Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[fr0d0]

Fail

Your supposed refutation is unrelated.

Er, how is it unrelated? You said - did you not? - that what one knows cannot be faulty?

This knowledge isn't flawed and has never been refuted. Like I said, you could suggest alternatives that may or may not provide as complete an answer (i'm not aware of any).

I think by saying that you show you don't know what you're talking about on this. If you're treating knowledge as a justified true belief, then you can be wrong about things you "know" under that epistemic model: the Gettier cases. Take the following thought experiment:

A person sees two large barns out in the distance. Given the time of day, the side of the barns the persons sees are dark, so he can't make out much of anything about them aside from their general shape. Unbeknownst to this person, only one of the two objects is an actual barn. One of them is in fact just a large cardboard cutout. Epistemically (under Plato's theory of knowledge), no matter which barn this person looks at, they can say they "know" it's a barn. After all, this belief is held with justification (observation, in this case) such that no matter which barn the person looks at, it seems that they "know" that they're looking at a barn. And yet, if the person is only looking at the cardboard cutout they'd be wrong that he knew it was a barn. And yet, regardless of which one they look at, there appears to be no epistemic difference to the person that allows them to distinguish false knowledge from true knowledge if their means of justification is, unknown to them, faulty.

"Cannot be faulty" is your own straw man.

I don't claim that the information cannot be improved upon. It just hasn't been thus far. Maybe the barn is a cardboard cut out, but no one has yet been able to show that it's not a barn, and many aspects of this barn are realised, pointing to an actual barn existing.

---

.

Nothing to say as usual I see.

Seriously... I'm looking forward to the day that you actually come up with an idea.

---

Some above moon flower. Do your worst.

It doesn't work that way, frods, and you know it.

I am not positing anything that needs to be supported, you are. My position is a response to you positing the existence of a god.

I wasn't aware that I was positing anything that needed supporting either. As an aside, could you put into words what you want me to defend?

It doesn't work that way... That I've already defended rational points in this thread? If you can't see those, then there seems to be no point in wasting my breath with more.

[Ryantology]

"Cannot be faulty" is your own straw man.

I don't claim that the information cannot be improved upon. It just hasn't been thus far. Maybe the barn is a cardboard cut out, but no one has yet been able to show that it's not a barn, and many aspects of this barn are realised, pointing to an actual barn existing.

he said, furiously gesturing with grunts and flatulence àt a nearby empty field.

[h

[Coffee Jesus]

"Cannot be faulty" is your own straw man.

I don't claim that the information cannot be improved upon. It just hasn't been thus far. Maybe the barn is a cardboard cut out, but no one has yet been able to show that it's not a barn, and many aspects of this barn are realised, pointing to an actual barn existing.

Actually, you did, then you contradicted it in the very next sentence. I've highlighted it below.

With no ability to actually know that your assumption is true, or is even based upon truth, what makes you think you can gain any kind of knowledge from your belief?

We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted.

Your materialism is destroyed.

Fail

Your supposed refutation is unrelated.

Er, how is it unrelated? You said - did you not? - that what one knows cannot be faulty?

This knowledge isn't flawed and has never been refuted. Like I said, you could suggest alternatives that may or may not provide as complete an answer (i'm not aware of any).

I think by saying that you show you don't know what you're talking about on this. If you're treating knowledge as a justified true belief, then you can be wrong about things you "know" under that epistemic model: the Gettier cases. Take the following thought experiment:

A person sees two large barns out in the distance. Given the time of day, the side of the barns the persons sees are dark, so he can't make out much of anything about them aside from their general shape. Unbeknownst to this person, only one of the two objects is an actual barn. One of them is in fact just a large cardboard cutout. Epistemically (under Plato's theory of knowledge), no matter which barn this person looks at, they can say they "know" it's a barn. After all, this belief is held with justification (observation, in this case) such that no matter which barn the person looks at, it seems that they "know" that they're looking at a barn. And yet, if the person is only looking at the cardboard cutout they'd be wrong that he knew it was a barn. And yet, regardless of which one they look at, there appears to be no epistemic difference to the person that allows them to distinguish false knowledge from true knowledge if their means of justification is, unknown to them, faulty.

"Cannot be faulty" is your own straw man.

I don't claim that the information cannot be improved upon. It just hasn't been thus far. Maybe the barn is a cardboard cut out, but no one has yet been able to show that it's not a barn, and many aspects of this barn are realised, pointing to an actual barn existing.

[Ryantology]

I can't actually believe that there are people in this century who actually think that a valid definition of knowledge is "assertions which can't be tested". That's not simply not knowledge. It's anti knowledge. It defines the very concept of deliberate ignorance. It is the ultimate expression of every worthless idea and small thought. It is the literal essence of stupidity.

[fr0d0]

Actually, you did, then you contradicted it in the very next sentence.

No I didn't. Go read it again and try to see what is actually being said.

---

I can't actually believe that there are people in this century who actually think that a valid definition of knowledge is "assertions which can't be tested". That's not simply not knowledge. It's anti knowledge. It defines the very concept of deliberate ignorance. It is the ultimate expression of every worthless idea and small thought. It is the literal essence of stupidity.

Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite. I even showed you how all knowledge, including knowledge of the divine, is based upon reality.

[Bad Writer]

"Read everything I wrote until you understand it." Fuck off. If you didn't make sense to us the first time, then there's little hope of you making sense the second time. Your best hope is to actually start making sense, whatever that might entail, and I don't see flying pigs 'round these here parts.

[Coffee Jesus]

Actually, you did, then you contradicted it in the very next sentence.

No I didn't. Go read it again and try to see what is actually being said.

We call that which is invisible "unseen". If it's invisible, then you can build on its invisibility until you see it.

[fr0d0]

There is no try

[Rampant.A.I.]

Actually, you did, then you contradicted it in the very next sentence.

No I didn't. Go read it again and try to see what is actually being said.

---

I can't actually believe that there are people in this century who actually think that a valid definition of knowledge is "assertions which can't be tested". That's not simply not knowledge. It's anti knowledge. It defines the very concept of deliberate ignorance. It is the ultimate expression of every worthless idea and small thought. It is the literal essence of stupidity.

Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite. I even showed you how all knowledge, including knowledge of the divine, is based upon reality.

You did? Where did you do that?

You keep pretending you've logically supported anything you've said.

Who do you think your compulsive lying is convincing, when anyone can look back through the thread and see multiple objections you utterly fail to address.

Every time an objection is raised, you repeat the same stupid claim, and pretend it's convincing. It's delusional, and nobody believes it but you.

[Simon Moon]

I wasn't aware that I was positing anything that needed supporting either. As an aside, could you put into words what you want me to defend?

My original reply to you was in response to this post of yours:

I can demonstrate it, just not objectively.

Eg. look all around you for evidence of him. Everything which exists/ irrefutable logic of his existence attested by believers.

All you can say it's that you disagree.

Usually in discussions such as this, statements like your first one above is something that would be supported by the person making it. Why would you claim you can demonstrate it, then claim a few posts later that you didn't post anything that needed supporting?

What do I want you to defend? Your claim that you can support your beliefs in a nonobjective manner.