant does not exist. That must be someone else. Maybe someone edited the film. You could bring Kobe Bryant's mom to me with Kobe Bryant and have her confirm that this is her son and he is Kobe bryant. I will tell her that that is impossible because Kobe Bryant does not exist.

You see what Im getting at. Kobe bryant not existing wasnt my conclusion to my study of basketball history. It was my starting point. If I start with my conclusion everything inbetween will be interpreted by it.

That is exactly the case with theist and atheist. Theist start with the belief that God exist. Therefore the supernatural 6 day creation theory is viable. We can look at the scientific evidence and interpret it in light of that presupposition. We see evidence that show that the earth could be 14 million years old and we say, "of course God can create a 14 million year old planet with natuarl order in 6 days. He's God."

But an atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist. Since he rejects God, he on the same token, rejects supernaturalism. So when he looks at the scientific evidence he sees an earth 14 million yrs old with a intricate natural order and says, "that 6 day creation theory is impossible. This planet evolved over millions of years. It's clear."

You may want to say that you didn't start with not believing in God. You may want to say that that is where the evidence took you. But it would not be true. It is impossible to begin examining something without assuming something about it. There is no such thing as epistemological neutrality. For instance. Before you begin to examine the evidence, you had to assume that your reason was sufficient to bring you to a correct resolution. You also had to assume that there is a correct resolution. That means you had to assume that you can come to know what is true without God(since you haven't decide if he exist or not yet). And if you can know what is true apart from God's existence, you have already precluded the possibility of my God existing. My God is the beginning of wisdom end knowledge. And if you keep going down the line of reasoning eventually every other deity would be counted out.

So there my long answer to a short question. Lol. I gotta crash. Continue in my message box if you want continue the conversation. Thx and God bless.
Samreay
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:18:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But an atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist. Since he rejects God, he on the same token, rejects supernaturalism. So when he looks at the scientific evidence he sees an earth 14 million yrs old with a intricate natural order and says, "that 6 day creation theory is impossible. This planet evolved over millions of years. It's clear."

That isn't true. I have friends that are atheists but believe in the supernatural.

Also, atheism isn't a starting position. We do not start with "God does not exist" and then work towards a conclusion. We start with the evidence and what we can observe about reality and work towards a conclusion. One of the conclusions we reach is that God is a human construct. It is the outcome of the the reasoned process, not the beginning of one.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:26:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:12:24 AM, dvande28 wrote:
Following Envisage's definition of knowledge as justified true belief, the requirements of knowledge would entail:

1. A is true
2. B believes that A is true
3. B has justification for believing that A is true.

So lets pretend that evolution is true, thus fulfilling premise 1. I believe that evolution is true, fulfilling premise 2, and I have justification for believing that evolution is true, meaning I know that evolution is true. Although I am not certain that evolution is true, if it is true, I know it is true. The measure of certainty has nothing to do with knowledge.

Having justification for believe in something doesn't equal knowledge. Knowledge is Justified TRUE belief. You cannot "actually" know something to be true if can in fact be false. Envisage admitted this.

The problem with your equation is that even if A is true, B could never know it to be true because B has no way of determining what is true. So B can only say, I BELIEVE A to be true. B cannot say I KNOW A to be true.

So knowledge cannot exist in an atheistic world. Only beliefs.