Me: Okay, knowledge in general.
Someone: This is about gods, so that is what is relevant. Concentrate on that.
M: What is relevant to you, might not be relevant to me.
S: But we know that there are no gods and all claims of gods are special pleading.
M: Can you move around just as you please? Or are there limits to your mobility?
S: What does that have to do with gods? It is irrelevant.
M: I am trying to establish if you accept if there are limits to what you can do?
S: Gibberish.
M: Maybe it is not a special case, that there are limits to knowledge, but something more general than just knowledge or mobility.
S: They are not the same.
M: They are both human behaviors. Something humans do or have.
Now in general means in the broadest possible term, what do all kinds human of human behavior have in common, besides requiring humans?
All behaviors have limits.
Not just that you can't fly unaided and if you jump out of a tall place and try to fly, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.
So what are the most general characteristics? They all take place in time and place and have physical conditions.
Knowledge requires a functioning brain and the ability to tell a difference.
Now for humans as in regards to the universe, I will make the following assumptions.
In general we can trust our senses.
When we say A is B, then it is not just the words "A is B", but that the words correspond to that A is B. I.e. the universe independent of the mind is in general, as it appears in the mind.
In logic terms knowledge is either A is B or A is not B, but something else, i.e. A is C.
But that requires that you can know if A is B or A is not B. So knowledge is also a case of logic, it is known or it is unknown.
Now creator gods and how they are a subset of the unknown.
You are in time and space and caused by something else, but because you only know through your experience, you rely on your on experience and thus that is presumed in all knowledge.
So for all cases like Boltzmann Brains, BIV, Matrix and creator gods, they all have in common, that they can't be checked.
So if someone claims that there is a creator god, it is unknown. But it is also unknown if there are no creator god.
It means that methodological naturalism can only say something based on the assumption that the universe is natural.
In practice this has limit, because any reason to act depends on a given brain in a human, i.e. a reason to act is not independent of a brain.
So for 2 or more humans we don't have one context for which logic applies. We have 2 or more contexts because there is more than one humans.
Logic is something at a given time and space and in a given sense, but 2 or more humans are at different times and space.
So you can't use logic in this sense, because it is not the same time and space.
Now for the 4 variants of wrong:
It is wrong to say something is known, when it is unknown. We know what the universe is independent of the mind, other that the mind is caused by something else.
It is wrong to say something independent of brains is so, when it is not the case; i.e. e.g. I can fly unaided.
It is wrong to say something based on cognition for which is not so; A is B and not B.
It is wrong for someone to do something, which is bad; e.g. to cause harm.
But how is it wrong? It is wrong, because something else is going on and it in all cases wrong is not a property of the belief, event, behavior or thing. The word "wrong" is a concept of sorts. It is the result of a mental process in a given brain and not the feature of something outside that brain.
You can't see, hold, feel by touch, hear, taste or smell "wrong". It is a mental brain process.
So here is a comparison between 2 humans, both are atheists:
They can't agree on what science is as a process, how morality and ethics are done, what rights and politics are, what real/unreal are and what the universe/reality is. All these cases amounts to contradictions. There could be more
Now somehow that is different that religious people because by magic an atheist holds no contradictory beliefs, because we as atheists are more reflected than religious people. It doesn't hold, religion is not a special negative. It is a human behavior, which rests on general human behavior.
So what is it that is a play? Well, everybody is a product of nature/nurture and nobody should take for granted their own thinking. So for what the universe is, it is always a case of what is, how to make sense of it and what matters. The last 2 can't be done by hard science alone and the job of hard science, soft science, philosophy and so on combined to reflect on the combination.
But the falsification is simple.
You and I are different in time, space and some sense. Thus neither of us are right or wrong, unless it is believed so.
If it matters to you that my beliefs are wrong, then okay. I accept that you believe so, I just don't agree, because I can do it differently.
In short to claim that someone or a belief is wrong and not just for morality, is the fallacy of reification. Wrong is a result of a given mental process in a given brain.
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.
Religion is not wrong nor right, but that is not particular to religion.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Now we have e.g. gravity in common, but for making sense of the universe as humans and what matters, Protagoras kicks in.
So I don't demand anything of you, unless you claim with evidence, proof, knowledge and so on, that you know what the universe is and how to do that for a "we" and "them". I can't live your life for you, that is your job. But I will say something when we are both involved in what the universe is, how to make sense of that and how it matters.
My sig:
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism
But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
