Your worldview destroyed with two questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2017, 09:46 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
"Do we know anything for certain ?"

Yes....that Eric Hovind will present a terrible argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
11-05-2017, 09:48 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 08:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The first question asks: Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain?

No god has managed to do this, so, no.

Quote: The second question: How do you know anything for certain?

I think therefor I am.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
11-05-2017, 09:54 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2017 09:57 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 08:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain?
Is it possible that you think you know some things for certain, revealed by your god, but actually you are just full of shit?

(11-05-2017 08:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  How do you know anything for certain?
Do i have to?

Presuppositionalism and its representatives are possibly the most tedious way of apologetics and a complete waste of time to deal with. Just look at what Dillahunty did to Bruggencate. His final statement settled it for me.

Watch Dillahuntys final "tombstone a la Undertaker" beginning at 10:30.





P.S.: Bruggrencate is also a despicalbe cunt in general for being so...repugnant

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
11-05-2017, 10:05 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 09:42 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  I was about to post about how hilarious it was that he's still using this bullshit tactic, but then noticed the article is almost 7 years old. Of course...he IS still using this tactic, so it's still hilarious.

He's a prime example of someone saying things so stupid that you don't even know how to respond because you're shocked he's actually being serious. The biggest thing, those questions can easily be turned back on him, and the second especially makes no sense for him to use. If the answer is "yes" then that means he cannot be certain that his god is real. On top of that....does he even understand what an atheist is? I'm already proclaiming I don't know for certain if a god exists....HENCE WHY I REJECT THEM ALL.

Not just him. Many apologists use it.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
11-05-2017, 10:06 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 09:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain?"

--- The "god of the Bible" is Yahweh Sabaoth, the war god, the 70th son of El Elyon, the chief Babylonian deity, brother of the god "Sin" (who became Allah).
So do mythic ancients gods reveal stuff ? Umm, no. Do they reveal anything "for certain" ? Only if you're smoking something. Do their MYTHOLOGIES occasionally have something to tell us about human nature, (as in the Greek myths) ? Possibly.

"Do we know anything for certain ?"
--- We know some things as well as can be known, and insofar as they are useful to us. I know for certain the question is drivel, and not gonna pay for lunch.
I know for certain Eric is even MORE stupid than his idiot father.

Is my worldview destroyed by this fool ?
Is he fucking kidding me right now ?
Tongue

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

There goes his path to certainty. And there goes his worldview.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 10:07 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
I'd ask the moron what he means by "certain" and watch him bumble about.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-05-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 08:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I came across this article and I would not have read it if I'd known it was by Eric Hovind but I read the first line and it hooked me in.

It said: What if you could destroy someone’s worldview with just two simple questions? Two very powerful, but very careful questions.

Wow, I have to see these questions and see if my worldview gets destroyed. Already I see a problem though. He makes two big mistakes right off the bat. First he mistakes a position on a single issue for a worldview and he lumps all atheists together as having the same one.

The first question asks: Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? He then says "With this question the unbeliever is forced to say yes". Really? We're forced? That certainly isn't my answer to his question. Mine would be that in the realm of the imagination, what one imagines can do anything that the one imagines it, imagines it doing. I can say this because my worldview has a way of distinguishing that which is possible from that which is imaginary. His doesn't.

The second question: How do you know anything for certain? He goes on to say "this question focuses on the fact that ultimately an unbeliever will have to say that he cannot know anything for certain." Where has he established this? Has he checked every worldview. Obviously not mine because my worldview begins with 4 incontestable certainties. He'll have a hard row to hoe if he thinks he can refute them since he would have to accept them in order to try to refute them.

So what say you? Did your worldview get destroyed by his very powerful, very careful questions?

My world-view was TOTALLY obliterated!

[Image: scarecrow-step-5.jpg]

(There was straw flying EVERYWHERE.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Reltzik's post
11-05-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
Is it possible a fictional character from a book can reveal something to me ?

Nope, not possible.

The writer of the book can impart his or her knowledge to me when I read the book, but the characters in the book are not real.

How can I know anything for certain ?
Words and concepts have definitions.
When I encounter something that meets the definition of a word, I can label that thing as that word.
For instance, I am certain that the question asked of me was in fact a question.

Are you certain that what I have typed is a question ?

Yes I am.

How can you be certain ?
I am certain because it matches with how the definition of a question is structured.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
11-05-2017, 10:44 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 08:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I came across this article and I would not have read it if I'd known it was by Eric Hovind but I read the first line and it hooked me in.

It said: What if you could destroy someone’s worldview with just two simple questions? Two very powerful, but very careful questions.

Wow, I have to see these questions and see if my worldview gets destroyed. Already I see a problem though. He makes two big mistakes right off the bat. First he mistakes a position on a single issue for a worldview and he lumps all atheists together as having the same one.

The first question asks: Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? He then says "With this question the unbeliever is forced to say yes". Really? We're forced? That certainly isn't my answer to his question. Mine would be that in the realm of the imagination, what one imagines can do anything that the one imagines it, imagines it doing. I can say this because my worldview has a way of distinguishing that which is possible from that which is imaginary. His doesn't.

The second question: How do you know anything for certain? He goes on to say "this question focuses on the fact that ultimately an unbeliever will have to say that he cannot know anything for certain." Where has he established this? Has he checked every worldview. Obviously not mine because my worldview begins with 4 incontestable certainties. He'll have a hard row to hoe if he thinks he can refute them since he would have to accept them in order to try to refute them.

So what say you? Did your worldview get destroyed by his very powerful, very careful questions?

Okay, more seriously this time.

There's a lot wrong with this, erm, argument. But I think that the key to dismantling it is noticing that a bit of an equivocation is being played on the word "certain".

"Certain" has two meanings relevant here. The first I'll refer to as "emotional certainty". In this, a person feels complete confidence, beyond any personal doubt, in a proposition, course of action, or something similar. The second I'll refer to as "logical certainty". In this type of certainty, there is not the slightest possibility that the proposition is false, the course of action is unwarranted, etc. The first type of certainty is subjective and the second objective.

To clarify with an example of emotional certainty absent logical certainty, imagine a contestant on The Price is Right who, for some reason, gets a hunch that the prize is behind Door #3.... and believes it completely and whole-heatedly. Is it certain that the prize is behind Door 3? No. Are THEY certain? Yes.

For an example of logical certainty without emotional certainty, again to The Price is Right and the Monty Hall Problem. The contestant has worked through the math, seen others worked through the math, and KNOWS that their odds of winning the prize are twice as good if they switch doors. It is logically certain that this is the better (though not perfect) path to take. However, like most people faced with the Monty Hall Problem, the contestant finds the answer to be counterintuitive and can't shake the feeling that it's wrong. Is it certain that switching has better odds? Yes. Is the contestant certain? No.

So, let's look at this, um, argument twice, each time with a different definition of certainty. Remember, the strategy is to get the atheist to admit both that a Christian CAN be certain, and that an atheist CAN'T be certain. Failing either of the points means that the, ah, argument doesn't work.

----------

EMOTIONAL CERTAINTY

Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? Well, if such a deity could possibly exist, yes. God is described as manipulating emotions in several ways, hardening Pharaoh's heart as one notable example. Though if you believe in free will, I suppose the answer to that would have to be no.

How do you know anything for certain? By gaining such a high degree of personal confidence in them that all doubt is banished from our minds. This can be done through logic, evidence, faith, trust, or hallucinations.

The argument fails under the emotional type of certainty, because both theists and non-theists can achieve that type of certainty.

---------

LOGICAL CERTAINTY

Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? No. I'll refer yet again to the example of Deana Laney, who received direct revelation from God that she was supposed to beat her children to death with a rock. In actuality it turned out that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. What manner of revelation, manifestation, command, or so forth could not be met with the alternative explanation of such a delusion, or of a brain-in-a-vat scenario? The only sort of logical certainty to be had would be, say, from a truism or other deductively certain bit of logic.

How do you know anything for certain? Again, the only complete logical certainty to be had is from some manner of truism or other deductive logic.

So again the, uh, argument fails because for this definition of certainty, the answer is NO to both questions, both for the theist and the non-theist. Except for truisms and deduction, to which both answer yes. But remember, you have to answer yes to the first and no to the second for this thing to work.

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

The only way that the, eh, argument works is by using EMOTIONAL certainty for the first question, and LOGICAL certainty for the second one. It's a clear equivocation.

There's other MAJOR problems with this, oof, argument, such as the abstract possibility of a certain revelation not equating to the supposed receptor of that supposed revelation having the truth. But I think this approach is the best strategy for reasoning with someone presenting this.... argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
11-05-2017, 10:50 AM
RE: Your worldview destroyed with two questions
(11-05-2017 10:44 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 08:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I came across this article and I would not have read it if I'd known it was by Eric Hovind but I read the first line and it hooked me in.

It said: What if you could destroy someone’s worldview with just two simple questions? Two very powerful, but very careful questions.

Wow, I have to see these questions and see if my worldview gets destroyed. Already I see a problem though. He makes two big mistakes right off the bat. First he mistakes a position on a single issue for a worldview and he lumps all atheists together as having the same one.

The first question asks: Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? He then says "With this question the unbeliever is forced to say yes". Really? We're forced? That certainly isn't my answer to his question. Mine would be that in the realm of the imagination, what one imagines can do anything that the one imagines it, imagines it doing. I can say this because my worldview has a way of distinguishing that which is possible from that which is imaginary. His doesn't.

The second question: How do you know anything for certain? He goes on to say "this question focuses on the fact that ultimately an unbeliever will have to say that he cannot know anything for certain." Where has he established this? Has he checked every worldview. Obviously not mine because my worldview begins with 4 incontestable certainties. He'll have a hard row to hoe if he thinks he can refute them since he would have to accept them in order to try to refute them.

So what say you? Did your worldview get destroyed by his very powerful, very careful questions?

Okay, more seriously this time.

There's a lot wrong with this, erm, argument. But I think that the key to dismantling it is noticing that a bit of an equivocation is being played on the word "certain".

"Certain" has two meanings relevant here. The first I'll refer to as "emotional certainty". In this, a person feels complete confidence, beyond any personal doubt, in a proposition, course of action, or something similar. The second I'll refer to as "logical certainty". In this type of certainty, there is not the slightest possibility that the proposition is false, the course of action is unwarranted, etc. The first type of certainty is subjective and the second objective.

To clarify with an example of emotional certainty absent logical certainty, imagine a contestant on The Price is Right who, for some reason, gets a hunch that the prize is behind Door #3.... and believes it completely and whole-heatedly. Is it certain that the prize is behind Door 3? No. Are THEY certain? Yes.

For an example of logical certainty without emotional certainty, again to The Price is Right and the Monty Hall Problem. The contestant has worked through the math, seen others worked through the math, and KNOWS that their odds of winning the prize are twice as good if they switch doors. It is logically certain that this is the better (though not perfect) path to take. However, like most people faced with the Monty Hall Problem, the contestant finds the answer to be counterintuitive and can't shake the feeling that it's wrong. Is it certain that switching has better odds? Yes. Is the contestant certain? No.

So, let's look at this, um, argument twice, each time with a different definition of certainty. Remember, the strategy is to get the atheist to admit both that a Christian CAN be certain, and that an atheist CAN'T be certain. Failing either of the points means that the, ah, argument doesn't work.

----------

EMOTIONAL CERTAINTY

Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? Well, if such a deity could possibly exist, yes. God is described as manipulating emotions in several ways, hardening Pharaoh's heart as one notable example. Though if you believe in free will, I suppose the answer to that would have to be no.

How do you know anything for certain? By gaining such a high degree of personal confidence in them that all doubt is banished from our minds. This can be done through logic, evidence, faith, trust, or hallucinations.

The argument fails under the emotional type of certainty, because both theists and non-theists can achieve that type of certainty.

---------

LOGICAL CERTAINTY

Is it possible that the God of the Bible could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? No. I'll refer yet again to the example of Deana Laney, who received direct revelation from God that she was supposed to beat her children to death with a rock. In actuality it turned out that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. What manner of revelation, manifestation, command, or so forth could not be met with the alternative explanation of such a delusion, or of a brain-in-a-vat scenario? The only sort of logical certainty to be had would be, say, from a truism or other deductively certain bit of logic.

How do you know anything for certain? Again, the only complete logical certainty to be had is from some manner of truism or other deductive logic.

So again the, uh, argument fails because for this definition of certainty, the answer is NO to both questions, both for the theist and the non-theist. Except for truisms and deduction, to which both answer yes. But remember, you have to answer yes to the first and no to the second for this thing to work.

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

The only way that the, eh, argument works is by using EMOTIONAL certainty for the first question, and LOGICAL certainty for the second one. It's a clear equivocation.

There's other MAJOR problems with this, oof, argument, such as the abstract possibility of a certain revelation not equating to the supposed receptor of that supposed revelation having the truth. But I think this approach is the best strategy for reasoning with someone presenting this.... argument.

Also his standard of certainty is completely arbitrary and ignores the fact that man's knowledge is always finite and thus contextual and so therefore certainty is always contextual.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: