Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.

[theVOID]

@ VOID right thanks. There can be no set truth value because otherwise it woyuldn't be an assumption.

Yes, and all presuppositionalist apologetics have assumed premises, so neither the premises or the conclusions can be given credence.

That the assumption leads to substantial truth value then of course you have to dismiss it, which is a weakness of your denial I think.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that you can be confident in the truth of an argument for which you have no choice but to assume the truth of the premise?

It's no wonder why we don't take presuppositionalists seriously, it's not that theistic arguments can't be interesting and/or persuasive, it's that the confidence of the proponents (such as yourself) is so far in excess of what is possible to demonstrate that their approach to knowing about the world becomes completely and utterly indefensible and their biases explicit.

---

How do we know we made him up? Because he goes down everybodies chimney in 24 hours and this is obviously impossible, therefore the santa that we describe today CANNOT BE real. So, he's made up.

If you define knowledge as something along the lines of;

The conclusion of a valid argument given the best information we have about the world

Then yes, we can know that Santa isn't real.

But here's the problem, something you seem to be entirely overlooking:

There are some pretty obvious flaws with that type of definition, the main one being that at any given point in time, 200 years ago for example, there were many different valid conclusions given the best available information, some of which we now know to be false, like someone 200 years ago who knew that the geometry of space was euclidean...

I find the most consistent definition of knowledge involves proof, to me it makes no sense to say that something used to be known, but has now been shown to be false, it's far more useful to say "this was once the most well substantiated belief"

[Tiberius]

Not even worthy of a fucking answer.

When you want to grow up and talk about the problems with your philosophical musings further, please let me know.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Not even worthy of a fucking answer.

When you want to grow up and talk about the problems with your philosophical musings further, please let me know.

I did.

If you think there is even a tiniest possibility that a fat bloke in a suit can get down every kids chimney in a 24 hour period then it is you that needs to grow up not me.

Like I said, it wasn't worthy of a reply, it just wasn't. It still isn't. But I just gave you one anyway.

I really hope that you are just trying to be funny.

[leo-rcc]

Nobody is arguing in favour of a Santa Clause existing, but you keep using the conclusion that he doesn't exist as the support that your initial premise must therefore be correct. You got the logic completely backwards.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Nobody is arguing in favour of a Santa Clause existing, but you keep using the conclusion that he doesn't exist as the support that your initial premise must therefore be correct. You got the logic completely backwards.

It's not about logic at this point. It is about the notion that people who consider themselves philosophers will not completely rule out that santa does might exist, which is barmy. There is zero chance of the santa as he is defined in popular culture existing. Why can't we just come out and say it?

[theVOID]

Nobody is arguing in favour of a Santa Clause existing, but you keep using the conclusion that he doesn't exist as the support that your initial premise must therefore be correct. You got the logic completely backwards.

It's not about logic at this point. It is about the notion that people who consider themselves philosophers will not completely rule out that santa does might exist, which is barmy. There is zero chance of the santa as he is defined in popular culture existing. Why can't we just come out and say it?

I don't think you get it... The thought process is the important part, not the conclusion, and like it or not this process forces us to realise uncomfortable and unintuitive truths about our capacity to know things, namely the fact that even deciding what we mean by 'knowledge' and defining it in a consistent way is in the first place extremely difficult.

Yeah, I'm as certain that Santa doesn't exist as I am about pretty much anything, but I still can't demonstrate it without some non-zero probability that I'm wrong - this is necessarily true given that some of the premises used to conclude that Santa doesn't exist are themselves uncertain.

If you equate knowledge with proof or certainty I can't say that I know Santa exists, if you're using the word in the loose colloquial sense then sure, he doesn't exist.

But it's not straight forward - If you like logic and reason you'll have to get used to that fact.

[Tiberius]

It's not about logic at this point. It is about the notion that people who consider themselves philosophers will not completely rule out that santa does might exist, which is barmy. There is zero chance of the santa as he is defined in popular culture existing. Why can't we just come out and say it?

The point is, you haven't proved that there is zero chance of him existing. There are (to my knowledge) no logical contradictions in the standard description of Santa Claus that prevent him from existing. We can argue with absolutely certainty (and knowledge) that there are no square circles, since the existence of a square circle is logically impossible.

Find a logical contradiction surrounding Santa and I'll admit you are correct.

Oh, and things that fly in the face of science aren't logical contradictions, due to the fact that science is built upon the possibility of being completely wrong about everything (falsification).

[frankiej]

I'm going to have to agree with Norfolk here...well, kind of ... Philosophy goes a bit to far with doubt.

But, I do understand your point, Adrian.

People are too uptight about philosophical thinking, and because of this, people argue about the stupidest things... like the existence of Santa Claus
I respect the logic used when it is used for respectable purposes.

[thesummerqueen]

My head hurts. Quit humping the philosophy textbooks.

[frankiej]

My head hurts. Quit humping the philosophy textbooks.

Yeah... What she said.