= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matthew2 comments on No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
So when a christian presuppositionalist claims we can only know anything because God exists, your answer would be? I mean to say their is clearly no epistemology which explains clearly and technically intelligence itself. What is the your answer to the assertion: you have no epistemology but God is the basis of epistemology? I don't agree at all, my question is simply how to respond since they assume one needs to justify logic itself.
"You could be right! Hey, get this! The funniest thing happened to my friend Jake just the other day..."
I know this is about two years late, but I'm really curious as to what that means.
It means 'change the topic and talk about something fun'. The 'You could be right!' also constitutes 'fogging'. ie. It diffuses the argument and gives them nothing to attack and less incentive to take an aggressive stance on that issue.
Fogging indeed. If Matthew by his question meant "how would you honestly address that argument", then you didn't answer Matthew any more than that hypotetical presuppositionalist.
They are making an unfounded assertion on top of an already unfounded assertion. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially in fields lacking any subjectivity.
Welcome here.