Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Askthepizzaguy]

Without knowledge, there is no definition.

[Sigurd]

Without knowledge, there is no definition.

If there is no definition of knowledge, we should assume there is no knowledge?

[Askthepizzaguy]

knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.

I choose the more rational interpretation, and assume truth exists and that knowledge of that truth is possible. Therefore, we can define things based upon knowledge of the truth.

A sphere is round. Without objective truth, common perceptions, evidence, and proof, I cannot make a definition of a sphere. But because there is truth, there are common perceptions, and we can gather evidence, and arrive at a conclusion. As such, definitions flow from knowledge of truth.

If there are conflicting truths, they weren't true to begin with.

[KukriKhan]

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.

[Askthepizzaguy]

We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.

That sounds all mystical and deep and all but it overlooks the obvious assumption that you know that you cannot know.

Obviously, that means you think you know something, and are arguing that it is possible to know something, because you're attempting to convince someone of your viewpoint.

Basically, it's self-defeating logic. I didn't have to come up with a rebuttal, because it crumbles under it's own rules.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Fascinating concepts to debate of course, but off-topic.

I'm telling the moderator on you, KukriKhan and Sigurd.

[Sigurd]

Derailing or not.

knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.

Let's go back to the beginning of this.

You said:
[rephrased]
When something is not disprovable, it is not knowledge.

I said:
[rephrased]
What is knowledge?

You said:
[rephrased]
Knowledge precedes definition.

I said:
[rephrased]
If we do not know what knowing is, do we even have knowledge at all?

You said:
[rephrased]
I am not going to define knowledge and will continue expanding on this common assumption of knowledge as if we have agreed on a definition already.

I say:
Define knowledge before continuing. What is knowledge?

[Askthepizzaguy]

There is a dispute between philosophers about what the definition of knowledge is.

However, a dictionary entry on knowledge reads:

(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>

There are many different uses of the word. To limit the discussion to what I am referring to, knowledge is that which is believed, true, and justified. In other words, factual information that we are consciously aware of.

If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.

Ergo, knowledge. Those who dispute whether or not knowledge exists dispute whether or not they themselves exist. And when one does that, I question whether or not they steer away from a toddler they see walking in the street. Because, after all, who knows whether or not that child exists?

I prefer the rational opinion on knowledge, which is that it exists and we can perceive it. The opposing opinion is self-defeating and inherently worthless, because even if someone knew that there is no such thing as knowledge, they would ipso facto be completely wrong at the same time.

Ah, paradoxes. Sometimes they help us prove what cannot be true. Hence, knowledge.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.

The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.

Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.

Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.

One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[Vladimir]

If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.

Even a vaccuum has physical properties which affect both space and time. And if matter is a fluctuation of a vaccuum, then the vaccuum contains something, even in the abstract, which makes it no longer a vaccuum. And if there are fluctuations in spacetime, then there must first be the concept of existence.

Otherwise you couldn't be sitting here talking about it. Or standing, or whatever. The fact that I can discern the difference between sitting and standing is yet one of the infinite examples of there being reality around me.

Only by blinding yourself to reality can one say that it does not exist, and then one is stating that they do not exist, which is the same as saying "this statement is false". There's an inherent flaw in your reasoning, which negates the validity of your assertions.

One cannot say that they do not exist, unless they exist.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.

So it is true then.

Existence sucks.