Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Trivially easy. My alternate position is: "Some things can be certainly known without omniscience."


[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know that that which you don't know doesn't affect what you do know, thus affecting your certainty?

[ QUOTE ]


1. Every statement about empirical reality requires omniscience to be known certainly.
2. But (1) is a statement about empirical reality.
3. So (1) cannot be known certainly.


[/ QUOTE ]

2. is false. 1. is a proposition about knowledge. This is trivially obvious for the reasons contained in my question above.

As for your link, you called me a troll, I responded. At the time I was attempting to engage you in a discussion. When you gave up I answered from the frustration I always get when people resort to personal insult.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The "philosophical issue" you're wrong about is assuming you're certainly right about anything philosophical.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can see why your best argument is personal insult. Finis.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you know that that which you don't know doesn't affect what you do know, thus affecting your certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Observe that I didn't imply which statements could be known certainly. Making that implication would be just as self-stultifying as your position.

[ QUOTE ]

2. is false. 1. is a proposition about knowledge. This is trivially obvious for the reasons contained in my question above.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL AJ-Ayeraments. (1) cannot be purely a proposition about knowledge with no exclusive implication for reality. Otherwise it would be equally valid to say: "Every statement about empirical reality can be known certainly without omniscience."

Basing your epistemology on a non-exclusionary (1) is thus special pleading. Basing your epistemology on an exclusionary (1) is self-stultifying as shown above.

I'm serious, this is AJ Ayer almost to the letter. Are you just fooling around with me here?