A Question for Everyone...

[alexxmedeiros]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

[JBCuzISaidSo]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

Yes.

Could you?

[sthubbar]

No.

This is identical to the a statement like "All sentences are false."

This statement can't be true.

If we assign truth to "All sentences are false" then the sentence "All sentences are false. is false

It can't be both true and false

Conclusion = "All sentences are false." is false.

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

For your example let's assume "I am wrong about every thing that I claim to know" is true

I am claiming to know that it is true that "I am wrong about every thing that I claim to know" but the statement says that every thing that I claim to know is false.

I am not able to know the fact that every thing that I claim to know is both false and be able to realize that fact.

Just by asking that question, at a minimum, you put at least 1 correct thought into what I claim to know, so the statement is false.

Sorry Hovind won't help you here.

BTW, just because somebody does someone commits "sins" does not make then a "sinner" unless you also accept that because somebody does something "angelic" makes then an "angel".

[JBCuzISaidSo]

sthubbar, for the love of Peter Griffin, please look up a movie called The Princess Bride and add "Vizzini".

Never mind, I found it for you. 4 minutes, quite pertinent, totally worthy;

[Mr.Obvious]

OP, semantics aside; I get what you are getting at. And in that light; sure.

What off it?

[Sal1981]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

Every thing? To falsify that (as per falsifiability) I simply have to come up with any statement that is necessarily true.

Do you want to play this game of semantics?

[Nonsensei]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

Holy shit man you just blew my mind. I had never before this moment considered whether or not my views could possibly be wrong. Now that I am considering it, I can feel the thick, veiny dick of the holy spirit invading various orifices of my body as I slowly convert to religion.

What an uplifting experience.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Holy shit man you just blew my mind. I had never before this moment considered whether or not my views could possibly be wrong. Now that I am considering it, I can feel the thick, veiny dick of the holy spirit invading various orifices of my body as I slowly convert to religion.

What an uplifting experience.

"Lifts and separates!"

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

Could I? Yes. Am I? Allow me to sing for you the song of my people.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

I suspect you have some serious doubts about your own faith and you're trying to "do good work" to prevent your consignment to Hell by your loving God.

[Hydra009]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

There are claims that I believe that are necessarily true (2+2=4, potatoes are different from non-potatoes, Thursday is the day after Wednesday)

There are claims that are so well verified that there is little doubt (the Earth orbits the sun, the Roman Empire ruled much of Europe for centuries, and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is in fact margarine).

Finally, there are claims with such scant support that I'm really going out on a limb (Keanu Reeves is immortal, Dick Cheney has to punch an orphan to get an erection, Tom Cruise is secretly gay).

It's impossible to be wrong about the first category, I'm almost certainly not wrong about the second category, only statements in the third category would likely prove to be incorrect.

But I'm not the one who at minimum believes in supernatural beings, miracles, and at least one entire supernatural realm.  And at maximum, it's a talking serpent, people who lived for hundreds of years, practically the entire world was killed from a flood except for a single family inhabiting an ark, and that blessed wine literally turns into blood.

Which one of us is more likely to have gotten it wrong?

[aitm]

Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?

Mirror.

[alexxmedeiros]

Yes.

Could you?

No. I could be wrong about a lot of things but there are things I can know for certain.

But you have just given up all knowledge. You can't know anything. That's the absurdity of atheism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alexxmedeiros]

No.

This is identical to the a statement like "All sentences are false."

This statement can't be true.

If we assign truth to "All sentences are false" then the sentence "All sentences are false. is false

It can't be both true and false

Conclusion = "All sentences are false." is false.

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

For your example let's assume "I am wrong about every thing that I claim to know" is true

I am claiming to know that it is true that "I am wrong about every thing that I claim to know" but the statement says that every thing that I claim to know is false.

I am not able to know the fact that every thing that I claim to know is both false and be able to realize that fact.

Just by asking that question, at a minimum, you put at least 1 correct thought into what I claim to know, so the statement is false.

Sorry Hovind won't help you here.

BTW, just because somebody does someone commits "sins" does not make then a "sinner" unless you also accept that because somebody does something "angelic" makes then an "angel".

Tell me one thing that you know but could be wrong about...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alexxmedeiros]

OP, semantics aside; I get what you are getting at. And in that light; sure.

What off it?

What of it? By saying that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know you must also admit that you can not know anything. That is absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk