(August 22, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote: IKR, lol? I can only decide that I have the same level of confidence, for the same reasons, in the proposition "the sun rises in the east" as I do "there are no dragons" and "god's don't exist". Similarly, I can only decide that I find the same sorts of objections to those statements compelling or uncompelling in equal measure and equal application.
It's not as if I cant find some idiosyncratic or semantic defeater for either proposition (or any proposition), it's more that they don't affect either knowledge claim. I can concede a thor planet or a dragon planet and still maintain my confidence in the propositions denying their existence. In the case of gods..it's positively baked in. I know what gods exist as, and that's -why- I know that they don't exist. While it may seem semantically confusing, it's content is flatly coherent.
A large portion of the thread has been people expressing their frustration at idiosyncratic definitions (for truth, knowledge, gods, exist, etc) and semantic equivalence (gods..like..the universe, man!). I don't feel those frustrations..because, like gods, I recognize them for what they are, lol.
Or just have decided which definitions you’ll accept and have superglued yourself to them. It can’t be dismissed as semantics when we’re talking about actual, commonly used definitions. If you want to ignore dictionaries, sure, there’s no valid semantic argument for a kinda 6.
You do know you’re trying to convince atheists that they aren’t atheist enough. Bahaha.
