Hey all...

For anyone who happened to jump in at the right time and catch my post about the atheist conversation, copying and pasting from youtube caused me to lose a lot of text, so I'm going through and manually reformatting it. I won't remove any text, and if you're not convinced, you can always compare it with the conversation on youtube, via the link which I'll provide.

I would just give you the link, but I also want to have the conversation on my blog for posterity :)

ETA: OK, I posted it. It can be found below....

As promised, I'm finally putting the conversation between me and the atheist here. The original video was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvSmEdooeLw .

A few things I want to note:

Many of my opinions about Sye have been changed since talking to him in person, and I totally gave up on that forum that I linked to about half-way through my conversation with Matt R; there were just too many responses and I couldn't get to them all so I quit. I might like eventually to go back and respond to that guy who said he's a philosophy major. I'll be honest, I didn't understand  some of his points, or how they pertained to the conversation, so I'm curious to find it out from him. Oh well.

So there are two primary atheists in this thread: Matt R and Logan Belcher.
As far as Atheists go, I think Matt R is about an average responder to the presuppositional apologetic -- he seems to be a little bit mad during the entire conversation. The conversation started on his post.

Logan is a pretty sharp thinker. During the conversation we spend a lot of time defining terms. This turns out to be very valuable, and I recommend it for others who want to have a meaningful debate with an atheist. I learned a lot about the way atheists think. As I post this, I'm continuing a conversation about morality with Logan via email.

I include the beginning of the discussion for completeness, but I recommend you skim until you get to Logan Belcher. It looks like Matt has deleted some of his comments from the beginning of the conversation... or maybe I'm imagining things. You might notice that almost all my comments say "edited". My browser sometimes adds like three extra spaces between each paragraph on youtube comments, so I often have to go back in and fix them.

Also, I lost all my paragraphs when I was trying to get this into blogger, so I pretty much went through and guessed where the paragraph breaks were. I didn't edit any of the text content of the messages when I was posting them here.

I think that some Christian readers might be offended by some of the concessions I make during the conversation. Don't freak out. I wanted to explore the conversation and learn, so I did. The experience has really changed the attitude I bring to conversations with atheists (you might notice a change in tone from beginning to end of the conversation). It's been beneficial to me, and I hope it's beneficial to anyone who sits and reads it.

The conversation seems to continue on youtube after what I've copied here, but I wasn't a part of it after my last comment, so I left it out.

Matt R 8 months ago
 Sye, do you really need to be such a cunt when you argue? You are such a douche bag to everyone...
 Reply  · 4
Hide replies

Christian_Patriot 5 months ago
 the paradox can be frustrating to those that are shown the folly of the atheistic world view. That said insults do not improove your argument
 Reply  ·

Matt R 5 months ago
 +aWhiskeyTangoFoxtrot It's only frustrating to atheists because people who use this argument present an unanswerable question while pretending they have a magical answer to it. 

Asserting "God" without providing any evidence that this assertion means anything doesn't make your worldview correct =\
 Reply  ·

Zac Slade 5 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R I think the reason there's no evidence is because, as they said in prior debates and at the beginning, the evidence doesn't matter. An atheist, even if confronted with a miracle, will deny it. With that in mind, I think Sye is only focusing on showing that the Atheist worldview doesn't work. 

Now, personally, I think that Sye could do a bit better than he did in "Round 2/3" on "Unbelievable", when Paul put on the "hat" of a deist and then asked "Why Christ?". At that point, I think Sye had won the debate vs the atheist, and may as well have began debating the theist -- but he didn't. He continued debating the atheist even when the atheist was no longer there, and in doing so he lost a lot of footing in the debate, and I think he walled off some potential for common ground that would have been valuable to the remainder of the debate. 

ETA: I do agree that Sye was pretty rude at several points in the debate. Message to Sye: 1 Peter 3:15.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 5 months ago
 +Zac Slade "An atheist, even if confronted with a miracle, will deny it" 

Um, false. If I were presented with good evidence, I would not just close my eyes and say I didn't see it. 

You are completely wrong.
 Reply  · 1 

Zac Slade 5 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R Let me rebut that from several angles:
1. I'm not completely wrong. Paul himself said that even if he was there and saw the miracles, he wouldn't believe it. Maybe I'm wrong about YOU, but if you're an atheist then you shouldn't be talking in absolutes anyway ("completely"). 

2. History tells us that I'm right. The entire Old Testament is about how the Jews saw awesome miracles, but they turned away from God anyway, over and over and over. 

3. There's a difference between proof and evidence. There's no proof for or against anything in an absolute sense unless you have an ultimate foundation for it. Atheists fundamentally deny that we can know anything with certainty, which means that even if there is an absolute truth, atheists will say we can not know it absolutely. So there is no such thing as proof for atheists -- only evidence, and evidence can always be misconstrued if you are biased against it. 

4. There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God (and zero evidence against it, I might add). There are plenty of historical records, and there are thousands of people today who claim to have experienced miracles. The fact that we exist is a miracle; the universe exists as clumps of collected energy despite the invariable characteristic of energy which is that it moves from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration -- this means that the energy in the universe can't have existed there forever. It was put there, and not even that long ago. The big bang (or "singularity" if you want even more of a "chicken or egg" scenario) was only 14 billion years ago. Darwinian evolutionists say that getting where we are is possible if you have quadrillions of trillions of years; we haven't had that much time. 

5. You want more evidence? Go find an evidential apologist. The apologetic in this video was a transcendental one, not evidential. It doesn't make much sense to come here and complain about lack of evidence when they said at the beginning of the video that the evidence won't be provided.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 5 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"but if you're an atheist then you shouldn't be talking in absolutes anyway ("completely")."
""An atheist, even if confronted with a miracle, will deny it"
Maybe you should try taking your own advice and not generalize a bunch of people based on one person. =\

"History tells us that I'm right. The entire Old Testament is about how the Jews saw awesome miracles, but they turned away from God anyway, over and over and over."
The Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of history... at all. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that.

"There's a difference between proof and evidence..."
Yeah, and what you just said isn't it.
"Proof" is technically a term used in mathematics and logic. You don't give "proofs" for whether something is true or not. Ultimately, a proof written on paper is useless if we don't have any evidence in the real world to back up what is on paper. That includes mathematics, by the way.
So yes, there is such a thing as proof for atheists. It's just that we admit that you can't rely completely on a proof in order to understand reality. You need evidence (facts about reality) to back up the claims you make, otherwise your claim is useless.

"There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God (and zero evidence against it, I might add)."
Before I take apart your list, I might want to mention here that mentioning there being zero evidence against the existence of God is extremely pointless.
There's also zero evidence against the existence of Zeus and the Tooth Fairy, and literally every single construct of the human imagination ever conceived.
You can't provide evidence that something does not exist... that wouldn't make any sense if you could. Any evidence you find in relation to the existence of something could only serve to support its existence. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't find any evidence related to it.
See how that works?

"There are plenty of historical records"
There's plenty of records about dragons too. And giants. And alien abductions.
And there's tons of books about Harry Potter, and London is mentioned in that book, and it's a real place, so I guess Harry Potter is real too.
Or, they are all just books and text, and the mere fact things are written down has nothing to do with whether or not they are true.

"and there are thousands of people today who claim to have experienced miracles"
Appeal to anecdote and appeal to popularity. Sorry, this is no good.

"this means that the energy in the universe can't have existed there forever. It was put there"
Haha, wow... you sure jumped to the conclusion you wanted to jump to there.
How exactly did you go from energy existing in clumps to "SOMEONE PUT IT THERE!" Seriously, that's a pretty big jump.

"Darwinian evolutionists say that getting where we are is possible if you have quadrillions of trillions of years; we haven't had that much time."
Um, they do? I'm pretty sure this part is just flat out lying, but okay.
Citations, please.

"It doesn't make much sense to come here and complain about lack of evidence when they said at the beginning of the video that the evidence won't be provided."
Oh okay, fine then. I will instead complain about the complete lack of logic, tact, and intelligence.
Sye has demonstrated multiple times his inability to understand logic while he incorrectly corrects others on it. He's a complete douche bag to everyone he argues his point to (to the point where he's even been kicked off a talk show hosted by christians, because they can't even stand this asshole. And finally, I've watched enough debates with this clown to see how ill prepared he is to even talk about this stuff.
He's a complete, asinine, moron and deserves to be ridiculed and forgotten.
Also, your evidence sucks.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 5 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R "Maybe you should try taking your own advice and not generalize a bunch of people based on one person. "
So you're saying that you are capable of knowing things with absolute certainty? 

"The Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of history... at all. I'm sorry, I thought you knew that."
Can't say I didn't expect that. See, it wouldn't matter what "historical document" I gave you, if it mentions a miracle then you will say it is inaccurate. Point demonstrated. 

"Yeah, and what you just said isn't it."
So, first of all I think the issue at this point is that I was using the word "proof" in a different sense than what you have described. You redefined proof in order to attack my argument, so you didn't actually address what I was saying. Second of all, I think you misunderstand the use of the word "proof" in formal mathematics. Do you have a degree in a field related to mathematics? I believe there are several theoretical branches of math which have and use proofs, but for which physical evidence is impossible outside of the symbols used on paper. 

The context clue I hoped would clarify my use of the word "proof" for you was when I said "in an absolute sense". Any part of your knowledge, (perhaps with the exception of "I exist"), if you find sufficient evidence to make you think it's false, would hopefully be changed. Therefore, those parts of your knowledge which can be changed are not absolute. 

"Before I take apart your list..."
Right. If there is evidence for something and not against it, then it is more likely to be true and not false. If there is zero evidence for something and zero evidence against it, then there's no reason to believe it is true or false. 

"...And there's tons of books about Harry Potter..."
This is weak and you know it.
"Appeal to anecdote and appeal to popularity. Sorry, this is no good."
But you believe everything you're taught in school without doing the experiments to justify it yourself? Why? Because everyone else does? Because someone smart told you so? Do you suppose there is no scholarly research done in favor of the Bible? 

"Haha, wow... you sure jumped to the conclusion you wanted to jump to there...."
It's not simply "the conclusion Christians want". It's a fact that matter consists of energy, energy tends to disperse, and the energy in the universe cannot have existed there forever. What state it took before that obviously seems to tend to disperse into energy (hence energy). It cannot have existed eternally, and science has demonstrated that.
This is why they agreed at the beginning of the video that evidence is useless. Point demonstrated again. 

"Um, they do? I'm pretty sure this part is just flat out lying, but okay."
Alright, look. I'll submit on this point that I've only ever heard the figures coming from colleagues of mine who are atheists and haven't looked into it myself much. They admitted that the probability of evolution occurring within the given time was very small, and that the Cambrian Explosion is difficult to account for. Again, if you want better research, see evidentialist apologetics -- CARM and Creation Ministries are good places to start for the actual arguments on this kind of thing. 

"complete lack of logic"
I disagree. I submit that you just don't understand it. 

"He's a complete douche bag to everyone he argues his point to..."
I'm pretty sure we weren't arguing this. 

"He's a complete, asinine, moron and deserves to be ridiculed and forgotten."
Spoken like someone who is frustrated because he doesn't actually know how to address the argument. You say he lacks evidence -- well, it's not an argument based on evidence. It's a transcendental argument. 

"Also, your evidence sucks."
It wouldn't matter to you if it was different. Nothing I can say in a youtube comment is going to convince you that a miracle occurred because you didn't see it with your own eyes, and even if you did you would write it off and forget about it. Point demonstrated (x3).
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 5 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade
"So you're saying that you are capable of knowing things with absolute certainty?"
Uhhh no. How did you get that out of what I said?

"Can't say I didn't expect that. See, it wouldn't matter what "historical document" I gave you, if it mentions a miracle then you will say it is inaccurate."
Right. It wouldn't matter what historical document you gave me because it's a fucking piece of paper with writing on it. Just because it says something, that doesn't mean it's true. How is that difficult to understand?
Also, you are asserting that I will claim a document as inaccurate merely because it mentions a miracle. This is false. Please don't claim that I'll do something when you have no idea what you're talking about. It's kind of a dick thing to do. Thanks.

"I believe there are several theoretical branches of math which have and use proofs, but for which physical evidence is impossible outside of the symbols used on paper."
That's why it's called "Theoretical Physics."
Derp.
There are plenty of theories only supported by math that we can't really do anything with for exactly that reason... they are only supported by math. Once we can find evidence to support those mathematical theories, they become supported theories. "Supported" requires evidence. The evidence supports the theory.

"This is weak and you know it."
Hmm, well your rebuttal against my "weak" argument is even weaker, so the argument stands.
Just cause somethin's in a book don't make it true.

"But you believe everything you're taught in school without doing the experiments to justify it yourself?"
God I hate talking to people like you... assumptions left and right. That's all presuppositional apologists are good at.
I do not believe everything I'm taught in school. I question what I'm taught, and, AM IN FACT, told to question what I'm taught and experiment what I'm taught.
I'm in physics right now and we don't take one damn bit of knowledge for granted. We prove the idea with math, then head to the lab to see if the math works. That's how it should be done.

"and the energy in the universe cannot have existed there forever"
Citations, please. You are merely asserting this. How could you possibly know the state of existence before the big bang? Have you won a nobel prize for this claim of yours, yet?

"It cannot have existed eternally, and science has demonstrated that."
We don't know this! You are again asserting something that science has not claimed knowledge to. We only know that in a closed system, the energy of that system goes down. That does not mean we can assert the state of the entire plane of physical existence with that law.

"This is why they agreed at the beginning of the video that evidence is useless. Point demonstrated again"
You're a douche bag. Point demonstrated again.

"complete lack of logic"
I disagree. I submit that you just don't understand it."*
Nope. It's been clearly demonstrated that Sye is pretty terrible with logic. He's been cited as misquoting fallacies, misusing fallacies, and committing an embarrassing amount of fallacies when he debates. There are videos on the internet dedicated to counting how many fallacies Sye can manage to use in a single argument. It's pretty great.

"Spoken like someone who is frustrated because he doesn't actually know how to address the argument."
Nah, your argument just sucks, man.
That's the point. The transcendental argument is a waste of time. It lacks logic, and deliberately lacks evidence. So what in the hell good is it?
You can sit there and cry about it all you want. I'm not convinced by your shitty argument that you have any iota of a good point.
You've been trying to use evidence... the same evidence that's been debunked more times than anyone cares to care about anymore.
Honestly that's a hell of a lot more admirable than someone like Sye. He just sits there and puts you in a little loop that no one can get out of, while he pretends that he has the magic answer that gets him out for free. It doesn't. It's a terrible answer to an unanswerable question.

" wouldn't matter to you if it was different. Nothing I can say in a youtube comment is going to convince you that a miracle occurred because you didn't see it with your own eyes, and even if you did you would write it off and forget about it. Point demonstrated (x3)"
And here's you assuming what I'm like AGAIN.
You're a douchebag. Point demonstrated (x3).
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 5 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R
"How did you get that out of what I said?"
You quoted me saying "if you're an atheist then you shouldn't be talking in absolutes". Your response was "Don't generalize a bunch of people based on one person". 

Based on what you said, either you don't fit the characteristic of atheists which I described above, or you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing. A person who talks in absolutes thinks he can know an absolute, or else he talks about things he doesn't know. 

By asking you if you can know things with absolute certainty, I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt (where you are disagreeing because you don't fit my generalization). 

"That's why it's called "Theoretical Physics."..."
Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about, I specifically mentioned theoretical mathematics as my example against your argument. Theoretical physics and theoretical math are two separate and unique fields (albeit they intermingle a lot). Some of theoretical math will never be demonstrated using physical objects. 

"Hmm, well your rebuttal against my "weak" argument is even weaker, so the argument stands"
For someone who talks about logical fallacies so much, I shouldn't have to cite the specific logical fallacy in your argument for you to put it away in this case. 

Of course, I can think of a scenario where you are just interested in winning the debate rather than having a mutually beneficial discussion, and so you wouldn't want to point out your own logical fallacies even though you notice them. If that's the case, then it truly wouldn't matter what I said and what evidence I brought to you. If that's the case, then let it be known, hereby, that you win -- and I'll not respond to your next comment. 

"The transcendental argument is a waste of time."
"Transcendental" is a type of argument. There are several arguments that fit this category, and you are free to have the opinion that they are a waste of time. However, different people value different branches of study, and transcendental arguments have been used in several fields toward multiple ends. So in saying that the type of argument is a waste of time, you've made a pretty strong generalization. (Something you accuse me of doing). 

"derp"
"Nah, your argument just sucks, man."
"You're a douchebag."
This kind of talk proves nothing, adds nothing to the conversation, and leads me to believe that, as I said above, you are only interested in "winning the argument" even if you're wrong. I think my comments have been civil in general -- granted I made some assumptions about you.  Reading back, I don't see how you can argue the way you do and then accuse other people of being douchebags. If you understood the argument, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem -- you would articulate the argument and what's wrong with it. Your incivility demonstrates to me that you don't understand the arguments and you are only interested in winning.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 5 months ago (edited)
 You know, come to think of it -- I really think the issue we're having is poor communication. We are using some of the same terms but we have different meanings for them. 

This is a good explanation for why I think you don't understand my argument, and you think I don't understand yours. Easy example of differing terms: I suppose that the Bible is a historical document, and I attribute much more merit to it than you do. Maybe not the best example, but I hope you get the point. 

We should have spent some time clarifying terms before we even started this discussion. We both share the responsibility for this mistake. Do you want to move this to a better (non-youtube) forum, to facilitate a more detailed and thoughtful discussion?
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 5 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"This is a good explanation for why I think you don't understand my argument, and you think I don't understand yours."
I see what you did there. 

In all seriousness, there's not much to understand for my "argument" since mine is just a rejection of yours based on yours being full of fallacies. 

If you want to argue whether or not those fallacies are valid, or whether or not your argument falls into the category of those fallacies, then knock yourself out. 

But as of now, all I'm doing is dismissing your claims because your claims fall under those fallacy categories.

"Do you want to move this to a better (non-youtube) forum, to facilitate a more detailed and thoughtful discussion"
Go for it.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 5 months ago
 +Matt R I don't know any good forums for this.... How about... (googling)... oh man, I have a feeling I'm gonna regret choosing this forum, but: religionforums.org. 

I'm genuinely curious to see whether I can help you understand the presuppositional argument, or if you will show me what's wrong with it. Here's a link to the specific thread I've made:
http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Presuppositional-Argument-for-Christianity
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade define what a miracle is and how you would identify an event as such
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Logan Belcher Good question. To be honest, I'm back and forth on this sometimes. On one hand, I'd like to think that God uses the physical laws which he created to perform his good plan in the world. On these lines, we could say that God created a giant state-machine which perfectly lined up spectacular (maybe one-of-a-kind) events in history according to his plan, but totally explainable by science if only we knew the details. 

On the other hand, there are some things in the Bible and history which I don't know how to account for without calling them "miracles". (Jesus being raised from the dead, for example.) I guess we could say a miracle is: any event where some part of the physical world breaks the laws of causality which we know to constrain the physical world. 

Either way, I think that God could have created a universe with a totally different set of laws if he wanted. So, trying to understand the universe that God did create (eg science) is a way that we glorify God.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"On the other hand, there are some things in the Bible and history which I don't know how to account for without calling them 'miracles'" 

And what exactly has happened in history that we KNOW actually happened that could be called a miracle?
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade​ "On the other hand, there are some things in the Bible and history which I don't know how to account for without calling them "miracles". (Jesus being raised from the dead, for example.)" 

Let's pretend that Jesus's resurrection is a well I established fact that we both agreed on. Let's say you and I witnessed it. Are you saying that merely lacking an account for it is grounds for calling it a miracle? 

"I guess we could say a miracle is: any event where some part of the physical world breaks the laws of causality which we know to constrain the physical world." 

If an event can "break a law that constrains the physical world" then it isn't exactly a law that constrains the physical world is it? 

 Its kind of like saying you own an unbreakable stick, and if it breaks then a miracle has occurred. The very fact that you believe that something CAN break it, negates the idea that it can't be broken. 

For a more common example, I could claim that my car keys are unfindable. I found them, therefore a miracle occurred. Seems silly right? 

Is there some other way you might define a miracle that has a more identifiable quality?
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade to be more specific. I wouldn't deny that unlikely, unexplained events occur. Would you agree? If so, in what instances, and more importantly by what criteria, should we attribute a supernatural cause? 

If we can't come up with something, then it seems like the idea of denying miracles or attributing events with the label of miracle is entirely an opinion.
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 Well, that's kindof what the existential apologist is getting at when he says, "there's no evidence I can give you that will prove to you that a supernatural being exists." 

No matter how unlikely an event seems, atheists can always brush it off as being explainable, "but we just don't know how". I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong about that. 

However, bringing it back to the above video, the presuppositional argument is: the atheist claims no ultimate foundation for "absolute" certainty of anything. Therefore, in order for the atheist to be consistent with his atheism, he should claim uncertainty about everything. 

The problem with claiming uncertainty about everything is that it introduces some problems (some of which only exist in the atheist worldview). If nothing is certain, then what does it look like to be consistent? Consistent with what? There's nothing to be consistent with. Furthermore, one could ask, "are you certain that you can't be certain of anything?" 

It sounds a little bit nonsensical because it is a legitimate question towards a nonsensical worldview. So, in order to bring a degree of consistency, (or maybe "sanity",) into the debate, both sides of the debate have to act as non-atheists. That's why the apologist says to the atheist, "you're borrowing from my worldview".
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade
"Therefore, in order for the atheist to be consistent with his atheism, he should claim uncertainty about everything."
"The problem with claiming uncertainty about everything is that it introduces some problems (some of which only exist in the atheist worldview).

No, those problems exist no matter what your worldview is. The only difference is an atheist can admit that he or she has no solution to the problem of absolute certainty, whereas the presuppositional apologist pretends to have the answer by merely asserting it as the answer without providing any evidence for it. 

Presupposing the solution does not make the solution correct, obviously (or at least that SHOULD be obvious...).
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 By bringing it back to the video, I'm not trying to dodge the question; I partially agree with you. The uncertainty mentioned above is relevant and I think it brings focus back to the point where we disagree.
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Matt R I think I see what you're getting at. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I think your impression is that I, (or the originator of Christianity), saw the problem of uncertainty and then arbitrarily invented a solution. 

The issue I have with that is:
I do not think that the problem of uncertainty alone necessitates the Christian God. It only shows that atheism is false. I DO think that consistency necessitates the Christian God. Other religions are inconsistent for other reasons. 

As for inventing God arbitrarily -- this would only be true if nobody had ever seen or interacted with God. Since I believe that atheism cannot be correct because it is impossible for it to be internally consistent, I then look around and try to understand which God is correct. I believe that the Christian God is the only one which satisfies self-consistency.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 I guess I should have said, "I then look around and try to understand which way is correct". If you're just coming out of atheism and you want to begin by giving every possibility a fair chance, then "God" might be a limiting term. The outcome, I believe, is the same.
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade
"Correct me if I'm wrong -- I think your impression is that I, (or the originator of Christianity), saw the problem of uncertainty and then arbitrarily invented a solution."
Nope. I do not believe that the idea of a god was invented solely for the reason of uncertainty. Not even a little bit. 

I believe there are many reasons that many gods were conceptualized. I'm just not convinced that any of those reasons are good ones. That's why I'm an atheist. Atheism is essentially the rejection of the idea of gods being a viable explanation for anything. It just doesn't seem likely that any gods exist, so I don't believe any gods do exist. That's all atheism is.

"I do not think that the problem of uncertainty alone necessitates the Christian God. It only shows that atheism is false."
Again, I don't think this either. However, I would like to know how in the world you think this problem of uncertainty shows that atheism is false. 

Firstly, atheism isn't something that can be true or false. It is a position of belief. 

But assuming you mean to say that this problem of uncertainty shows there must be a god, please demonstrate to me how this is true. I don't follow how you are able to come to that conclusion.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Matt R "Atheism is essentially the rejection of the idea of gods being a viable explanation for anything."
When I say that Atheism is false, I mean that it is fallacious to say that gods are not a viable explanation for anything 

OK, I'll try to sum it up better. Admittedly, the ideas we're discussing are a bit abstract and maybe difficult to explain. 

So, if you agree that your worldview provides no absolute certainty, then I posit that it is impossible for you to live or argue in a way consistent with that worldview (see my previous comment). I believe that if an idea is inconsistent, then it is wrong or false -- just as if a math equation is inconsistent, then it ends up with something like 1=2, which is false. 

As I mentioned before, atheism being wrong doesn't necessitate Christianity being right. I'm saying that Christianity is found to be right by process of elimination. Check a worldview, and if it is inconsistent then it is wrong, so check the next worldview. 

This argument might come down to a matter of preference. I refuse to live without the ability to be consistent with my stated beliefs, which are: I believe that all people are sinners and so God forgives via Jesus. (Bible)
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"So, if you agree that your worldview provides no absolute certainty, then I posit that it is impossible for you to live or argue in a way consistent with that worldview"
My "worldview" doesn't provide absolute certainty, and neither does yours. I can't make this any more clear: absolute certainty can't exist in any belief system. I simply admit that fact, and you pretend it's a problem that your worldview has magically solved.

"I'm saying that Christianity is found to be right by process of elimination. Check a worldview, and if it is inconsistent then it is wrong, so check the next worldview." 

So now you've touched on another whole category of fallacy: false dichotomy. You cannot discover the truth about reality by pretending you have all possible options and using process of elimination until you're left with the most likely of the explanations. You are ignoring the fact that ALL options on the table could be false. 

We do not discover what is true about reality by process of elimination. We determine which explanation is accurate by finding evidence for THAT explanation, not by checking off all the other ones we happened to have thought of at the time.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 "My "worldview" doesn't provide absolute certainty, and neither does yours."
"So now you've touched on another whole category of fallacy: false dichotomy."
Ah interesting, I think I see your point. Again, feel free to correct. You're right to say that I haven't known every possible alternative religion, and so I must stick to the best possible explanation I have. 

In that sense, perhaps you're right that no religion can provide absolute certainty, (in the sense that nobody can ever know the details of every other religion.) So from that perspective, if and only if Christianity is false, absolute certainty may not be achievable within a lifetime.

I say that a religion can provide absolute certainty in the sense that we live in a system designed by something. So, if the designer never lies, and if the designer reveals something to us, then we can rely on it. I said "if and only if Christianity is false", because one of the principles within Christianity is that nobody has any excuse to not know God, implying that God has been revealed to everyone somehow. 

That leads me to my next point. This point is admittedly somewhat subjective. I also believe that I've experienced the influence of a higher power in my life on multiple occasions -- and seen the influence of a higher power in other people's lives. This falls under the "evidence" and "miracles" discussion from earlier. 

Now, in atheism, absolute certainty isn't just "not achievable within a lifetime". It's impossible. Atheism doesn't just "not offer" consistency; it mandates inconsistency.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​​ "Well, that's kindof what the existential apologist is getting at when he says, "there's no evidence I can give you that will prove to you that a supernatural being exists."
And this would be fine, IF it were the end of it. Fine, you have a claim you can't prove. Okay. 

The problem is that you go on to blame "the atheist" for "brushing off miracles" as if you've presented criteria for a miracle that would show supernatural intervention and some event that meets that criteria. 

You are right. There is a problem with atheists not accepting miracles and two ways you might square it are that 1. The atheist stubbornly refuses to accept what is clearly shown, or 2. Nothing has been clearly shown. 

"No matter how unlikely an event seems, atheists can always brush it off as being explainable, "but we just don't know how"."
Again, is it just unlikely events? 

"However, bringing it back to the above video, the presuppositional argument is: the atheist claims no ultimate foundation for "absolute" certainty of anything."
What is certainty other than just a feeling? You can literally feel certain about anything. It is almost irrelevant. 

"Therefore, in order for the atheist to be consistent with his atheism, he should claim uncertainty about everything."
I feel certain about many things. 

"If nothing is certain..."
What do you mean when you say "things" are certain?
I don't want to equivocate between the feeling of certainty and "the actual state of things" (you might be calling them "certain things" or even "absolute certainties").
I feel that may be a problem if not sorted out now.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"You're right to say that I haven't known every possible alternative religion, and so I must stick to the best possible explanation I have."
That's not quite what I'm saying. Even if you knew every detail about every single religion, I'd STILL say it was false dichotomy to use process of elimination. You would still be ignoring the very real possibility that ALL religions got it wrong. That's why it's a fallacy.

"In that sense, perhaps you're right that no religion can provide absolute certainty, (in the sense that nobody can ever know the details of every other religion.)"
That's not quite what I'm trying to say.
It's not the lack of knowledge of every other religion that makes absolute uncertainty impossible; it's the idea that anything you say could be challenged with an unfalsifiable "what if" scenario.
-----------------------
"I ate cereal for breakfast this morning."
"How do you know for certain?"
"Because I remember doing it... it was only a few hours ago."
"But how do you know those memories accurately reflect what really happened? What if you are remembering it wrong?
"Well, I happened to video tape me doing it. Here's the video."
"What if this video tape isn't accurately reflecting what really happened? How are you certain this tape hasn't been modified?"
"The tape has been with me this entire time..."
"How do you know that? What if you've really been asleep this whole time and you just think you've been awake for the whole day?"
"Uh..."
"How are you certain that you aren't dreaming right now? What if we are all just a brain in a vat?"
-----------------------
As stupid and annoying as that type of conversation is, it's still admittedly a problem that has no solution. You could be the only thing that actually exists, and I could be just an argumentative figment of your imagination. How do you know for certain? You CAN'T. And as I stated before, simply asserting that your religious beliefs address the problem, DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN YOU'VE SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
You (and I use that word generally) have merely stated that you've solved the problem without actually demonstrating HOW you've solved it.
Therefore, I cannot take the presupp argument seriously if this is as far as it goes. It's a useless assertion with no evidence to back it up.

"I also believe that I've experienced the influence of a higher power in my life on multiple occasions -- and seen the influence of a higher power in other people's lives. This falls under the "evidence" and "miracles" discussion from earlier."
Another category of fallacy here: anecdote.

"Atheism doesn't just "not offer" consistency; it mandates inconsistency."
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. "Mandates inconsistency?" I don't understand what you mean. What's inconsistent that pertains specifically to atheism?
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Matt R
The conversation you mentioned is kindof frustrating -- I get that. I prefer the type of discussion I'm having with you, where both parties might learn something. I've certainly been learning from you, so thanks.

"You would still be ignoring the very real possibility that ALL religions got it wrong"
"What's inconsistent that pertains specifically to atheism?"
I think that both of these statements have variants of the same response. 

I'll start by saying, if all religions are wrong, (if nobody has it right), then even if there is a god it would be impossible to know it, and therefore we would live in a world without certainty. 

So, let me know if this makes sense:
Without certainty, there's nothing for me to be consistent with. One might say there's nothing "objective" or "universal". Therefore, no matter what I'm doing, my behavior has no grounds for being called consistent with my other behavior. However, in order to function normally, I have to assume that certain "norms" exist (for lack of a better word). For me to act as if norms exist, when I don't think they do exist, would be behaving in a way inconsistent with my beliefs. 

However, I have no option but to conform to certain norms. So, in order to maintain internal consistency, the norms must exist and be justifiable. One way for the norms to be justified is by supposing that the norms were put in place by something which has the intrinsic ability to produce absolute and objective things, and then tell us about it. If that something has told us about it, then we can be certain that it's right. The idea that this "something" is a God is only valid if the God has actually revealed itself to us in a way that we can be certain about. And, if it has revealed itself in a way that we can be certain about, then it's not only a valid explanation, it's the correct explanation. 

As far as experiences being anecdotal, any evidence presented by anyone ever is summed up as an experience which they impart to the recipient of the evidence by sharing the evidence. However, I do admit that experiences are interpreted subjectively, which is why evidence is useless unless you both can agree on what it means. That's why you might hear a presuppositional apologist say, "Evidence is good for strengthening Christians, but not for presenting to atheists."
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Logan Belcher

"2. Nothing has been clearly shown."
My contention is that nothing can be clearly shown if atheism is a correct belief/ideology. 

"I don't want to equivocate between the feeling of certainty and "the actual state of things" (you might be calling them "certain things" or even "absolute certainties")."
The feeling of certainty is not the same as certainty, although they may be difficult to distinguish between if one has no "ultimate" foundation for knowing anything.
For the purpose of this argument, certainty is to know "the actual state of things", and be correct about it to the point where you cannot be proved wrong. Correctness first-of-all requires consistency. 

This leads, I think, to two questions: "What can Christians be certain about?" and "Can a person with absolute certainty be deceived into losing that certainty?"
For the first question, I'll admit that this is my first time itemizing a list to answer that question, but I'd say: 1. God exists. 

2. I exists. 

3. God has created me with certain faculties for perception, and revealed himself to me through them. 

4. Those faculties must have been at least reliable enough to have functioned for God's revelation to me, at the time of His revelation. 

5. Whatever thing God revealed is certain. 

I'll have to think more about this. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
For the purposes of this argument, and to keep my stated definition of certainty, the answer to the second question is "no."
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade
One can easily say that objectively exists and therefore certainty exists, but then someone like Sye can say, "are you certain of that?"
How do you know if what you are told or what you think you know as fact is actually fact? Because your god told you? How do you know your god is correct? How do you know your god exists? Because he told you he exists? 

I can play the same game that presupps play. I can just keep asking you how you know, and NO MATTER WHAT you say, I can always rebut it with "How do you know?!" 

Even if there was a god-like being that came to your house and told you that he is the one true god, and everything in the Bible is correct, HOW DO YOU KNOW? How can you be certain that this god is correct? Again... because he tells you he's correct?! I sure hope that's not the reason...
You see? You haven't solved the problem by introducing a god. You've just complicated the problem. Even if this god character could be seen and appeared to be in control of the entire universe, how do we know that's actually what's going on? How do we know this god character actually exists and is actually doing what we can experience ourselves?
Nothing you're saying solves this problem. I can still ask you the same old question... HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN?
You don't.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R I think the issue here might be a difference in what we mean when we say "God".
It seems like when you say "god", you just mean "a very powerful being". (In summary) 

By "God" I mean, (among the other stuff the Bible says), a thing which has intrinsic qualities enabling it to reveal things to us in a way that gives us absolute certainty.
If such a God exists, and if it has acted on those qualities (by revealing itself to us), then we can have absolute certainty of it. 

The argument I'm making isn't just, "God, so certainty and consistency". It's "A specific God, so certainty and consistency. And, by the way, here's why Atheism doesn't work." 

Here's some points with numbers next to them:
1. Inconsistency equates wrongness
2. Without absolute certainty, we are forced to be inconsistent
3. Atheism does not allow certainty, and therefore leads to inconsistency, and therefore is wrong.
4. My experiences, which are what I have to work with, lead me to believe: a) Christianity is consistent and allows certainty, b) God has revealed Himself to me, and c) no other religion can claim consistency.
5. Supposing Christianity is right, God must also have revealed Himself to others.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"If such a God exists, and if it has acted on those qualities (by revealing itself to us), then we can have absolute certainty of it." 

No, you can't. 

Just because you say you can, does not mean that you can. I'm not sure why you are having difficulty understanding that. 

If such a god exists, how do you know this god posses such qualities? 

You don't. You have to assume that. There's no way for you to be certain of anything you suppose here, so you still have not solved the problem.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R
"If such a god exists, how do you know this god posses such qualities?"
So, what you asked was, "If a God exists with X quality, then how do you know that it has X quality?"
Well, "X quality" is "A quality allowing me to know with certainty that the God exists and has such quality, if the God tells me so". 

So the question becomes, "If a God exists which can let you know that he exists in a way that gives you certainty, then how can you have certainty that he let you know in a way that gave you certainty?" 

Well, there are two steps for this. First, you assume it. Because if you don't assume it, then you are forced to uncertainty and therefore inconsistency, and you are unable to know anything at all, much less use reason. Second, now that you have a foundation for reason, you try to prove it false. Interestingly, in doing so, you find all the more reason for it to be true. I recommend that you read C.S. Lewis' autobiography (I think it's called "Surprised by Joy"), which is one of a few stories where someone does so.
It's an long and strange train of thought, but please carefully consider it. A mathematician deals in long and strange formulas, but that doesn't make them invalid formulas. 

Now, to clarify, when I say "unable to know things" or "unable to use reason", I don't mean that YOU can't know things or use reason. I mean that atheism provides no foundation for it. The fact is that you, and other atheists, CAN know things and use reason, and the reason you can is because God exists.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade
"The fact is that you, and other atheists, CAN know things and use reason, and the reason you can is because God exists."
And that is an assertion which you have yet to demonstrate is true. 

If all this conversation is going to do is go in circles endlessly, then I don't really have any interest continuing it. Sorry, but it's kind of a huge waste of time at this point. =\ 

Show less
 Reply   

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Matt R
I understand. Thanks for pursuing it with me. I enjoyed it and learned from it. 

I think that it was kindof a personal preference thing, like I said before. Either you want to live in a way consistent with your beliefs, or you don't. 

I'll be praying for you, Matt. Have a nice rest of your day.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade I prefer to live in a way that I can enjoy and hopefully help others enjoy too. I believe in whatever I need to believe in order to help make that idea a reality.
Have a nice day.
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​​ //My contention is that nothing can be clearly shown if atheism is a correct belief/ideology.//
And what if theism is a correct belief? 

Would you be able to explain how one identifies a miracle (with something akin to God's fingerprints) beyond unlikely or unexplained events? 

//For the purpose of this argument, certainty is to know "the actual state of things", and be correct about it to the point where you cannot be proved wrong."// 

How is this different than expressing a confidence level assigned to a belief or knowledge claim? 

Claiming to know things with certainty, or claiming to know the actual state of things is just another way of expressing a confidence value. Its a feeling. 

Luckily, for most people this feeling coincides with how justified the belief or knowledge claim is, but the mere expression of confidence or certainty is weightless except to tell us how justified a person thinks they are. 

//I'll have to think more about this. Thanks for giving me sunsetting to think about.// 

You are welcome. Truth be told the subject of certainty has been rattling around in my brain for a few months and I've been looking forward to this type of conversation with someone to parse out some ideas that I'm expressing. 

I know that philosophers have been studying the idea of certainty for a very long time and you seem very genuinely interested so I would recommend reading up on the idea. and I say that has someone preaching from the valley. 

But seriously consider what does it mean to claim absolute certainty? 

What if two people were to express absolute certainty about contradictory beliefs? What does that mean of certainty? 

And again this is not to be confused with the actual state of things (certainties) but rather our beliefs and knowledge claims about the actual state of things.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher Good response. This really got me thinking. After talking with you for a while, I might have to apologize to Matt for not totally understanding his position. 

OK, so before I go on, I want to make a distinction between "subjective certainty" and "objective certainty", so that we don't mix terms. 

"Subjective certainty" is what many people feel. They sincerely think they're right. If unchecked, it might also be called "closed mindedness". 

"Objective certainty" is when someone feels certain, and is absolutely correct. Their mind is linked to the truth of the matter in a surreal way, and anyone who challenges them is simply wrong. 

On reading your comment, I considered the possibility of "objective certainty" more carefully, and I had to ask myself if it is obtainable by humans. 

So, there was a flaw in my argument. I posited that objective certainty was a gift from God -- but then I proposed that a person should 'find it to be true' by some method. However, Christianity supposes that God's revelation was given to everyone, so that everyone has the objective certainty, but some people simply deny it. Therefore, by proposing a method at all, I was circumventing that principle of Christianity. 

This raises another problem, though. It was especially brought to my attention when you asked, "What if two people were to express absolute certainty about contradictory beliefs?" 

The question this brought to my mind is: Can a person from another religion be sincere in their assertion that they have objective or even subjective certainty about a belief contradictory to Christianity? If you take the verse Sye commonly quotes, which says that they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness", then they may be indirectly sincere, but still actively denying the truth. 

So if I even gave the luxury of sincerity to anyone nonChristian, then I've introduced a flaw into my argument.
Then, since I can't propose methods for discovering the truth except that God has revealed it to us, if someone posits to me that they have a sincere and objective certainty contrary to mine, then we've stalemated. 

What this comes down to is, from a presuppositional perspective, either you buy Christianity or you don't. So, the presuppositional argument as presented by Sye narrows down to a command: "Believe it!", with little to compel you to comply. 

However, if I do allow a method, then the question becomes: "is objective certainty necessary for consistency?" And if I suppose that I've already shown that it is, and that consistency is necessary for correctness, If that's the case, then the question for an atheist is: "Is it even remotely possible for atheism to provide an ultimate foundation for objective certainty?". And if the answer is "no", then we at least know that atheism could not be a correct belief. 

Based on all of the above, I might say that objective certainty via Christianity is only possible if Christianity is correct, and nobody else is sincere. It may be impossible to argue against this, since there's no way for a person to know if someone else is sincere, especially when discussing unprovable or immaterial ideas. 

Now, if objective certainty is both necessary and impossible (or at least unfounded), then what we have are a bunch of candidate ideas for providing a basis for objective certainty, and what we need is a criteria for evaluating said ideas until we've discovered one that is viable. I would like to say that it is not sufficient to assert that "gods are not a viable explanation", as a general statement, without a codified criteria. 

Sorry for the long comment. I'm eager to read your response!
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
""Is it even remotely possible for atheism to provide an ultimate foundation for objective certainty?". And if the answer is "no", then we at least know that atheism could not be a correct belief."
Well, I wanted to be done, but the last sentence in that above quote there is just nonsense, so I feel like I need to comment. 

Why, if atheism (the lack of belief in god) can't provide an ultimate foundation for objective certainty, does that mean that god exists?? 

How in the world does that make any sense?!
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​​
//Sorry for the long comment. I'm eager to read your response!//
No worries. I really enjoyed reading your thought process as you reevaluated some ideas. I don't disagree with you much but I would like to interject a few points. 

//"Objective certainty" is when someone feels certain, and is absolutely correct. Their mind is linked to the truth of the matter in a surreal way, and anyone who challenges them is simply wrong.//
As humans, in what way can we determine if someone is objectively certain? You bring this up later, but how do we evaluate whether someone is objectively certain or just subjectively stubborn? 

Wouldn't the criteria have to be that they have some sort of perfect or objective justification? 

And if that's the case isn't every form of justification from our human perspective based on a subjective experience. for example even if I am "objectively" certain that 2+2=4, that certainty is based on justification that I came by through subjectively experiencing the ideas of mathematics. 

//On reading your comment, I considered the possibility of "objective certainty" more carefully, and I had to ask myself if it is obtainable by humans.
So, there was a flaw in my argument. I posited that objective certainty was a gift from God -- but then I proposed that a person should 'find it to be true' by some method.//
Exactly. 

//However, Christianity supposes that God's revelation was given to everyone, so that everyone has the objective certainty, but some people simply deny it. Therefore, by proposing a method at all, I was circumventing that principle of Christianity.//
Right. You already highlighted one problem with this in your response. Let me highlight another. If there is no method by which you can find the belief you are certain about to be true, can't this be rather dangerous? 

Couldn't other beliefs with this sort of armor fall into subjective certainty ( and stubbornness as you noted)?
Couldn't anyone hold any belief like this? 

//The question this brought to my mind is: Can a person from another religion be sincere in their assertion that they have objective or even subjective certainty about a belief contradictory to Christianity?//
And to me this is something that we have the tools to judge for ourselves. Although we can never know for sure the motivations and thought processes of others, I feel like having the quality of being human in common, we can have a pretty good idea of when people are being sincere or not. 

Do you really think that everyone else in the world who does not share your certainty is simply lying through their teeth? 

Isn't it possible that this certainty is not in fact doled out to everyone. That it may be something else, such as a strong feeling of confidence engendered by culture, upbringing and repetition? 

//So if I even gave the luxury of sincerity to anyone nonChristian, then I've introduced a flaw into my argument.
Then, since I can't propose methods for discovering the truth except that God has revealed it to us, if someone posits to me that they have a sincere and objective certainty contrary to mine, then we've stalemated.//
And this is exactly where no more truth can be discovered by either party. this is why I believe in courageously and courteously shoving some of my most deeply held beliefs into the light of uncertainty, especially in discussions with others I disagree with . There are many benefits to this. 

1. It may encourage the person I'm discussing with to do the same and relinquish a stubbornly held subjective certainty that is in fact incorrect.
2. It may help me to do the same.
3. It may give me something more to think about or strengthen my own ability to understand and communicate my belief.
And the list could go on. 

//"is objective certainty necessary for consistency?" And if I suppose that I've already shown that it is//
You may have argued that objective certainty is necessary when discussing with Matt but I'm not sure. Could you tell me the reason that you think this is so? 

//the question for an atheist is: "Is it even remotely possible for atheism to provide an ultimate foundation for objective certainty?". And if the answer is "no", then we at least know that atheism could not be a correct belief.//
Firstly, this is a fallacy. Failure to provide an explanation for a phenomenon(ie objective certainty), does not render a belief incorrect. For example my belief that 2+2=4 does not provide me with an explanation or foundation for where giraffes came from, but that didn't render my belief incorrect. 

Secondly you will still need to provide why you think that objective certainty is a thing much less a necessary thing. And be mindful not to fall into the pitfall of equivocating your idea of objective certainty with absolute truth, the actual state of things, or reality itself. 

For most basic general definitions of these terms I agree that they exist but objective certainty is a completely different beast by your definition. Remember that it is a feeling of how correct your knowledge is. 

//I would like to say that it is not sufficient to assert that "gods are not a viable explanation", as a general statement, without a codified criteria.//
I agree. but the opposite is also true. "God is a viable explanation" shouldn't be accepted without an understanding and acceptance of the existence of:
1. God
2. the thing needing an explanation (objective certainty in this case).
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Matt R yes. That is a commonly used fallacy I see Matt slick using often. If some position on an issue hasn't provided an explanation or foundation for something, it does not negate the position on the issue and it certainly 😉 doesn't affirm the counter position.
Matt slick's version is that atheists can't explain the existence of the logical absolutes, therefore theism is correct. Nevermind the fact that his explanation for them is weak if not nonexistent.
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Logan Belcher Ahh! See, I can't wait to take philosophy and really dive into all these fallacies. I'd love to be able to properly identify them when I see them, but there are SO MANY!
Thank you!
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher
//Wouldn't the criteria have to be that they have some sort of perfect or objective justification?
And if that's the case isn't every form of justification from our human perspective based on a subjective experience.//
Exactly right -- this is the criteria proposed by the presuppositional apologist. The argument suggests that the "God" experience is not a subjective experience, since everyone has equally felt it. 

//You may have argued that objective certainty is necessary when discussing with Matt but I'm not sure. Could you tell me the reason that you think this is so? //
So this is not an easy thing to explain. Let me know what you think of this:
1. In general, people operate according to a set of rules, which they assume to exist.
2. If I do not have a reason to believe that something exists, I suppose that it does not exist.
3. To follow a rule which I believe does not exist would be to act inconsistently with my beliefs 

//Failure to provide an explanation for a phenomenon(ie objective certainty), does not render a belief incorrect.//
I see what you're getting at here. I should rephrase my question: "Is it remotely possible for an ultimate foundation to exist in the context of atheism?" 

Now, of course, the implications of this question are dependent on whether or not objective certainty is a necessity. 

To further clarify, while I did concede that objective certainty is a feeling, I intended to convey that it was different from subjective certainty in that it is somehow tied to reality (the quote was, "linked to the truth of the matter in a surreal way, [so that] anyone who challenges [it] is wrong"). 

Please discuss the distinction you're making between this and absolute truth. I see the difference as: objective certainty is the irrevocable knowledge of absolute truth. Does my distinction fail somehow? (Keeping in mind that the attainability of objective certainty is still open for discussion.)
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher
ETA: (I missed some of your points)
//Couldn't other beliefs with this sort of armor fall into subjective certainty ( and stubbornness as you noted)?
Couldn't anyone hold any belief like this?//
I understand what you're saying. I guess the presuppositional response to this is:
If objective certainty is a necessity for correctness or consistency, then the truth must be evident to everyone. If it is not evident to everyone, then there is no way for me to know whether or not it is evident to me. Therefore, objective certainty can only be obtained if the absolute truth is evident to everyone. 

//Isn't it possible that this certainty is not in fact doled out to everyone. That it may be something else, such as a strong feeling of confidence engendered by culture, upbringing and repetition?//
So, while I'm initially inclined to say, "Sure, that's possible." In the context of this discussion it leads to the question:
"If I believe that objective certainty doesn't exist, and I have no reason to believe that the certain laws of logic and communication implied by this question are valid, then how can I ask or answer the question while maintaining consistency with my beliefs?"
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 //The argument suggests that the "God" experience is not a subjective experience, since everyone has equally felt it.//
Suggests, but can't substantiate in any way.  Plus, even that wouldn't remove the subjectivity of it.  Experiences are necessarily subjective, even if they are shared.  All humans breathe, does that mean breathing is not a subjective experience? 

//2. If I do not have a reason to believe that something exists, I suppose that it does not exist.//
This is a tangent, but I would recommend against this approach.  You should just withhold judgement on that things existence instead of supposing it doesn't exist.  It's not a big difference, but it's the difference between saying "I don't believe x exists" and "I believe x doesn't exist." 

I am still confused as to how this demonstrates the necessity of objective certainty.
The word "necessity" precludes some "need", and the obvious question is "for what"?  What exactly must be satisfied that this objective certainty satiates? 

//To further clarify, while I did concede that objective certainty is a feeling, I intended to convey that it was different from subjective certainty in that it is somehow tied to reality (the quote was, "linked to the truth of the matter in a surreal way, [so that] anyone who challenges [it] is wrong").//
Again, the challenge with proposing objective certainty as an idea is making that distinction.  How would you know if something is a certainty that is tied to reality in some surreal way so that you can't be wrong?  It always comes back to justification (and so it should!). 

//Please discuss the distinction you're making between this and absolute truth. I see the difference as: objective certainty is the irrevocable knowledge of absolute truth. Does my distinction fail somehow? (Keeping in mind that the attainability of objective certainty is still open for discussion.)//
Yes, we should try to settle this, because I think it's muddying up some of the rest of the conversation. 

 Irrevocable knowledge just doesn't make sense to me.  Even if you know something about reality, and you are actually correct about it, the closest you can still come is justifying it to some degree.  While an objective certainty might exist, our ability to call things objectively certainty is still limited by our ability to justify things through experience. 

I guess my point is, even if it exists, we can't identify when something is an objectively certainty, so it's usefulness is the same as something that doesn't exist.  So in terms of being a part of our knowledge, it might as well not exist.  It's irrelevant.  The justification is what matters. 

I thought about this today and I wanted to try to demonstrate it in some way.  It may make absolutely no sense. 

Okay, if knowledge is a justified, true belief let's say you know the sky is blue.  Let's call this a proposition of knowledge. 

Proposition:  I know the sky is blue.
 It matches the criteria, right?
1.  Justified - check, plenty of experiential evidence.
2.  Belief - check again.
3.  True - This is the tricky one.  We agree that the proposition is necessarily either true or not true, but how do you go about making this determination?  How do you know it's true.  Which opens up another proposition.  Like this.
Proposition:  I know that it's true that the sky is blue
1.  Justified - Here we get into some trouble.  Are you going to have to justify that something you know (the sky is blue) is actually true?  How are you going to go about doing that?
2.  Belief - check, you believe that it's true that the sky is blue.
3.  True - okay, even trickier.  Is is true that's it's true that the sky is blue?  
Now most people don't go through more than this, if that. 

 Because we're perfectly content with having justified beliefs.  We act according to our beliefs and according to how justified we are in believing them.  Absolute certainty isn't a requirement, and in terms of day to day life and making decisions and learning, it doesn't matter!
It's late, this may be a little bit incoherent and babbling, but eh, i can clarify later.  :-)
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher
So, for the purpose of this conversation, please make note of the distinction between "ultimately justifiable", and "justifiable". 

//Suggests, but can't substantiate in any way.  Plus, even that wouldn't remove the subjectivity of it.  Experiences are necessarily subjective, even if they are shared.  All humans breathe, does that mean breathing is not a subjective experience?//
You're right to say that nobody can substantiate a claim that you have known God and denied Him. The substantiation is completely subject to the notion that you have experienced God (whether you have or not is impossible for me to determine conclusively by asking you). 

Now, while I might otherwise concede that all of our experiences are interpreted subjectively, I would say that God is fully able to produce an experience which is interpreted the same way by everyone. However, under the Christian paradigm, even though everyone has experienced God and interpreted it correctly, their response is subjective. We believe that people are able to deny their own experiences so vigorously that they themselves become unable to acknowledge the experiences. 

//...it's the difference between saying "I don't believe x exists" and "I believe x doesn't exist."//
Great observation. I want to posit, however, that it is still inconsistent to live ones life in conformity with a rule whose existence has not been determined. I will spend some more time thinking about this. 

//The word "necessity" precludes some "need", and the obvious question is "for what"?  What exactly must be satisfied that this objective certainty satiates?//
When I used the word "necessity", I meant "necessary for consistency". If you followed my train of thought through the first three points, the next points might be: 

4. If something is inconsistent, then it is wrong.
5. It is impossible to live consistently with the notion that the "rules" (points 1-3) don't exist or are ultimately unjustifiable
6. So, to suppose that the rules don't exist or are ultimately unjustifiable mandates inconsistency, and therefore wrongness.
So the rules must exist and be ultimately justifiable, in order for my life and behavior to be consistent with my beliefs. 

//...Absolute certainty isn't a requirement, and in terms of day to day life and making decisions and learning, it doesn't matter!  //
I'm really glad you are clearing this up. Absolute certainty may not be a requirement for your ability to live and act. It is a requirement for your ability to live and act in a way consistent with your beliefs.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade I don't get it.  You keep saying that in order to believe or know anything you have to be certain or ultimately justified, and that's just not the case.  Being justified is useful enough, and I don't see how we can get further than that and you haven't showed it yet. 

//I would say that God is fully able to produce an experience which is interpreted the same way by everyone.//
Okay, but this still doesn't get you near being ultimately justified/certain.  What you're describing is that essentially God forces knowledge onto you so that you feel certain.  Ever thought that if a being can do that, then a being could force incorrect knowledge on you that you feel certain about?  You're acknowledgement of certainty still relies on your interpretation of what's happening to you.  Are you being given certain knowledge or is it a ploy? 

Now I don't actually believe there's a being forcing you to believe incorrect things.  I think it's more likely that someone's stubborness gives them the gall to think that their certainty is God-given, despite still being fallible. 

//When I used the word "necessity", I meant "necessary for consistency".//
That's fine.  But there can still be consistency between beliefs and actions without objective certainty.  For example, I believe to a reasonably high degree that my car will start when I go crank it.  That's consistent with the reality that my car will likely start when I go crank it and that there's a possibility that it might not start.  If I were certain it would start, and then it doesn't start (which might happen) then I would have an incorrect belief that was inconsistent with the reality that my car didn't start. 

// If you followed my train of thought through the first three points, the next points might be://
Let me put all six together and see if I can follow your premises to the conclusion you're drawing. 

//1. In general, people operate according to a set of rules, which they assume to exist.
2. If I do not have a reason to believe that something exists, I suppose that it does not exist.
3. To follow a rule which I believe does not exist would be to act inconsistently with my beliefs
4. If something is inconsistent, then it is wrong.
5. It is impossible to live consistently with the notion that the "rules" (points 1-3) don't exist or are ultimately unjustifiable
6. So, to suppose that the rules don't exist or are ultimately unjustifiable mandates inconsistency, and therefore wrongness.// 

1.  Okay.
2.  We discussed.
3. I think you're assuming here that everyone act as if they objective certain of everything, which isn't the case.
4.  Okay, but not having objective certainty isn't inconsistent with living without objective certainty.  Living with reasonable certainty (a rule I believe exists) is consistent with my daily actions.
5.  The rules I live by do exist, and they don't need to be ultimately justified.  They're consistent enough to where I can make useful predictions about outcomes.
6.  Doesn't follow. 

//It is a requirement for your ability to live and act in a way consistent with your beliefs.//
No, my beliefs are that I can only be reasonably certain about things and that objective certainty is irrelevant to how I behave.  That's how I live and act.  That's what I believe.  Consistency.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 Also, I believe in a reality.  That's consistent with the way that I act.
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher
//Ever thought that if a being can do that, then a being could force incorrect knowledge on you that you feel certain about?  You're acknowledgement of certainty still relies on your interpretation of what's happening to you.  Are you being given certain knowledge or is it a ploy?//
Well, if a being had forced any knowledge onto me at all, then at least that being must exist in order to do so. If the knowledge is "I exist", then it's hardly a falsehood. If the knowledge is, "I am X specific God, and I do Y things", then we'd have to examine that God's claims for consistency at a minimum before agreeing with it. 

//Now I don't actually believe there's a being forcing you to believe incorrect things.  I think it's more likely that someone's stubborness gives them the gall to think that their certainty is God-given, despite still being fallible.//
Indeed, that's a pretty tough point to get past. We're all fallible. If I'm able to suppress my experiences, then I may as well be able to imagine anything and become certain about it. 

I'll say I agree that presupposing a god doesn't make the god exist, which seems to be your point, but if atheism can be shown to be a false or impossible reality, then at least we know that the truth must be something besides atheism. 

//But there can still be consistency between beliefs and actions without objective certainty. //
Interesting -- you say that the rules don't need to be justified. To be honest, I don't know if I'm ok with that. I feel like if I'm going to build a worldview, It ought to have a bottom under it. Even so, I'd like to grant your position and see where it takes me, as a thought experiment. 

I'm considering different behaviors and trying to see if they can be called consistent with that measure of uncertainty. Let me ask you about morals. 

How would you justify telling anyone else they should or should not do things, if they are reasonably assured that they will not suffer negative consequences? Also, where do you draw the line between taking away human rights, as an evil thing, and taking away human rights for the good of the majority? 

For example, suppose that in a small and remote group of people, which is destined to die by some natural disaster, they determine (correctly) that any action internal to the group will have no consequence on the rest of humanity or the world. Seeing this, the majority of the group does harmful things to a minority in the group during the remainder of the life of the group. In doing so, the majority of the group supposed that they enjoyed greater pleasure than the sum of what the whole group would experience if they had not done so. Were they wrong to do what they did? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not? 

//3. I think you're assuming here that everyone act as if they objective certain of everything, which isn't the case. //
I see your point, but know that I'm not saying that everyone acts as if they're objectively certain of everything. 

//4.  Okay, but not having objective certainty isn't inconsistent with living without objective certainty.  Living with reasonable certainty (a rule I believe exists) is consistent with my daily actions.
5.  The rules I live by do exist, and they don't need to be ultimately justified.  They're consistent enough to where I can make useful predictions about outcomes.
6.  Doesn't follow.//
Please elaborate on your response to point 6.
If X is "consistency is possible", Y is "the rules are ultimately justified", and Z is "it is wrong".
Point 4 says, "If NOT X, then Z"
Point 5 says, "If NOT Y, then NOT X"
Point 6 says, "NOT Y implies NOT X, therefore Z".
I was kindof trying to do a modus ponens. Of course, that only works if my premises (point 4 and 5) are reasonable. But if they are reasonable, then wouldn't point 6 follow? Maybe I worded it poorly. Be honest.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​ +Logan Belcher
//Well, if a being had forced any knowledge onto me at all, then at least that being must exist in order to do so. If the knowledge is "I exist", then it's hardly a falsehood. If the knowledge is, "I am X specific God, and I do Y things", then we'd have to examine that God's claims for consistency at a minimum before agreeing with it.//
This brings up a good point. If some knowledge were being forced on you, you still would have no reason to accept it except to say that "something is causing me to receive information". You would have no way of knowing with objective certainty what that thing is or if the information was accurate simple by the communication alone. Maybe it's your own mind playing tricks on you. Maybe it's a group of scientists in a lab poking and prodding your brain. 

But, the point you bring up about accepting your own existence and that you are at least receiving input from something are axioms for me. That might be the foundation for everything I believe. It might be the closest thing I have to absolute objective certainty in that, I am forced by the nature of my existence to at least accept these conclusions. 

That still doesn't give me absolute certainty about what it is that I am experiencing. For that, my senses independently and codependently verify each other. I have discovered others, like yourself, which I am nearly certain are experiencing things similarly to me. So I used your confirmation to help justify my beliefs about what I experience. Yours and the millions of others I share this same reality with. 

 //but if atheism can be shown to be a false or impossible reality, then at least we know that the truth must be something besides atheism.//
Yes, but with atheism being a lack of a position on a single issue it can be difficult to make this kind of negative case. This is why skepticism is one of the best default positions. 

//Interesting -- you say that the rules don't need to be justified.//
Well I believe I said "ultimately justified" (per your request for a distinction).  But even our most basic "rules" (our axioms) are often just accepted. Like earlier when I mentioned my own existence and the fact that I am experiencing input. Those are almost just accepted by virtue of necessity rather than methodically justified in any way. 

//Let me ask you about morals.//
If possible, let's table that until after putting a book end on this discussion. 

//but know that I'm not saying as if they're objectively certain about everything.//
So we can behave consistently with our beliefs even without objective certainty of them, right? 

//Of course, that only works if my premises (point 4 and 5) are reasonable. But if they are reasonable, then wouldn't point 6 follow?//
I misspoke. If the premises were true the conclusion would follow but because I reject 1 or more premises, the conclusion is inconclusive. 

My strongest rejection is to "if the rules are not ultimately justified, consistency is impossible".

Normal justification is not only enough for consistency, it may be all we are capable of. In fact, acting as if you are ultimately justified about things that you cannot be would be acting inconsistently with what you know about human fallibility.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher
//Yes, but with atheism being a lack of a position on a single issue it can be difficult to make this kind of negative case. This is why skepticism is one of the best default positions.//
This made me chuckle a bit, because of how right it is on one hand, while on the other hand our conclusions are still different. 

//Well I believe I said "ultimately justified" (per your request for a distinction)..//
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for correcting that. 

//If possible, let's table that until after putting a book end on this discussion.//
//So we can behave consistently with our beliefs even without objective certainty of them, right?//
I still haven't arrived at that conclusion. That's why I brought up morals -- because they are abstract, and yet commonly agreed upon (to some extent). If there is no objective standard for morality, then anything goes as long as your experience tells you it is beneficial to whatever thing you value most, right? If so, I would have used it as an example of an instance where typical behavior of individuals tends to fall out-of-line with a belief by the individual that morals are subjective. 

Correct me if I'm wrong; it seems you're saying that one is consistent with the idea that nothing is certain, by evaluating probabilities concerning one's sensory input, and accepting whichever probability is highest as actionable, (using ones best fallible judgement of course).  

You know, I'll be honest, I don't think I can beat that (perhaps not conclusively anyway).
Supposing that I have had, what I believe to be, the "God experience" (where God forces knowledge onto us), and my best judgement about subsequent experiences tells me that a higher power exists and is what the Bible says it is. My decision to believe in it becomes as valid as any. In such case, it seems you would have no qualms about me believing it, (and you'd even say to me, "you could be right",) as long as I didn't tell you that you have experienced something which you don't believe that you have experienced. 

The objective of the discussion, I think, from the atheist point of view, is to get the Christian to say, "I could be wrong.". If the Christian says it, then even if the Christian has not lost faith, at least the Christian cannot use the presuppositional argument anymore. Where would you take the discussion if I say, "I could be wrong?" Is there a next step? 

And, could I be wrong? (I'm asking myself this question.... what an odd place to be with regard to religion.)
The armor of the Christian paradigm is pretty stiff -- It's possible that I could not be wrong, but how would I know? The only way for me to know whether or not I am wrong, is if I'm right. Interesting problem -- reminds me of that (understandably frustrating) conversation snippet that always comes up in Sye's debates:
"I can't be certain of anything."
"Are you certain of that?" 

If you'll excuse my boldness and curiosity. I want to ask you: Take a few moments of silence to organize your thoughts, and honestly search yourself. Have you experienced God? What do you find by searching yourself? What are your thoughts? 

Please try your search while assuming both hypotheses (mine and yours) to see if you arrive at the same result.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​
//This made me chuckle a bit, because of how right it is on one hand, while on the other hand our conclusions are still different.//
What was your conclusion about the difficulty of disproving a negative position? 

//I still haven't arrived at that conclusion( that "we can behave consistently with our beliefs even without objective certainty of them"). That's why I brought up morals -- because they are abstract, and yet commonly agreed upon (to some extent).//
Since that is a more abstract and complicated topic, I would still like to hold off until we can establish some other things. But let's address this conclusion with something more concrete. Just a simple truth statement that we can both agree on that has a concrete truth value:
"We are two humans having a conversation on the internet."
This proposition, how would you act if you were objectively certain about it being true? 

What about... 99%? What about 95? What about 75%? What about 50%? 

What I am getting at is the idea that you will act consistently with your certainty level (and your justification level) despite having no objective certainty. 

As your certainty percentage went down did the answer to how you would act change? Was there a significant difference in how you might act between being absolutely certain and 95% certain? Were your actions consistent with your been beliefs? 

//Correct me if I'm wrong; it seems you're saying that one is consistent with the idea that nothing is certain, by evaluating probabilities concerning one's sensory input, and accepting whichever probability is highest as actionable, (using ones best fallible judgement of course). You know, I'll be honest, I don't think I can beat that.// 

I don't think I can either, as much as I would like to have perfect knowledge that everything I believe is correct (heck, even most things), this is the best we can do, I think. But it is still enough. It's nothing to sneeze at. 

//Supposing that I have had, what I believe to be, the "God experience" (where God forces knowledge onto us), and my best judgement about subsequent experiences tells me that a higher power exists and is what the Bible says it is. My decision to believe in it becomes as valid as any. In such case, it seems you would have no qualms about me believing it, (and you'd even say to me, "you could be right",) as long as I didn't tell you that you have experienced something which you don't believe that you have experienced.//
To some extent, that would be a magnificent step in my eyes. My qualms would center more around the fact that many claim to experience what you claim to, and have been wrong in dangerous ways and that it is worth examining why others falter so that you can make sure you aren't falling into the same trap they have. As a fellow human being I want both of us to come to correct conclusions and avoid dangerous wrong ones. And you could be right, and if you are, I want to figure out a way that we can verify it so that I can know what you know, but if you have to presume it, then that won't help me. 

//The objective of the discussion, I think, from the atheist point of view, is to get the Christian to say, "I could be wrong.". If the Christian says it, then even if the Christian has not lost faith, at least the Christian cannot use the presuppositional argument anymore. Where would you take the discussion if I say, "I could be wrong?" Is there a next step?//
I don't want you to admit that so that you would stop using some method. I just think it is a very wise and humble approach to ascertaining knowledge. It is valuable in theism and atheism. Knowledge doesn't get shared when you are being preached to from someone who is basically demanding you to listen and believe because they can't be wrong. Knowledge is shared with explanations and humility. 

// reminds me of that (understandably frustrating) conversation snippet that always comes up in Sye's debates:
"I can't be certain of anything."
"Are you certain of that?"//
Commonly referred to as the roadrunner tactic which I have shamefully been guilty of using before. It sounds funny and quippy until you bother to listen to someone's answer to "are you certain of that?" 

To some degree, yes. Maybe to a high degree. Absolutely certain? Does that matter in this case? 

 But I am also of the opinion that there are some things you can safely feel absolutely certain about most of the time. But every once in a while I will doubt then just to be sure. 

//Have you experienced God? What do you find by searching yourself? What are your thoughts?//
Have I genuinely experienced God? I don't know. I don't know how I would be able to tell if it was God.
I know this sounds silly, but have you ever tried to make voices in your head. Like purposefully thought of what the booming(?) voice of God sounds like. I feel like I can do that and be pretty convincing. Just throwing that strange thought out there.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher //What was your conclusion about the difficulty of disproving a negative position?//
I think that if we're being skeptics, then it's just as difficult as disproving a positive position -- impossible. However, if there is objectivity, then it's not impossible.
For example (maybe a bad one): If I say to myself "I don't exist", then the best response I can think of (from me to me) off the top of my head might be, "The proof is in the pudding". 

Another scenario: if I'm holding my cell phone and you say to me, "You're not holding your cell phone." The best I could do is to say, "My perception indicates to me that I am holding my cell phone." 

ETA: one more: If you had said, "I don't know if you're holding your cell phone, but I don't think you are." I might say, "I'm holding my cell phone." 

//"We are two humans having a conversation on the internet."
This proposition, how would you act if you were objectively certain about it being true?
What about... 99%? What about 95? What about 75%? What about 50%?//
I have a hard time with this question, because if I'm not certain then there must be a reason why I am not certain. My behavior would change according to my perception of my level certainty. There are definitely things which I am uncertain about, and there are also things which I am certain about -- if I meet someone who challenges my certainty, then I should re-evaluate it, but in general other people are certain about the same things that I am certain about -- such as the extent to which we can trust our senses (i.e. not completely). 

Perhaps my argument has neglected my fallibility -- or at least it seemed that way because of its delivery. The presuppositional argument almost seems to be saying that we can trust our perceptions 100%, which, as you pointed out, is untrue. Therefore, I think that in light of what I'm learning from this conversation, I would like to narrow my stance to: "We can be objectively certain of our fallibility, and if God has revealed himself to everyone, (which I believe He has), then we can be objectively certain and correct about his revelation." The response to this, I guess, is "If we are fallible, then how can we claim to have objective certainty?". The answer is first that God has allowed us objective certainty, and second that we exist and are absolutely certain of it. 

Earlier you said that we rely on and accept our senses per some kind of "need". I don't see how it's a need at all under the atheist paradigm -- and to assign value to survival or even happiness as a thing meriting any necessity or need is completely arbitrary, unless value exists apart from ourselves. One might say, "but I assign value to survival and application of my faculties, so they're valuable to me." But in reality, the person has no reason to do so, and I still think that it is illogical to act in such a way without reason. 

//Commonly referred to as the roadrunner tactic which I have shamefully been guilty of using before. It sounds funny and quippy until you bother to listen to someone's answer to "are you certain of that?"//
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "roadrunner tactic" is slang for "Reductio ad Absurdum", which is, perhaps, one of the greatest techniques in argumentation, and is decidedly not a fallacy. A common misuse of the tactic would be called "Appeal to Extremes", which does not appear to be what the apologist uses in this case. 

The answer, as far as my memory serves me, is usually "No, I'm not certain of that.". It's the only possible answer given the stance, but that doesn't make its self-contradiction allowable. It would be more self-contradictory if they said "yes". I think it would serve the atheist better to say "I am not certain of anything", rather than "I cannot be..." or "We cannot be certain of anything". However, if the atheist does that then he gives a lot of flexibility to the Christian to say, "I am certain of things." And if the atheist says, "no you're not." then it's not much better than the Christian saying, "God has revealed himself to you in a way that made you certain". The difference being, one can't reduce the Christian's claim to absurdity. The best one can say is, "if it's right, then it's right. If it's wrong, then we don't know." 

//I know this sounds silly, but have you ever tried to make voices in your head. Like purposefully thought of what the booming(?) voice of God sounds like. I feel like I can do that and be pretty convincing. Just throwing that strange thought out there.//
Yeah, I will admit that I am able to do so, with some effort. However, my experiences and perceptions tell me that the times when I have experienced interaction with God were not self-inflicted (and for the record I don't go to a Pentecostal church, or any of the others which practice altered states of consciousness). 

//To some extent, that would be a magnificent step in my eyes. My qualms would center more around the fact that many claim to experience what you claim to, and have been wrong in dangerous ways and that it is worth examining why others falter so that you can make sure you aren't falling into the same trap they have. As a fellow human being I want both of us to come to correct conclusions and avoid dangerous wrong ones. And you could be right, and if you are, I want to figure out a way that we can verify it so that I can know what you know, but if you have to presume it, then that won't help me. //
Excellent comment. Thanks for patiently sticking with this conversation -- I've truly enjoyed it, and if it were not faux pas for internet conversations, I'd say I would love to buy you coffee someday. 

So, as to being wrong in dangerous ways (I'm going to try to avoid the obvious moral implications here); If, for example, someone believed that God told them to kill their neighbor, and they knew the Bible, they would find that the Bible lays down moral constructs disallowing such behavior, and that it includes a command to test any voice we think comes from God against the whole of scripture (to ensure that it wasn't us, a devil, or a malicious party). The Biblical "red-tape" that any "new information from God" has to go through before being able to be called consistent with scripture is as complicated as the book itself -- so that the existence of unstudious people who do evil things in God's name is no surprise (that is to say, such people are being inconsistent with Christianity). I think you'll be hard pressed to find a Christian who both knows the Bible well and thinks such a command would be allowable by it. 

As for other religions, I submit that the only way objective certainty is justifiable is if: a) God gave it to everyone. and b) the religion is consistent in all other ways. Due to requirement "a)", one of the major worldviews is likely to be right. As per requirement "b)", to the best of my knowledge, Christianity is the only one which maintains internal consistency.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​​
//I think that if we're being skeptics, then it's just as difficult as disproving a positive position -- impossible.//
And "proving" positive positions! There's a reason why people general reserve the word "proof" for logical and mathematics, where the boundaries and rules are strictly defined. Reality isn't much like that. 

//I have a hard time with this question, because if I'm not certain then there must be a reason why I am not certain.//
Cut to you five seconds later... 

// Perhaps my argument has neglected my fallibility...//
Ding ding!  If this is just an underlying understanding in your assessment process, the only way it might impact your behavior is just making you aware that since new information might come along that might show that you were just conversing with some robot or something. It doesn't really change how you act towards the person you are taking to, and there's no real loss from feeling 95% certain as opposed to 100%. Except that if you're 95%, you're at least willing to accept evidence that you're talking to a robot. It's basically just a failsafe. If I am wrong, I am willing to consider why. 

/  "We can be objectively certain of our fallibility"/
I agree that this is one of the things we can be most certain about. Objective certainty I still don't buy as a concept, but we already established that disagreement. 

//The answer is first that God has allowed us objective certainty, and second that we exist and are absolutely certain of it.//
But if some thing can make you certain about something, how does that map to the truth of it. As you said before, all you could know for sure is that something is feeding you info. Whether or not all people have been revealed this same info would fall into the category of things you would only be able to discover and assess through your sensory perceptions. And as far as I can tell, mind-reading isn't a sensory perception I have. 

//Earlier you said that we rely on and accept our senses per some kind of "need".//
I think I just meant that I can't not sense things (unless i impair myself or something). I am unconsciously aware of what I see, smell, hear, feel and taste. Unless i am unconscious or asleep, i am forced to receive visual input. Even with my eyes closed or blindfolded my brain is processing the visual input of darkness. 

//Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "roadrunner tactic" is slang for "Reductio ad Absurdum", which is, perhaps, one of the greatest techniques in argumentation, and is decidedly not a fallacy.//
Right. If the position of the person making the fallacy is "Yes, I am absolutely certain that absolute certainty doesn't exist." That's rarely, if ever, the case. But the reason I refer to it as a tactic is because most people stop listening after the "are you certain of that" as if simply asking the question exposes a reductio ad absurdum. 

//"No, I'm not certain of that.". It's the only possible answer given the stance, but that doesn't make its self-contradiction allowable.//
Its not a self contradiction though. "Absolute certainty doesn't exist" and "I am not absolutely certain" are compatible. 

//It would be more self-contradictory if they said "yes". I think it would serve the atheist better to say "I am not certain of anything", rather than "I cannot be..." or "We cannot be certain of anything". //
I think so to, but I personally prefer to keep my feelings of certainty out of the conversation as it is redundant if I am presenting justification for an idea. 

//Excellent comment. Thanks for patiently sticking with this conversation -- I've truly enjoyed it, and if it were not faux pas for internet conversations, I'd say I would love to buy you coffee someday.//
Feel free to e-mail me/look me up on Facebook or whatever. I don't know how safe it is posting my email address or Facebook link, but if you can figure it out, I am always up for talking. 

//I think you'll be hard pressed to find a Christian who both knows the Bible well and thinks such a command would be allowable by it.//
I agree, and to be fair I think modern Christianity's focus on Jesus's empathy isn't that dangerous. Im just saying that employing a method of reasoning whereby certainty can be given to you at any given moment could justify some lunatics. Mostly, people stick to this kind of methodology within the confines of personal belief not imposed or affecting others harmfully.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 +Logan Belcher //most people stop listening after the "are you certain of that" as if simply asking the question exposes a reductio ad absurdum.//
Ah yes. I see what you mean, and agree that it would not be right to argue this way. 

//Its not a self contradiction though. "Absolute certainty doesn't exist" and "I am not absolutely certain" are compatible.//
I think this point is key. Consider this imaginary conversation: 

Atheist: "Absolute certainty doesn't exist."
Presup: "Are you absolutely sure?"
Atheist: "No. I do not know if absolute certainty exists or not -- I'm not certain."
Presup: "So... absolute certainty might exist... maybe? You don't know?"
Atheist: "No. I just said it doesn't exist." 

I don't understand how it is not inconsistent. Either the atheist is absolutely certain that nobody can be absolutely certain, which is a problem, or the atheist doesn't know and so must default to the position that absolute certainty could possibly exist. If it could possibly exist, then the statement "it doesn't exist" is not accurate. 

//But if some thing can make you certain about something, how does that map to the truth of it.//
So, my knee-jerk response to this is to refer to the previously stated definition of objective certainty and say that if we have it, then by definition it is factual. I think that it wouldn't make sense to tell someone to arrive at something they already know, if they are claiming not to know it (or anything else for that matter), but as long as objective knowledge of the truth is possible then we have at least a potential foundation for verifying the truth of the certainty by some means. 

As I've said before, the first step is verifying that the information is not inconsistent with itself or anything else that must be true. Then, we have to realize that if there is no absolute certainty then we won't be able to verify it at all. Since absolute certainty is, at minimum, possible, if we want to arrive at any conclusions which are definitely true, our default position must allow for an ultimate foundation, and also have an ultimate foundation. There are certain criteria which must be met by any ultimate foundation, one I mentioned before: it has to be available to everyone, or else there's no telling if it is available to "me" or not. 

The "criteria", I haven't really finished considering and fleshing out yet -- I kinda tried it in that forum, but then things got off-topic and I got overwhelmed by the number of responses, so I stopped. I prefer 1-1 conversations. 

//I agree, and to be fair I think modern Christianity's focus on Jesus's empathy isn't that dangerous. Im just saying that employing a method of reasoning whereby certainty can be given to you at any given moment could justify some lunatics. Mostly, people stick to this kind of methodology within the confines of personal belief not imposed or affecting others harmfully.//
I see. Agreed, and thanks :)
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​​​
//I think this point is key. Consider this imaginary conversation:
Atheist: "Absolute certainty doesn't exist."//
The folly (and possibly the reason these conversations are imaginary rather than common) is assuming this is a statement made with absolute certainty. 

I think the problem is purely a communication issue. Most claims are not made with absolute certainty so we skip the formality and clarity of "I could be wrong about this" after every sentence. 

Either way, as long as we are clear that my position is not that "absolute certainty doesn't exist" we are fine. My position is that I don't believe you can have absolute certainty without absolute knowledge of every thing involved with what you are claiming to know.
Like the idea of perfect justification I was talking about earlier. You would have to know everything about the scenario you and I are in now to be able to say with absolute certainty that we are two humans having a discussion on the internet. 

In order to feel certain about something and not be wrong about it you would have to know all the ways you could be wrong (a near impossible feat in and of itself), and know that none of those are the case. 

So as it pertains to God, what are the ways you could be wrong about it? and how did you determine that they aren't the case. 

Is it at least possible there could be some misunderstanding,  misinterpretation, or delusion? If so, how do you tackle that? Would standing certain help you at all? 

You could, as Sye does, claim that God, who has perfect knowledge, gives this knowledge/certainty to you. There are a few ways this might work i guess. Here are three: 

1. God gives you the knowledge and because he knows everything, you just simply feel confident based on his knowledge. This is circular because your basing your assessment of his powers by assuming them. If part of the knowledge he is passing to you is about his omniscience, then you're just taking his word for it. And you have no reason why it couldn't be wrong stilll. You're just trusting in what you assume to be true. A mathematician handing me some complicated formula doesn't make me as justified/certain as he is about how correct it is. 

2. Somehow, God forces the feeling of absolute certainty to you. I don't know how this would work or why you would trust it if you had the ability to question it. If you don't have the ability to question or deny it, then you're just being forced to believe (which still doesn't show how you can't be wrong.) 

3. God gives you all knowledge of how you could be wrong, and shows why those other possibilities are not the case. This one is wacky, and would lead to you possessing a boatload of knowledge, but at least you would be able to refute every argument to the contrary if yours and you would be very convincing about why God existing is necessarily the case. 

//So, my knee-jerk response to this is to refer to the previously stated definition of objective certainty and say that if we have it, then by definition it is factual.//
From your perspective, what would be the hallmark difference between someone forcing a feeling of certainty about something is the truth, and someone forcing a feeling of certainty about something that isn't true. How would you be able to make that distinction? 

//Then, we have to realize that if there is no absolute certainty then we won't be able to verify it at all.//
Verification is a spectrum. Some things can be more verified than others. 

//Since absolute certainty is, at minimum, possible, if we want to arrive at any conclusions which are definitely true//
We can arrive at positions that are definitely true without having absolute certainty. There are probably things I just barely believe (having almost no certitude of) that also happen to be definitely true.
Most of my beliefs are probably "definitely true". How do I know that? Because I can justify them.  How do I tell if they are true? Justification, again. Its the best I've got.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher
//We can arrive at positions that are definitely true without having absolute certainty. There are probably things I just barely believe (having almost no certitude of) that also happen to be definitely true.//
So, I assume that you're using the phrase "definitely true" to mean "most likely true". That was not what I meant, but if it only means "most likely" then what you said is true. We can arrive at positions which are most likely true without having absolute certainty. 

//we skip the formality and clarity of "I could be wrong about this" after every sentence.//
I take very small issue with this. I am certainly guilty of the behavior I'm about to describe.... I think it is intellectually dishonest, (or at least philosophically impure,) to defend a position one is not sure about, as if it were one's belief, without clarifying. (Naturally, there are right-times for this.) 

//So as it pertains to God, what are the ways you could be wrong about it? and how did you determine that they aren't the case.//
I'm rather sure that if I were wrong about God then I would still call myself a "theist". I submit that it would have to be because I, myself, generated misinformation about God. This is because I'm still convinced that God must exist. 

Your contentions seem to be
- there's no way to prove that God exists (we are still uncertain)
- even if God exists, we can't tell if God has lied to us or not. 

As it stands, I think that it is impossible to hold the position, "objective certainty does not exist." without implying, "but I could be wrong". That is to say, one can attempt to hold the position, but it is not maintainable -- the position can never be absolutely reached (see my previous post). 

So, I think that we can agree, either we are able to have objective certainty or we are not.
Suppose "X" is, "Absolute/Objective certainty exists among humans". 

As you've pointed out, "MAYBE X" is always a safe assumption, but it does not tell us whether X is true or not. This could translate to "X OR TRUE". It's like the way multiplying both sides of an equation by zero gives you a result (zero), but it doesn't tell you anything useful.
What we know is: 

1. It is always acceptable to say, "MAYBE X"
2. It is always incorrect to say "NOT X". (see above and previous post)
3. therefore, we could say that the only valid option we are left with is "NOT NOT X", which becomes "X".
Since the only valid conclusion to this is "X", we can safely say that absolute/objective certainty is possible.
The next question is, "under what minimum set of circumstances is absolute/objective certainty possible?". Whatever the answer to that question is, the circumstances must be absolutely factual. They must be true order to satisfy the equation we've already laid out. 

I think that we both agree that we cannot arrive at absolute/objective certainty of anything on our own. Therefore, the following list must be a part of the "minimum set":
1. An ultimate foundation must exist (I think you pointed this out before)
2. The ultimate foundation must imbue absolute/objective certainty
3. The ultimate foundation must not have lied, or else the certainty is not absolute/objective 

//Verification is a spectrum. Some things can be more verified than others.//
I agree with this about almost everything not pertaining to this conversation. I only say "almost", because I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​
//So, I assume that you're using the phrase "definitely true" to mean "most likely true".//
No, maybe poor word choice, but I was trying to follow your lead. I mean things that are definitely true, as in, reality. 

Things are getting a little muddy so let's mind our terms a little. Let me clarify a bit. I believe there is a reality that we experience and form beliefs and conclusions about.
So it goes something like this: 

Reality --> what we experience about reality --> conclusions (belief and knowledge claims about reality).
Our certainty falls under the conclusions section and is generally based on how confident we are in our experiences. Its possible for a non certain belief I have to describe reality perfectly (aka it is definitely true). For example if I thought God existed but I was only about 30% sure. It could still be true despite me not having absolute certainty of it 

If all you are saying is that absolute certainty is something we feel we can't be wrong about and we actually aren't wrong, then I agree that it probably exists but we can't identify which propositions we believe about reality are in fact absolutely certain.
You are claiming things you are absolutely certain of but what you're doing is ignoring or bypassing your experience of it altogether. 

Your model goes something like this
Reality --> Your conclusions (belief) about reality.
As if your knowledge is somehow given to you by reality itself.  But you are experiencing the reality you are forming a belief about. And that experience could be mistaken or misinformed. 

// I think it is intellectually dishonest, (or at least philosophically impure,) to defend a position one is not sure about, as if it were one's belief//
There's nothing mutually exclusive about a belief and a position you are not sure of.
Imagine the last thing you told anyone. "I am going to the store." "The mail just ran." "This guy on the internet is annoying." Do you really need to clarify that you aren't 100% sure every time you speak? 

//Your contentions seem to be
- there's no way to prove that God exists (we are still uncertain)//
There is no way that I am aware of at least. I could be wrong though. :) 

//- even if God exists, we can't tell if God has lied to us or not.//
I think we could probably figure out if we can believe him about things that we can verify against his word. I don't know how we could identify if our beliefs were absolutely certain. 

//So, I think that we can agree, either we are able to have objective certainty or we are not.//
Yes, this is a true dichotomy describing the actual state of things.
Have you heard of Matt Dillahunty's gumball analogy? Let me describe this and then point out where your conclusion might have failed.
If we have jar of gumballs the actual state of that jar is that it eithe 

1. Contains an even number if gumballs.
Or
2. Does not. (Default would be that they are odd then).
This, like yours above, is a true dichotomy.
Now, what we believe about the jar of gumballs is a completely different matter.
If someone claims that the jar contains an even number and  you have no reason to believe them, does that mean you believe the jar contains an odd number of gumballs? No.
You are free (and reasonable) to disbelieve both claims until you have good reason to believe either of them. 

//As you've pointed out, "MAYBE X" is always a safe assumption, but it does not tell us whether X is true or not.//
MAYBE NOT X is a valid position too and maybe we might not be able to come to a conclusion about it. Which means disbelief is a safe position.  If objective certainty does not exist, then it would be impossible to determine it in an objectively certain fashion, right? 

//2. It is always incorrect to say "NOT X". (see above and previous post)//
It would be incorrect to say "I am objectively certain that NOT X", but it would be perfect fine to say something like " I don't believe NOT X" or "MAYBE NOT X" or even "I DON'T KNOW IF NOT X" 

3. therefore, we could say that the only valid option we are left with is "NOT NOT X", which becomes "X".// 

I just gave plenty of valid positions of belief. Remember the gumball analogy. The actual state of things may only give us two options but what we believe about each of the two individual claims can vary. 

Just like it is reasonable to hold both of these positions.
1. I don't believe the number of gumballs is even.
2. I don't believe the number of gumballs is odd. 

If neither proposition has been shown, disbelief in both is the most reasonable course. And if neither proposition about objective certainty had been shown, it is reasonable to disbelieve both. 

This is where burden of proof comes in for you. 

//The next question is, "under what minimum set of circumstances is absolute/objective certainty possible?"//
Should be the first question, in my opinion. 

//Therefore, the following list must be a part of the "minimum set"://
You might need to expand on this. Let's say that everything you wouldn't have known, but now know, is called "input". The information goes into your brain either from your fallible senses, or revelation from God. How can you receive input without having to process/interpret the experience? 

//1. An ultimate foundation must exist (I think you pointed this out before)//
What do you mean when you say ultimate foundation? 

//2. The ultimate foundation must imbue absolute/objective certainty//
Which we would need to be able to understand in order to come to a conclusion about whether this is even possible. 

//3. The ultimate foundation must not have lied, or else the certainty is not absolute/objective//
Which we would need a way to identify if something we feel certain about is a lie. Which kind of defeats the purpose of feeling certain about it. If you are going to treat it as if you might be wrong about it, you aren't treating it as if you are certain. You are back to relying on your own justification.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher Hey sorry for the delay in this response :) Next week I'm going back out to a job site, and I'll be MIA for the whole week. 

//Reality --> what we experience about reality --> conclusions (belief and knowledge claims about reality). //
So, I agree that reality passes through our experiential filter, and then we make conclusions about it, which are most of the time correct enough. I also think that we are able to arrive at conclusions which are definitely true.
However, as far as I can tell, if I were an atheist, the best I could expect from myself is to asymptotically approach statements which reflect the reality of a thing. Even though there is a scale with different levels of certainty, if I am not absolutely certain then I simply don't know. 

//Reality --> Your conclusions (belief) about reality.//
To an extent, you're right. If I say that God is a reality and He affected my conclusions directly, then whatever conclusion He affected fits this model. For any conclusion which was not affected by God, it would have to pass through an experiential filter and be assigned a confidence or certainty value. 

//There's nothing mutually exclusive about a belief and a position you are not sure of.//
This statement coincides with your position -- that we can't be absolutely certain of anything. However, I disagree because my position is that we can have beliefs that we are absolutely sure of. I'll try to avoid using the word "belief" in this way. 

//You are free (and reasonable) to disbelieve both claims until you have good reason to believe either of them. //
Right, and if you have good reason to not believe one of them, then you would assume the other. 

//How can you receive input without having to process/interpret the experience?//
We don't, unless it is a revelation from God. I'd say we don't know "how" God does it, but if God designed the universe then it's safe to say He know's a way. My believe in the Christian God yields to a belief that God has also revealed to us that he created an orderly universe (one with some logical laws that govern it). Since I can claim absolute certainty that the universe is orderly, I consider my senses and interpretive abilities substantial enough to provide me with knowledge that actually reflects truth. I might say that the complexity of a thing increases my likelihood of being wrong about it, but there are certain things about which I am absolutely certain. For example, many churches disagree about how best to worship, but all Christian churches agree about how to be saved. 

//What do you mean when you say ultimate foundation?//
For the purpose of a minimum set, at this point I'd say it is just something which satisfies requirements 2 and 3. 

//Which we would need to be able to understand in order to come to a conclusion about whether this is even possible.//
I disagree. At the point immediately prior to its revelation (if there was a time prior to it), the foundation would have to have known something that we don't know. I think it's safe to say it might know other things that it hasn't revealed to us. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we can't know with absolute certainty that it exists or has done something. For example, I don't know how magnets work, but I don't need to understand them to see that what they do is possible. 

//Which we would need a way to identify if something we feel certain about is a lie. Which kind of defeats the purpose of feeling certain about it. If you are going to treat it as if you might be wrong about it, you aren't treating it as if you are certain. You are back to relying on your own justification.//
This is why the minimum set is the second question, and not the first. If absolute certainty exists, then we need a minimum set. I proposed that we could determine that absolute certainty must exist without first identifying the circumstances exactly. 

Since absolute/objective certainty must exist, we examine it to find what set of conditions allows for it. In a similar way, since we know that a magnet works, we study it to find out why, because there must be a set of conditions providing for its behavior.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 "Since absolute/objective certainty must exist"
I feel like you are still confusing objective reality with our certainty of what is real. 

How are you able to determine that we can be absolutely certain? Isn't the entire argument you're trying to have about whether or not absolute certainty can exist? If so, why did you just assume the conclusion in this sentence?
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Matt R //If so, why did you just assume the conclusion in this sentence?//
Take the gumball example for instance. If you knew that you would not be able, under any circumstances, to assert (in a boolean sense) that you knew that there was an odd number of gumballs in the jar, then you would have to default to the position that there was an even number. 

In the case of "is absolute certainty possible?". We are not able, under any circumstances, to assert that absolute certainty is impossible. We can have some "measure of certainty" about it, but we can only asymptotically approach the conclusion -- the conclusion can never be reached. 

Back to the gumball example -- If you don't know about the gumballs, you can count them to discover the number. It's the same with science; we don't know things, so we try to figure them out, and eventually we do (sometimes we're wrong, but then later we correct ourselves).  In the case of absolute certainty, we have already seen that we cannot reach the conclusion "Isn't possible". It's not that we will find out that absolute certainty isn't possible by researching more -- we already know that the conclusion can't be reached. 

So, say we're bool: If a bit is set to 1 (the other option being 0), then it doesn't matter how much the bit approaches 0; the bit can only be 1 until it is 0. If it can never be 0, then it will always be 1. It doesn't matter how much we say we don't know -- either a thing is or it isn't, and since we know that we can never actually reach "isn't", we are stuck with "is". I haven't assumed the conclusion, I have deduced it. To be fair, if absolute certainty were not possible, then all of our conclusions would be assumed to some extent.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 It would be different if we didn't know that we couldn't reach the negative conclusion -- but we do know that.
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade
"Take the gumball example for instance. If you knew that you would not be able, under any circumstances, to assert (in a boolean sense) that you knew that there was an odd number of gumballs in the jar, then you would have to default to the position that there was an even number. "
Uh, no you would not. That is completely false, sir.
Just because you don't know that there's an even number, does not mean you must take the "default" position that there is an odd number. There is no default position.
Again, you are confusing what actually is with what we think actually is. 

Just because you do not convince me there is an even number of gum balls does not mean that I'm convinced the number is odd. Even if those are the only possibilities, you still haven't convinced me one way or the other.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago
 //Just because you don't know that there's an even number, does not mean you must take the "default" position that there is an odd number. //
This isn't what I said. 

I said that if there cannot be an odd number, then there must be an even number. It's not just that we don't know if absolute certainty is impossible -- if we even try to take the stance that it is impossible, then we prove ourselves wrong. 

//Just because you do not convince me there is an even number of gum balls does not mean that I'm convinced the number is odd.//
I didn't say "I'm not convinced that absolute certainty is impossible". I said "absolute certainty is not impossible".
So, it's not that we don't know if it's impossible or not. We do know that it is not impossible, because if we try to take the stance "it's impossible" then the stance fails.
If you tried to take the stance "there's an even number of gumballs" and then counted them and found that there was an odd number, then your initial stance failed.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Matt R 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
"I said that if there cannot be an odd number, then there must be an even number. It's not just that we don't know if absolute certainty is impossible -- if we even try to take the stance that it is impossible, then we prove ourselves wrong." 

You are, once again, confusing our certainty with the state of reality. 

I immediately regret jumping back into this conversation. It's already gone in about 4 or 5 pointless circles.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​
I agree with Matt that you are confusing terms still. For the purpose of clarity, can we confine the concept of "what is" to the word "reality", and confine the concept of our knowledge/beliefs/understanding/confidence/certainty of "what is" to those terms? 

I feel like your argument hinges on the fact that if absolute certainty does not exist then we could not be absolutely certain that it does not exist. You are asserting that this means absolute certainty must exist.
But you are forgetting about the other tenable positions regarding absolute certainty.
- that we don't know if absolute certainty can exist or not
- that we can't know if absolute certainty can exist
- that we believe to a high degree of certainty that absolute certainty does not exist 

These are all valid and potentially reasonable conclusions. As you have acknowledged before, most of our external conclusions about reality have been reached with high degrees of certainty rather than absolute certainty. 

You will need to explain to me what you mean by asserting in a boolean sense, but I will try to address the gumball analogy anyways. 

If you knew that you would not be able to, under any circumstances, assert that you knew that there was an odd number of gumballs in the jar, there still could be, in reality, an odd number of gumballs in the jar. Your lack of knowledge of it, would not effect the reality of it. So asserting the contrary might actually be more of a folly than asserting ignorance. 

Isn't it more honest and more accurate to acknowledge that you don't know, and that you may never know.
Now this analogy goes in a completely opposite direction if you assert that you can negate the possibility of odd number of gumballs completely. Simply because odd/even is seen as a binary proposition. 

But you have not negated the possibility that absolute certainty does not exist yet. The best you have done is shown that if it does not exist we cannot know it with absolute certainty. 

And like in the gumball analogy, never being able to know that it is odd does not mean it is even.  Not knowing if absolute certainty doesn't exist, doesn't make it exist.
Just because you can't reach a conclusion does not mean the reality of that proposition is not the case. And it certainly does not mean that the reality is the contrary.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
One last thing.
//I'd say we don't know "how" God does it...//
Fair. But if you don't know how it works, then how can you say with absolute certainty anything about the revelation except that it is information received. If you have the ability to question the truth of the information or even lack understanding of how it came to you, then almost by definition there is some measure of doubt to be had.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher //For the purpose of clarity, can we confine the concept of "what is" to the word "reality", and confine the concept of our knowledge/beliefs/understanding/confidence/certainty of "what is" to those terms?//
Agreed. I've been  slipping up on my terminology here and there -- I'll try to keep that in check. 

//These are all valid and potentially reasonable conclusions//
I agree that they are potentially reasonable, but I do not agree that they are conclusions. All of them are summed up as varying degrees of "I don't know". "Might not exist" and "might exist" mean the same thing. If we don't know, then we could say either one of those. 

//You will need to explain to me what you mean by asserting in a boolean sense,//
I just mean, if we know that it has to be one or the other, then we examine both sides. Plug 0 into the equation and see if it works. Then plug 1 into the equation and see if it works. If only one of them is true, then only one of them will provide a result with no inconsistencies. 

//I feel like your argument hinges on the fact that if absolute certainty does not exist then we could not be absolutely certain that it does not exist. You are asserting that this means absolute certainty must exist.//
Interesting --Suppose I limit my argument to our own conclusions, rather than to let it include reality. I.E. "if absolute certainty doesn't exist, then we cannot be absolutely certain that it doesn't exist; this means that our only viable conclusion is that it does exist." 

Limiting the argument in that way would seem to create a gap between our perceptions and reality. However, if you're right that our perceptions are all we have, then the argument becomes only about the conclusions we are able to reach, and not necessarily how well they reflect reality. 

Even if the existence of absolute certainty is our only viable conclusion, nothing forces us to believe it -- perhaps this is what the Bible means when it says "faith". Even if the gumball jar had a label on it that said "Hint: it's not an even number", there would still be people who disbelieve, and perhaps well for humanity that they do so. 

//Just because you can't reach a conclusion does not mean the reality of that proposition is not the case. And it certainly does not mean that the reality is the contrary.//
If we say that there is no way to know whether a conclusion reflects reality, but we also say that there is only one viable conclusion for us, then we have little or no reason to reject that conclusion. 

//Isn't it more honest and more accurate to acknowledge that you don't know, and that you may never know.//
So I suppose the root of the issue could be that if absolute certainty doesn't exist then we can never fully arrive at any conclusion, but if it does exist then we have to also allow the existence of potentially uncheckable prerequisites. 

Even if I say that I don't know, it only acknowledges my fallibility, but I think that it in no way defeats the argument as it stands (where our doubt is caused by our own inherent rejection of God's absolute revelation). 

// If you have the ability to question the truth of the information or even lack understanding of how it came to you, then almost by definition there is some measure of doubt to be had. //
I agree that there is some measure of doubt whenever there is something we do not know, however I do not think that the measure of doubt must include the truthfulness of the revelation or the source of it -- only the method, because that is the part which we do not know. Since the method is the only part we don't know, it would be right to doubt anyone who claims to have an explanation for it. 

ETA: Keep in mind that when we discuss the truthfulness of a revelation from God, we are assuming that there was a God who gave the revelation, and I think the minimum set would have to apply in any case where we allow ourselves to believe in such a being. The minimum set includes that the revelation is truthful, so questioning it is perhaps moot.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago
 +Zac Slade
//I agree that they are potentially reasonable, but I do not agree that they are conclusions.//
Why not? It is a conclusion I have drawn about my ignorance of reality.  Or about the amount of confidence I hold in a belief. 

You mentioned earlier that we might not be able to have absolute certainty about external reality due to our potential fallible processing of experiences. Does that mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions about external reality? Of course not. We don't need absolute certainty to act, make predictions that come out true, and draw conclusions. 

//I just mean, if we know that it has to be one or the other, then we examine both sides. Plug 0 into the equation and see if it works. Then plug 1 into the equation and see if it works. If only one of them is true, then only one of them will provide a result with no inconsistencies.//
Gotcha. In math it is easier to negate possibilities. 

//Interesting --Suppose I limit my argument to our own conclusions, rather than to let it include reality. I.E. "if absolute certainty doesn't exist, then we cannot be absolutely certain that it doesn't exist; this means that our only viable conclusion is that it does exist." //
Again, one viable conclusion, at the very least, might be that we don't know if it exists. 

My conclusion is that absolute certainty might exist with enough knowledge. I feel absolutely certain about some things in my own had, like the fact that I don't know some things. 

But even if I went so far as to say I believe absolute certainty doesn't exist, that's still a valid conclusion (on its face), because, like all other conclusions about external reality, it isn't made with absolute certainty. 

If other conclusions can be valid/reasonable without absolute certainty, this one can also. For example, if I can believe that we are two humans talking on the internet and act in accordance with that belief despite not being an absolute certainty, then my beliefs and conclusions about absolute certainty can be equally valid (on the face, that is). 

To clarify when I say "on its face" I am just arguing for it being a valid way to draw a conclusion. Not that it is the correct conclusion in this case.
It seems you would rule it out on the basis that it is not an absolute certainty, while allowing other conclusions about reality to be reached without absolute certainty. 

//However, if you're right that our perceptions are all we have, then the argument becomes only about the conclusions we are able to reach, and not necessarily how well they reflect reality.//
Which is a conclusion we would have to be able to reach. 

//So I suppose the root of the issue could be that if absolute certainty doesn't exist the we can never fully arrive at any conclusion.//
But we can still mostly arrive at reasonable conclusions about reality. Which is plenty fine for dealing with  experiential reality. 

// however I do not think that the measure of doubt must include the truthfulness of the revelation or the source of it -- only the method, because that is the part which we do not know.//
How do you know that the "how" that we don't know doesn't include some way of fooling you about the truth of the information or the source? 

//The minimum set includes that the revelation is truthful, so questioning it is perhaps moot.//
No. The minimum set is that it is received information that at least makes you feel absolutely certain in its transmission. 

This could be many things.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher 

//Does that mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions about external reality? Of course not. We don't need absolute certainty to act, make predictions that come out true, and draw conclusions.// 

If you count the gumballs in the jar and find an even number, your conclusion would be "there is an even number", and you might allow some uncertainty due to the fallibility of your senses. But, the conclusion is "even". In the case of the question "can humans have objective certainty", the statement "I don't know" is neither even nor odd. 

//My conclusion is that absolute certainty might exist with enough knowledge. I feel absolutely certain about some things in my own had, like the fact that I don't know some things. //
This statement, I think, blurs the meaning of absolute certainty. Regardless of how much knowledge you have, due to the shortness of our life and the fallibility of our senses, knowledge of the physical world only allows us to approach conclusions about the physical world. If we could stand on a belief that the world is orderly, then our conclusions become much more likely valid. 

Allow me to try a new angle, to see where it takes us. (I'll be coming up with this as I go, but it's basically the same argument). I think we both agree that we can be absolutely certain of our own immediate existence, (though you not necessarily of mine and v.v.). My existence, as a fact in itself, has no bearing on the physical world, necessarily. There are ideas that we can be certain of, and these ideas produce a philosophical environment where conclusions about the physical world are possible. 

It seems the only ideas you've allowed yourself are:
-I exist
-I am receiving input 

I would like to allow
-I exist
-I am receiving input
-The input accurately reflects the world around me to some degree
-The world is orderly 

The first two realities are self-evident, and can be called absolutely true. However, I think that no amount of circumstantial evidence can allow for the latter two conclusions to be considered absolute truths. They are unjustified without a fifth absolute truth or self-evident reality, and that is the existence of the ultimate foundation which we discussed before. 

I won't say that a person would be incapable of living with just the first two realities, but it is statistically unlikely that a person would survive long without the second two. 

//Which is a conclusion we would have to be able to reach. //
Right -- if we're able to reach conclusions, then we are able to reach conclusions. If we are not able to reach conclusions, then we might be able to reach conclusions. 

//No. The minimum set is that it is received information that at least makes you feel absolutely certain in its transmission. //
The minimum set I proposed was dependent on the idea that absolute or objective certainty is possible. If it is not possible, then you are right -- if it is possible, then the minimum set includes truthfulness of the revelation.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​ 

I have been looking forward to getting to reply to this. Been busy, but I read it the day you posted and thought you were doing some good philosophy in some parts. Encouraging. Another conversion I have been having has been like talking to someone with their fingers in their ears yelling at me. 

//If you count the gumballs in the jar and find an even number, your conclusion would be "there is an even number", and you might allow some uncertainty due to your fallibility. So, the conclusion is "even".//
If a conclusion can have some amount of uncertainty, why can't it have more. What's the limit on uncertainty in order for us to not consider it a conclusion.  If I have no way of counting, why can't that be my most reasonable conclusion at the time. 

//In the case of the question "can humans have objective certainty", the conclusion "I don't know" is neither even nor odd.//
But it is still an option as a conclusion. It isn't contradictory, and it could be the most reasonable conclusion we can draw. 

//Allow me to try a new angle, to see where it takes us. (I'll be coming up with this as I go). I think we both agree that we can be absolutely certain of our own immediate existence, (though you not necessarily of mine and v.v.). My existence, as a fact in itself, has no bearing on the physical world, necessarily. There are ideas that we can be certain of, and these ideas produce a philosophical environment where conclusions about the physical world are possible.
It seems the only ideas you've allowed yourself are:
-I exist
-I am receiving input
I would like to allow
-I exist
-I am receiving input
-The input accurately reflects the world around me to some degree
-The world is orderly// 

These kinds of assumed truths are called axioms. They are "assumed" because you can't not know them, without first acknowledging them as true. That's sometimes referred to as "the impossibility of the contrary". These types of truths aren't justified, only accepted due to the impossibility of the contrary. 

If you came to this idea on your own, bravo. Even if not, it is worth looking into more. The implications don't really pose an immediate threat to a theistic conclusion.
I actually agree with all 4 of the ideas you presented as being true. I agree the first two are self evident and axiomatic. I am still thinking about whether the 3rd and 4th statements are axioms or simply assumed by necessity (and if that might be the same thing). 

//The minimum set I proposed was dependent on the idea that absolute or objective certainty is possible.// 

And I was working from that assumption too. Even if it is possible to feel certain and not be wrong, the minimum set doesn't mean that every feeling of absolute certainty is an absolute certainty. 

So even if we assume absolute certainty is possible, we can't assume every received input that makes us feel absolutely certain is necessarily true (as a minimum set).
Even if it is not only possible, but a verifiable fact that a God who exists that can reveal true things such that you can be certain, a minimum set of any received information is not that it is defacto true. Because you would need a way to differentiate between a feeling of certainty, and the true revelation. 

If there is no way to differentiate then you should reasonably be left with doubt.
Sorry I had to go back through and edit a few passages.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher 

//Another conversion I have been having has been like talking to someone with their fingers in their ears yelling at me. //
Haha, I know exactly what you mean. Its interesting how much we rely on others for our information. Everything I know about biology and chemistry I learned from someone else, and I just accepted it. I would make a fool of myself if I tried to argue for or against it. I suppose many people rely on others for their philosophy and religious views in the same way. To some extent you and I do, too. 

//If a conclusion can have some amount of uncertainty, why can't it have more. What's the limit on uncertainty in order for us to not consider it a conclusion.  If I have no way of counting, why can't that be my most reasonable conclusion at the time. //
There are two significant differences between the any physical example (still using the jar of gumballs lol) and the question at hand: 

-In the gumball example, the primary reason for our uncertainty is the fallibility of our senses; where in the question of objective certainty, the primary reason for the uncertainty seems to be our "general" fallibility. If I interpret your argument correctly, you're saying that since we have no evidence either way, we arrive at uncertainty simply because we can't think of anything we're objectively certain about. 

So, it might be that I need to idenfity different types of uncertainty in order to support my argument. Our general fallibility might be reason to apply some uncertainty to every thought and inclination that we have. I'll have to think about this more, but I still hold to the following idea. 

-In the gumball example, if there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, and you claim that there is an even number, then there is nothing wrong with that. Likewise, if there is an odd number and you claim that there is an odd number, your claim is valid. In the question of objective certainty, if it is possible and you claim that it is possible, then there is no issue. However, if you claim that it is impossible, then whether it is possible or not does not change the wrongness of your claim. 

In either case it is reasonable to say you don't know, but not knowing doesn't affect the impracticability of the negative claim. We do know that there are only two possible conclusions, and only one of them is valid. 

//Because you would need a way to differentiate between a feeling of certainty, and the true revelation.
If there is no way to differentiate then you should reasonably be left with doubt.//
Very interesting. If I interpret you correctly, you aren't saying that we can't tell if the ultimate foundations revelation was true or false; but instead that we can't differentiate between the true revelation and our own other feelings. Is that right? 

//Sorry I had to go back through and edit a few passages.//
No problem. I habitually edit my posts for like 20 mins after I post them. Also, for some reason my posts sometimes get triple-spaced and I have to go back and delete lines to make them look normal.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Logan Belcher 3 months ago (edited)
 +Zac Slade​
//I suppose many people rely on others for their philosophy and religious views in the same way. To some extent you and I do, too.//
Absolutely. We all appeal to authorities and experts in regards to a lot of things just simply because there is more information out there then there is time to directly experience everything. The trouble comes when someone relies on an expert or group of experts for bad reasons and does not have the desire to vet the experts they rely on and check their reasoning as much as possible. 

//-In the gumball example, the primary reason for our uncertainty is the fallibility of our senses; where in the question of objective certainty, the primary reason for the uncertainty seems to be our "general" fallibility.//
Yes. I would say that our reasoning is just as fallible as our senses. No one, to my knowledge has perfect reasoning about everything. 

//If I interpret your argument correctly, you're saying that since we have no evidence either way, we arrive at uncertainty simply because we can't think of anything we're objectively certain about.//
Or how one might obtain it. And arriving at uncertainty doesn't stop us from trying to become more educated about whatever it is and trying to form a pretty well informed conclusion. 

//So, it might be that I need to idenfity different types of uncertainty in order to support my argument. Our general fallibility might be reason to apply some uncertainty to every thought and inclination that we have. I'll have to think about this more...//
Good stuff. 

//However, if you claim that it is impossible, then whether it is possible or not does not change the wrongness of your claim.//
If the claim that it is impossible is made with absolute certainty. 

I think almost every claim, even ones like "x is impossible" or "I'm certain of x", is made with an unspoken asterisk. *I am human and could be wrong. 

Its just typically not said after every statement because it's something that is so obvious about us. Many times statements made with so much confidence are said so with the intent of demonstrating how knowledgeable (a person thinks) they are about the subject. It can be very persuasive. I know that I know that I know that I know that I know... 

//Very interesting. If I interpret you correctly, you aren't saying that we can't tell if the ultimate foundations revelation was true or false; but instead that we can't differentiate between the true revelation and our own other feelings. Is that right?//
Yes, if we assumed that there was an ultimate revealer whom could grant us absolute certainty. 

Would you agree that it is possible to feel absolutely certainty about something, and still be wrong about it?
I think we talked about this earlier and acknowledged that it is possible just to be stubbornly certain of things without realizing that you were just being stubborn. 

If thats the case then even a truth you accepted as revealed truth from the ultimate Foundation might just be your own wrong conclusions stubbornly held. 

I feel pretty comfortable about moving on to morality now. I will let you have the last word about certainty but I think we've come to a pretty good understanding of each other's position, and I feel like I have some homework to do. Hopefully you feel the same. 

We can either continue to talk on here or you can just message me on Facebook or Google+ so that we don't clog up this page. Either way is fine.
Show less
 Reply  · 

Zac Slade 3 months ago (edited)
 +Logan Belcher //I feel pretty comfortable about moving on to morality now. I will let you have the last word about certainty but I think we've come to a pretty good understanding of each other's position, and I feel like I have some homework to do. Hopefully you feel the same.// 

Excellent. I'm satisfied with your last words on the subject of certainty, and I do have some homework to do as a result of our discussion. 

So, I typically prefer facebook, but our messages get really long and facebook has a really thin message window. The Google Plus chat window is expandable, but it has a character limit. We might have to send multiple messages for one point. Email might be best, but I'll kick off morality via google plus message. If you prefer another forum, let me know and we can go there.
Show less
 Reply  ·

"Who has measured the waters in the hollow if his hand?"