A Futile Debate with a God-Botherer…

Metaphysician

Answer the question. Is there a chance that I do not exist?

Just a chance. Is there a chance I might not?

Phil

I don’t believe in chances.

Metaphysician

Might I be wrong?

Phil

What is wrong and right in your worldview?

Metaphysician

I know I exist. You said everything I know might be wrong

Phil

How do you know that?

Metaphysician

No, no, it is your claim. What do you mean by wrong?

Phil

How do you know that you exist?

Metaphysician

Answer me.

If I say, “I know I exist”, might I be wrong?

Or is that knowledge definitely correct?

Phil

Well, what is wrong and what is right in your worldview?

Can you explain?

Metaphysician

No, you said I might be wrong. What do you mean by that?

I will answer when you tell me what you think right and wrong is, in terms of knowledge. not ethics.

Phil

I mean by that; your truth claims could be all wrong.

Not truth, let’s say.

right = true

wrong = not true

Metaphysician

So, by wrong you mean not true, right. So, then, you think that my knowledge that I exist might not be true?

Phil

Depends if you know that your reason is valid.

Try at least to be consistent with your worldview.

You are on holy ground (Christian worldview).

Metaphysician

I claim knowledge that I exist. Now, do you think I have any valid reason to claim that knowledge?

Phil

Consistent to what worldview?

Metaphysician

Alright, I guess I should have seen that coming. Alright, according to my worldview, do I have any reason to claim knowledge that I exist?

Phil

I don’t know.

Metaphysician

Do you have any reason to think you exist?

Or might you be wrong about that?

Or does your worldview somehow give you a reason to be certain about that?

Phil

No, I can’t be wrong about that.

Metaphysician

Oh, why is that?

Phil

Because we can’t know that through intelligibility.

Metaphysician

So, let’s get this straight. Reality might not be real, at least by my worldview. And by my worldview, I cannot be certain that I exist. You cannot prove anything without God, because a book says that it is the Word of God. What have I missed/gotten wrong?

OK, so we cannot know we exist …. unless …God tells us?

Phil

Because it is God’s word.

God don’t need to tell us that.

We know that through intelligibility.

God is precondition for intelligibility.

Zeus
Why the Christian God though? Why not, say, Zeus? Oh because you want it to be your God..

Metaphysician

How do you know it is God’s word?

Phil

That’s what I mean.

Metaphysician

You know it is God’s word because the world is intelligible? Is that it?

Phil

Because without God I can’t proof anything.

Metaphysician

So, you know it is God’s word because if it was not, you could not know everything?

Phil

“I can’t proof anything”

Metaphysician

I think you mean that without God’s word you cannot prove anything.

I mean, that is false, but that seems closer to what you think.

How do you know that without God’s word you cannot know everything/anything? Because God’s Word, right?

Sorry, no no. It is because you can know stuff. You know God’s Word is true because you can know stuff?

Phil

Metaphysician

But how do you know that is why you can know stuff? Because…God’s Word?

How do you know that, Phil? How do you know that the only reason you can know stuff is through God’s Word?

Because A Book Said A Thing?

Phil

The quote tells you.

Metaphysician

I know what the quote says. But how do you know that the only proof for God’s existence is that you cannot prove anything? How do you know the quote is correct?

Phil

BECAUSE WITHOUT HIM I COULDNT PROOF ANYTHING

Metaphysician

How do you know there are no other proofs or no proof? Or that you can’t prove things without God?

Phil

Because I don’t know if they are or aren’t without the existence of God.

Metaphysician

Isn’t that circular?

You are assuming that the only valid proofs/claims are that given by God.

How do you know that?

Phil

It is circular.

Metaphysician

If you say, Because God Said So, you are going to look like a dog chasing its tail.

Phil

Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing.

Metaphysician

Thank you, you admit that it is circular. Therefore, your entire argument is invalid.

And you have nothing to support any of this.You lose.

Phil

Sure I do?

Metaphysician

No, you lose. Unless you can give me a non-circular argument for any of this.

You are not fooling any honest person, Phil.

Phil

What do you understand under a non-circular argument?

Can you explain that to me in details?

Metaphysician

What? I don’t get the question?

No. I do not need circular arguments. I do not make dishonest presuppositions.

Phil

Can you explain me what you mean by non-circular argument?

any claim to ultimate authority uses circularity, but not all can be valid.

Leave a comment