beamstalk (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

It is a straw man because that is not what skeptics claim. There are some things not know but there is plenty that is known. He created a fake skeptic and then knocked it down, thus straw man.

elroy2112 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

If a man says "I know nothing"and I ask how do you KNOW "that you know nothing"this is a valid question not a strawman you need to explain how knowing you "know nothing" can not be knowledge, just calling names and throwing around words like "straw man" is not a reponse at all.Just like when a Hard agnostic says "you cant know anything about God" he must explain how he KNOWS you cant know anything about God, skeptics need to explain there secret knowledge not just take it on Blind faith.

elroy2112 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

FGB>> "Assume X, therefore X"Elroy>> no FGB, 2 premises and a conclusion is a deductive argument, or logical proof, Moreland is not saying Im going to give you a proof for Logic so we can believe in the God of reason, first principles (expample Laws of Logic etc) are not provable like the axioms of geometry they cant be proven, if you deny them or Knowledge nothing makes sense at all If you assume God of reason this is consistent with reasoning being real. there is no therefore involved

elroy2112 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

FGB >>presupposes the validity of his "knowledge" that the law of non contradiction is true. Which means he presupposes the proposition he is trying to prove.Elroy >> No Hes not trying to prove Law of non contradiction is true,Moreland would never say anything that backward All laws of Logic are first principles or axiom like, they explain world or reasoning in this case they cant be "proven" and if you deny them you cant reason, Moreland is showing If you deny God of reason you lose reason.

beamstalk (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Also he is creating a straw man about skeptics by saying that skeptics claim they know that they know nothing.

FatGermanBastard (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

His argument could be summarized like this:P1: If "I know that I know nothing" is wrong then we may have knowledge.P2: Assume that we have knowledge that the law of non contradiction is true.P3: Then "I know that I know nothing" is wrong.=> Therefore we may have knowledge.However, he assumed his conclusion in the second premise. This makes his argument like "Assume X, therefore X"

FatGermanBastard (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

He is making a well known old mistake here. He uses circular reasoning to prove that "I know that I know nothing" is wrong. Therefore he violates his own rules of reasoning that do apply on the ground he is moving on.By saying that "I know that I know nothing" is circular and therefore invalid he presupposes the validity of his "knowledge" that the law of non contradiction is true. Which means he presupposes the proposition he is trying to prove.

broj8s8n79 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I know that I think that I think that I think I know this video is cool, great vid!!