I've always found it fascinating that people are so afraid to admit there's such a thing as absolute truth or universal logic.
I mean come on does 1+1 always equal 2 or not? Does the sun always rise in the east, or does it occasionally rise in the west?
Dg west deptford wrote:
Believing that the sun will always rise in the east is faith. Any number of things may happen which will stop it from doing so tomorrow. Believing that it will always rise in the east is complete folly.
Believing that some integer which is human defined, when a human defined procedure is applied to it and another human defined integer always results in the same human defined result is some sort of profound thing is circular logic. 1+1=2 because we literally defined "1", "+" and "2" to do so.
The fact is I already know you believe in truth and immaterial universal logic. But thinking minds know where that leads...
You either have to give up knowledge and admit you could be wrong about everything you think you know or admit there must be a Creator/Designer who knows everything there is to know.
This is nonsense. I have never said I couldn't be wrong. But my willingness to be wrong does not automatically make you correct. It isn't binary....there is an infinite number of possibilities.
Making a knowledge claim such as " there is no God" is therefore self refuting. If there's no God you can't know anything for certain. Because the things you don't know could overturn the things you think you know. You could be in the MaTriX. But the fact is you do know some things for certain. Therefore you know for certain there is a Creator and he knows everything there is to know.
Simply wrong. I say there is no god, because there is no evidence for a god. As such, I do not believe there is a god. And yes, there are many possibilities for this world. I deal with the ones which I see evidence for. As a possibility which presents no evidence, is by definition not impacting the world, and therefore not particularly important. An example for this would be the SciFi theory that we are in a simulation run from a supercomputer in another reality. That's fine. If you do not have any awareness or ability to gain awareness of the outside of that simulation, then this is your functional reality.
You realize your little "gotchas" aren't actually "gotchas" right? Like.... I can believe there is no god. Your saying I know there is some omniscient creator is not actually doing anything. Just because you believe that the logic game you're playing makes sense, doesn't mean it actually does.
More importantly. I am fully capable of separating the idea of believing in a god, and following a god. Even if you were able to bring your god down to earth, have him/her unequivocally demonstrate his/her omniscience and omnipotence... I'm not going to follow them. I'll believe they exist (after sufficient testing). But why would I suddenly become a follower? Being born with omniscience and omnipotence doesn't automatically make some deity worthy of my respect.
So when I hear a self ascribed atheist making knowledge claims, discussing truth and logic i get a little grin.
Epistemology 101 you can't know anything for certain unless you know everything certainly or have special revelation from someone who does.
Huh? You realize this is the real world right? "Certainty" can mean 98.2% confidence. I'm willing to lead my life on that.
To ascribe some random numbers, I could say I'm 98.2% confident in the current knowledge of how we came about.
the other 1.8% possibility has to then be divided across all infinite possibilities which have no evidence of occurring. So every little possibility, from the christian god, buddhist, aliens, matrix, computer simulation, AI, even stuff you don't think about... like we're stuck in the lower colon of a space whale... or we're the creation of a 4th dimensional child... All that sh$t has to share the same equal possibilities as the other "no evidence" possibilities.
So while I can say I believe with confidence there is no god, I can say with statistical certainty that the god described by any single religious text is statistically impossible.
You see Vic you have to borrow from my worldview every time you want to consider logic, truth or make a knowledge claim of any kind. But you already KNOW that 😉
this is absolutely false. To pretend one needs to borrow from religion to consider logic or knowledge makes zero sense.
