Comments on: Debate: Is God The Basis for Knowledge? – RazorsKiss vs. MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Common Sense Atheism » 400+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-533 Common Sense Atheism » 400+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:08:42 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-533 [...] link [...] [...] link [...]

]]> By: The Case Against Presuppositionalism | Urban Philosophy http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-158 The Case Against Presuppositionalism | Urban Philosophy Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:05:28 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-158 [...] It is also important to note that presuppositionalists state that their reasoning operates using two axioms. To quote a presuppositionalist with whom I have debated: [...] [...] It is also important to note that presuppositionalists state that their reasoning operates using two axioms. To quote a presuppositionalist with whom I have debated: [...]

]]> By: kindkayne http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-154 kindkayne Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:51:21 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-154 razorkiss' argument against the possibility of god's deception fails based on scripture itself. he erroneously states that based on scripture "god cannot lie" however there are a number of passages that have god deceiving people.. 1 Kings 22:20-23 Jeremiah 4:10 Jeremiah 20:7 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 . razorkiss’ argument against the possibility of god’s deception fails based on scripture itself. he erroneously states that based on scripture “god cannot lie” however there are a number of passages that have god deceiving people..

1 Kings 22:20-23
Jeremiah 4:10
Jeremiah 20:7
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

.

]]> By: kindkayne http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-9842 kindkayne Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:51:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-9842 razorkiss' argument against the possibility of god's deception fails based on scripture itself. he erroneously states that based on scripture "god cannot lie" however there are a number of passages that have god deceiving people.. 1 Kings 22:20-23 Jeremiah 4:10 Jeremiah 20:7 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 . razorkiss’ argument against the possibility of god’s deception fails based on scripture itself. he erroneously states that based on scripture “god cannot lie” however there are a number of passages that have god deceiving people..

1 Kings 22:20-23
Jeremiah 4:10
Jeremiah 20:7
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

.

]]> By: A Response to Chris Bolt on Presuppositionalism and God’s Honesty | Urban Philosophy http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-126 A Response to Chris Bolt on Presuppositionalism and God’s Honesty | Urban Philosophy Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:29 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-126 [...] response to my debate with RazorsKiss on whether or not God is the basis for all knowledge, Dawson Bethrick has provided a critical [...] [...] response to my debate with RazorsKiss on whether or not God is the basis for all knowledge, Dawson Bethrick has provided a critical [...]

]]> By: americankhatru http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-113 americankhatru Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:13 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-113 RK, you could just as easily presuppose that "Knowledge works" as "god exists and makes it work" Also, "god exists" and "God is revealed through the BIble" are not really axioms. "God exists" is a proposition, even if you hold it as a properly basic one. The revelation of god in the bible has to be backed up by actually reading the bible, so it is also not an axiom. RK, you could just as easily presuppose that “Knowledge works” as “god exists and makes it work”
Also, “god exists” and “God is revealed through the BIble” are not really axioms. “God exists” is a proposition, even if you hold it as a properly basic one. The revelation of god in the bible has to be backed up by actually reading the bible, so it is also not an axiom.

]]> By: americankhatru http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-9841 americankhatru Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:23:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-9841 RK, you could just as easily presuppose that "Knowledge works" as "god exists and makes it work" Also, "god exists" and "God is revealed through the BIble" are not really axioms. "God exists" is a proposition, even if you hold it as a properly basic one. The revelation of god in the bible has to be backed up by actually reading the bible, so it is also not an axiom. RK, you could just as easily presuppose that “Knowledge works” as “god exists and makes it work”
Also, “god exists” and “God is revealed through the BIble” are not really axioms. “God exists” is a proposition, even if you hold it as a properly basic one. The revelation of god in the bible has to be backed up by actually reading the bible, so it is also not an axiom.

]]> By: hackenslash http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-93 hackenslash Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:44:33 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-93 More circular reasoning on the part of the theist. He assumes that his god exists, and that his scriptures contain the word of god. Further, his entire argument stems from and relies upon that assumption. In order to demonstrate that god is the basis for knowledge, it m ust be demonstrated that this entity actually exists, and that knowledge without this entity is not possible. This he has singularly failed to do. More circular reasoning on the part of the theist. He assumes that his god exists, and that his scriptures contain the word of god. Further, his entire argument stems from and relies upon that assumption. In order to demonstrate that god is the basis for knowledge, it m ust be demonstrated that this entity actually exists, and that knowledge without this entity is not possible. This he has singularly failed to do.

]]> By: hackenslash http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-9840 hackenslash Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:44:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-9840 More circular reasoning on the part of the theist. He assumes that his god exists, and that his scriptures contain the word of god. Further, his entire argument stems from and relies upon that assumption. In order to demonstrate that god is the basis for knowledge, it m ust be demonstrated that this entity actually exists, and that knowledge without this entity is not possible. This he has singularly failed to do. More circular reasoning on the part of the theist. He assumes that his god exists, and that his scriptures contain the word of god. Further, his entire argument stems from and relies upon that assumption. In order to demonstrate that god is the basis for knowledge, it m ust be demonstrated that this entity actually exists, and that knowledge without this entity is not possible. This he has singularly failed to do.

]]> By: sophilo http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/debate-is-god-the-basis-for-knowledge-razorskiss-vs-mitchleblanc/comment-page-1/#comment-82 sophilo Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:40:18 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=388#comment-82 RK, what exactly is your argument? RK, what exactly is your argument?

]]>