On the other hand Keep the Reason has persistently avoided my challenges to him and I don't know if that is deliberate or because he does not understand what I am saying. He does not seem to see any problem in saying 'All valid truth claims must be demonstrated' and I am weary of pointing out the problems with that. I also find it exhausting having to spend ages arguing points that have been widely accepted as proved for the last few centuries or even the last couple of millennia. I don't have a problem with his challenging received ideas but he does not seem to be aware that these ideas ever have been discussed or how the discussion went. Unless he is using some very subtle Socratic technique and is only feigning ignorance.
I am not avoiding your challenges -- we have wrestled this back and forth. Also, I've conceded that we have to assume Laws of Logic, but let's close this out with a more detailed concession.
I concede that a global statement "valid knowledge has to be demonstrated" should be qualified to "SHARING valid knowledge has to be demonstrated". This means, if I understand you right, that someone can have a valid knowledge claim (like, "I ate a sandwhich 31 years ago on a Sunday afternoon"), and it would be true, that 31 years ago, in private, the person asserting this had eaten a sandwich, and thus was asserting a knowledge claim that is valid.
Now, I have conceded this point. Clearly and unequivocably.
Having said that, I cannot help but come back to the whole point
of the word "demonstration". To me, "Demonstration" is the act of sharing a claim with others that passes onto them valid knowledge claims. Philosophically, of course you could forever drearily argue that you saying "you see green" is valid, but I can't know it because you can't demonstrate it to me, but nonetheless it's still true-- because all I need do is look at the "green" myself and concur. Even blind, I could feel the color temperature of green if need be; this, as ephemeral as it might seem, is still light years
more demonstration than that of the assertions of: "sin exists" or "there is a god" or "Jesus is the messiah".
But other than this version of the argument, which I concede, there is no actual practical application to it. If you want a claim to be accepted as valid knowledge,m then you have to demonstrate it's true. I can let that standard slide on something like whether or not you ate a sandwich in 1982 because the impact of the assertion is of zero import. But when you make similar claims about the existence of an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing creator of all existence, the claim needs to have a lot more gravitas than that of what sort of lunch you had when punk rock was at its zentih.
Sometimes what's needed is a visual aid, so I created these 3 simple cartoons to illustrate the difference and what I mean by demonstrating a valid knowledge claim.The first cartoon is a demonstrably valid knowledge claim:The second is an assertion that is made under the "valid knowledge" argument Moonwood affirms; however, to whom it is "valid" and of what value this validitiy may have in any practical sense is totally up in the air:And finally, how is it indistinguishable from this claim (is the claim valid knowledge or not? How do we decide?)
Cartoon 1 is knowledge being shared and supported by corroborating data.
Versions 2 and 3 are assertions that cannot be shared in any meaningful way, other than they are related stories. We are told them, and we are told they are valid truths, but there is no way to corrborate them. They might as well be invented fictions for the amount of gravitas that exists that they are facts.
But if only the perosn who asserts them can lay claim to their validity, then that may be the case, but it is of little or no practical application. It is the zenith of a Cassandra Complex -- Cassandra may have prophesied the future, but her impact was zero because no one would believe her.
So I hope the challenge is now met; I've conceded where concession is warranted, and I've clearly illustrated my position. We are, I believe, right back to square one. The theist can assert and assert and assert until the crack of doom, but until they can demonstrate the veracity of their assertions, there is no compelling reasons to believe them. None.