One thing that's always annoyed me about presup is that I have knowledge that I've created and defined. When I was born, I was named Micheal. Very early in my childhood, I wanted it to be Michael, and it was done. I cannot be wrong about my name, as I in a sense gave it to myself. A rare scenario, but to be more inclusive, how many parents could be wrong about their child's name? Or take 1=1 or 1+1=2. 1 must necessarily be equal to 1. An object or entity must be self-equivalent at all times. These are basic examples and I'm a poor communicator, but I value trading ideas in argument too highly to tolerate what amounts to trolling for popular appeal. Good to see an fsx23 video as always.
Even Scott Hahn, who's a _Catholic_ apologist, used the ploy of quoting Romans 1:18-20, in his last book, without the first half of v.20 just like Sye and his pals used to do, replacing it with "...." Incidentally, I haven't heard any of the presupps do that for quite a while, which is progress. Kind of.
TabletopJoe33 You bring up a crucial point. In fact, it's so crucial that it destroys their entire position. Their premise hinges on the "all men know that god exists" assertion which they garnish from those verses. I addressed this a few weeks ago on another video. Here's the comment: Romans 1:18-25 - 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse: This is where Christians (most of them) stop reading and say "See, everyone on the planet knows that God exists!" But let's read on, shall we? 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." This passage describes ancient paganism, not atheism. The men (v.18) and the "they" (v.20) in the letter are pagans of the Roman empire. Note where it says they "abandoned the real god to worship images of men and beasts." (v.23) This is an illustration of the State instituted religion of Emperor worship. Many of the Caesars erected statues of themselves and demanded to be worshiped as gods. Persecution of those who refused to comply (Jews, Christians, Druids, followers of Bacchus, etc.) was common place. The other pagan deities were often depicted as various types of animals (Paul viewed this as "worshiping the creation rather than the creator.") That said, we're talking about a SPECIFIC god here (Jesus / Yahweh). For Christians (particularly Presuppostionalists) to claim that "all men know God exists" is a falsehood for this reason alone. They will say "all men know god exists." To which I reply "Which god?" They will reply "There's only one god." The glaring problem with that assertion is that people have to be TOLD about this god. It's not innately known, rather it's spread by word of mouth. It's a demonstrable fact that there are people on this planet (past and present) who have never heard of Jesus, Yahweh, or the Bible. So how then, can "all" men be "without excuse"? Because if Jesus is the only way, and you gotta be told,.....yeah. They're taking the passage out of context, it's as simple as that. Even if the author of Romans did intend to convey the "all men know god exists" message, it would still be false, because again, it's a specific.
He opened by saying "if you are intellectually honest, you would have to admit that you could be wrong about everything you know". This was a crucial admission about presuppositionalism: it is an intellectually dishonest tactic because it claims that the presup cannot be wrong.
The fallacy you're pointing out is called "shifting the ground". As you point out, the conclusion is based on Alex's actual knowledge while the question addresses Alex's level of conviction in the veracity of that knowledge. Eric and Sye and the other Presups understand this, but without this deception their entire argument falls apart... then they would have to earn an honest living. I also think you were being a bit too generous in saying that if a god exists that knows everything that we could then be certain of his revelation. The best we could get is a subjective sense of certainty, because as long as we have imperfect brains getting signals from our imperfect senses we have no rational claim to logical certainty no matter what the source. I agree with you though, Presuppositionalism has been debunked six ways from Sunday, and yet they keep spewing the same nonsense. I tire of their games.
Hey Dan! So by definition if a God had absolute knowledge and the ability to let you know some things for certain, sure in that hypothetical you could know things absolutely. Technically you wouldn't even need a "God" for that. Anything with sufficient abilities to give you that knowledge would suffice. My point is that their hypothetical is pointless. And that is because they have a lot to demonstrate. You brought up some of the problems they would have to account for. There argument frankly is very much like playing a game with a small child. They don't want to lose so they constantly change the rules, break the rules and quibble over the meaning of the rules. We can't play rock, scissors, paper because they will call the nuclear bomb only they can use. The funny thing is that they get so much satisfaction out of an argument that amounts to cheating.
***** You are correct... although each theist will claim that they have the one true revelation. If the supposed revelations are contradictory, then it's up to our judgement to determine which is correct. That is, of course, what I've argued all along... that ultimately it's up to our flawed human judgement to determine what is true.
***** I have heard Sye say (a number of times) that he doesn't do bible study with non-believers. This is his way of saying that you need to accept the conclusion before you can be let in on the secret of knowing the premise. There is of course no secret, because invariably each person claiming divine revelation simply asserts that their understanding is the one true revelation and all others are mistaken.
+Dan Courtney He doesn't do Bible study with unbelievers because they are starting from the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. According those 'rules' though, if he was being honest and consistent, he shouldn't be able to open up the Qu'ran, cherry pick a few verses that show an apparent contradiction then claim HIS special book is right, should he? Anyone want to guess the method he uses to show it has to be his path, and not that of Islam (or any other religion) that gives 'absolute truth'? By the way, fsx23, I absolutely loved listening to you debate him. It's the first time I've heard him as frustrated with someone as he makes them with his childish, dishonest word-game tactics. I'm pretty certain Sye, Eric and Ray Comfort and all those of that ilk are in it for the money and nothing more in any case.
"Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" is a loaded question that assumes the listener only thinks he/she knows things. It's also setting up a language gambit where Eric hopes to force his definitions of words like "everything," think," and "know" on the audience. In addition, it sets up a bait-and-switch that baits with "Could you be...?", a question asking "Is it possible?" Of course it's possible, but it's not probable, and it's certainly not definite. After starting at possible, Eric switches to definite when he says "You've given up knowledge." Offering what is possible is by no means an admission of what is definite. It's only possible. Bait with could, switch to definite, skip probable and hope the listener doesn't notice. Replying with "No, it's not possible" leads to the "You're using reason to justifying your reasoning, and that's viciously circular." Arcane said "viciously circular" in your debate with him. It's a circle Eric, Sye, Arcane, and anyone else using this gambit paints him/herself, and they expect the audience to stand inside it. But none of this really matters, because Eric is only talking. God cannot be talked into existence whether the argument is good or bad, honest or dishonest.
The presup relies on equivocation, special pleading and begging the question. The argument in a nutshell is simply: god is an axiom and every supposition follows from that. If you explain the Gettier Problem or the Münchhausen trilemma, don't be surprised if they throw their hands up and begin preaching to you. At this point, they've given up on rational discourse.
"Could you be wrong ab. everything you think you know?" Deserves this: Prove that i can be wrong ab. everything or think i know? After eric proves his proposition, one can say, Yes, i can be wrong about everything i think i know. However, the proposition should be changed into, Could u be wrong ab. everything u know? And forget for the time being about what one thinks one knows! This proposition needs a separate answer from the former question!! This is an entirely diff proposition than the first one [or as eric puts it]!
I also think using the word "could" indicates it's a probibility question not a yes/no question. The use of the word "everything" makes the probibility that you are wrong 0%: because you can't be wrong when you say you claim to know you are not omniscient.
Hey man. I'd like to view some of your other videos but I'm not going to click on one that is almost 5 hours long. No time for that. Can you break them down into parts?
just to say another approach to the basic question is to define the use of the word "think" as just a process of the mind hence then being able to claim certain knowledge based on the law of non contradiction (ie If i can think of my existence and my non-existence then one of these states must be true and hence I would have certain knowledge of it )
There is a good argument that the answer is no, because I know 2+2=4, or an unmarried man is a bachelor is true. Therefore I could not be wrong about everything I think I know. I know some of what I think I know is true. All tautologies are true.
*You can't possibly be wrong about everything you know.* Whether or not I'm in the matrix (I'm not even going to attempt to solve hard solipsism), I know that English is a language for communication. So English is still a language, whether or not I'm in the matrix. I know because it allows me to communicate intelligibly , regardless of the context I find myself in, reality or the matrix. *Therefore, you can't be wrong about everything*
Or a follow up for the theist: Can you be right about anything you claim to know? If yes, will this start soon? If you're in a less playful mood you could ask "Can you _demonstrate_ anything that you claim to know?" but then you're likely to be led down a tangent about trees. As it is, the refusal to admit that they haven't solved hard solipsism doesn't impress me, but it does make me laugh.
Even if God talks to someone, they cannot know anything for certain, because they still have a fallible human brain. They still have to evalutate whether the voices are really coming from God. They have to evaluate whether God is always 100% honest etc.
They know the problems with the shit argument but they can't admit to any of it being wrong because if one thing is wrong the entire argument is more fucked then it already is. Even a "god" would fall victim to this problem he could simply be an AI (in a matrix) programmed to think he knows everything. Lol
The honest answer is: Your (The apologists') question is misleading as there are many things people refer to as knowledge which are not strictly speaking knowledge. In order to not exclude them from the conversation we should be clear that by definition no one can be wrong about anything they know. But that we all have propositions commonly called knowledge which are really only accepted as provisionally accurate, subject to revision, clarification or abandonment as appropriate.
Alex is a great guy who deserves a lot of praise, but I just wanna laugh at the fact that his relatively "not at the forefront of atheism" name is the one being trotted out on stage via microphone, and that even then his points have to be misrepresented. It's like the proponents of this shit can't even get a clip of a name big enough to actually have some gravitas outside of a year dead podcast to peddle their shit and they know it.
I wanna add to this, in case it gets misunderstood. I'm not trying to put Botten down, so I'll try and add this metaphor: Alex isn't what I'd call a "professional" atheist - people like Dawkins, Justin Schieber, or Adam Lee. Nor is he a "professional" "antifundamentalist" like Eugenie Scott or so. He's not even "semi-professional" like PZ might be thought to be, what with PZ's playing significant roles in conventions. Alex is more of a "hobbyist" atheist - someone who's professional life is separate and someone who spent his free time in the great debate. It's not that his contributions are small or negligible - he's a pretty brilliant witty guy; it's just that because he's done what he's done as a hobby, he's not to held to the same standard that someone like Scott or Schieber might. But Eric very much is a "professional" Christian. His livelyhood comes from his skill as an apologist; he's not someone who's using their time to further the cause of Christianity as one might a hobby. What that means is he should be expected to be engaging at a level like Scott, Schieber, or Lee, not having to lie about hobbyist's positions. Not that Alex is bad, but the fact that Eric is a) wasting his time invoking hobbyists like they were professionals or b) not even keeping up to par and lying about them shows the sorry state of his apologetics. Yes, Botten far exceeds his standard, but Eric should hold himself above Botten's standard, but can't even do that. Yeah, really not trying to put Botten down, just trying to compare relative positions.
5:27 I've gotta disagree here. - Even if god knows something, how can he "reveal" it so you could be certain? - Presupposing god's honesty doesn't prove anything. - How does the christian "account" for god's knowledge and rationality?
Well I did say if there God could do all those things. You could also have a computer that could, or a ghost that only spoke truth. But It doesn't matter that they have provided a possibility. They have to actually demonstrate that is in fact real.
BvG 2011 Presuppers get their power for avoiding their burden of proof. They can give their imaginary being all the super powers in the world for all I care. Until this God manifest somewhere other than ancient mythological books, or the minds of believers, we have no reason to accept their claims as even possible. When I say "If that were the case" I am not admitting that their claims are possibilities. I am simply acknowledging the super powers they have assigned to their imaginary friend.
***** Quote: ‘Presuppers get their power for avoiding their burden of proof’. But they will simply respond that they ARE proving it to you on the spot… because of the so called 'impossibility of the contrary'. You know their argument: intelligibility is impossible if you don’t have some kind of absolute certainty. What I like about Jack and Rayndeon is: they show that if you consequently use words in a meaningful way god is either a god that can fail, which destroys the absoluteness of the certainty, or else is nothing more than some kind of ‘procedural’ power, a non-personal, meta-universal-natural law. Which is of course no problem for most atheists, but is not a very attractieve god for a believer.
***** I've been listening to your debate with Sye Ten again. I heard it before and had a good laugh then, because Sye is not getting anywhere. And now that I listened again, after viewing this video also, I understand better what your approach was there. I think you did real well, and your approach is useable also. Still I'd prefer Jack and Rayndeons approach. You manage to stop the presupper from getting past their starting arguments, but with your approach it still feels like you are in the defence, making their claims at least look to have some grounding. With Jack and Rayndeons approach more progress can be made. They actually manage to drive the presuppers back step by step, showing that their claims are completely bogus. But it is obviously a personal preference. Thanks for your input in the great debate. Your discussion with Sye was very good, and clearer to me after this video. Thanks for that.
Uhm, anybody answering that question HONESTLY. Though, if I were asked that question, I would never reply that I agreed that I might be wrong about "EVERY" thing, because the scientific process gives humanity a solid basis for having reliable information that is proven correct from day to day, moment to moment, etc. On the other hand, if that's a philosophical question, I DETEST the woo-woo mentality of philosophy, & consider it to be a specious attempt to derail reality-based thinking.
***** I posted that comment before I reached the part of your video in which you discuss the scientific methods & the reliable knowledge that such methods have produced - oopsies!
***** Yeah. They're asking you if you could be wrong about things that you're already uncertain of. That's how the question is phrased, but that isn't the conclusion they draw when you answer "yes." Also, "could be" wrong doesn't mean that you "are" wrong. They're trying to draw reality based conclusions from hypothetical questions.
Vlad Tepes Thank you. That was very well put. Hopefully I can remember your comment if I'm ever dealing with a cock-sure fundamentalist Christian who attempts such dishonest word-play...
***** Thanks. I try! However, like fsx23 stated, no matter what you say they will probably just respond with another hypothetical. They seem to be incapable of understanding that hypothetical questions do not inform reality. Philosophy is useful up to a certain point, but it doesn't prove anything. It ultimately equates to mental masturbation. Until they demonstrate their premise (that their particular god exists), any following proposition tied to that premise is completely irrelevant.
Kaycee K Probably just in time to be placed in a nursing home. In Canada, we would consider Ket Hovind's probability to re-offend very high. The conclusion of his prison term would be followed with some close monitoring.
mikeyvester I thought they were looking at further charges rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind www.kenthovindblog.com/ I am not sure how much creedence these sites have.... one can only hope!!!
J Zepher He is a career criminal, never had a real job in his life. I read his dissertation for his diploma mill Ph.D. He is barely literate. If he has to mke a living for himself, he will do what knows best, conning the gullable.
mikeyvester I can defeat the Presuppisitional Argument once and for all. I know with 100% certainty that Kent Hovind is a corrupt, liar that strives off of deluding the ignorant especially the honestly ignorant including children. (Why do you think he made an amusement park and referred to himself as Mr. Dino?) It's funny how apologists and creationists love to mention satan as a deceiver, but that is what their whole career is based upon.
Beer always makes the editing process go better.
"Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy." -Benjamin Franklin
One thing that's always annoyed me about presup is that I have knowledge that I've created and defined. When I was born, I was named Micheal. Very early in my childhood, I wanted it to be Michael, and it was done. I cannot be wrong about my name, as I in a sense gave it to myself. A rare scenario, but to be more inclusive, how many parents could be wrong about their child's name?
Or take 1=1 or 1+1=2. 1 must necessarily be equal to 1. An object or entity must be self-equivalent at all times.
These are basic examples and I'm a poor communicator, but I value trading ideas in argument too highly to tolerate what amounts to trolling for popular appeal.
Good to see an fsx23 video as always.
Arguing against presupp is like porn... eventually you'll be back.
Even the apologists who claim that they aren't presuppers have been using bits from the script here lately.
Even Scott Hahn, who's a _Catholic_ apologist, used the ploy of quoting Romans 1:18-20, in his last book, without the first half of v.20 just like Sye and his pals used to do, replacing it with "...." Incidentally, I haven't heard any of the presupps do that for quite a while, which is progress. Kind of.
TabletopJoe33 You bring up a crucial point. In fact, it's so crucial that it destroys their entire position. Their premise hinges on the "all men know that god exists" assertion which they garnish from those verses. I addressed this a few weeks ago on another video. Here's the comment:
Romans 1:18-25 -
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
This is where Christians (most of them) stop reading and say "See, everyone on the planet knows that God exists!" But let's read on, shall we?
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
This passage describes ancient paganism, not atheism. The men (v.18) and the "they" (v.20) in the letter are pagans of the Roman empire. Note where it says they "abandoned the real god to worship images of men and beasts." (v.23) This is an illustration of the State instituted religion of Emperor worship. Many of the Caesars erected statues of themselves and demanded to be worshiped as gods. Persecution of those who refused to comply (Jews, Christians, Druids, followers of Bacchus, etc.) was common place. The other pagan deities were often depicted as various types of animals (Paul viewed this as "worshiping the creation rather than the creator.")
That said, we're talking about a SPECIFIC god here (Jesus / Yahweh). For Christians (particularly Presuppostionalists) to claim that "all men know God exists" is a falsehood for this reason alone. They will say "all men know god exists." To which I reply "Which god?" They will reply "There's only one god." The glaring problem with that assertion is that people have to be TOLD about this god. It's not innately known, rather it's spread by word of mouth. It's a demonstrable fact that there are people on this planet (past and present) who have never heard of Jesus, Yahweh, or the Bible. So how then, can "all" men be "without excuse"? Because if Jesus is the only way, and you gotta be told,.....yeah. They're taking the passage out of context, it's as simple as that. Even if the author of Romans did intend to convey the "all men know god exists" message, it would still be false, because again, it's a specific.
Vlad Tepes this why you need look at the story with in the bible not just a verse or a few.
Dùbhghlas .Douglas Bingo! They like to take passages and divorce them from the surrounding context.
Also challenge him on the spirit of debate. If you are not open to the possibility you are wrong, you are not debating, you are preaching.
He opened by saying "if you are intellectually honest, you would have to admit that you could be wrong about everything you know". This was a crucial admission about presuppositionalism: it is an intellectually dishonest tactic because it claims that the presup cannot be wrong.
I'm absolutely certain that I don't know everything, and that I'm not god.
How do you know that? 🤣🤣
The fallacy you're pointing out is called "shifting the ground". As you point out, the conclusion is based on Alex's actual knowledge while the question addresses Alex's level of conviction in the veracity of that knowledge. Eric and Sye and the other Presups understand this, but without this deception their entire argument falls apart... then they would have to earn an honest living.
I also think you were being a bit too generous in saying that if a god exists that knows everything that we could then be certain of his revelation. The best we could get is a subjective sense of certainty, because as long as we have imperfect brains getting signals from our imperfect senses we have no rational claim to logical certainty no matter what the source.
I agree with you though, Presuppositionalism has been debunked six ways from Sunday, and yet they keep spewing the same nonsense. I tire of their games.
Hey Dan! So by definition if a God had absolute knowledge and the ability to let you know some things for certain, sure in that hypothetical you could know things absolutely.
Technically you wouldn't even need a "God" for that. Anything with sufficient abilities to give you that knowledge would suffice.
My point is that their hypothetical is pointless. And that is because they have a lot to demonstrate. You brought up some of the problems they would have to account for.
There argument frankly is very much like playing a game with a small child. They don't want to lose so they constantly change the rules, break the rules and quibble over the meaning of the rules.
We can't play rock, scissors, paper because they will call the nuclear bomb only they can use.
The funny thing is that they get so much satisfaction out of an argument that amounts to cheating.
***** You are correct... although each theist will claim that they have the one true revelation. If the supposed revelations are contradictory, then it's up to our judgement to determine which is correct. That is, of course, what I've argued all along... that ultimately it's up to our flawed human judgement to determine what is true.
***** I have heard Sye say (a number of times) that he doesn't do bible study with non-believers. This is his way of saying that you need to accept the conclusion before you can be let in on the secret of knowing the premise. There is of course no secret, because invariably each person claiming divine revelation simply asserts that their understanding is the one true revelation and all others are mistaken.
+Dan Courtney
He doesn't do Bible study with unbelievers because they are starting from the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. According those 'rules' though, if he was being honest and consistent, he shouldn't be able to open up the Qu'ran, cherry pick a few verses that show an apparent contradiction then claim HIS special book is right, should he?
Anyone want to guess the method he uses to show it has to be his path, and not that of Islam (or any other religion) that gives 'absolute truth'?
By the way, fsx23, I absolutely loved listening to you debate him. It's the first time I've heard him as frustrated with someone as he makes them with his childish, dishonest word-game tactics. I'm pretty certain Sye, Eric and Ray Comfort and all those of that ilk are in it for the money and nothing more in any case.
I don't think I've ever clicked the subscribe button this fast. 👏👏 Fsx23
Thank you for the definition and clearing up a few things I wasn't sure about me
"Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" is a loaded question that assumes the listener only thinks he/she knows things. It's also setting up a language gambit where Eric hopes to force his definitions of words like "everything," think," and "know" on the audience.
In addition, it sets up a bait-and-switch that baits with "Could you be...?", a question asking "Is it possible?" Of course it's possible, but it's not probable, and it's certainly not definite. After starting at possible, Eric switches to definite when he says "You've given up knowledge." Offering what is possible is by no means an admission of what is definite. It's only possible. Bait with could, switch to definite, skip probable and hope the listener doesn't notice.
Replying with "No, it's not possible" leads to the "You're using reason to justifying your reasoning, and that's viciously circular." Arcane said "viciously circular" in your debate with him. It's a circle Eric, Sye, Arcane, and anyone else using this gambit paints him/herself, and they expect the audience to stand inside it.
But none of this really matters, because Eric is only talking. God cannot be talked into existence whether the argument is good or bad, honest or dishonest.
The presup relies on equivocation, special pleading and begging the question. The argument in a nutshell is simply: god is an axiom and every supposition follows from that. If you explain the Gettier Problem or the Münchhausen trilemma, don't be surprised if they throw their hands up and begin preaching to you. At this point, they've given up on rational discourse.
I understand the words he is saying, therefore I can't be wrong about everything I know.
Paul
hahaha you grab the beer I grab the joint.
"Could you be wrong ab. everything you think you know?" Deserves this:
Prove that i can be wrong ab. everything or think i know? After eric proves his proposition, one can say, Yes, i can be wrong about everything i think i know.
However, the proposition should be changed into, Could u be wrong ab. everything u know? And forget for the time being about what one thinks one knows! This proposition needs a separate answer from the former question!!
This is an entirely diff proposition than the first one [or as eric puts it]!
James Randi pointed out to him that he does know things.
Eric Hovind meets James Randi
Paul
Good answer fsx23. I like what you said in this video. :)
I also think using the word "could" indicates it's a probibility question not a yes/no question. The use of the word "everything" makes the probibility that you are wrong 0%: because you can't be wrong when you say you claim to know you are not omniscient.
Hey man. I'd like to view some of your other videos but I'm not going to click on one that is almost 5 hours long. No time for that. Can you break them down into parts?
The answer should be....yes, I could be wrong,now prove that Im wrong and your right.
Fsx23, have you read Dan Courtney's book yet? I have it if you want to check out his reflections on the various aspects of the presup argument.
I haven't yet. I have talked with him in the past. And he made a video about me and the point I'm making.
just to say another approach to the basic question is to define the use of the word "think" as just a process of the mind hence then being able to claim certain knowledge based on the law of non contradiction (ie If i can think of my existence and my non-existence then one of these states must be true and hence I would have certain knowledge of it )
Are you going to that creation presentation at CCU on Tuesday? I think I might be going, looking to see if any other Colorado atheists are going.
I didn't know about it.
Thought it might be interesting to attend
Just found your Sye video and like your zeal consider me subscribed
There is a good argument that the answer is no, because I know 2+2=4, or an unmarried man is a bachelor is true. Therefore I could not be wrong about everything I think I know. I know some of what I think I know is true. All tautologies are true.
Will you still keep your Channel up?
Thats a tasty looking beer, just saying.
Presuppositionalism: the Pee-wee Herman of Apologetics.
*You can't possibly be wrong about everything you know.*
Whether or not I'm in the matrix (I'm not even going to attempt to solve hard solipsism), I know that English is a language for communication. So English is still a language, whether or not I'm in the matrix. I know because it allows me to communicate intelligibly , regardless of the context I find myself in, reality or the matrix.
*Therefore, you can't be wrong about everything*
a more accurate question would be,, can you be wrong about everything you '' believe'' .
Or a follow up for the theist: Can you be right about anything you claim to know? If yes, will this start soon?
If you're in a less playful mood you could ask "Can you _demonstrate_ anything that you claim to know?" but then you're likely to be led down a tangent about trees. As it is, the refusal to admit that they haven't solved hard solipsism doesn't impress me, but it does make me laugh.
Even if God talks to someone, they cannot know anything for certain, because they still have a fallible human brain. They still have to evalutate whether the voices are really coming from God. They have to evaluate whether God is always 100% honest etc.
No, I'm not wrong about everything I know, because if I was I couldn't talk to people. Also Eric is a liar and I also know that.
They know the problems with the shit argument but they can't admit to any of it being wrong because if one thing is wrong the entire argument is more fucked then it already is.
Even a "god" would fall victim to this problem he could simply be an AI (in a matrix) programmed to think he knows everything. Lol
The honest answer is:
Your (The apologists') question is misleading as there are many things people refer to as knowledge which are not strictly speaking knowledge. In order to not exclude them from the conversation we should be clear that by definition no one can be wrong about anything they know. But that we all have propositions commonly called knowledge which are really only accepted as provisionally accurate, subject to revision, clarification or abandonment as appropriate.
Alex is a great guy who deserves a lot of praise, but I just wanna laugh at the fact that his relatively "not at the forefront of atheism" name is the one being trotted out on stage via microphone, and that even then his points have to be misrepresented. It's like the proponents of this shit can't even get a clip of a name big enough to actually have some gravitas outside of a year dead podcast to peddle their shit and they know it.
I wanna add to this, in case it gets misunderstood. I'm not trying to put Botten down, so I'll try and add this metaphor:
Alex isn't what I'd call a "professional" atheist - people like Dawkins, Justin Schieber, or Adam Lee. Nor is he a "professional" "antifundamentalist" like Eugenie Scott or so. He's not even "semi-professional" like PZ might be thought to be, what with PZ's playing significant roles in conventions. Alex is more of a "hobbyist" atheist - someone who's professional life is separate and someone who spent his free time in the great debate. It's not that his contributions are small or negligible - he's a pretty brilliant witty guy; it's just that because he's done what he's done as a hobby, he's not to held to the same standard that someone like Scott or Schieber might.
But Eric very much is a "professional" Christian. His livelyhood comes from his skill as an apologist; he's not someone who's using their time to further the cause of Christianity as one might a hobby. What that means is he should be expected to be engaging at a level like Scott, Schieber, or Lee, not having to lie about hobbyist's positions. Not that Alex is bad, but the fact that Eric is a) wasting his time invoking hobbyists like they were professionals or b) not even keeping up to par and lying about them shows the sorry state of his apologetics. Yes, Botten far exceeds his standard, but Eric should hold himself above Botten's standard, but can't even do that.
Yeah, really not trying to put Botten down, just trying to compare relative positions.
5:27 I've gotta disagree here.
- Even if god knows something, how can he "reveal" it so you could be certain?
- Presupposing god's honesty doesn't prove anything.
- How does the christian "account" for god's knowledge and rationality?
Well I did say if there God could do all those things.
You could also have a computer that could, or a ghost that only spoke truth. But It doesn't matter that they have provided a possibility. They have to actually demonstrate that is in fact real.
BvG 2011
Presuppers get their power for avoiding their burden of proof. They can give their imaginary being all the super powers in the world for all I care. Until this God manifest somewhere other than ancient mythological books, or the minds of believers, we have no reason to accept their claims as even possible.
When I say "If that were the case" I am not admitting that their claims are possibilities. I am simply acknowledging the super powers they have assigned to their imaginary friend.
*****
Quote: ‘Presuppers get their power for avoiding their burden of proof’. But they will simply respond that they ARE proving it to you on the spot… because of the so called 'impossibility of the contrary'. You know their argument: intelligibility is impossible if you don’t have some kind of absolute certainty.
What I like about Jack and Rayndeon is: they show that if you consequently use words in a meaningful way god is either a god that can fail, which destroys the absoluteness of the certainty, or else is nothing more than some kind of ‘procedural’ power, a non-personal, meta-universal-natural law. Which is of course no problem for most atheists, but is not a very attractieve god for a believer.
*****
I've been listening to your debate with Sye Ten again. I heard it before and had a good laugh then, because Sye is not getting anywhere. And now that I listened again, after viewing this video also, I understand better what your approach was there. I think you did real well, and your approach is useable also.
Still I'd prefer Jack and Rayndeons approach. You manage to stop the presupper from getting past their starting arguments, but with your approach it still feels like you are in the defence, making their claims at least look to have some grounding. With Jack and Rayndeons approach more progress can be made. They actually manage to drive the presuppers back step by step, showing that their claims are completely bogus.
But it is obviously a personal preference. Thanks for your input in the great debate. Your discussion with Sye was very good, and clearer to me after this video. Thanks for that.
BvG 2011
Could you link me to a video where I can see what you're talking about with "Jack and Rayndeon" please?
Uhm, anybody answering that question HONESTLY. Though, if I were asked that question, I would never reply that I agreed that I might be wrong about "EVERY" thing, because the scientific process gives humanity a solid basis for having reliable information that is proven correct from day to day, moment to moment, etc.
On the other hand, if that's a philosophical question, I DETEST the woo-woo mentality of philosophy, & consider it to be a specious attempt to derail reality-based thinking.
Well in the category "think" I know.
***** I posted that comment before I reached the part of your video in which you discuss the scientific methods & the reliable knowledge that such methods have produced - oopsies!
***** Yeah. They're asking you if you could be wrong about things that you're already uncertain of. That's how the question is phrased, but that isn't the conclusion they draw when you answer "yes." Also, "could be" wrong doesn't mean that you "are" wrong. They're trying to draw reality based conclusions from hypothetical questions.
Vlad Tepes Thank you. That was very well put. Hopefully I can remember your comment if I'm ever dealing with a cock-sure fundamentalist Christian who attempts such dishonest word-play...
***** Thanks. I try! However, like fsx23 stated, no matter what you say they will probably just respond with another hypothetical. They seem to be incapable of understanding that hypothetical questions do not inform reality. Philosophy is useful up to a certain point, but it doesn't prove anything. It ultimately equates to mental masturbation. Until they demonstrate their premise (that their particular god exists), any following proposition tied to that premise is completely irrelevant.
cerTain not cer en
That whole video of Eric was bad, shitty "scientific" arguments that have been constantly refuted with presup on top.
Isn't his daddy getting out of prrison soon?
July of 2015 is when the senior Hovind idiot is scheduled to be released from federal custody.
Kaycee K
Probably just in time to be placed in a nursing home. In Canada, we would consider Ket Hovind's probability to re-offend very high. The conclusion of his prison term would be followed with some close monitoring.
mikeyvester
I thought they were looking at further charges
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
www.kenthovindblog.com/
I am not sure how much creedence these sites have.... one can only hope!!!
J Zepher
He is a career criminal, never had a real job in his life. I read his dissertation for his diploma mill Ph.D. He is barely literate. If he has to mke a living for himself, he will do what knows best, conning the gullable.
mikeyvester I can defeat the Presuppisitional Argument once and for all. I know with 100% certainty that Kent Hovind is a corrupt, liar that strives off of deluding the ignorant especially the honestly ignorant including children. (Why do you think he made an amusement park and referred to himself as Mr. Dino?) It's funny how apologists and creationists love to mention satan as a deceiver, but that is what their whole career is based upon.