CIRCUS (Official)
UNDER HEAVY CONSTRUCTION::
"If you have to accept the 'possibility' that your thoughts may not be real (your own), and that you may not exist in a true objective reality, then you cannot know anything. It's logically absurd to believe any knowledge can be obtained if the before mentioned have to be accepted as possibilities." - AK
Introduction:: God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. If you don't know everything or know someone who knows everything then you cannot know anything...(Put in the percentages here)
**Atheists cannot be sure that their own thoughts are real (their own)...They also can never be certain that they exist in a true objective reality**
BACKGROUND - CIRCUS is a formal argument that was created in early 2014 by well known Christian apologist Chad Elliott (AKA the Atheist Killa)....It's name was founded on the fact that the AK frequently refers to atheists as "CLOWNS" on his facebook page (Atheism Dismantled)...He has been quoted as saying, "They run around and act completely foolish while putting on nothing more than a staged act. They already know what they are doing (atheism) is just a show, and that underneath all the makeup (lies, dishonesty, fronting, rescuing devises and denial), God in fact does exist. Every man knows this."
The Circus arguments is based primarily on Presuppositionalism. A technique that many modern apologists try but fail at. However, this argument (Circus), as well as ORA (Objective reality argument), show how to correctly utilize this form of logic.
THE Formal Argument::
P1: If your worldview forces you to admit that you could be wrong about everything you think you know, then you can't know anything.
P2: Atheism forces you to admit that you could be wrong about everything you think you know.
C: Atheists can't know anything.
Cont...
P1: Choosing a position that makes it so you can't know anything, is the pinnacle of ignorance
C: Choosing to be an atheist is the pinnacle of ignorance
Supporting the Premises::
(SUPPORTING P1): Atheism forces a person to admit they could be wrong about everything they think they know. How? Well, atheists cannot be sure that their own thoughts exist or are real, or if they exist in a true objective reality. The reason for this is that they can only rely on a subjective reality.
TEST: Ask an atheist...
TELL ME SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW. They wont be able to provide anything. No matter what their response, ask the atheist how he knows this and then ask him, based on his worldview could he be wrong. To maintain any type of honesty or integrity he will have to answer yes. Once they figure this out and get tired, they may respond by saying,
"Well, I can know one thing. I know that I can't know anything." Even though this sounds completely absurd and should make any sane person run from atheism, it's in fact not true. Even the atheist cannot know that they cant know anything. Why?? If you can't know that you exist in a true objective reality, or your thoughts are real (your own), then you can't know anything!! NOTHING!!...You cant even know that you can't know anything, because it could be true that you do know something but you just don't know you do.
Secondly, because the atheist cannot know if his thoughts are real (his own), he must accept the possibility that his thoughts are really not HIS thoughts at all. The sentence "I KNOW that I cant know anything" is invalid. Because the truth is, the initial "I" at the beginning of the sentence may not exist...Also the "KNOW anything" part of the sentence is flawed, because your thoughts may not exist, so how would you know anything?...Therefore YOU really don't KNOW if you don't know anything, because a brain, thoughts, and person that isn't real, in fact doesn't know ANYTHING AT ALL!!
In regards to Premise one: If you want to prove P1 of CIRCUS invalid or unsound you would have to be able to do one or both of the following.
1.) Tell me something YOU can know if objective reality is not an option for you.
2.) Knowing is a construct thought. No thought, no knowing! So, tell me how you can know something if your thoughts don't exist.
And if you think you can know that you can't know anything...
3..) Tell me how YOU can know that YOU can't know anything, without presupposing you exist.
NOTE: Based on my worldview (Christianity), I do not have to accept that I could be wrong about everything I think I know because my worldview is that an all knowing, all powerful being (God), has provided an objective reality and revealed things to me in such a way that I can know them. Atheists on the other hand have no such foundation. The atheist must accept (based on their worldview), that they could be wrong about everything they think they know. This includes their experiences, perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. Once you have to accept that you could be wrong about everything you think you know, then it's logical to conclude that you cant know anything at all. To prove this, all you need to do is ask an atheist what he knows. No matter what his response, ask him how he knows this and then ask him (based on his worldview) could he be wrong. To maintain any type of honesty or integrity he will have to answer yes.
(SUPPORTING P2): How do we know that atheists have to accept they could be wrong about everything they think they know? Because they have no foundation for objective reality. They cannot be certain that they exist in an objective reality. They have to accept that everything they think they know may be false.
Certainly real truth does exist....for example we know the law of non contradiction is a logical absolute...we also know that questions like 'is the earth flat', do have answers...for example someone might say its flat, and someone else might say its not...but its true that an answer does exist....so it is true that we 'are able' to discover real truths...this is the beauty of science and being able to understand not only ourselves, but the world around us...a worldview that makes you admit you "cannot know anything" surely cannot be correct as it would never lead you down a path to truth or discovery...a correct worldview would have to be one that....
Common Rebuttals::
[[How do you know atheists cannot atheists cannot know 'anything']] - Atheists cannot be certain that they exist in an objective reality, or that their thoughts are their own. Atheists cannot know anything at all because they have no foundation for knowledge. They only have their subjective reality which can always change and allows for no firm foothold.
[[Why does it matter that objective reality is not an option for me]] If you are limited to you subjective reality, you cannot identify truth...Your pen could fall, you can pick up a fork, you can think, etc. but you don't know if those things are really real...it could just be your flawed perception of some other real objective reality...For example the pen may have seemed to fall and hit the floor but ...the pen and floor may not even exist, or in actuality be two completely different items...the pen could be a snake, and the floor could be a flower bed...same with the fork...it could be a different item than you subjectively assume or it may not even exist at all...same thing with your thoughts, your thoughts may not even be yours or they may not even exist...your thoughts could be a pre programmed computer program which pre loads everyone of your thoughts and gives you the appearance of allowing you free will...furthermore you and your brain may not even exist at all...your entire existence and person may just be the dreams of a butterfly, or the video game character of an alien from a distant galaxy who when he turns off the power you disappear. Also saying MY PEN could fall presupposes that you exist (using the word "my") before proving you do. That is a logical fallacy.
Without firmly being able to know you exist in an objective reality, you cannot find truth...in other words, your subjective reality may be flawed and because of that, anything you know could be flawed...thus you can never really find truth!! If you disagree tell me something you can know for sure to be true, if subjective reality is all you got.
A drug addict high on crack may think that he is walking on a pink ceiling and dodging purple elephants in his subjective reality, but the truth is he was walking down isle 8 at target and didn't know it.
[[If you prove to an atheist that this argument is valid then it defeats itself...essentially making it self-refuting]] - The first point here is that an opponent offering up such a rebuttal has really failed to follow the timeline or the sequence to the argument. The entire argument proves that atheists cannot know anything. Meaning, while we are presenting the premises to the atheist, we are assuming they are still atheists at that moment, who are entrenched in their worldview. However, when the conclusion is presented, hopefully they will no longer be an atheists, because they will recognize their position is invalid. Thus, they will be able to take on a new position (theism) , which is correct and allow them know things, such as their thoughts are real, and that they are existing in an objective reality. If they do not change their position/worldview and are still atheists after the conclusion of the argument is presented to them, then the argument would still be useful being shown to believers as to reinforce their beliefs.
Secondly, there is no reason not to present a truth to someone (valid argumentation) in hopes that one day they might change their stance. For example, just because I know atheists have to admit they cannot know anything, that shouldn't stop me from showing them their errors, so they will leave their flawed worldview, and shift their position at some point in the future! Once their position shifts then they will be correct. Atheism is not like your blood type. It can be changed!! Its just a chosen/selected worldview, but it can be undone. Here is a great example of what I mean - If you meet someone on the street who cannot know anything, and you try teach that person something, the atheist would say, thats self refuting and basically worthless because you know that person will not be able to retain or accept the information. But, when that person you meet on the street is not stuck in their handicap (meaning the ability not to know something is not like their bloodtype), and has the ability to make a change and allow themself to 'know things', then your teachings are not a waste of time. You are teaching them with the hopes that the information presented to them will make them want to change. Thus the argument is not self refuting in any way.
[[I think, therefore I am]] [[I think, therefore I am]] This rebuttal is a complete failure. "I think therefore I am," was created to prove human existence.
All modern philosophers view this argument as inherently flawed because it assumes "I" exist in order to prove that "I" exist. In other words, it presupposes the existence of itself to prove itself exists
Atheists cannot be certain that their thoughts are real (their own).
[[We can turn this argument around on theists]] - Wrong. This argument cannot be flipped around on theists for many reasons. As a believer in God, the creator, giver, and provider of objective reality, experience, foundation, logic, knowledge, and truth, I can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that everything I know is not false. For example I can accept that 2+2 is always 4, that the tree outside my window is real, that my thoughts and experiences are my own, and that I do truly exist as part of an objective reality, etc.
[[The Difference]] I can be assured that myself, as well as the things which I perceive are real. The atheist on the other hand cannot!! God can reveal things to me in such a way that I can know them for certain.
This is important because it provides me with the ability to find truth. You see, all atheists can rely on is a subjective reality, but for me (the believer), I can be assured that God provided the foundation of a true and objective reality. This allows the believer (me), to know the things which I perceive, as well as myself are real. I am able to plant my feet firmly in the comfort of this objective reality, and from there venture out to discover knowledge and truth. Something which is unattainable from the atheist worldview.
[[Who cares about truth or being able to know anything]] The reason that it's important to be able to discover truth and obtain knowledge in an objective reality are many. One reason is that without this ability, you can't know anything, and thus remain totally and completely intellectually bankrupt. Choosing such a worldview that makes it so you cannot know anything is the pinnacle of ignorance. You have to ask yourself who would want to make it so they cannot know anything? Surely not I.
[[Believers cannot know they exist in an objective reality either]] - Is it impossible that god exists? No!!....So once you admit there is a possibility that an all knowing, all powerful god exists, you have to admit that he could reveal things to us such so that we can be certain. There would be no mechanism that would prevent God from revealing things to us which we could trust to be real. Then we would not be in error to ACCEPT such a notion that objective reality does actually exist, provided by God, as a basis for our logic, knowledge, experiences, and truth. The only way to know anything, is to have ALL KNOWLEDGE (absolute knowledge), or have a revelation or foundation of truth provided by a being who has absolute knowledge.
[[Objective reality would exist outside of God therefore cannot come from God]] - Not true. Before God begins to create there is nothing but God. Not even time or space. This includes objective reality. God has not created reality yet, it only comes into existence when he wills it into being.
[[Christian usage of presuppositional logic]] The presuppositional logic used in Christian apologetics is vastly different than what I am asking of atheists. Christians say that without God you cannot know anything. It's presupposing God exists, not to prove that God exists, but rather to prove that without God you cannot know anything...What I'm trying to teach atheists with this particular lesson is that a person cannot prove he exists by presupposing he exists at the start of his example. For example: The atheist cannot say, "P1 is invalid because there is something I can know. I know that I cant know anything." Such a statement presupposes that the atheist exists in order prove he exists. This is a logical error. If you notice, the "I" at the beginning of the sentence (I know I can't know anything) is in reference to the atheists existence. However, you cant prove you exist by assuming you exist at the beginning of your argument. Secondly if you cant know anything, then technically you cant know you cant know anything...And thirdly if your brain doesn't exist, and your thoughts aren't real, you wouldn't have the capabilities to know you cant know.
[[Truth]] Truth is a component of knowledge, which unbelievers are also not able to account for. They are not able to know anything to be true. What is truth in your worldview without God? Almost always will the unbeliever give a correspondence theory of truth, which means truth is that which corresponds to reality. But how does the unbeliever know what is real? The unbeliever will appeal to his senses and reasoning. Then ask how the unbeliever knows that his senses and reasoning are valid. If the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and reasoning are valid, then he cannot know anything to be true.
[[Infinite Regress of Justification for Knowledge Illustration]] How does an unbeliever know A (any belief) is true? He’ll respond because of B. How does the unbeliever know B is true. He’ll respond because of C. How does he know C is true. He’ll respond because of D. This series of justification will go on for infinity and therefore he cannot have knowledge of A. The only way to stop this infinite regression of justification for knowledge is to have infinite knowledge or have revelation from someone who does have infinite knowledge.
[[If you don't know everything, you can't know anything]] The unbeliever must either know everything, which he cannot, or receive revelation from an all knowing God which he doesn't believe in. Ask the atheist, “Out of all the knowledge there is in the universe, how much knowledge do you think you have?” The unbeliever maybe thinks he has 1% of the knowledge in the universe. Then ask the unbeliever, “Is it possible that something in the 99% of the knowledge that you don't have, could disprove the knowledge that you claim to have?” So doesn’t it follow that unless you know everything, you can’t know anything?? From the believers standpoint however, things look much different. God is the ALL KNOWING (Knows everything) and thus can provide us with the ability to know things for certain.
[[Demonstrations]] If he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, then he knows nothing. One of his examples we use to demonstrate this is suppose that you see the speed limit sign outside and it says 30mph, but you could be wrong about that. Is it correct to say that you know it is 30mph if you could be wrong? No. So likewise, if the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and/or reasoning are valid then he cannot claim to know anything. To illustrate the point another way, ask the unbeliever, “Are there people in the universe with invalid reasoning? Of course. Could those people come to know that they are such people? No. They would need valid reasoning to know that they have invalid reasoning. How do you know that you are not one of those people?” The debate ends here.
God is the necessary precondition for knowledge.
Atheist - "I believe my thoughts exist, but because they may not be my own, or may be a product of a pre-programmed computer simulation, I really can't know."Christian- " Unlike atheism, My worldview does NOT force me to admit that I could be wrong about everything I think you know...Including my thoughts, or the reality I exist in."
"If you have to accept the 'possibility' that your thoughts may not be real (your own), and that you may not exist in a true objective reality, then you cannot know anything. It's logically absurd to believe any knowledge can be obtained if the before mentioned have to be accepted as possibilities." - AK
Introduction:: God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. If you don't know everything or know someone who knows everything then you cannot know anything...(Put in the percentages here)
**Atheists cannot be sure that their own thoughts are real (their own)...They also can never be certain that they exist in a true objective reality**
BACKGROUND - CIRCUS is a formal argument that was created in early 2014 by well known Christian apologist Chad Elliott (AKA the Atheist Killa)....It's name was founded on the fact that the AK frequently refers to atheists as "CLOWNS" on his facebook page (Atheism Dismantled)...He has been quoted as saying, "They run around and act completely foolish while putting on nothing more than a staged act. They already know what they are doing (atheism) is just a show, and that underneath all the makeup (lies, dishonesty, fronting, rescuing devises and denial), God in fact does exist. Every man knows this."
The Circus arguments is based primarily on Presuppositionalism. A technique that many modern apologists try but fail at. However, this argument (Circus), as well as ORA (Objective reality argument), show how to correctly utilize this form of logic.
THE Formal Argument::
P1: If your worldview forces you to admit that you could be wrong about everything you think you know, then you can't know anything.
P2: Atheism forces you to admit that you could be wrong about everything you think you know.
C: Atheists can't know anything.
Cont...
P1: Choosing a position that makes it so you can't know anything, is the pinnacle of ignorance
C: Choosing to be an atheist is the pinnacle of ignorance
Supporting the Premises::
(SUPPORTING P1): Atheism forces a person to admit they could be wrong about everything they think they know. How? Well, atheists cannot be sure that their own thoughts exist or are real, or if they exist in a true objective reality. The reason for this is that they can only rely on a subjective reality.
TEST: Ask an atheist...
TELL ME SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW. They wont be able to provide anything. No matter what their response, ask the atheist how he knows this and then ask him, based on his worldview could he be wrong. To maintain any type of honesty or integrity he will have to answer yes. Once they figure this out and get tired, they may respond by saying,
"Well, I can know one thing. I know that I can't know anything." Even though this sounds completely absurd and should make any sane person run from atheism, it's in fact not true. Even the atheist cannot know that they cant know anything. Why?? If you can't know that you exist in a true objective reality, or your thoughts are real (your own), then you can't know anything!! NOTHING!!...You cant even know that you can't know anything, because it could be true that you do know something but you just don't know you do.
Secondly, because the atheist cannot know if his thoughts are real (his own), he must accept the possibility that his thoughts are really not HIS thoughts at all. The sentence "I KNOW that I cant know anything" is invalid. Because the truth is, the initial "I" at the beginning of the sentence may not exist...Also the "KNOW anything" part of the sentence is flawed, because your thoughts may not exist, so how would you know anything?...Therefore YOU really don't KNOW if you don't know anything, because a brain, thoughts, and person that isn't real, in fact doesn't know ANYTHING AT ALL!!
In regards to Premise one: If you want to prove P1 of CIRCUS invalid or unsound you would have to be able to do one or both of the following.
1.) Tell me something YOU can know if objective reality is not an option for you.
2.) Knowing is a construct thought. No thought, no knowing! So, tell me how you can know something if your thoughts don't exist.
And if you think you can know that you can't know anything...
3..) Tell me how YOU can know that YOU can't know anything, without presupposing you exist.
NOTE: Based on my worldview (Christianity), I do not have to accept that I could be wrong about everything I think I know because my worldview is that an all knowing, all powerful being (God), has provided an objective reality and revealed things to me in such a way that I can know them. Atheists on the other hand have no such foundation. The atheist must accept (based on their worldview), that they could be wrong about everything they think they know. This includes their experiences, perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. Once you have to accept that you could be wrong about everything you think you know, then it's logical to conclude that you cant know anything at all. To prove this, all you need to do is ask an atheist what he knows. No matter what his response, ask him how he knows this and then ask him (based on his worldview) could he be wrong. To maintain any type of honesty or integrity he will have to answer yes.
(SUPPORTING P2): How do we know that atheists have to accept they could be wrong about everything they think they know? Because they have no foundation for objective reality. They cannot be certain that they exist in an objective reality. They have to accept that everything they think they know may be false.
Certainly real truth does exist....for example we know the law of non contradiction is a logical absolute...we also know that questions like 'is the earth flat', do have answers...for example someone might say its flat, and someone else might say its not...but its true that an answer does exist....so it is true that we 'are able' to discover real truths...this is the beauty of science and being able to understand not only ourselves, but the world around us...a worldview that makes you admit you "cannot know anything" surely cannot be correct as it would never lead you down a path to truth or discovery...a correct worldview would have to be one that....
Common Rebuttals::
[[How do you know atheists cannot atheists cannot know 'anything']] - Atheists cannot be certain that they exist in an objective reality, or that their thoughts are their own. Atheists cannot know anything at all because they have no foundation for knowledge. They only have their subjective reality which can always change and allows for no firm foothold.
[[Why does it matter that objective reality is not an option for me]] If you are limited to you subjective reality, you cannot identify truth...Your pen could fall, you can pick up a fork, you can think, etc. but you don't know if those things are really real...it could just be your flawed perception of some other real objective reality...For example the pen may have seemed to fall and hit the floor but ...the pen and floor may not even exist, or in actuality be two completely different items...the pen could be a snake, and the floor could be a flower bed...same with the fork...it could be a different item than you subjectively assume or it may not even exist at all...same thing with your thoughts, your thoughts may not even be yours or they may not even exist...your thoughts could be a pre programmed computer program which pre loads everyone of your thoughts and gives you the appearance of allowing you free will...furthermore you and your brain may not even exist at all...your entire existence and person may just be the dreams of a butterfly, or the video game character of an alien from a distant galaxy who when he turns off the power you disappear. Also saying MY PEN could fall presupposes that you exist (using the word "my") before proving you do. That is a logical fallacy.
Without firmly being able to know you exist in an objective reality, you cannot find truth...in other words, your subjective reality may be flawed and because of that, anything you know could be flawed...thus you can never really find truth!! If you disagree tell me something you can know for sure to be true, if subjective reality is all you got.
A drug addict high on crack may think that he is walking on a pink ceiling and dodging purple elephants in his subjective reality, but the truth is he was walking down isle 8 at target and didn't know it.
[[If you prove to an atheist that this argument is valid then it defeats itself...essentially making it self-refuting]] - The first point here is that an opponent offering up such a rebuttal has really failed to follow the timeline or the sequence to the argument. The entire argument proves that atheists cannot know anything. Meaning, while we are presenting the premises to the atheist, we are assuming they are still atheists at that moment, who are entrenched in their worldview. However, when the conclusion is presented, hopefully they will no longer be an atheists, because they will recognize their position is invalid. Thus, they will be able to take on a new position (theism) , which is correct and allow them know things, such as their thoughts are real, and that they are existing in an objective reality. If they do not change their position/worldview and are still atheists after the conclusion of the argument is presented to them, then the argument would still be useful being shown to believers as to reinforce their beliefs.
Secondly, there is no reason not to present a truth to someone (valid argumentation) in hopes that one day they might change their stance. For example, just because I know atheists have to admit they cannot know anything, that shouldn't stop me from showing them their errors, so they will leave their flawed worldview, and shift their position at some point in the future! Once their position shifts then they will be correct. Atheism is not like your blood type. It can be changed!! Its just a chosen/selected worldview, but it can be undone. Here is a great example of what I mean - If you meet someone on the street who cannot know anything, and you try teach that person something, the atheist would say, thats self refuting and basically worthless because you know that person will not be able to retain or accept the information. But, when that person you meet on the street is not stuck in their handicap (meaning the ability not to know something is not like their bloodtype), and has the ability to make a change and allow themself to 'know things', then your teachings are not a waste of time. You are teaching them with the hopes that the information presented to them will make them want to change. Thus the argument is not self refuting in any way.
[[I think, therefore I am]] [[I think, therefore I am]] This rebuttal is a complete failure. "I think therefore I am," was created to prove human existence.
All modern philosophers view this argument as inherently flawed because it assumes "I" exist in order to prove that "I" exist. In other words, it presupposes the existence of itself to prove itself exists
Atheists cannot be certain that their thoughts are real (their own).
[[We can turn this argument around on theists]] - Wrong. This argument cannot be flipped around on theists for many reasons. As a believer in God, the creator, giver, and provider of objective reality, experience, foundation, logic, knowledge, and truth, I can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that everything I know is not false. For example I can accept that 2+2 is always 4, that the tree outside my window is real, that my thoughts and experiences are my own, and that I do truly exist as part of an objective reality, etc.
[[The Difference]] I can be assured that myself, as well as the things which I perceive are real. The atheist on the other hand cannot!! God can reveal things to me in such a way that I can know them for certain.
This is important because it provides me with the ability to find truth. You see, all atheists can rely on is a subjective reality, but for me (the believer), I can be assured that God provided the foundation of a true and objective reality. This allows the believer (me), to know the things which I perceive, as well as myself are real. I am able to plant my feet firmly in the comfort of this objective reality, and from there venture out to discover knowledge and truth. Something which is unattainable from the atheist worldview.
[[Who cares about truth or being able to know anything]] The reason that it's important to be able to discover truth and obtain knowledge in an objective reality are many. One reason is that without this ability, you can't know anything, and thus remain totally and completely intellectually bankrupt. Choosing such a worldview that makes it so you cannot know anything is the pinnacle of ignorance. You have to ask yourself who would want to make it so they cannot know anything? Surely not I.
[[Believers cannot know they exist in an objective reality either]] - Is it impossible that god exists? No!!....So once you admit there is a possibility that an all knowing, all powerful god exists, you have to admit that he could reveal things to us such so that we can be certain. There would be no mechanism that would prevent God from revealing things to us which we could trust to be real. Then we would not be in error to ACCEPT such a notion that objective reality does actually exist, provided by God, as a basis for our logic, knowledge, experiences, and truth. The only way to know anything, is to have ALL KNOWLEDGE (absolute knowledge), or have a revelation or foundation of truth provided by a being who has absolute knowledge.
[[Objective reality would exist outside of God therefore cannot come from God]] - Not true. Before God begins to create there is nothing but God. Not even time or space. This includes objective reality. God has not created reality yet, it only comes into existence when he wills it into being.
[[Christian usage of presuppositional logic]] The presuppositional logic used in Christian apologetics is vastly different than what I am asking of atheists. Christians say that without God you cannot know anything. It's presupposing God exists, not to prove that God exists, but rather to prove that without God you cannot know anything...What I'm trying to teach atheists with this particular lesson is that a person cannot prove he exists by presupposing he exists at the start of his example. For example: The atheist cannot say, "P1 is invalid because there is something I can know. I know that I cant know anything." Such a statement presupposes that the atheist exists in order prove he exists. This is a logical error. If you notice, the "I" at the beginning of the sentence (I know I can't know anything) is in reference to the atheists existence. However, you cant prove you exist by assuming you exist at the beginning of your argument. Secondly if you cant know anything, then technically you cant know you cant know anything...And thirdly if your brain doesn't exist, and your thoughts aren't real, you wouldn't have the capabilities to know you cant know.
[[Truth]] Truth is a component of knowledge, which unbelievers are also not able to account for. They are not able to know anything to be true. What is truth in your worldview without God? Almost always will the unbeliever give a correspondence theory of truth, which means truth is that which corresponds to reality. But how does the unbeliever know what is real? The unbeliever will appeal to his senses and reasoning. Then ask how the unbeliever knows that his senses and reasoning are valid. If the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and reasoning are valid, then he cannot know anything to be true.
[[Infinite Regress of Justification for Knowledge Illustration]] How does an unbeliever know A (any belief) is true? He’ll respond because of B. How does the unbeliever know B is true. He’ll respond because of C. How does he know C is true. He’ll respond because of D. This series of justification will go on for infinity and therefore he cannot have knowledge of A. The only way to stop this infinite regression of justification for knowledge is to have infinite knowledge or have revelation from someone who does have infinite knowledge.
[[If you don't know everything, you can't know anything]] The unbeliever must either know everything, which he cannot, or receive revelation from an all knowing God which he doesn't believe in. Ask the atheist, “Out of all the knowledge there is in the universe, how much knowledge do you think you have?” The unbeliever maybe thinks he has 1% of the knowledge in the universe. Then ask the unbeliever, “Is it possible that something in the 99% of the knowledge that you don't have, could disprove the knowledge that you claim to have?” So doesn’t it follow that unless you know everything, you can’t know anything?? From the believers standpoint however, things look much different. God is the ALL KNOWING (Knows everything) and thus can provide us with the ability to know things for certain.
[[Demonstrations]] If he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, then he knows nothing. One of his examples we use to demonstrate this is suppose that you see the speed limit sign outside and it says 30mph, but you could be wrong about that. Is it correct to say that you know it is 30mph if you could be wrong? No. So likewise, if the unbeliever does not know whether his senses and/or reasoning are valid then he cannot claim to know anything. To illustrate the point another way, ask the unbeliever, “Are there people in the universe with invalid reasoning? Of course. Could those people come to know that they are such people? No. They would need valid reasoning to know that they have invalid reasoning. How do you know that you are not one of those people?” The debate ends here.
God is the necessary precondition for knowledge.
Atheist - "I believe my thoughts exist, but because they may not be my own, or may be a product of a pre-programmed computer simulation, I really can't know."Christian- " Unlike atheism, My worldview does NOT force me to admit that I could be wrong about everything I think you know...Including my thoughts, or the reality I exist in."
Comments
Post a Comment