Let's Talk About Sin

[Orange_Crush]

I seriously don't think you understand the difference between opinion (subjective) vs truely objective

Oh, I understand perfectly well, thank you. You have obviously failed to see the implication of the difference between truth claims and the claim that all claims are equally valid.

and the limits of humans with respect to that difference.

Is this another way of objectively claiming that no one can make objective claims about knowing objective truth? You still wrapped up in your self-contradiction? Let me know when that corner you've painted yourself into gets too constrictive-- or maybe you think it's cozy. Whatever works for you, man.

 

[rjd970]

Oh, I understand perfectly well, thank you. You have obviously failed to see the implication of the difference between truth claims and the claim that all claims are equally valid.



Is this another way of objectively claiming that no one can make objective claims about knowing objective truth? You still wrapped up in your self-contradiction? Let me know when that corner you've painted yourself into gets too constrictive-- or maybe you think it's cozy. Whatever works for you, man.

Your arrogance in the face of being wrong is comical at this point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

A truth claim based on what?! Seriously.

In context of this part of the discussion, a truth claim based on whether Christianity is true or not. That would be an objective truth-- whether it is true or not. It will be either true or false. That's what you equated as an 'opinion' on my behalf.

Your 'opinion' is the opinion that there is no truth in the moral context. There is your truth, and his truth, and her truth, and Hitler's truth... And they are all equally valid. It is preference.

The difference between these 'opinions' is analogous to the opinion of whether OJ did it, and whether you like chocolate better than vanilla. OJ either did it or did not. There is no right/wrong answer to the best flavor of ice cream.

Now, we'll connect that back to you argument against my use of Christianity as an objective morality. Your claim is that, yes, your morality may be an opinion, but my belief in Christianity is just an opinion too, so we're all in the same boat.

But we are not. You are relying on complete relativity, and I am appealing to a truth claim. You are saying, in effect, 'everyone is right, who am I to say?' I am saying, "I believe I am right, and the objective, unchanging truth is the deciding factor.'

To further refine the context of application for this distinction... You and several others have subtly built the case that atheism is the 'safer' worldview than Christianity. But Christianity appeals to what it believes to be the moral truth. That moral truth includes the two laws: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself-- neighbor defined especially as the person that you like the least."

With that moral law established, we can judge the actions of a professing Christian and see if they are consistent with the Christian moral law.

Atheism defines a relative moral law where no one is any more right than anyone else. The person's internal morality is correct, whatever that may be. There is no external, objective truth defined to judge self by, or to be judged from without. So, Hitler is free to do whatever he wants to Jews, because his view of Jews is all that matters, and who are you to tell him he is wrong? Stalin can do whatever he wants to detractors, because his truth says that human life is cheap for the cause of the party-- and who are you to judge him?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Your arrogance in the face of being wrong is comical at this point.

It's obviously pointless.

Good evening rjd.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

Oh, I understand perfectly well, thank you. You have obviously failed to see the implication of the difference between truth claims and the claim that all claims are equally valid.

1) I care not if you can't handle the "implications" of the difference. It is what it is.

2) There are no true/absolute/objective truths of a posteriori knowledge. There are only claims and whether they are falsified.

Is this another way of objectively claiming that no one can make objective claims about knowing objective truth? You still wrapped up in your self-contradiction? Let me know when that corner you've painted yourself into gets too constrictive-- or maybe you think it's cozy. Whatever works for you, man.

Goodness. How can I be saying anything objectively when it is coming from my point of view? You keep repeating this garbage and it still is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

From my point of view, humans are constrained from ever knowing true/absolute/objective a posteriori knowledge due to our limitations. I know it is true for me. I assume, that others are like me. I have never met anyone to claim otherwise. Maybe you are different. Maybe you don't have my limitations. Maybe you can transcend yourself and your experiences. But, if my assumption hold true, my claim would also hold true. It is a subjective claim (onto myself) that will never be able to be "objective" unless I can sufdenly transcend myself to test the assumption.

 

[Orange_Crush]

1) You keep repeating this garbage and it still is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

So, let's judge your position, as you state it...

From my point of view, humans are constrained from ever knowing true/absolute/objective a posteriori knowledge due to our limitations.

You would have to have more knowledge than you claim you have access to for that statement to be true, so it is internally self-contradicting. You would have had to prove that statement false to know that it's true. You are offering the absolute statement that you can't know absolute truth. Claiming that you can't escape yourself, you would have to had escaped yourself to know that is true.

It is laughable.

I believe that God created humanity to know and experience absolute truth. I do not believe that we have all truth, but that we can know truth. We were designed to.

Further, I believe that Christians have access to the transcendent God who promises to lead us and guide us into all truth, who is truth, and who speaks truth.

So, you are left with a worldview that throws out obvious self-contradictions, while mine remains consistent. I can claim the ability to speak the truth as the truth. You can claim to speak the truth that you can't know or speak the truth.

Good evening.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, let's judge your position, as you state it...



You would have to have more knowledge than you claim you have access to for that statement to be true, so it is internally self-contradicting. You would have had to prove that statement false to know that it's true. You are offering the absolute statement that you can't know absolute truth. Claiming that you can't escape yourself, you would have to had escaped yourself to know that is true.

It is laughable.

I believe that God created humanity to know and experience absolute truth. I do not believe that we have all truth, but that we can know truth. We were designed to.

Further, I believe that Christians have access to the transcendent God who promises to lead us and guide us into all truth, who is truth, and who speaks truth.

So, you are left with a worldview that throws out obvious self-contradictions, while mine remains consistent. I can claim the ability to speak the truth as the truth. You can claim to speak the truth that you can't know or speak the truth.

Good evening.

:hi:

Contingency is not self/contracting. For it to be true for all humans, would be contingent on my assumption being true. That is not self-contradictory.

Admitting, "I don't know" to various things and that my senses/limitation would keep me from ever knowing with absolute certainty anything external to myself is not self-contradicting.

Speaking these opinions about "absolute truth" does not make it an absolute truth. It is my subjective opinion on the state and possible knowledge of the external based on my own experiences and rational.

As for the rest of post, you know truths. You know objective truths. You have certainty. You preach certainty and objective wrongness of all of the rest of us (present, past, and future) blindly swim in. You are the real life man to crawl out of Plato's cave.

I preach skepticism. I preach doubt and caution.

 

[Orange_Crush]

1) I care not if you can't handle the "implications" of the difference. It is what it is.

2) There are no true/absolute/objective truths of a posteriori knowledge. There are only claims and whether they are falsified.



Goodness. How can I be saying anything objectively when it is coming from my point of view? You keep repeating this garbage and it still is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

From my point of view, humans are constrained from ever knowing true/absolute/objective a posteriori knowledge due to our limitations. I know it is true for me. I assume, that others are like me. I have never met anyone to claim otherwise. Maybe you are different. Maybe you don't have my limitations. Maybe you can transcend yourself and your experiences. But, if my assumption hold true, my claim would also hold true. It is a subjective claim (onto myself) that will never be able to be "objective" unless I can sufdenly transcend myself to test the assumption.

Contingency is not self/contracting. For it to be true for all humans, would be contingent on my assumption being true. That is not self-contradictory.

You said it of yourself, which made it a contradiction. (See the first bolded, your second point above.)

Admitting, "I don't know" to various things and that my senses/limitation would keep me from ever knowing with absolute certainty anything external to myself is not self-contradicting.

You did not say, I don't know. You made an absolute truth statement that you can't make absolute truth statements. That is a contradiction. (See the first bolded, your second point above.)

Speaking these opinions about "absolute truth" does not make it an absolute truth. It is my subjective opinion on the state and possible knowledge of the external based on my own experiences and rational.

I don't begrudge you that. However, I will point out the contradictions in your worldview.

As for the rest of post, you know truths. You know objective truths. You have certainty. You preach certainty and objective wrongness of all of the rest of us (present, past, and future) blindly swim in. You are the real life man to crawl out of Plato's cave.

I'm not alone.

I preach skepticism. I preach doubt and caution.

You preach the absolute truth that no one can preach absolute truth. (See the first bolded, your second point above.) You preach that you can't know truth, and that you know that as truth for yourself. (See the second bolded.)

Edit: You also claim that there is no absolute truths of a posteriori knowledge-- only claims that have been falsified (through experience, i.e. a posteriori knowledge)

A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very unhappy").

So, you've added the fact that it is impossible to have experiential truth, but it is possible to falsify claims based on experiential truth.

Shall we keep going?

 

[rjd970]

To further refine the context of application for this distinction... You and several others have subtly built the case that atheism is the 'safer' worldview than Christianity. But Christianity appeals to what it believes to be the moral truth. That moral truth includes the two laws: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself-- neighbor defined especially as the person that you like the least."

Just wanted to point out that I don't believe this, and never made a case as such. I don't think any atheism non-belief even belongs in this comparison.

As for the rest of your post, its a brick wall I'm tired of pounding my head against.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just wanted to point out that I don't believe this, and never made a case as such. I don't think any atheism non-belief even belongs in this comparison.

My apologies for the mistake. :hi: Sorry to lump you in with others. And for the record, I wasn't trying to make the point that non-believers are a bunch of amoral heathens. As I noted in the other thread, I believe (almost) everyone has a general imprint of the moral law as conscience.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Your understanding of what an atheist is and what they "believe" is so profoundly wrong there are not adequate words to describe it.

Atheists don't blame gods for anything. We reject the very premis that there are gods. How can you argue a position against atheists when you haven't grasped the most fundamental understanding of our position.

Wrong. Atheists are saying all the time if God was this then why did he do that. I have debated with plenty of atheists who blame God for genocide, wars and pretty much anything horrible that has happened throughout history. Deflect all you wish but I have read it in this forum and other on the internet.

I have atheist friends who do exactly what I have said. They say the same things you and other atheists say like, if God was prefect then why did he blah, blah. You cannot blame God for anything without believing he exists. You and many other atheists cannot or refuse to grasp this concept. I am not surprised though because its typical atheist ridiculousness.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You said it of yourself, which made it a contradiction. (See the first bolded, your second point above.)

You did not say, I don't know. You made an absolute truth statement that you can't make absolute truth statements. That is a contradiction. (See the first bolded, your second point above.)

I don't begrudge you that. However, I will point out the contradictions in your worldview.

Really? Goodness. Grasping for straws. They are all claims from my point of view! I'm sure you don't walk around constantly saying "from my point of view" to everything you say. I felt it was implied unless I state otherwise. No contradiction.

For the record, I also didn't say it was objective or absolute.

I'm not alone.

I don't lump other Christians with you. I've never met anyone with the mix of certain first hand knowledge of absolute truth, certainty of transcending knowledge, and fault/skepticism with all other challenging views. Maybe there are, I just haven't met anybody with the same mix.

You preach the absolute truth that no one can preach absolute truth. (See the first bolded, your second point above.) You preach that you can't know truth, and that you know that as truth for yourself. (See the second bolded.)

Again, I'm sorry that I didn't explicitly state "from my point of view" with that particular statement. I figured I had made that pretty clear that anything next to "PKT" is ultimately my own subjective opinion and not objective (as I don't think true objectivity is possible).

Edit:

1) I care not if you can't handle the "implications" of the difference. It is what it is.

2) There are no true/absolute/objective truths of a posteriori knowledge. There are only claims and whether they are falsified.



Goodness. How can I be saying anything objectively when it is coming from my point of view? You keep repeating this garbage and it still is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

From my point of view, humans are constrained from ever knowing true/absolute/objective a posteriori knowledge due to our limitations. I know it is true for me. I assume, that others are like me. I have never met anyone to claim otherwise. Maybe you are different. Maybe you don't have my limitations. Maybe you can transcend yourself and your experiences. But, if my assumption hold true, my claim would also hold true. It is a subjective claim (onto myself) that will never be able to be "objective" unless I can sufdenly transcend myself to test the assumption.

I stated such in the same damn post. Common man.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

What in the **** crawled up your butt? Did you get swirlied by a gang of atheists when you were a child?

Nope just debating with atheists. Why? Does that statement bother you? Atheists can claim belief in God is stupid and illogical. I am just stating that a belief of nothing is stupid and illogical. Whats wrong with that?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Your posts give me cancer.

I bet thats God's fault right? lol:

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

This has got to be a joke.

I feel like everybody is just trolling at this point....lol.

Nope its the truth. It has happened in this thread and others. I have debated with atheists that blame God for everything bad that has ever happened.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wrong. Atheists are saying all the time if God was this then why did he do that. I have debated with plenty of atheists who blame God for genocide, wars and pretty much anything horrible that has happened throughout history. Deflect all you wish but I have read it in this forum and other on the internet.

I have atheist friends who do exactly what I have said. They say the same things you and other atheists say like, if God was prefect then why did he blah, blah. You cannot blame God for anything without believing he exists. You and many other atheists cannot or refuse to grasp this concept. I am not surprised though because its typical atheist ridiculousness.

Not being disagreeable BOT, but they are actually probing our worldview for internal self-consistency, and it's valid. The argument goes, "IF God was this, THEN..." It behooves us to eventually give a rational response and explain the perceived contradictions.

However, I agree that they are showing a bit of self-contradiction in their question. They are defining genocide (for example) as morally wrong, and they will need to explain where they get the objective standard that defines it as wrong.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Really? Goodness. Grasping for straws. They are all claims from my point of view! I'm sure you don't walk around constantly saying "from my point of view" to everything you say. I felt it was implied unless I state otherwise. No contradiction.

For the record, I also didn't say it was objective or absolute.


Again, I'm sorry that I didn't explicitly state "from my point of view" with that particular statement. I figured I had made that pretty clear that anything next to "PKT" is ultimately my own subjective opinion and not objective (as I don't think true objectivity is possible).

Edit:



I stated such in the same damn post. Common man.

PKT, you made a truth statement of yourself that you can't make truth statements. I don't know how to phrase it more simply. Is it any better for you to say: I don't believe that I can make truth statements, and then make truth statements?

Either you believe that you can know and communicate truth or you do not. If you do not, why have you spent so many posts trying to convince me that you are right and I am wrong? If you believe of yourself that you can't know and communicate truth, then why have you tried to comunicate this truth to me, in opposition to my belief that people can know and communicate truth?

You seemed to infer that I am wrong for my truth claims when you said this:

I don't lump other Christians with you. I've never met anyone with the mix of certain first hand knowledge of absolute truth, certainty of transcending knowledge, and fault/skepticism with all other challenging views. Maybe there are, I just haven't met anybody with the same mix.

You seemed to infer that I am wrong and that it's wrong for me to claim such transcending knowledge while being so skeptical of challenging views. Yet, you also told me that you don't believe that you can ascertain truth or communicate it.

Now, as to why I am so convinced of my own knowledge while being so skeptical of yours, why should I not be skeptical of your claims? If you do not believe that you can know and communicate truth, why should I consider anything you say? You've already told me that you are not a trustworthy source of information, because you don't consider yourself a worthy source of information. So, I don't see how you can take issue with my stance. I am trusting a source of information that claims to be the truth and has lived up to my investigation, and discounting a source of truth that told me it is not a valid source of truth.

EDIT: Re-read these threads. I have invited and openly discussed the skepticism that others have of my own worldview. It's not like I'm being a hypocrite.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Really? Goodness. Grasping for straws. They are all claims from my point of view! I'm sure you don't walk around constantly saying "from my point of view" to everything you say. I felt it was implied unless I state otherwise. No contradiction.

For the record, I also didn't say it was objective or absolute.



I don't lump other Christians with you. I've never met anyone with the mix of certain first hand knowledge of absolute truth, certainty of transcending knowledge, and fault/skepticism with all other challenging views. Maybe there are, I just haven't met anybody with the same mix.



Again, I'm sorry that I didn't explicitly state "from my point of view" with that particular statement. I figured I had made that pretty clear that anything next to "PKT" is ultimately my own subjective opinion and not objective (as I don't think true objectivity is possible).

Edit:



I stated such in the same damn post. Common man.

Oh, and go re-read the post this was in response to. I used the word "absolute:, which was your word-- as opposed to "objective", which was also your word. You said absolutely that you can't have absolute truth.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't lump other Christians with you. I've never met anyone with the mix of certain first hand knowledge of absolute truth, certainty of transcending knowledge, and fault/skepticism with all other challenging views. Maybe there are, I just haven't met anybody with the same mix.

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I'd like you to expound on this. What part of self-certainty should preclude skepticism of opposing truth claims? I would think that self-certainty and other-skepticism would logically go hand in hand. Please explain why self-certainty should equate to a lack of skepticism of contradicting truth claims.

I realize that you seem to prefer a world where everyone walks around saying, "I just don't know. I'm probably wrong. You may be right. Everyone is wrong." But your preferences aside, what part of self-certainty should prohibit other-skepticism.

I mean, you think you're right (whether you want to admit it or not). You are obviously skeptical of my truth claims that are in opposition to your truth claims (that you don't seem to want to admit that you make). Can you only be skeptical of opposing views if you are also skeptical of your own views? Or can certainty reside alongside skepticism also?

 

[PKT_VOL]

PKT, you made a truth statement of yourself that you can't make truth statements. I don't know how to phrase it more simply. Is it any better for you to say: I don't believe that I can make truth statements, and then make truth statements?

Either you believe that you can know and communicate truth or you do not. If you do not, why have you spent so many posts trying to convince me that you are right and I am wrong? If you believe of yourself that you can't know and communicate truth, then why have you tried to comunicate this truth to me, in opposition to my belief that people can know and communicate truth?

You seemed to infer that I am wrong for my truth claims when you said this:

You seemed to infer that I am wrong and that it's wrong for me to claim such transcending knowledge while being so skeptical of challenging views. Yet, you also told me that you don't believe that you can ascertain truth or communicate it.

Now, as to why I am so convinced of my own knowledge while being so skeptical of yours, why should I not be skeptical of your claims? If you do not believe that you can know and communicate truth, why should I consider anything you say? You've already told me that you are not a trustworthy source of information, because you don't consider yourself a worthy source of information. So, I don't see how you can take issue with my stance. I am trusting a source of information that claims to be the truth and has lived up to my investigation, and discounting a source of truth that told me it is not a valid source of truth.

I can make subjective truth statements all day, everyday. No problem. I reject true objectivity (thus consequently absolute knowledge) can be reached, if (key word), other humans or observers are constricted and limited in the same way I am. For that to be an objective truth statement, it is contingent upon my assumption/caveat. Until I can transcend myself and test the assumption/caveat, it is merely a subjective opinion.

That said, I believe in the power of persuasion. Is that not (part) of the reason people discuss various topics in life or on a message board? They want to experience other subjective opinions? We communicate subjective truths to one another. We give our own opinion and listen to others. Maybe their point of view, experience, or rational might change your own mind about a various topic; in others words, persuasion.

If the claim that you have knowledge of absolute truth and objective morality is true, why would you waste your time communicating unless you are trying to pull the rest of us out of Plato's cave? You would be prophet. Maybe you are, I don't know. Based on your statements and a lack of saying that you can transcend your own mind, experience, and rational, I assume that you too are limited by the same things that limit me as a human, thinking being. Thus, I am working under the premise that I am exchanging subjective opinions with you (however much you want to proclaim you have absolute truth of the external and objectivity). I believe you are making faulty judgements and committing logical fallacies. I am trying to communicate that to you and try to understand just how you get (mentally) to the extravagant claims that you make.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can make subjective truth statements all day, everyday. No problem. I reject true objectivity (thus consequently absolute knowledge) can be reached, if (key word), other humans or observers are constricted and limited in the same way I am. For that to be an objective truth statement, it is contingent upon my assumption/caveat. Until I can transcend myself and test the assumption/caveat, it is merely a subjective opinion.

So, you are saying subjectively, without certainty, that you can't escape yourself?

That said, I believe in the power of persuasion. Is that not (part) of the reason people discuss various topics in life or on a message board? They want to experience other subjective opinions? We communicate subjective truths to one another. We give our own opinion and listen to others. Maybe their point of view, experience, or rational might change your own mind about a various topic; in others words, persuasion.

So, you are seeking to transcend yourself to seek truth?

If the claim that you have knowledge of absolute truth and objective morality is true, why would you waste your time communicating unless you are trying to pull the rest of us out of Plato's cave?

Is it a waste of time to point outside the cave?

You would be prophet. Maybe you are, I don't know.

I guess, from a certain perspective, every Christian would consider themselves a prophet.

Based on your statements and a lack of saying that you can transcend your own mind, experience, and rational, I assume that you too are limited by the same things that limit me as a human, thinking being.

You would be wrong in that assumption. I have already told you that as a born-again Christian, I have access to objective truth. I am not perfect in my knowledge, but I have access to transcendent, objective truth.

Thus, I am working under the premise that I am exchanging subjective opinions with you (however much you want to proclaim you have absolute truth of the external and objectivity).

That is your prerogative. The thing about objective truth is that it is truth no matter if someone believes it.

I believe you are making faulty judgements and committing logical fallacies. I am trying to communicate that to you and try to understand just how you get (mentally) to the extravagant claims that you make.

I am always open to you pointing out what you think is fallacious. I will defend or withdraw points. However...

If you have no access to absolute truth, how can you judge the correctness of my truth? That is fallacious in and of itself. Having admitted that you have no access to 'true' truth, why would I come to you for it?

EDIT: Do you realize that by appealing to logical fallacies, you have appealed to objective truth? Your reliance on logic to weigh truth claims is an appeal to objective truth. For instance, if I told you that I drew a square circle, how would you respond? You would say that it is a logical impossibility because it is a logical contradiction. In doing so, you would be accepting and proclaiming an objective truth.

To deny objective truth is to deny the very logic that you use every day. Thus, my claim that all humans are designed to access objective truth.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

You should do some research, refute the findings, get peer reviewed and then come on back.. Until then your whimsical analysis of the study is nothing more than that of what some may call a 'hater'.

I read the study you provided, and am quite familiar with other socioeconomic demographics, which is why I responded. It would seem apparent the only whimsical analysis being presented is the study you referenced which claims... "the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

I'm not disputing which states have higher murder rates, only the authors suggestion that the correlation to the crime is "high religious rates".

Here is a list of America's top 10 deadliest cities.

Flint, MI
Detroit, MI
New Orleans, LA
St. Louis, MO
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Newark, NJ
Oakland, CA
Baton Rouge, LA
Cleveland, OH
Memphis, TN

Honest question... do you think the biggest (and most likely) common denominator among these cities is that the residents of these areas have a higher percentage of "believers" versus "non-believers" as compared to safer cities? Because this is what the study you referenced is purporting.

Here's some other information you might find interesting. Provo, UT is the most religious metro area in the U.S. So according to the study you cited it should also have one of the highest violent crime rates. However, here's how it stacks up... well below half that of the national average.

That seems odd. Why do you think that is Septic, as it completely contradicts your study?

I look forward to your response.

 

[Roustabout]

Contingency is not self/contracting. For it to be true for all humans, would be contingent on my assumption being true. That is not self-contradictory.
O
Admitting, "I don't know" to various things and that my senses/limitation would keep me from ever knowing with absolute certainty anything external to myself is not self-contradicting.

Speaking these opinions about "absolute truth" does not make it an absolute truth. It is my subjective opinion on the state and possible knowledge of the external based on my own experiences and rational.

As for the rest of post, you know truths. You know objective truths. You have certainty. You preach certainty and objective wrongness of all of the rest of us (present, past, and future) blindly swim in. You are the real life man to crawl out of Plato's cave.

I preach skepticism. I preach doubt and caution.

I'm skeptical of this post.
OK, you win. We conceed that you are an ignoramus (in an a posteriori sense) with no inherent value or purpose. Subjectively speaking of course. Not trolling here, just making a joke based on the actual content of what you posted.

Seriously though, reducing this to contingency? You are claiming to know (objectively) that we cant know objectively. I'd love to post a couple of videos on this. One from William Lane Craig, but I think we KNOW how that ends.

If you are truly a skeptic then you should apply those same concepts to your philosophical worldview. Or maybe you Kant? LOL

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'm skeptical of this post.
OK, you win. We conceed that you are an ignoramus (in an a posteriori sense) with no inherent value or purpose. Subjectively speaking of course. Not trolling here, just making a joke based on the actual content of what you posted.

Seriously though, reducing this to contingency? You are claiming to know (objectively) that we cant know objectively. I'd love to post a couple of videos on this. One from William Lane Craig, but I think we KNOW how that ends.

I'm not sure that knowledge has been revealed to me.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm not sure that knowledge has been revealed to me.

Gooder point!