Yeah, we should believe John's witness instead. And John is the one telling us he said that in the first place. Okay.
But God does not expect blind faith. Jesus Himself said that if He bore witness of Himself, don't believe Him (John 5:31)
Thank you for asking, I appreciate the change of pace. As for the answer, I don't know, I've had that notion for as long as I can remember. I know I'd been imagining brain-in-a-vat scenarios long before I found out it's an actual thing in philosophy. Maybe it's because I've always consumed fantasy and science-fiction, and a supernatural or high-tech power fooling people's senses and making everything they believe be false is a very common trope. It's also possible I just thought of it on my own, I thought about that kind of thing a lot as a child and it's not a hard idea to come up with. I find it much more strange that somebody would never have thought of these things until they went to college.
How or where did you get the notion that you can't know truth?
As far as I know the brain-in-a-vat/Matrix/being-fooled-by-an-omnipotent-being scenarios set the standard for what “unfalsifiable” means, so I'd love it if you could disprove them.
Now if you tell me that you got into the Matrix on your own, then I have to believe you. But the good news is that I'm here to convince you that you can cut yourself loose.
This might be relevant if I had at any point denied the law of non-contradiction. I don't; I have repeatedly stated I think the law of non-contradiction is how the world works, i.e. is true. I have also repeatedly stated, including at length in the paragraph you just quoted above, that I am not saying “I know I can't know” or “I'm certain I can't be certain”. I have explicitly said quite a lot of times now that I am not, in fact, certain that I can't be certain. Why do you keep arguing against a position I do not hold ?
Any attempt by a relativist to deny the law of non-contradiction is self-destructive. It's like arguing, “I think I can't think.” “I know I can't know.” “I'm certain I can't be certain.” In each case, the relativist is doing what he claims he can't do.
That assumes those attributes are God-given, i.e. you're assuming God's existence to demonstrate it's illogical to deny God's existence. Seeing as atheists do not assume God's existence and do not believe those attributes are God-given there is no logical problem from their point of view.
The atheistic relativist has the same problem when he denies that God exists. To argue against God's existence, the atheist must use God-given attributes to argue against the God he denies
Again you are assuming your own conclusion: if logic and thought are immaterial then it's illogical to say they're not. But if they're not immaterial then there's nothing illogical there.
In his worldview only matter exists; yet he uses the immaterial laws of logic and thought to argue that only matter exists. If his worldview were true – that only matter exists – he could not reason or use laws of logic.
You could just as well say that dualists cannot reason or use laws of logic because they're using thoughts and logic derived from brain processes to argue thoughts and logic don't derive from brain processes. If you can understand what's wrong with that argument you'll understand what's wrong with yours.
Besides computers use laws of logic and they can “reason” in the sense of deriving logical conclusions from premises or integrating information to condition future behavior. Which part of the computer is immaterial exactly ?
Also, I remember someone here making an argument for the laws of logic's existence that didn't require those laws to be immaterial or God-given at all, what was it again :
a. Without the laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
b. We can make an argument.
c. Therefore there must be laws of logic.
Now I think that's a terrible argument because making a circular argument is exactly the same as making an assumption, so it's more honest to just make the assumption directly. But you said that argument was reasonable and valid so I trust it will convince you.
Again you are assuming your own conclusion. If there is a single absolute morality then something can't be moral and immoral at the same time. If there isn't, then saying “this is moral according to morality1” and “this is immoral according to morality2” are not contradictory, and “this is moral” can be true or false but not in the same way : it's true if “moral” is taken in the sense of “morality1” and “immoral” when it's taken in the sense of “morality2”.
An honest atheist will not argue that morality is absolute. And most I have encountered accept a relativistic morality or “what's right for you is not right for me”. But there is a problem with this. Just as two contradictory statements can't both be true and false at the same time and in the same way, murder of the innocent (say) can't be both moral and immoral at the same time.
By the way, you realize that some statements are neither true or false, right ? “This sentence is false” is the canonical example.
“But what if it were not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be assumed at the outset.”
Atheists claim to be “scientific” while we Christians rely on blind faith in a God. But to do scientific experiments, the atheist must trust that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not change and will remain law-like. The atheist believes that the laws will remain the same tomorrow as they have today, but he has no rational reason to believe so. His belief, within his worldview, is an arbitrary one
That question is irrelevant to whether we can do scientific experiments or not. All that's necessary for scientific experiments to work is that the universe does behave in a regular manner. And as long as we observe that it does it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.
If the universe is the result of an unguided “big bang” and humans are an accident of chemicals, why should there be any laws of physics or laws of logic at all?
“Having said all that, there are special cases where circular reasoning is unavoidable and not fallacious.”
Most atheist argue they can know the physical laws will not change in the future because they have remained law-like in the past. But this is circular reasoning or begging the question
Sure it will. Humans are made of matter and energy and abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity or insulting one's sensitivities emerge straightforwardly from the interactions between humans and their brain patterns, therefore matter and energy do give you those things.
In the materialistic worldview of the atheist, abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity or insulting one's sensitivities can't really exist. Matter or energy will not give you these immaterial things.
Did you notice the bit where I assumed my own conclusion there ? That's what you've been doing this whole post.
Sorry, as I told you previous times when you used made those arguments I don't find circular reasoning convincing at all.
I pray that I gave you an uncomfortable intellectual kidney stone that will not pass until you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior