Now we are just quibbling semantics. That for which I am asking is simply an argument with well supported premises before I accept it as true, and 'this one feels more likely to be correct' does not satisfy that justification. I want premises which I can rely on rather than conjecture. Until this happens it is completely reasonable to reject the argument (which does not mean I automatically assume the opposite conclusion is correct - I hold the opposite conclusion to the same standard). This is why I said in the beginning that the answer is 'I do not know.'

No, this is about logic.

Again, the long, winding conversation revolves around the question "What *CAN* you know?" You have yet to confirm that one can know anything at all. Is this a position you take?

As for the semantics, what you have done is to argue that I am asking for 'conclusions' rather than 'assumptions' in the premises as if that somehow invalidates that for which I am asking. I have quite clearly explained what is required for justification several times: an argument supported by demonstrable premises. I do not want premises based on conjecture. Until that can be provided, the argument can be reasonably rejected as unsupported.

this thread is what makes rgt good imo.

I have told you that such a thing cannot exist in a vacuum. You must first tell me your standard of "knowing" before I can even begin to try to construct an argument.

Can you know anything at all? If so, how do you know those things? If not, then why should I even bother trying to build up an argument in favor of knowing something?

the word semantics seems to pop up in just about every single one of aaron's threads. weird.

I'm pretty much of the same view as you, however I don't think Aaron W is making a trivial point (although personally I think it doesnt result in an impasse).

Could you give an example of something you consider to be well justified? An argument you consider to be satisfactorily establishing a conclusion?

I think such an exercise is useful because I think ultimately you are forced to begin from some premises which are not demonstrable (since anything you demonstrate relies on other more primitive assumptions). Ultimately I think you can reach a level that everyone really does agree on - however by then the scope of your arguments may be somewhat limited to vacuous statements, I'm not sure.

I like this from the abstract:

Plato, Timaeus, 360 B.C.

or more explicitly in the concluding paragraph -

The only difference between this and Craig is Craig is willing to place the large bet because he doesn't worship science.

He's a Taoist ?! wow.

All through that paper he basically says the universe probably had a beginning. That's all Craig says as to the science. The fact you refuse to accept this is pretty standard.

Craig needs to make up his mind whether he worships science or not. I believe in the Ouija board, but only when it tells me to buy what I already want to buy.
Not sure how my opinion on beginnings got into this, my own skimpy view of the science of it is it's a "?".

What consensus view of science do you believe that Craig rejects without good reason?

how about the consensus that we dont know how all this got here?

were you going somewhere with that?