Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.

[Jackalope]

You're all confusing presuppositionalism with a conclusion. Like I said. Point 1 fails. Badly. An prime example of skewed logic.

Soundness is concerned with the truth value of an argument. Let's example point 1:

A logical argument with an assumed premise is unsound.

A assumed premise has no determinate truth value. The soundness of an argument depends on the truth value of it's premises. The truth of an arguments conclusions necessarily depend on the truth of it's premises.

If the truth value of the premises of an argument are indeterminable, then it logically follows that the truth value of the conclusions are likewise indeterminable.

Therefore, the soundness (truth value) of a presuppositional argument (i.e. on with assumed premises) is indeterminable.

Still checkmate.

---

Whether or not Santa can be known to be not real depends entirely on what you mean by 'knowledge', and defining knowledge in a consistent way is extremely difficult - or maybe I'm just a "tedious cunt".

Anybody that will sit there and debate that they don't know that Santa is not real, is a tedious cunt, because I'm talking about the earth based story about an earth based being, that of course we know is made up.

Well, as theVOID indicated, that all depends on what is meant by 'know' and 'knowledge'.

In the sense of the common meaning of the word, yes, of course I know that Santa is not real, for the reasons you state, amongst others.

In the epistemological sense, it can only be known to a degree of certainty, even if that certainty is nearly indistinguishable from certainty. Yes, I realize that to you this seems absurd - but there is always a non-zero chance that our perceptions and observations are inaccurate. This is one reason why science does not claim to discover truth, except to any degree of certainty.

What this means to me, is that in casual conversation, I'm perfectly willing to assert (for example) that deities do not exist. However, in the context of a serious discussion on the subject, I'm not going to make such a firm claim as I cannot assert same is true in an epistemological sense (i.e. justified true belief) to a certainty. I can say that I believe it to be true, and give my justifications to it's truth, but I cannot claim it to be The Truth.

Is a lot of philosophy nothing but bullshit exercises in mental masturbation? Of course. But it is also philosophy which is the basis of scientific method, and that which tells us that there are things we can only know to a degree of certainty, subject to error in observation, perception, and deduction.

And yes, of course I agree that Santa does not exist.