« first day 

pygosceles
pygosceles
1:31 AM
I have knowledge.
You are just pretending I can't know anything, but I do know this thing.
Do you believe all knowledge is unattainable? If so you can't say anything against knowledge, having none yourself.
The truth value of both claims is the same--so long as the sky is, indeed, blue.
"Assume false is true" - then you can prove everything and its contradiction at the same time. It's overcompleteness or in other words the admission of logical schizophrenia.

I am absolutely certain my knowledge that God is 100% real is not the result of any sort of delusion. I actually have knowledge, while you are denying that human beings (or at least myself specifically) may have any.

Are you going to have your cake (claim to have knowledge) and eat it too (claim that I can't have any knowledge)?
"If everyone that isn't Christian can be deluded into sincere and honest belief in something that isn't true, you can too."
False equivalence again. You are saying "if anyone else can sincerely believe the sky is green, then your awareness that the sky is blue must be invalid".

Don't get me wrong, one thing I have become acutely aware of is the ability and propensity of human beings to believe things they know aren't true.
@JSLavertu Not all confidence is equal, nor are the truth values underlying that confidence.
 
 
9 hours later…
JS Lavertu
JS Lavertu
10:08 AM
@pygosceles And now you've simply reverted to pure special pleading. Your only justification is repeating "I'm right" which isn't proof of anything.
True, not all confidence is equal. The problem is that the mechanism by which you discard other religions confidence makes your own confidence unreliable. Again, this isn't something you can sidestep by saying "nuh-uh, I know I'm right": if others can be deluded in their sincere and honest belief, you can be too. Endlessly saying that your claim is equivalent to saying the sky is blue still isn't valid.
 
 
3 hours later…
pygosceles
pygosceles
1:02 PM
I have invoked exactly zero special pleading. You are pretending that actual knowledge is disallowed.

Will you admit that (a) you have not paid the price to know what you are talking about?

The existence of God is fully verifiable. I know I am right.

Are you not in the swamp of delusion yourself? You are fully circular and ungrounded in your argumentation to the contrary of the reality of God.

It is and will forever be true that God is real, and for those who never bother to look up, they may hate the fact, and despise those who are aware of it, but it will nonetheless be true forever. …
 
 
2 hours later…
JS Lavertu
JS Lavertu
2:52 PM
@pygosceles I would love to see you debate a follower of another religion: just an endless stream of "No, I'M right", "No, I'M right", No, I'M right" with no actual proof in sight.
 
pygosceles
pygosceles
3:16 PM
@JSLavertu There is no point in debating. There is purpose in sharing testimony, and ceasing to bother those who do not care to put forth the effort to learn.
 

« first day