Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[Jackalope]

I will grant you that "God exists" and "no gods exist" are truth claims that both require justification, and that some atheists make the claim that "no gods exist".

Agreed.

You are, however, ignoring an alternate atheist position, which is "I do not believe any gods exist". That position is not a knowledge claim.

If it is not a knowledge claim, than it is a non-rational and should not be used to de facto argue for the non-existence of God while requiring a different sense of justification (sneaky). To argue for the non-existence of God requires knowledge that God does not exist, otherwise it is lying.

Full stop. Who here has asserted "I do not believe any gods exist" and argued for the non-existence of god? I have not. I personally have only claimed that your own argument lacks merit, by virtue of it being fallacious and claiming conclusions that do not follow from the argument. In other words, my claim is "I do not believe your claim that god exists" and my justification for that belief is that you have failed to meet the burden of proof. It is not a knowledge claim because the truth value of it is unknown (and no truth value has been asserted by myself) - I consider it an unanswered (and quite possibly unanswerable) question.

Perfectly rational. You are refuted. That is not to say that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, per se, but your argument does not support your conclusion, and therefore your argument can be dismissed, and your conclusion treated as nothing but your own opinion.

That I have not made a competing claim does nothing to buttress your argument.

Regardless of what people describe about their actions, their words signify the sense of epistemic justification. The positions "I am not making a knowledge claim" and "I am making a knowledge claim are mutually exclusive". If a knowledge claim is being made, an argument can be made. If no knowledge claim is being made, no argument can be made, since it is morally wrong to lie.

See above.

In addition a knowledge claim has been made - by you - and that is the claim we are addressing here.

Speaking of calling names, I would appreciate if you would desist from implying that I'm lying.

---

1. People do not have an inherent sense of epistemic justification that is precisely defined and trans-cultural (self evident)
2. Where there is a lack of a requisite aspect of something, that lack must be met.
3. The lack of a sense of justification must be met. (MP 1,2)
4. Similar problems exist for concepts of truth and sources for belief (self evident)
5. The entire linguistic, social, economic, scientific, social processes required to allow the culturally constructed sense of knowledge to be justified true belief, must themselves be subject to K = JTB

Incidentally, I have not forgotten about this portion of your argument, I am considering it. I do not find it compelling.

You claim your first premise to be self-evident, and I do not necessarily agree that it is so. I think it could be true, but is not self-evident.

Your fourth premise is too vague. What specifically do you mean by "similar"? It is not clear, and therefore you cannot claim self-evidence. It is clear to me that belief and knowledge are two different (but related) concepts.

I have not looked too closely at the rest of your premises due their dependence on the flawed premises.