My mind is closed to accepting theism as credible.

(March 27, 2021 at 7:48 am)Superjock Wrote: So Darths argument starts with the following - in the Christian worldview God is the ultimate and necessary prerequisite and basis for all intelligibiliy, facts and truth). How does he know that? Because God revealed it through divine revelation and did so in a way that he couldn't be wrong. Now by denying this worldview, by necessity, you are denying the Christian God.

Ah. I see what's up. He begins with a prejudice. "God revealed it through divine revelation and did so in a way that he couldn't be wrong."

I don't accept this. And THIS (rather than what is needed for a proper foundation of knowledge) is what is being debated by Darth guy. Darth guy pretends that he isn't saying "Believe me, it's all here in the big book." He wants to seem more credible than that. He wants to seem like he cares about facts and the truth. But, no. He doesn't. He wants you to believe what's in his book. The same lame-ass schtick, but dressed up in logical garb.

"I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer. It's an honest answer. A humble answer. But rather than teaching him humility, Darth's religion has (like many believers) left him with a bloated sense of self-importance. (But they still call that "humility"... never understood that.)

I wouldn't waste my time with him. But if you DO (I have found myself unable to resist debates before, trust me) then bring up a mundane example, like I did with my coffee mug. How does a believer have better knowledge that a coffee mug sits before them as opposed to a nonbeliever? It's nonsense to say they do. But just hearing him explain how "only the believer really knows the mug is there" may be worth a chuckle. It's hard to say something like that without sounding like an idiot. Of course I know my coffee mug sits in front of me. ANYONE can know that sort of thing. Regardless of his religious beliefs. It's just plain stupid to claim otherwise.

Mundane knowledge, like where a coffee mug sits, is in principle no different from any other kind of knowledge.

At work.

(March 27, 2021 at 7:48 am)Superjock Wrote:

(March 27, 2021 at 5:11 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Hello again Superjock.  

I'd just like to interact with you for a bit myself.

Do you know what the Theists mean when they ask for 'Absolute'?

I find myself puzzling over the definition/answer required myself.

For example.  Science/people know of the concept of 'Absolute zero'. Juet because we have the concept of that particular 'Absolute' doesn't  mean that we can achieve such a state controlled or otherwise. Nor does that absolute carry over into their conversation.

 I also find the idea that because person a admits/states 'No absolute' thence the next reply is "Hah! Can't know anyhthing!" has also always left me scratching my head.

I just don't see how they get from idea 'A' to idea (Or rebbutal) 'B'.

  Still. Hope everyone's replys are helpful. I'm also learning a lot as posts add up.

 Much cheers.

So Darths argument starts with the following - in the Christian worldview God is the ultimate and necessary prerequisite and basis for all intelligibiliy, facts and truth). How does he know that? Because God revealed it through divine revelation and did so in a way that he couldn't be wrong. Now by denying this worldview, by necessity, you are denying the Christian God.

SO....of course at this point you'll say I don't believe the Christian worldview. So if someone doesn't believe God is the ultimate and necessary prerequisite and basis for all intelligiblity then he will say, OKAY THEN, so what is your framework with which to ground your foundation - WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL AND ULTIMATE that grounds all facts and constitutes what is possible and what is impossible? 

Most atheists will then say, "I don't know", or some presuppose reality. Then he will say, what grounds reality concretely? "I don't know", says the atheist. "Okay, so your position is then arbitrary and incoherent" then. You can't know anything in a godless world - it's a universe of chance according to the atheist position.

I apologise if I haven't restated his position perfectly but it's a lot to remember. You can find out for yourself by googling or watching youtube videos. But even if we ignore Darth, his followers are using this logic so I'd like to know how to refute his position and so far I don't think I've heard a slamdunk yet, but I could be wrong.

Anyone else who can do the legwork and report back here with a refutation?

Well..... the first question to all that is "Just how did this 'Revelation' get into the subject's head?"

The next question might be "So you've had something happen within your head (The as of yet unexplained 'Revelation') so how is such a thing 'Not' subjective?"

What yard stick does the "Revelation in their head" use to measure its not wrong?

Just some tuoughts/replies.

Cheers.

(March 27, 2021 at 7:48 am)Superjock Wrote: Okay, so your position is then arbitrary and incoherent" then. You can't know anything in a godless world - it's a universe of chance according to the atheist position.

Easy legwork.  That's a non sequitur.  

Perhaps an atheist does know what the Ultimate Ground™ is, perhaps they don't..maybe it exists and maybe it doesn't....maybe that's a problem and maybe it isn't.....but none of these states of affairs in any combination will be able to support the claim that The Atheist Worldview™ is then arbitrary, incoherent, or a chance based universe.

All of that, absolutely all of it, would follow as a consequence of his insistence in his own worldview...and then being wrong about a god. Sounds like poor darth doesn't know shit, can't know shit, and doesn't even know how to know shit. I, otoh, know my name regardless of whether a meat fairy sent a magic book to ghost monkeys.

Still his problem.

If a god exists and reveals truth to you, then why does he only reveal truth when your eyes are open.

Put a blindfold on and start driving a car. Let's see how much truth this presupposed god will reveal.

The answer is none.

If I ask you to cut a board that is 136 long without measuring, your god will reveal to you the wrong information every single time.

A presupposed god will be wrong about everything.

(March 27, 2021 at 2:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 26, 2021 at 12:47 pm)Superjock Wrote: To fellow atheists, somewhat different question - but a question I often see from theists. The question goes : where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim they make?

There is a whole field of philosophy devoted to this. It's called "epistemology." It is a matter of rigorous debate upon what basis we have knowledge.

A pretty solid theory is correspondence theory. It says that knowledge is a "justified true belief." 

Just to be precise, the correspondence theory is a theory of truth, not knowledge. According to correspondence theory, what makes something true is that it corresponds to a state of affairs in reality. There are other theories of truth. The justified true belief bit I believe started with Plato, and it's long been known to be inadequate, but it get's the lion's share of what needs to be in a definition of knowledge right. For a bit about the inadequacy, look into the Gettier problem.

(March 27, 2021 at 11:35 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(March 27, 2021 at 2:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: There is a whole field of philosophy devoted to this. It's called "epistemology." It is a matter of rigorous debate upon what basis we have knowledge.

A pretty solid theory is correspondence theory. It says that knowledge is a "justified true belief." 

Just to be precise, the correspondence theory is a theory of truth, not knowledge.  According to correspondence theory, what makes something true is that it corresponds to a state of affairs in reality.  There are other theories of truth.  The justified true belief bit I believe started with Plato, and it's long been known to be inadequate, but it get's the lion's share of what needs to be in a definition of knowledge right.  For a bit about the inadequacy, look into the Gettier problem.

Whoops. I've actually have been mixing that up for quite some time.

Well, I knew that correspondence theory was about beliefs corresponding to the world. I also knew it was from the analytic school too. But I took it to be an updated version of the Greek postulate. I guess I was wrong there. Thanks for correcting me.

Is it against forum rules to post Youtube video links in a thread? I ask because I just finished listening to a live stream and I want you guys to listen to this and give a dissection - it's the exact argument I've posed but you can hear it for yourself.

(March 27, 2021 at 7:08 pm)Superjock Wrote: Is it against forum rules to post Youtube video links in a thread? I ask because I just finished listening to a live stream and I want you guys to listen to this and give a dissection - it's the exact argument I've posed but you can hear it for yourself.

Forum Rules Wrote:New members must make 30 posts and be a member for 30 days before they are allowed to post external content, such as links, images, or videos.

Note: An exception to the 30/30 requirements is when external content is used within a discussion or with the intention of discussion. For example, a member who has not yet met the 30/30 requirements is allowed to post external content if they are using it as evidence in a discussion, or if it is relevant to the ongoing discussion.

When in doubt, ask staff first. The "Questions For Staff" subforum allows you to engage staff in a discussion that only you and staff can see. (link)

(March 27, 2021 at 7:12 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(March 27, 2021 at 7:08 pm)Superjock Wrote: Is it against forum rules to post Youtube video links in a thread? I ask because I just finished listening to a live stream and I want you guys to listen to this and give a dissection - it's the exact argument I've posed but you can hear it for yourself.

Forum Rules Wrote:New members must make 30 posts and be a member for 30 days before they are allowed to post external content, such as links, images, or videos.

Note: An exception to the 30/30 requirements is when external content is used within a discussion or with the intention of discussion. For example, a member who has not yet met the 30/30 requirements is allowed to post external content if they are using it as evidence in a discussion, or if it is relevant to the ongoing discussion.

Angrboda is correct.  You can find the forum rules toward the top left of most screens.

Thanks for the help Angrboda.