How to beat a presupp at their own game

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hopefully you're still around, man. Have you tried debating this guy yet? I'm interested in hearing how it went. I'll help if I can.


I'm astounded by the arrogance of someone who thinks they've "solved epistemology." I have a ton of things you can try. 

The first thing that comes to mind: Can you logically demonstrate that "God-based" knowledge is somehow better than regular knowledge?

I mean, this presupp stuff is CLEARLY question begging. Has nobody brought this up? (I'm assuming they have.) What is the typical response to this?

Hi there, no I haven't debated Darth who is the one who has put this argument forth to atheists. I'm not knowledgeable enough to take him on yet. :  His reasoning is that in a godless world, there is nothing absolute and ultimate to ground all possibility and impossibility. It's a universe based on chance, so the laws of physics may change tomorrow. Also, his argument is that all facts and knowledge in a godless world are arbitrary, whereas in his worldview knowledge can only be attained through the Christian God because he is omniscient and all-powerful and institutes that which is fundamental and ultimate etc, etc.

---

To fellow atheists, somewhat different question - but a question I often see from theists. The question goes : where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim they make?

That would depend on the claim. For example, I can justify the claim that three cats live in our house on the basis of 1) they are cats, and 2) there are three of them.

Boru

[HappySkeptic]

Hi there, no I haven't debated Darth who is the one who has put this argument forth to atheists. I'm not knowledgeable enough to take him on yet. :  His reasoning is that in a godless world, there is nothing absolute and ultimate to ground all possibility and impossibility. It's a universe based on chance, so the laws of physics may change tomorrow. Also, his argument is that all facts and knowledge in a godless world are arbitrary, whereas in his worldview knowledge can only be attained through the Christian God because he is omniscient and all-powerful and institutes that which is fundamental and ultimate etc, etc.

---

To fellow atheists, somewhat different question - but a question I often see from theists. The question goes : where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim they make?

Order (as opposed to random chaos) and logic exist.  If they didn't we wouldn't be around to be debating order and logic.

This does not mean "God exists", unless one defines God to be the cause of order as opposed to chaos (if there is even such a cause).  But, even if one did that, please tell me the properties of this God?  Is it some fundamental logical law?  Is it a fundamental particle?  Is it a multi-dimensional manifold?

Of course, theists will claim it is their Christian deity - a thinking being that wants worship and obedience.  There is absolutely zero evidence or logic that would justify such a belief.

Intelligence and consciousness are emergent properties of a complex underlying unthinking process.  The ground of all being is likely to be extremely simple, not infinitely complex such a s an omnipotent conscious being. 

---------------

Where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim?  From human experience, logic and science -- exactly where anyone gets a basis for any claim.  Do theists get special information from a god?  Let them prove it.

[The Grand Nudger]

  His reasoning is that in a godless world, there is nothing absolute and ultimate to ground all possibility and impossibility.

---

To fellow atheists, somewhat different question - but a question I often see from theists. The question goes : where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim they make?

I snipped part of your response to vulcan above to refer to in answering the question, because I think it demonstrates something I wanted to mention - that we'd discussed earlier.

You will literally never hear the end of answers to that question, because there's no end to potential claims and their justifications.  It only takes one example, and any example will do, to show why the conversation is futile.  You know your name, you can rattle off a long list of things that have convinced you that this is, in fact, your name.  None of them have anything to do with a god.

-but if none of those things qualify as The Ultimate Grounding™..then, so what?  It's still how you know your name.  Maybe he's got something wrong, or, maybe, the thing he's asking for doesn't exist.  That's his problem, not yours.

[vulcanlogician]

To fellow atheists, somewhat different question - but a question I often see from theists. The question goes : where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim they make?

There is a whole field of philosophy devoted to this. It's called "epistemology." It is a matter of rigorous debate upon what basis we have knowledge.

A pretty solid theory is correspondence theory. It says that knowledge is a "justified true belief." 

So let's take something simple: "I know that my coffee mug is sitting on the desk in front of me." (This is genuine knowledge that I have. What makes this knowledge genuine? It's a justified true belief.)

Justification: I see it there. I just picked it up and set it down. Sense data corroborates that my coffee mug sits on the desk in front of me. That's pretty good justification.

True: The coffee mug really has to be there for my belief that it is there to count as real knowledge. If it WASN'T there, then my belief that it was there wouldn't be genuine knowledge (duh.... obvious but must be stated.)

Belief: I have to believe that the coffee mug is on my desk to have genuine knowledge of its being there. (It's another obvious "duh" thing that must be pointed out. If I DID NOT believe the coffee mug was on my desk, it would be impossible for me to have genuine knowledge of its being there.)

It's not perfect. It's not air tight... but it's WAY better that what Darth guy says. And it actually addresses the issue of what genuine knowledge might be in a very realistic and natural way. When a normal person considers what the foundations of knowledge are, they don't normally look for some otherworldly answer. They REALIZE that they know some things. They just want to make an honest inquiry into HOW they know.

Looking at things like the justification and the truth of a belief is a MUCH better approach that appealing to a religious construct.

His reasoning is that in a godless world, there is nothing absolute and ultimate to ground all possibility and impossibility.

How so? Who says there is nothing "absolute and ultimate" in a godless world? Just because there is no god, that doesn't mean there isn't some other absolute and ultimate thing that isn't a god.

It's a universe based on chance, so the laws of physics may change tomorrow. Also, his argument is that all facts and knowledge in a godless world are arbitrary, whereas in his worldview knowledge can only be attained through the Christian God because he is omniscient and all-powerful and institutes that which is fundamental and ultimate etc, etc.

Too bad this "Christian God" is so stingy when parsing out knowledge to his followers. If he wants to say a believer's knowledge is somehow better than a nonbeliever's, he has his work cut out for him. And for all we know, the laws of physics might very well change tomorrow. We have no knowledge of whether the laws of physics have changed except scientific observations which say that they were probably constant since the beginning of the universe.

This guy is just posturing. I get the impression he doesn't really care what genuine knowledge is. The truth is: the ultimate foundations of our knowledge are debatable (ie. not exactly clear). This is god of the gaps coming in to do the job because Christians can't go around saying "God must make the sun rise" anymore.

[Superjock]

To fellow atheists, somewhat different question - but a question I often see from theists. The question goes : where do atheists get their basis to justify any claim they make?

There is a whole field of philosophy devoted to this. It's called "epistemology." It is a matter of rigorous debate upon what basis we have knowledge.

A pretty solid theory is correspondence theory. It says that knowledge is a "justified true belief." 

So let's take something simple: "I know that my coffee mug is sitting on the desk in front of me." (This is genuine knowledge that I have. What makes this knowledge genuine? It's a justified true belief.)

Justification: I see it there. I just picked it up and set it down. Sense data corroborates that my coffee mug sits on the desk in front of me. That's pretty good justification.

True: The coffee mug really has to be there for my belief that it is there to count as real knowledge. If it WASN'T there, then my belief that it was there wouldn't be genuine knowledge (duh.... obvious but must be stated.)

Belief: I have to believe that the coffee mug is on my desk to have genuine knowledge of its being there. (It's another obvious "duh" thing that must be pointed out. If I DID NOT believe the coffee mug was on my desk, it would be impossible for me to have genuine knowledge of its being there.)

It's not perfect. It's not air tight... but it's WAY better that what Darth guy says. And it actually addresses the issue of what genuine knowledge might be in a very realistic and natural way. When a normal person considers what the foundations of knowledge are, they don't normally look for some otherworldly answer. They REALIZE that they know some things. They just want to make an honest inquiry into HOW they know.

Looking at things like the justification and the truth of a belief is a MUCH better approach that appealing to a religious construct.

His reasoning is that in a godless world, there is nothing absolute and ultimate to ground all possibility and impossibility.

How so? Who says there is nothing "absolute and ultimate" in a godless world? Just because there is no god, that doesn't mean there isn't some other absolute and ultimate thing that isn't a god.

It's a universe based on chance, so the laws of physics may change tomorrow. Also, his argument is that all facts and knowledge in a godless world are arbitrary, whereas in his worldview knowledge can only be attained through the Christian God because he is omniscient and all-powerful and institutes that which is fundamental and ultimate etc, etc.

Too bad this "Christian God" is so stingy when parsing out knowledge to his followers. If he wants to say a believer's knowledge is somehow better than a nonbeliever's, he has his work cut out for him. And for all we know, the laws of physics might very well change tomorrow. We have no knowledge of whether the laws of physics have changed except scientific observations which say that they were probably constant since the beginning of the universe.

This guy is just posturing. I get the impression he doesn't really care what genuine knowledge is. The truth is: the ultimate foundations of our knowledge are debatable (ie. not exactly clear). This is god of the gaps coming in to do the job because Christians can't go around saying "God must make the sun rise" anymore.

Thanks for your reply and the time and effort you put in! I won't be able to respond to all your points so I apologize. Theists will say that God is the grounding for all facts and if we don't KNOW what is absolute (or ultimate) then we can't KNOW anything. It's incoherent. In Discord, this is the line of reasoning and just about every day, fellow atheists get stumped and just admit, well I don't know if there is an absolute and I think that is the honest position to take, but Darth will say the logical entailment is that it's all arbitrary under that worldview.

The other issue is that, if I question Gods moral character, a theist will turn around and ask me how I can justify that in my worldview given that there is no absolute arbiter of morality in an atheists worldview. It's all subjective and arbitrary, Like if I say God is a genocidal psychopath, theists will say that in my worldview I can't really speak to Gods moral character, it's just gobbledygook,  or if I say God is immoral, the same thing - how do you know God is immoral, based on what ultimate or absolute standard?

I'm not equipped yet to really give a good defense, hence the questions and I'm up for learning more.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Darth is a troll. So who cares what he thinks? He argues in bad faith like all presupps so don't waste your time.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello again Superjock.

I'd just like to interact with you for a bit myself.

Do you know what the Theists mean when they ask for 'Absolute'?

I find myself puzzling over the definition/answer required myself.

For example. Science/people know of the concept of 'Absolute zero'. Juet because we have the concept of that particular 'Absolute' doesn't mean that we can achieve such a state controlled or otherwise. Nor does that absolute carry over into their conversation.

I also find the idea that because person a admits/states 'No absolute' thence the next reply is "Hah! Can't know anyhthing!" has also always left me scratching my head.

I just don't see how they get from idea 'A' to idea (Or rebbutal) 'B'.

Still. Hope everyone's replys are helpful. I'm also learning a lot as posts add up.

Much cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for your reply and the time and effort you put in! I won't be able to respond to all your points so I apologize. Theists will say that God is the grounding for all facts and if we don't KNOW what is absolute (or ultimate) then we can't KNOW anything. It's incoherent. In Discord, this is the line of reasoning and just about every day, fellow atheists get stumped and just admit, well I don't know if there is an absolute and I think that is the honest position to take, but Darth will say the logical entailment is that it's all arbitrary under that worldview.

He would be wrong, then.  We don't have to know everything to know anything, and if we don't know or there isn't any ultimate whatsit, that doesn't effect any other thing that we do know.

The other issue is that, if I question Gods moral character, a theist will turn around and ask me how I can justify that in my worldview given that there is no absolute arbiter of morality in an atheists worldview. It's all subjective and arbitrary, Like if I say God is a genocidal psychopath, theists will say that in my worldview I can't really speak to Gods moral character, it's just gobbledygook,  or if I say God is immoral, the same thing - how do you know God is immoral, based on what ultimate or absolute standard?

I'm not equipped yet to really give a good defense, hence the questions and I'm up for learning more.

It sounds like this person doesn't know their ass from hole in the ground.  Imagining things about atheists and atheism in order to argue with those things.

You should probably start demanding his ultra standards, then the mega standards behind those, then the super standards behind those. After all, unless god has ultra mega super standards it can't know shit and everything is arbitrary under it's worldview.

[Superjock]

At work.

Hello again Superjock.  

I'd just like to interact with you for a bit myself.

Do you know what the Theists mean when they ask for 'Absolute'?

I find myself puzzling over the definition/answer required myself.

For example.  Science/people know of the concept of 'Absolute zero'. Juet because we have the concept of that particular 'Absolute' doesn't  mean that we can achieve such a state controlled or otherwise. Nor does that absolute carry over into their conversation.

 I also find the idea that because person a admits/states 'No absolute' thence the next reply is "Hah! Can't know anyhthing!" has also always left me scratching my head.

I just don't see how they get from idea 'A' to idea (Or rebbutal) 'B'.

  Still. Hope everyone's replys are helpful. I'm also learning a lot as posts add up.

 Much cheers.

So Darths argument starts with the following - in the Christian worldview God is the ultimate and necessary prerequisite and basis for all intelligibiliy, facts and truth). How does he know that? Because God revealed it through divine revelation and did so in a way that he couldn't be wrong. Now by denying this worldview, by necessity, you are denying the Christian God.

SO....of course at this point you'll say I don't believe the Christian worldview. So if someone doesn't believe God is the ultimate and necessary prerequisite and basis for all intelligiblity then he will say, OKAY THEN, so what is your framework with which to ground your foundation - WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL AND ULTIMATE that grounds all facts and constitutes what is possible and what is impossible? 

Most atheists will then say, "I don't know", or some presuppose reality. Then he will say, what grounds reality concretely? "I don't know", says the atheist. "Okay, so your position is then arbitrary and incoherent" then. You can't know anything in a godless world - it's a universe of chance according to the atheist position.

I apologise if I haven't restated his position perfectly but it's a lot to remember. You can find out for yourself by googling or watching youtube videos. But even if we ignore Darth, his followers are using this logic so I'd like to know how to refute his position and so far I don't think I've heard a slamdunk yet, but I could be wrong.

Anyone else who can do the legwork and report back here with a refutation?

[arewethereyet]

When someone comes into an argument or debate with their mind made up...especially on the topic of religion...I pretty much go with the concept that my efforts aren't going to do much to change their stance. Their mind was made up and they probably have years of people feeding that belief.

A closed mind tends to stay closed.