I know with absolute certainty that OP doesn't know anything with absolute certainty.

I don't understand the second sentence of the first paragraph can you explain?

Give me an example where the law of non contradiction is wrong on a synthetic proposition, if it is it is not a logical law. Consider some quantum proposition regarding light acting as a wave and a particle, it may be necessary to give up the PNC but then it ceases to be a logical law, logical laws pertain to all possible worlds so including the existent one.

Analytic proposition:

Bachelor: defined as someone who isn't married

Tom is a bachelor.

Conclusion: Tom can not be married

This is the law of non contradiction but really there is no way we can know if Tom is married or if Tom even exists. Or perhaps Tom is lying and is really married etc... All we know is that he has to be one or the other and can not be both. We would have to determine which one he is by making some basic assumptions which can never be known. Again, we are talking about "absolute certainty" here. Not a reasonable level of certainty.

No that is not the law of non contradiction. The law of non contradiction simply put that no proposition can be simultaneously true and false. This is not specific to analytic propositions, also Tom is a bachelor is not an analytic proposition all bachelors are unmarried is but the proposition Tom is a bachelor is true not by virtue of its meaning but by virtue of Tom not being married.

No. This is a syllogism.

P1) A bachelor is an unmarried person.
P2) Tom is a bachelor.
C) Tom is an unmarried person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

This is not the law of non-contradiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

---

This is the law of the excluded middle combined with the law of noncontradiction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Ok fine. Tom can not be a bachelor and a married man simultaneously. This still does not tell us which he is and is an analytical proposition. Only when finding out what he is does it become synthetic.

This is wrong.

Tom is a bachelor

This is a synthetic proposition, its truth value is determined by Tom's married status. If we find that Tom is married then it is a false proposition if we find that he isn't it is true.

All bachelors are unmarried

Is the analytic proposition, we can establish whether it is true by virtue of the meaning of the words, we do not need to go check whether bachelors are in fact unmarried to confirm this.

But we can never truly know if he is either in this context.

This is a different argument, one that I disagree with but one that I've not a great deal of interest in getting into. Sceptical arguments serve a specific purpose and that is to improve our epistemic standards and challenge our understanding of what it is to know.

Is this argument something other than something that devolves into extreme skepticism?

One only practices the act of belief if one is located at a distance from the truth. If you are connected to the truth, you obviously are no longer dependent upon mere beliefs. Thus if you are practicing a belief, then you are located at a distance from the truth, thus there is a GAP that sits between you and the truth.

Believing in God is about the most dangerous thing that could be done, if you choose to stick to such a belief.

That GAP is the place where the character known a Satan has room to work, a place to put his deceitful work into play.

Thus here he convinces people, via deceit, that the Satan character is God, and that the Anti-Christ character is the Christ character. The deceived are deceived, thus they know not of the fact that they have been deceived, since that is what deceit is all about.

If, instead of being a believer, you look in the direction of truth, you eventually see the truth concerning everything.

No, but the op is addressing people who claim they have absolute knowledge on existential reality that simply can't be obtained. Everyone faces the unsolvable dilemma of solipsism and I agree it is not an argument worth addressing but it is worth understanding we can always be wrong.

Also, I fail to see how this is a different argument? That was my point all along.

Understanding we can be wrong does not entail accepting I can not know I have hands because I do not know I am a disembodied brain in a vat. What work do you think this does, what relevance has it to the topics in this forum.

And respectfully you've made claims in this thread that have been demonstrably wrong you should be more concerned with your beliefs than the beliefs of others

You don't think it's important to point out absolute knowledge can not be obtained to someone claiming to have absolute knowledge?

I don't know what claim I made that was wrong outside of confusing terms that are both relevant to my point.

You made a claim regarding an analytic proposition that was not an analytic proposition and you made a claim with regard the principle of non contradiction that was not correct. If terms are relevant to your point this is all the more reason to not confuse them.

Who is claiming to have absolute knowledge in this forum, what is the target of this OP. Also concepts like certainty, truth, knowledge don't need to be qualified by absolutely, firstly there is the difficulty in defining the qualifier and secondly if these are success terms what does true but not absolutely true mean, similarly for certain what is certainty if it is not absolute.

Everything in the Universe has a cause.

This also means Relativity has a cause. Being an absolute foundation

Thinking relativistically, you will never -absolutely- understand Relativity.

Both today's Scientific and Religious views of reality are incomplete, which is why there is still both a Scientific view and a Religious view of reality while REALITY is REALITY and therefore is a singularity and not a duality. Both need to be reexamined and then combined to create a total which is greater than the sum of the parts, such that one can find out where " THEY ", in the Governing position, actually are.

If you can not resolve the (E)instein (P)odolsky (R)osen (EPR) Paradox, then you know not of the source, you know not of the location of those in the Governing position. If you can not explain what Einstein called " Spooky action at a distance ", then you know not of the source, you know not of the location of those in the Governing position.

If you do not truly know what a Prophecy is, and therefore not know how a future can be predicted, then you know not of the source, you know not of the location of those in the Governing position. If you do not know the mechanics of a so called " Miracle ", then you know not of the source, you know not of the location of those in the Governing position.

This lack of knowledge keeps you directed away from knowing where ' THEY ' are.

The point is, any synthetic proposition can not be known with total certainty in this regard. Give me an example of one you can know without making assumptions.

The OP is directed at anyone who claims to have absolute truth.

I have hands.

What assumptions am I making and why should I not make this claim.

No one is claiming to have absolute truth but the quote from the OP is awful philosophy, it's the kind of random **** that people who don't study philosophy think philosophy is. You'd do better to try and understand this perspective than merely repeating something you've read that makes sense to you but reads **** to me.

How do you know you have hands? Are you relying on your senses to confirm you have hands? How do you know your senses are accurate?

There is always a void between perception in reality, we can never fill this void because we need to make assumptions to reach conclusions.

People do claim to have absolute truth... The OP is addressing them.

Not really. Extreme skepticism is not a position that one must logically take. It's also very boring and actually an incredibly shallow understanding of knowledge. Extreme skepticism is the guy sitting in the corner with his arms crossed, chanting "Nope. Nope. Nope."

Making the point that we might be wrong isn't very interesting. You're not telling anyone something they don't already know. What's more interesting is to try to understand what can and do know, because you at least functionally behave as if you can and do know things.

You should stop doing this sort of thing. Addressing arguments that nobody here is making doesn't really do anything for anybody.

I'm sorry Aaron but I am not going to find someone specifically to address when I make an OP. When I make an OP it is intended to get a discussion going on that subject. There may be no presuppositional apologists or people who claim to have absolute truth that can not be challenged. Thats fine, then the OP should die off the front page soon and we can move on to another topic.

Try to think of a topic that is actually challenging to you in some way. Or at least think through the logic of the opposing side.

Suppose someone were to take the position that you can know something with absolute certainty. How do you see that argument playing out? There's basically no position that can be raised against extreme skepticism. That just makes for an uninteresting conversation.

But a more nuanced discussion (like the one dereds is working on with you) has space to explore thoughts and ideas that are non-trivial. But if your argument is really just going to boil down to "You can't know that you have hands" then there's not going to be a particularly interesting discussion that comes out of it.

I "know" I have hands. I consider knowing something different than the people addressed in the OP.

If people aren't claiming it here my question is why are you addressing them here? You may as well post an OP that the world is not flat.

As for having hands I am using them to type, I can see them, I feel things with them and I can generally distinguish those times my perceptual experience is prone to error from those times when it is not. Just because my perceptions are open to error it does not follow that they are always in error. In fact the possibility of perceptual error relies on our perceptions generally being correct.

What do you mean.