How to beat a presupp at their own game

[Superjock]

Then he will ask : How do you know you exist? In fact I just had a conversation with a theist a few minutes ago and he asked me how do I know I exist? Well I said to him that I can't NOT exist. Maybe  I should have refined what I meant to say. How do we know anything at all?

You have to start somewhere - with a base presupposition that you exist. Right? I mean, we could be living in a simulation which is what he was getting at. And he kept saying well why should I try and convince someone, an atheist, that God exists when they don't even know if they exist or the universe exists.

It's a good question, what would the point be, of trying to convince a person of anything, if they have concerns about the impossibility of knowledge?

Say, if a person sits in wide eyed wonder at how another person might know their own name, or that they exist.

I'm starting to think that you may be dealing with a person who thinks he's laying brilliant rhetorical traps for the other guy, but something else just keeps happening, instead...atheism isn't the belief that knowledge is impossible - but if your friend wants to chase that bird......

Was I wrong with what I said? That I can't NOT exist? If a theist asks you how do you know you exist...

[LadyForCamus]

It's a good question, what would the point be, of trying to convince a person of anything, if they have concerns about the impossibility of knowledge?

Say, if a person sits in wide eyed wonder at how another person might know their own name, or that they exist.

I'm starting to think that you may be dealing with a person who thinks he's laying brilliant rhetorical traps for the other guy, but something else just keeps happening, instead...atheism isn't the belief that knowledge is impossible - but if your friend wants to chase that bird......

Was I wrong with what I said? That I can't NOT exist? If a theist asks you how do you know you exist...

Nothing is wrong with what you said. Nudger is pointing out that trying to debate with someone who doesn’t believe anything is truly knowable, about anything, is a futile endeavor. This Darth fellow is basically setting up a trap for you so that he may avoid making a positive case for his own position. It’s really not as clever as he thinks it is. Presups make the same presuppositions about reality that we do. The difference is they add a god.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When I’m asked how I know I exist, I punch the questioner in the face. If he falls down shrieking and bleeding, that should be sufficient empirical evidence.

Seriously, though, it’s one of those non-questions that philosopher dream up to help pay the freight. 

If I actually exist in the mundane sense, nothing changes.

If I exist in some sort of dream or simulation, nothing changes.

If I don’t exist in any meaningful sense of the word, guess what? Nothing changes.

The day-in/day-out of my life is enough to go on. I don’t really care to spend a significant amount of time wondering whether it’s all an illusion.

To paraphrase Descartes, ‘Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.’

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Was I wrong with what I said? That I can't NOT exist?

Not at all.  That much is true.  You can be wrong about any number of meaningful aspects of your existence, but you certainly do exist.  

If a theist asks you how do you know you exist...

The same way that they do, and if they contend that this is somehow deficient - then they don't know whether they exist.

That's not a you problem, that's their problem.  If they think that they're casting a net with this one, they're the only ones who could possibly end up in that net - which appears to be a recurring theme whenever you discuss the conversations you have with your boy. He thinks he's dunking on you or on atheism...apparently....but in mere reality he's just repeatedly punching himself in the dick. We've already determined that his god can't exist if I exist (or anyone like me exists), and if he further contends that he can't know if he exists unless his god exists...then what follows...is that -he- can't know that --he- exists, according to -him-. Doesn't have anything to do with you.

Ya hate to see it. /s

[R00tKiT]

Of course a religion could be proven correct in the absence of a god, or of a just god.  The only ones that require either are the ones predicated on either.

You also believe that there are piles and piles of religions with just gods which aren't true - for what it's worth.

Yes, that's true. The justness property is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for a religion to be correct. If some religion doesn't provide a just god, then it's automatically false, or at best completely useless, because it's futile to inquire about an unjust god. If some religion provides a just god, then at least it cannot be ruled out right away.

[Angrboda]

Of course a religion could be proven correct in the absence of a god, or of a just god. The only ones that require either are the ones predicated on either.

You also believe that there are piles and piles of religions with just gods which aren't true - for what it's worth.

Yes, that's true. The justness property is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for a religion to be correct. If some religion doesn't provide a just god, then it's automatically false, or at best completely useless, because it's futile to inquire about an unjust god. If some religion provides a just god, then at least it cannot be ruled out right away.

So, in other words, it's futile to worship the god of Islam because that god is not a just god (except by his own standards, which doesn't count)?

"Get your just god here! Two for one special today!"

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course a religion could be proven correct in the absence of a god, or of a just god.  The only ones that require either are the ones predicated on either.

You also believe that there are piles and piles of religions with just gods which aren't true - for what it's worth.

Yes, that's true. The justness property is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for a religion to be correct. If some religion doesn't provide a just god, then it's automatically false, or at best completely useless, because it's futile to inquire about an unjust god. If some religion provides a just god, then at least it cannot be ruled out right away.

Entirely wrong.  Justness is not a necessary condition for godness.  You may not find any use in seeking an unjust god - but that doesn't have any effect on whether or not that god exists..just as the justness of a god won't engender belief in that god, to you.  

You prefer your god. Full stop. If a religion fails to provide a just god, it may still provide an existent god...and before you double down, remember, your god is an unjust god. Do you really want to assert such a rule? Such that any injustice in your god concept, by the rule you yourself assert, proves your god to be either non-existent or not worth giving a shit about?

From the other end, any religion which provides a just or unjust god -which does not exist....... patently can be ruled out right away - as you rule out so many just gods yourself on the basis of your belief that their gods are fancy and yours is real.

[R00tKiT]

So, in other words, it's futile to worship the god of Islam because that god is not a just god (except by his own standards, which doesn't count)?

"Get your just god here!  Two for one special today!"

Actually, when I say justness property I only mean it as it is presented by the articles of the religion itself. If some christian denomination defines its god as a just god, then I don't have the right to rule out the christian god just because I think it's not just, which is what you seem to be doing here.

---

Entirely wrong.  Justness is not a necessary condition for godness.  You may not find any use in seeking an unjust god - but that doesn't have any effect on whether or not that god exists..just as the justness of a god won't engender belief in that god, to you.  

You prefer your god.  Full stop.

Well, of course I prefer my god. But why am I wrong? I said it's futile to investigate an unjust god regardless of whether this god exists or not, Do you disagree ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Justice is the antithesis of mercy. If Allah is ‘the most merciful’ (as he is described in the instructional manual), does that mean he is ‘the least just’?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, of course I prefer my god. But why am I wrong? I said it's futile to investigate an unjust god regardless of whether this god exists or not, Do you disagree ?

If the rule of justness to godness holds..ofc you are - but that doesn't actually matter to you, now does it?  You still think that your god is real, no matter how unjust your god might be.