CS writes:
If I know that the Earth is millions of years old (albeit tentatively) then I know (albeit tentatively) that it isn't less than a week old.
CS writes:
They're not mutually exclusive.
Er - Yes they are.
What the fuck is this shit? That's a complete fabrication, Straggler: That's not how this conversation has gone at all.
Apparently not. The Earth cannot be both millions of years old (thus allowing evolution to occur) and less than a week old simultaneously can it?
Of course not. Do you not know what Last Thursdayism is?
The universe is less than a week old but it just looks like it is millions of years old. Therefore, all the evidence we'd have would lead us to knowing that its old even though it is actually young.
The whole point of it is that the knowledge of age from the evidence is not mutually exclusive with the actual age.
The problem with your position is that you are abandoning simple logic in order to cling to an (apparently un-shakeable) premise (the same premise that is relevant to the god/atheism question).
You start from the premise that those things which are defined as being unknowable demand complete (non-trivial) agnosticism.
Are you really saying that its illogical to have an agnostic position towards the unknowable?
You're arguing against a tautology...
And I don't equate "non-trivial" with "complete"... that's another fabrication by you. We've gotten to the point, again, where you're lying to me about what I, myself, think.
The problem is with your premise.
No, its not. The premise is that in order to have knowledge that something doesn't exist, you need to have evidence that it doesn't. The problem is with your evidence that it doesn't.
Did you just call me stupid?
™ Version 4.2
(1)