Presuppositionalists Destroyed in the Atheist Room

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

Barth’s argument is that “classical god” omniscience is not possible because mind internalism entails the possibility of Cartesian scenarios.

[@criticalbasedtheory]

This was a great, high level philosophical discussion- makes me want to join this server some time!

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL. Thank you! I'm glad to hear that lol

[@faithbad666]

I was thinking the same thing. mas brainworms por favor 😁

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL

[@13shadowwolf]

Knowledge doesn't exist outside the Sentience that it takes to Comprehend Knowledge. Existence doesn't require Knowledge, Existence simply IS, it is the Nature of Being Something. The Relationships between Things that Exist, are what we refer to as "knowledge"; without the Things that Exist, Knowledge is NOT Possible. Existence IS, and we as Sentient Beings, navigate the Existence, our "knowledge" comes from Us interacting with the Things that Exist. Basically, the "correct" answer is that Existence is Ontology, and Epistemology follows from having Logic Corresponding to Reality Correctly. Knowledge isn't a Thing, Knowledge is the Comparison between Things that Exist. Barth doesn't know what words mean, and he doesn't know how those concepts about existence correlate to each other; he hides behind his Incompetent Thinking as an "argument" and demands other people "prove" things to him, because he thinks he's far smarter than he is. Religion is based in Ignorance and Arrogance. They don't Know what they are talking about, but they lack the Honest to admit they don't Know, and they think their stubborn I Ignorance is a valid argument. Barth is an excellent example of why religious "thought" continues, it feeds the Arrogance Self-Absorbed nature of Stubbornly Ignorant people, and gives them a false confidence to proclaimed they are correct. Science literally is a bunch of humans testing out what does work, vs what doesn't work, and then they write down what worked. That's the whole point of Scholarly Journals, it's a record of what works. The Epistemology of Science is piecemeal, it's had multiple instances where we thougth something was correct that we found out later was wrong. It's designed to be Self-Correcting because Science admits that it Doesn't Know, it only has a "best guess" ever possible. These guys are trying to create a Universal Epistemology, by studying a modern interpretation of ancient mythology...and claiming that they are being "rational"; they would have to have direct access to the full knowledge of god for their attmept to succeed. Their "Epistemology" is their personal opinions on topics they don't understand.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great points!

[@dolosevensix]

Nailed it

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

Under this framing, how do we explain the colloquial understanding of say, a book that *contains* knowledge, irrespective of sentience and minds and interacting with things that exist or whatever. Because it sure doesn't seem to fit, and yet no one would deny that a book can contain knowledge. Keep in mind, we're talking about an arbitrary book here, written in any language. It may even be a book written in alien language no human does, or could ever decipher. And yet we would still say it contains knowledge, even if it's not knowledge of real "things that exist". The book might describe depictions of fictional entities like alien unicorns for example. That's still a kind of knowledge that could be departed to you, should you decipher the book.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter They are saying any grounding for knowledge without god is impossible and even if you appeal to the universal quantum field that exists it still would not be possible without god doing it. It's the necessary being thing. That state of affairs is required for knowledge according to them.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@realBreakfasttacos I don't know who "they" are you're referring to. I responded to the original comment, which said in the very first line, that: "Knowledge doesn't exist outside the Sentience that it takes to Comprehend Knowledge." And the existence of books, contradict that framing. I was not talking about god, or possibility, or universal quantum fields, or necessary things.

[@13shadowwolf]

PMars has such a great future, if he goes into boxing as a punching bag. No matter how many times he takes a shot directly to the face, he just keeps vomiting out the same terminology. Barth is a child, playing with terminology that he doesn't understand, telling the adults about his fantasies as if they were real. I wonder what these guys do in life...what jobs are either of these guys qualified to do?

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL I was thinking the exact same thing.

[@JasBasra-zy5jj]

I am surprised at the resistance to the idea that ontology and epistemology are reciprocal. The Christians could've asked what is "knowledge" which typically requires notions of truth and justification and therefore presupposes a metaphysics. The Christians also don't fully flesh out how they build out their epistemology and what all of their assumptions are. The thing missing in this conversation is axiology/ value theory. One must agree to certain values such as consistency, utility, or some other values to create a basis for evaluating world views. This is where Christians will say value is impossible without God, which atheists would disagree and present something like Kantian foundation which is implicit in post-enlightenment thinking, which is why the premodern Augustinian notion of divine illumination as necessary for the basis of knowledge is unnecessary and basically is begging the question in terms of proving "GOD" since it merely presupposes God.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

They are just rejecting the self evident truth of our shared naturalistic/atheistic reality in their unrighteousness.

[@JasBasra-zy5jj]

@@realBreakfasttacos , I am not sure if it's self-evident which is why there's a debate. Knowledge relies on certain concepts in order to for example identify objects in the world such as Kant's categories of understanding (time/space/causation/unity, etc.) . In other words, there's an inbuilt ontology in the human mind that is used to understand the world around us. I do agree that the Christians are not understanding what they are even proposing and why atheists reject it. They aren't just saying there's a God, but that there are additional layers to reality or that there are multiple realities that contain spiritual entities that are needed to explain material reality. God is said to be immaterial (outside space-time) and therefore exists in some other realm (heaven). Since Christians in this case make a distinction between God and reality (creator/creation), they can attempt to justify this in the vein of neo-platonism / dualism by saying for example abstracta such as numbers and aspects of the mind are not fully reducible to material explanations. In other words, categorical scheme/ontology exists in some abstract realm independent of mind, and the material world is manifestation of these concepts. They are essential arguing for the existence of another world(s) where these abstract concepts reside and then go to the mind. Essentially, God is the ultimate law giver and is the origin of the laws of logic, math, physics, and morality/values. If you press them on this, they will appeal to God's nature as not being fully knowable since God is ineffable and beyond human understanding. The objection to this is the principle of parsimony / occam's razor as well as the fact that humanity had to discover these laws on its own. The laws are not found in any religious texts even the laws of morality are not fully explained via religion. Beyond that knowledge of God is not inbuilt into humanity in the same way as a notion of time or space. In order to know about God such as the Christian God requires exposure to Christianity. In order to read and interpret the Bible there's a need to know about language and various other concepts. They will argue that God is necessary to have the values of consistency or intellectual curiosity but this is false. Even machines can operate and reason with these values alone and do not require God. In other words, reason cannot be dependent on Christianity since Christianity requires reason in order to be Christian. Reason is a more primitive concept, and they are making the additional leap of adding God.

[@CharlesB-NGNM]

I'm not making a modal claim. I don't know what a modal claim is

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL

[@badgerbush3556]

I'm new here, spat my coffee out with laughter. Lol

[@realBreakfasttacos]

@@badgerbush3556 I'm glad to hear that!

[@yvetteFit]

You need to get Lululemon as a sponsor. 🎉

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Thank you so much eve!

[@faithbad666]

Christian Apologist Speak Is Commode-al 🚽(Com-modal maybe funnier)😁♾️

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Yes