Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theists can't know anything.

bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 10:47:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Just want to add, you must prove you are 100% certain.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:01:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Such a possibility can only be entertained if one realizes that such a possibility is possible, which is "something" that is known. Second, in order for God to be God, he must be logical, else he would also not be God. God cannot violate logic.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:04:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:01:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Such a possibility can only be entertained if one realizes that such a possibility is possible, which is "something" that is known. Second, in order for God to be God, he must be logical, else he would also not be God. God cannot violate logic.

You are just asserting it isn't possible, how can you be 100% certain. If he was perfect at tricking you by definition you could not know it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:07:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:04:23 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:01:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Such a possibility can only be entertained if one realizes that such a possibility is possible, which is "something" that is known. Second, in order for God to be God, he must be logical, else he would also not be God. God cannot violate logic.

You are just asserting it isn't possible, how can you be 100% certain. If he was perfect at tricking you by definition you could not know it.

No, I wasn't. The point is that I cannot "know" that I cannot know. How can I seriously consider your point if I don't know anything. It's self-refuting. That is, as soon as I entertain such a possibility, I can't consider it possible, since that implies that I know it's possible.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:11:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:07:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:04:23 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:01:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Such a possibility can only be entertained if one realizes that such a possibility is possible, which is "something" that is known. Second, in order for God to be God, he must be logical, else he would also not be God. God cannot violate logic.


I am mocking the presuppositional apologetic argument, the point really is that we can be absolutely certain of nothing but we deal in a range of reasonable certainty and that is were the trick of the presuppositional argument falls.
You are just asserting it isn't possible, how can you be 100% certain. If he was perfect at tricking you by definition you could not know it.

No, I wasn't. The point is that I cannot "know" that I cannot know. How can I seriously consider your point if I don't know anything. It's self-refuting. That is, as soon as I entertain such a possibility, I can't consider it possible, since that implies that I know it's possible.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?

Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:15:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:11:28 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:07:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:04:23 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:01:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Such a possibility can only be entertained if one realizes that such a possibility is possible, which is "something" that is known. Second, in order for God to be God, he must be logical, else he would also not be God. God cannot violate logic.


I am mocking the presuppositional apologetic argument, the point really is that we can be absolutely certain of nothing but we deal in a range of reasonable certainty and that is were the trick of the presuppositional argument falls.

That is false by definition. Indeed, if we can be absolutely certain of nothing, then we cannot be absolutely certain that we cannot be absolutely certain of nothing, and we cannot be certain of that either, etc. Absolute truth is implied by all statements.

You are just asserting it isn't possible, how can you be 100% certain. If he was perfect at tricking you by definition you could not know it.

No, I wasn't. The point is that I cannot "know" that I cannot know. How can I seriously consider your point if I don't know anything. It's self-refuting. That is, as soon as I entertain such a possibility, I can't consider it possible, since that implies that I know it's possible.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:19:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

A theist will probably say that they have spoken, prayed to God and God has shown them as clear as a crystal that he exits.

Yet, people who believe in other Gods or do bad thing or atheists, have been tricked by satan/demons. But they are destined for heaven and have a hopeful future because they believe. Contradiction hmmm?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:20:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:15:38 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:11:28 AM, bebil10 wrote:



That is false by definition. Indeed, if we can be absolutely certain of nothing, then we cannot be absolutely certain that we can be absolutely certain of nothing, and we cannot be certain of that either, etc. Absolute truth is implied by all statements.


fixed
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:24:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

Well, curiously, the exact condition was predicted in Christianity long ago. Evidence only takes you so far, and as this forum bears out, the best you are going to get is induction. Probability.

If certainty is what you want, then you need something to move forward (assuming you lack the ability to make assumptions? Which is assumptive way to point out assumptions I suppose?). How do you do that?

Well, we have this thing called the Holy Spirit. Its role in this process is to grant a testimony - provide witness - 'evidence' - of the truthfulness of the claims being made.

http://www.ministrysamples.org...

Those who attest to it are not exactly uncommon. Testimonies are easily found.

The issue here is that it requires a certain amount of trust for it to work (like you sort of have to believe its there). Its a bit like, and I am exaggerating to make a point, if you are curious about Jews, one would not take a Neo-Nazi as an accurate source about Jews. We would tone them out - even if - for example the Neo-Nazi were accurately describing the occupation of Palestine and how that drove his current position.

Even as I write that, it strains my credulity to even give the pretext of a known bigot accurately describing Israeli policy.

You can see why a non-believer, and especially an active denier, would have issues communicating with the Holy Spirit.

Yet the Holy Spirit exists precisely for this very state of confusion. This Epistemological block. Curious that ;-)
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:28:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:20:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:15:38 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:11:28 AM, bebil10 wrote:



That is false by definition. Indeed, if we can be absolutely certain of nothing, then we cannot be absolutely certain that we can be absolutely certain of nothing, and we cannot be certain of that either, etc. Absolute truth is implied by all statements.


fixed

see if he could trick you on everything you are making a false assumption that logic is true, cause in a universe were he is tricking you on everything logic may be totally different.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:46:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
See the honest truth is I don't find this anymore convincing then you do, but this is the type of things theists try to pull on atheists and it is respected in the the theist community and it really needs to stop.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:53:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

That is false.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:54:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

Actually, you can ... its called deductive reasoning. I cam for example, state that the table holding this computer I am typing on is solid - with 100% certainty ;-)

A person can then hold up any number of absurdities, none of which change the actual reality of the table's solid state and my certainty about it.

Its why we have deductive and inductive logic - its how you ferret truth fro absurdity ;-)
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:58:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:54:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

Actually, you can ... its called deductive reasoning. I cam for example, state that the table holding this computer I am typing on is solid - with 100% certainty ;-)

A person can then hold up any number of absurdities, none of which change the actual reality of the table's solid state and my certainty about it.

Its why we have deductive and inductive logic - its how you ferret truth fro absurdity ;-)

It is the difference between reasonable and absolute certainty. You can't be absolutely certain but can be reasonably certain. Because as I said you can't prove with absolute certainty that a god who tricks everyone on everything doesn't exist. It isn't reasonable to believe said claim could be the case and to try to prove otherwise would be using your own knowledge which would be a self refuting argument to the claim.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 10:01:27 AM, bebil10 wrote:
As a theist you can't know anything, how do you know that their isn't a god perfect at tricking you and everything is a lie?

How do you know Theists can't know anything? Why are Theists the only ones subjected to uncertainty?
Nolite Timere
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:02:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:58:48 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:54:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

Actually, you can ... its called deductive reasoning. I cam for example, state that the table holding this computer I am typing on is solid - with 100% certainty ;-)

A person can then hold up any number of absurdities, none of which change the actual reality of the table's solid state and my certainty about it.

Its why we have deductive and inductive logic - its how you ferret truth fro absurdity ;-)

It is the difference between reasonable and absolute certainty. You can't be absolutely certain but can be reasonably certain. Because as I said you can't prove with absolute certainty that a god who tricks everyone on everything doesn't exist. It isn't reasonable to believe said claim could be the case and to try to prove otherwise would be using your own knowledge which would be a self refuting argument to the claim.

Reasonable would be inductive.

Absolute would be deductive.

Its why we have the two forms of logic. Again, my certainty about the solid state of my table is ABSOLUTE. the proof would be deductive.

P1: Objects that prevent other objects from passing through them are solid.
P2: My ball cannot get through the table.
C: The table is solid.

You could start talking about atomic, or the velocity of the ball, but neuter changes the actual state of the table - which is solid, and the ability for something to break it - would change its state ... not change its current status.

The table is solid - 100%.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:02:01 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:58:48 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:54:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

Actually, you can ... its called deductive reasoning. I cam for example, state that the table holding this computer I am typing on is solid - with 100% certainty ;-)

A person can then hold up any number of absurdities, none of which change the actual reality of the table's solid state and my certainty about it.

Its why we have deductive and inductive logic - its how you ferret truth fro absurdity ;-)

It is the difference between reasonable and absolute certainty. You can't be absolutely certain but can be reasonably certain. Because as I said you can't prove with absolute certainty that a god who tricks everyone on everything doesn't exist. It isn't reasonable to believe said claim could be the case and to try to prove otherwise would be using your own knowledge which would be a self refuting argument to the claim.

Reasonable would be inductive.

Absolute would be deductive.

Its why we have the two forms of logic. Again, my certainty about the solid state of my table is ABSOLUTE. the proof would be deductive.

P1: Objects that prevent other objects from passing through them are solid.
P2: My ball cannot get through the table.
C: The table is solid.

You could start talking about atomic, or the velocity of the ball, but neuter changes the actual state of the table - which is solid, and the ability for something to break it - would change its state ... not change its current status.

The table is solid - 100%.

You are correct in everyday terms I would have no reason to disagree except you can't be absolutely certain, you are using the table to prove your knowledge and that is a problem. How do you know that it is accurate. Look up the Munchausen trilemma to see the problem. The problem is we don't deal in absolute certainty, we deal in reasonable certainty given a few presuppositions and that is what presuppositional apologetics.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:16:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:12:24 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 12:02:01 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:58:48 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:54:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

Actually, you can ... its called deductive reasoning. I cam for example, state that the table holding this computer I am typing on is solid - with 100% certainty ;-)

A person can then hold up any number of absurdities, none of which change the actual reality of the table's solid state and my certainty about it.

Its why we have deductive and inductive logic - its how you ferret truth fro absurdity ;-)

It is the difference between reasonable and absolute certainty. You can't be absolutely certain but can be reasonably certain. Because as I said you can't prove with absolute certainty that a god who tricks everyone on everything doesn't exist. It isn't reasonable to believe said claim could be the case and to try to prove otherwise would be using your own knowledge which would be a self refuting argument to the claim.

Reasonable would be inductive.

Absolute would be deductive.

Its why we have the two forms of logic. Again, my certainty about the solid state of my table is ABSOLUTE. the proof would be deductive.

P1: Objects that prevent other objects from passing through them are solid.
P2: My ball cannot get through the table.
C: The table is solid.

You could start talking about atomic, or the velocity of the ball, but neuter changes the actual state of the table - which is solid, and the ability for something to break it - would change its state ... not change its current status.

The table is solid - 100%.

You are correct in everyday terms I would have no reason to disagree except you can't be absolutely certain, you are using the table to prove your knowledge and that is a problem. How do you know that it is accurate. Look up the Munchausen trilemma to see the problem. The problem is we don't deal in absolute certainty, we deal in reasonable certainty given a few presuppositions and that is what presuppositional apologetics.

Well, that is your opinion.

But we do deal in absolute certainty. Its called math. All the time.

If it weren't certain ... we'd be in a LOT of trouble. But it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, an absolute value is a mathematical term.

The problem is that not everything can reach that level of certainty, and the problem, which both sides are guilty of regarding God, is that they demand deductive levels of proof, while handily ignoring that only inductive proof about God is possible.

I will submit that the fault here is not whether or not something IS certain, but the human tendency to hang onto something uncertain as if it IS certain. That goes well beyond God, and the stock market just ALWAYS going up is a perfect example. They call another example the gambler's fallacy for a reason.

100% certainty is possible, just not in every case. Indeed, perhaps not many.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:17:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
See here is simply the way to show this, when you answer your next question, ask yourself how do you know that? You at some point will need to concede you don't and that is how presuppositional apologetics works.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:19:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:16:22 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 12:12:24 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 12:02:01 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:58:48 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:54:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:39:29 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:34:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:23:44 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:19:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:18:19 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:13:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:12:45 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:09:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
And I don't even know what "perfect at tricking you" means. Once again, God cannot violate logic. We can be sure that logic is true just as much as we could be sure that it is true that God exists.

perfect at tricking you would be to trick you in such a way that it would not be possible to know that he was tricking you. Have you ever heard christian presuppositional apologetics?


Yes, I don't know what that entails. It's not a coherent concept.

It actually is very coherent. Everything you think you know is a lie and everything is completely different. The problem is there is no reason to believe that.

That is not a coherent concept, since it defeats itself. It only appears to make sense.

It doesn't defeat itself as you don't have to know something for it to be true. It could be true that you are eating a bowl of cheerios now but I don't know that.

Yes you do. The only that you can say is that it is true that I might be eating a bowl of cheerios. There's a difference between "it is not necessarily true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios" and "it is true that I am eating a bowl of cheerios".

exactly so my point is not self defeating all you have to do is concede that you can't prove it is impossible and you are done. You can say nothing with absolute certainty.

Actually, you can ... its called deductive reasoning. I cam for example, state that the table holding this computer I am typing on is solid - with 100% certainty ;-)

A person can then hold up any number of absurdities, none of which change the actual reality of the table's solid state and my certainty about it.

Its why we have deductive and inductive logic - its how you ferret truth fro absurdity ;-)

It is the difference between reasonable and absolute certainty. You can't be absolutely certain but can be reasonably certain. Because as I said you can't prove with absolute certainty that a god who tricks everyone on everything doesn't exist. It isn't reasonable to believe said claim could be the case and to try to prove otherwise would be using your own knowledge which would be a self refuting argument to the claim.

Reasonable would be inductive.

Absolute would be deductive.

Its why we have the two forms of logic. Again, my certainty about the solid state of my table is ABSOLUTE. the proof would be deductive.

P1: Objects that prevent other objects from passing through them are solid.
P2: My ball cannot get through the table.
C: The table is solid.

You could start talking about atomic, or the velocity of the ball, but neuter changes the actual state of the table - which is solid, and the ability for something to break it - would change its state ... not change its current status.

The table is solid - 100%.

You are correct in everyday terms I would have no reason to disagree except you can't be absolutely certain, you are using the table to prove your knowledge and that is a problem. How do you know that it is accurate. Look up the Munchausen trilemma to see the problem. The problem is we don't deal in absolute certainty, we deal in reasonable certainty given a few presuppositions and that is what presuppositional apologetics.

Well, that is your opinion.

But we do deal in absolute certainty. Its called math. All the time.

If it weren't certain ... we'd be in a LOT of trouble. But it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, an absolute value is a mathematical term.

The problem is that not everything can reach that level of certainty, and the problem, which both sides are guilty of regarding God, is that they demand deductive levels of proof, while handily ignoring that only inductive proof about God is possible.

I will submit that the fault here is not whether or not something IS certain, but the human tendency to hang onto something uncertain as if it IS certain. That goes well beyond God, and the stock market just ALWAYS going up is a perfect example. They call another example the gambler's fallacy for a reason.

100% certainty is possible, just not in every case. Indeed, perhaps not many.

How do you know that?