Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse

[rob19]

This premise is easily refuted, the FSM does not have the necessary attributes to account for the preconditions of knowledge, the God of scripture does; so not only is your premise false but your entire point is guilty of the fallacy of faulty analogy.

Sure he does, he’s the all powerful FSM.

What are you talking about? Of course that syllogism doesn’t prove all electrons repel one another, that’s a premise in that syllogism, the syllogism’s conclusion is what does the proving. The syllogism proves “Particle A” will repel another electron just like my syllogism’s conclusion proves that God exists. Why you would confound the purpose of the premise of one syllogism with purpose of the conclusion of another is beyond me.

Wtf are you talking about? I know what a conclusion & premise are, did you misread my sentence? That syllogism (conclusion included) doesn’t conclusively prove that all electrons repel one another, & your syllogism (conclusion included) doesn’t prove God’s existence. They are both lacking evidence to support their conclusions; ie, they prove nothing.

The guy who doesn’t understand the difference between the premises and conclusion of a syllogism is trying to teach me about validity and soundness? I have been quite clear on numerous occasions that not only is my syllogism fully valid it is also completely sound because both premises are true.

You can’t keep saying that there’s nothing in logic that requires one’s premises to be actually verifiable. “A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.” Your premises aren’t true because you’ve yet to actually demonstrate that God is necessary for knowledge. You’ve just continued claiming that you think all other ways are impossible, without actually proving your own. This is not proof through negation, that is just your unproven theory.

The premises are not true because they can be refuted, you have not refuted either of my premises, faulty analogy again.

Do you know how dumb that is? You’re asking someone to disprove the existence of God. You can’t disprove the existence of God for the same reason you can’t prove the existence of God; there is absolutely no proof of his existence or non-existence. Look, I’ll show you how crazy this is:

If my shoe is red, Aliens must exist
My shoe is red
Therefore Aliens exists

See, you can’t refute any of that, so it obviously must be true. I have provided you just as little evidence that there’s a correlation between my shoe being red & aliens existing as you’ve provided us with proof that God's existence is necessary for knowledge to exist. Nothing more than assertions without any evidence. There are countless things that can't be refuted, but that doesn't necessarily make them true.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sure he does, he’s the all powerful FSM.

Nope, his existence doesn’t account for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, or give me any added confidence in my ability to reason or perceive reality. The existence of the Christian God does all of these things. Fail.

Wtf are you talking about? I know what a conclusion & premise are, did you misread my sentence? That syllogism (conclusion included) doesn’t conclusively prove that all electrons repel one another, & your syllogism (conclusion included) doesn’t prove God’s existence. They are both lacking evidence to support their conclusions; ie, they prove nothing.

You just did it again!!!! You compared the premise of the first syllogism with the conclusion of the second syllogism. Why do you keep doing that? The first syllogism is designed to prove that “particle A” would repel an electron (not that all electrons repel one another), the second syllogism is designed to prove that God exists.

You obviously do not understand how logical proof works; no logician thinks that you have to demonstrate the premise of a deductive syllogism (that would render the syllogism inductive). You’re just making up ridiculous standards because you don’t like the fact my syllogism proves God exists. Given your absurd standard we wouldn’t be able to prove anything at all. If you cannot refute the premises of a syllogism they are considered to be true, so refute either one of my premises.

You can’t keep saying that there’s nothing in logic that requires one’s premises to be actually verifiable.

Sure I can because it’s the truth, show me where it says a person must demonstrate the truth of a premise in deductive reasoning, you cannot find it because it’s not a requirement.

“A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.” Your premises aren’t true because you’ve yet to actually demonstrate that God is necessary for knowledge. You’ve just continued claiming that you think all other ways are impossible, without actually proving your own. This is not proof through negation, that is just your unproven theory.

It is proof through negation! God can account for knowledge, no other theory can. You’re the one irrationally making an argument from ignorance saying there may be some theory out there somewhere that we don’t know about that can account for knowledge. A premise is assumed to be true until it is logically refuted, so get to refuting.

Do you know how dumb that is? You’re asking someone to disprove the existence of God.

No I am not; I am asking you to refute the premise of my syllogism that proves God exists; big difference. Even if you could refute it, which we know you cannot, it wouldn’t prove God didn’t exist it would only prove that my syllogism didn’t prove He existed.

You can’t disprove the existence of God for the same reason you can’t prove the existence of God;

Actually I have proven the existence of God, you asserting that I have not is meaningless until you actually refute the premises.

there is absolutely no proof of his existence or non-existence. Look, I’ll show you how crazy this is:

Actually our ability to know anything at all IS proof of His existence; you asserting it is not doesn’t mean anything.

If my shoe is red, Aliens must exist

Nope, I can refute this premise, I can postulate numerous scenarios in which your shoe can be red and Aliens not exist (the manufacturer of the shoes merely made them that color). That was easy! Despite how easy that was you have yet to give me one scenario in which we can have knowledge and God not exist. I am beginning to suspect it is because any such scenario does not exist, which means I did in fact prove God existed.

See, you can’t refute any of that,

Already did.

I have provided you just as little evidence that there’s a correlation between my shoe being red & aliens existing as you’ve provided us with proof that God's existence is necessary for knowledge to exist.

Not even close; I gave you numerous examples of how we can have knowledge if God exists, you didn’t give us anything concerning how the existence of aliens has anything to do with the color of your shoe. I pointed out that no theory of knowledge that does not invoke God can account for knowledge and I challenged you to give me one. I also pointed out that there are plenty of scenarios in which your shoe can be red and aliens still not exist yet you have not given me one scenario in which knowledge is possible without God existing. You didn’t even come close to proving a point here.

Nothing more than assertions without any evidence. There are countless things that can't be refuted, but that doesn't necessarily make them true.

Premises are assertions. You just have little understanding of how logical proof works. You keep confusing induction and deduction, it’s sad.

“Since every conclusion must be drawn from the comparison of two things with a third, a syllogism cousiste of two propositions, in each of which the same term occurs compared with another : this term is called the middle term. Thus, in Every v is x, Every z is Y, • Therefore Every z is x, Y, the subject of the first assertion, and the predicate of the second, is the middle term. The two first assertions are the premises, the third is the conclusion. The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term; the subject of the conclusion the minor term : and the major or minor premiss is that which contains the major or minor term of the conclusion. The major premiss is always written first.”

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason


Bingo! As I have stated numerous times there is no logical requirement to support, demonstrate, or provide evidence for the premises of a syllogism, it is the responsibility of the critic to refute any premises he or she does not agree with. Your move.

[Statler Waldorf]

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[1] In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure.

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Holy smokes, even your beloved Wikipedia agrees with my statement that the default position is to assume a premise is true. Now the burden is on you to refute either of my premises, the game is afoot!

[rob19]

Nope, his existence doesn’t account for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, or give me any added confidence in my ability to reason or perceive reality. The existence of the Christian God does all of these things. Fail.

Sure it does, he’s all powerful. He can do **** like that. You still haven’t disproven his existence.

You obviously do not understand how logical proof works; no logician thinks that you have to demonstrate the premise of a deductive syllogism (that would render the syllogism inductive). You’re just making up ridiculous standards because you don’t like the fact my syllogism proves God exists. Given your absurd standard we wouldn’t be able to prove anything at all. If you cannot refute the premises of a syllogism they are considered to be true, so refute either one of my premises. ---

show me where it says a person must demonstrate the truth of a premise in deductive reasoning, you cannot find it because it’s not a requirement.

I’m not making anything up. “A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound”.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Your syllogism is logically valid in the sense that IF your premises were true then it would come to a reasonable conclusion, but your syllogism isn’t sound because you’ve yet to demonstrate the validity of your premises. You just continue to assert that all other possibilities are impossible without proving your own.

It is proof through negation! God can account for knowledge, no other theory can. You’re the one irrationally making an argument from ignorance saying there may be some theory out there somewhere that we don’t know about that can account for knowledge. A premise is assumed to be true until it is logically refuted, so get to refuting.

No. Negation does not mean that just because something can not be diproven, means it’s true. That's just plain stupid. Aliens can not be disproven but that doesn’t mean they exist. The Easter Bunny cannot be disproven but that doesn’t mean it exists. The Big Bang hasn’t been disproven but that doesn’t mean it’s the surefire explanation of the creation of the universe. The multi-verse theory hasn't been disproven, but that doesn't mean it's true. Etc. Surely you see how ridiculous it is that saying that just because something can’t be disproven, proves it’s existence or validity. It doesn’t; there are countless things that can’t be refuted but that doesn’t make any of it true.

Here is an .edu site explaining the proper use of negation


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No I am not; I am asking you to refute the premise of my syllogism that proves God exists; big difference. Even if you could refute it, which we know you cannot, it wouldn’t prove God didn’t exist it would only prove that my syllogism didn’t prove He existed.

Which is all I’m trying to point out to you.

Nope, I can refute this premise, I can postulate numerous scenarios in which your shoe can be red and Aliens not exist (the manufacturer of the shoes merely made them that color). That was easy! Despite how easy that was you have yet to give me one scenario in which we can have knowledge and God not exist. I am beginning to suspect it is because any such scenario does not exist, which means I did in fact prove God existed.

Doesn't matter, you still can’t disprove that my shoe being red is what causes the existence of Aliens. Since I don’t have to offer any proof of this claim, the burden of proof is on you to conclusively prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that my shoe being red has nothing to do with Aliens existing. See how fun this is?

“Since every conclusion must be drawn from the comparison of two things with a third, a syllogism cousiste of two propositions, in each of which the same term occurs compared with another : this term is called the middle term. Thus, in Every v is x, Every z is Y, • Therefore Every z is x, Y, the subject of the first assertion, and the predicate of the second, is the middle term. The two first assertions are the premises, the third is the conclusion. The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term; the subject of the conclusion the minor term : and the major or minor premiss is that which contains the major or minor term of the conclusion. The major premiss is always written first.”

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason


Bingo! As I have stated numerous times there is no logical requirement to support, demonstrate, or provide evidence for the premises of a syllogism, it is the responsibility of the critic to refute any premises he or she does not agree with. Your move.

There is no requirement to demonstrate the truth of premises for them to be logically valid (like the gold-toaster one), but in order to be both logically valid AND sound then there is a requirement to prove that one’s premises are true. I’ll link it again:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


“A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false:

Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion’s truth.

It is easy to see that the previous example is not an example of a completely good argument. A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound. However, the following argument is both valid and sound:

No felons are eligible voters.
Some professional athletes are felons.
Therefore, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

Here, not only do the premises provide the right sort of support for the conclusion, but the premises are actually true. Therefore, so is the conclusion. Although it is not part of the definition of a sound argument, because sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions".


Your syllogism might be considered logically valid, but not sound, as you fail to demonstrate the necessity of God's existence in order for knowledge to exist. You can assert it all day long, & you can claim that no other way you can think of satisfies you, but that still doesn't prove your assertion. If you're going to claim that God is necessary for knowledge, the burden of proof is most definitely on you to demonstrate that your premises are true in order for your syllogism to be both considered logically valid AND sound. You haven't.

[TheWalrus]

Your syllogism might be considered logically valid, but not sound, as you fail to demonstrate the necessity of God's existence in order for knowledge to exist. You can assert it all day long, & you can claim that no other way you can think of satisfies you, but that still doesn't prove your assertion. If you're going to claim that God is necessary for knowledge, the burden of proof is most definitely on you to demonstrate that your premises are true in order for your syllogism to be both considered logically valid AND sound. You haven't.

You're right, but this is not the only place where the syllogism fails. Statler also cannot prove knowledge (as he's defining it) even exists. The first statement (For knowledge to be possible, God must exist) presupposes a specific definition of knowledge that hasn't been agreed to by all parties.

Even if I were to say the first statement is logically valid within it's own definition of knowledge, I do not have to accede to the second statement that such knowledge is possible as being true.

Because the syllogism presupposes a definition of knowledge that requires God, and then uses that definition to prove God exists, it reduces itself to a tautology. A, in other words, equals A.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sure it does, he’s all powerful. He can do **** like that. You still haven’t disproven his existence.

I don’t have to disprove his existence; I merely had to refute your proof for his existence which I did. A material being cannot account for immaterial laws, games over.

I’m not making anything up. “A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound”.

Exactly, and as I already demonstrated, premises are assertions that are assumed to be true unless/until they are refuted, which is something you have not done; so since my syllogism is valid (if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true) and the premises are still standing un-refuted it is also considered to be sound. You’d better get to refuting!

Your syllogism is logically valid in the sense that IF your premises were true then it would come to a reasonable conclusion, but your syllogism isn’t sound because you’ve yet to demonstrate the validity of your premises. You just continue to assert that all other possibilities are impossible without proving your own.

No, it’s also logically sound until it’s refuted (premises are assumed to be true), so you either have to refute the first or the second premise; until you do that the syllogism is assumed to be sound and therefore proves that God exists.

No. Negation does not mean that just because something can not be diproven, means it’s true. That's just plain stupid. Aliens can not be disproven but that doesn’t mean they exist. The Easter Bunny cannot be disproven but that doesn’t mean it exists. The Big Bang hasn’t been disproven but that doesn’t mean it’s the surefire explanation of the creation of the universe. The multi-verse theory hasn't been disproven, but that doesn't mean it's true. Etc. Surely you see how ridiculous it is that saying that just because something can’t be disproven, proves it’s existence or validity. It doesn’t; there are countless things that can’t be refuted but that doesn’t make any of it true.

You’ve misrepresented my position yet again, I never said, “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, therefore He exists”, I provided a logically valid syllogism that until it is refuted proves God exists. It is now your job to refute either one of the two premises of the syllogism. I didn’t make that rule up; premises are assertions that are assumed to be true until they are demonstrated to be false, that’s how logical proof works. I am looking forward to your attempted refutation of my premises. The ball is in your court now.

Here is an .edu site explaining the proper use of negation

Thanks, but not needed, you should read up on how to refute an argument though.

Which is all I’m trying to point out to you.

Why are you trying to point out something I already understand? The point is that you have not refuted either premise of my valid syllogism, until you do that the syllogism is assumed to be sound and therefore proves God does in fact exist. Get to it.

Doesn't matter, you still can’t disprove that my shoe being red is what causes the existence of Aliens.

Yes it does matter! It proves your first premise is false and therefore your syllogism is no longer considered sound, you have yet to prove any of my premises are false so they are still considered to be true and therefore the syllogism is still sound. Get to refuting.

Since I don’t have to offer any proof of this claim, the burden of proof is on you to conclusively prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that my shoe being red has nothing to do with Aliens existing. See how fun this is?

The burden of proof is on me to refute one or both of your premises; however it is not on me to prove that your shoes don’t have anything to do with aliens since that is not one of the premises in your syllogism. I already refuted the premise that asserted that your shoes can only be red if aliens exist. Your syllogism is no longer sound because of this refutation; unfortunately you have yet to refute any of my premises so mine is still considered sound. Admirable try though.

There is no requirement to demonstrate the truth of premises for them to be logically valid (like the gold-toaster one), but in order to be both logically valid AND sound then there is a requirement to prove that one’s premises are true. I’ll link it again:

Please point to the excerpt from that article where it explicitly says there is a requirement that the arguer demonstrate their premises are true (stop wasting your time with the distinction between a valid and a sound argument, I have known that for years, the point is that I am not required to demonstrate my premises are true). Provide the exact quotation. Nowhere does it say that, you know why that is? Because premises are assumed to be true until they are refuted. You have not even come close to doing that so my premises are still assumed to be true and therefore my argument is assumed to be sound and therefore does in fact prove God exists.

Why do you think that when Dr. Martin, who is one of the most well respected atheist philosophers of the 20th century was faced with this proof he actually tried to refute the first premise rather than just saying “you didn’t demonstrate your first premise!” as you are? Either…
1. You understand logical proofs better than one of the biggest atheistic philosophers of the last century…
2. Or he understands logic better than you do and knows that the arguer doesn’t have to demonstrate their premises because they are assumed to be true and it is up to the critic (Dr. Martin in this case) to refute either or both of the premises.
I am betting it’s the latter.

You're right,

No, he’s wrong; premises are assertions that are assumed to be true until/unless refuted. If it was up to the arguer to demonstrate his premises are true then it’d be impossible to prove anything at all because it’d lead to an infinite regress of proofs. It’s sad how you all will ascribe to completely absurd notions and fabricated standards as long as you can use them to justify your unbelief.

“In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true.”
-Wikipdia, “Premise”

Statler also cannot prove knowledge (as he's defining it) even exists.

You know I cannot prove knowledge exists? SMH

The first statement (For knowledge to be possible, God must exist) presupposes a specific definition of knowledge that hasn't been agreed to by all parties.

One single definition doesn’t have to be agreed upon by all parties, God’s existence accounts for the preconditions of knowledge, so unless your definition of knowledge doesn’t rely upon laws of logic or personal experiences it still presupposes God exists because those things presuppose God exists; so no matter what definition of knowledge you use, you’re still presupposing God.

Even if I were to say the first statement is logically valid within it's own definition of knowledge, I do not have to accede to the second statement that such knowledge is possible as being true.

Only if your definition of knowledge doesn’t require the laws of logic to exist, the reliability of one’s own senses and memory, or the principle of induction. I bet it does require these things though since you appeal to them in your post above.

Because the syllogism presupposes a definition of knowledge that requires God,

All definitions of knowledge presuppose God exists, that’s the point.

and then uses that definition to prove God exists, it reduces itself to a tautology. A, in other words, equals A.

No, the conclusion is not a restatement of either of the two premises, it’s therefore not a tautology. “B presupposes/requires A, B exists, therefore A also exists.” That’s a completely logically valid argument.

[TheWalrus]

You know I cannot prove knowledge exists? SMH

Go ahead and prove it then.

One single definition doesn’t have to be agreed upon by all parties, God’s existence accounts for the preconditions of knowledge, so unless your definition of knowledge doesn’t rely upon laws of logic or personal experiences it still presupposes God exists because those things presuppose God exists; so no matter what definition of knowledge you use, you’re still presupposing God.

Only if your definition of knowledge doesn’t require the laws of logic to exist, the reliability of one’s own senses and memory, or the principle of induction. I bet it does require these things though since you appeal to them in your post above.

All definitions of knowledge presuppose God exists, that’s the point.

No, the conclusion is not a restatement of either of the two premises, it’s therefore not a tautology. “B presupposes/requires A, B exists, therefore A also exists.” That’s a completely logically valid argument.

Presupposing knowledge exists is not the same thing as knowledge existing.

[Statler Waldorf]

Go ahead and prove it then.

You already did it for me by saying you knew that I couldn’t prove knowledge exists. Any argument questioning whether knowledge exists must rely on knowledge’s existence, it’s proof through the impossibility of the contrary. It’s like someone challenging someone else to prove that words exist while all the time using words in order to issue the challenge, it is classic self-refutation.

Presupposing knowledge exists is not the same thing as knowledge existing.

Where did I say anything about presupposing knowledge exists? Knowledge presupposes God exists, so the possibility of knowledge proves God must also exist; just like thought presupposes a mind exists, therefore the possibility of thought proves the mind exists. It’s an indirect deductive proof.

[TheWalrus]

You already did it for me by saying you knew that I couldn’t prove knowledge exists. Any argument questioning whether knowledge exists must rely on knowledge’s existence, it’s proof through the impossibility of the contrary. It’s like someone challenging someone else to prove that words exist while all the time using words in order to issue the challenge, it is classic self-refutation.

I don't know that, as you're defining "know". And even if I really believe that I know something, that doesn't mean I do. Your "words" analogy is rather poor; people argue using even nominally baseless assertions all the time, to say nothing of "knowledge".

Where did I say anything about presupposing knowledge exists? Knowledge presupposes God exists, so the possibility of knowledge proves God must also exist; just like thought presupposes a mind exists, therefore the possibility of thought proves the mind exists. It’s an indirect deductive proof.

What you're talking about is the cogito, which is different. The whole point of that thought experiment is that it doesn't depend on the laws of the universe being constant, or the reliability of the senses, or memory, or any of the preconditions whose existence you say proves the existence of God. Descarte argued it was irrefutable regardless of whether those preconditions exist. If you're going to use it to support your argument, you really should understand the purpose of it and it's conclusion better than that.

Not that the cogito is "proof" of anything, either. Descarte could have been wrong.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't know that, as you're defining "know". And even if I really believe that I know something, that doesn't mean I do.

Do you know that even if you really believe that you know something it doesn’t mean that you do? You can’t get around this; in order to question whether knowledge exists you must appeal to your own knowledge and thus contradict yourself.

Your "words" analogy is rather poor; people argue using even nominally baseless assertions all the time, to say nothing of "knowledge".

Do you know that people argue using even nominally baseless assertions all the time? You see you did it again, you appealed to your knowledge in the very conversation where you are questioning whether knowledge is possible or not. In logical reasoning that is actually the only proof for a logical certainty; any statement that can only be challenged by making a self-contradictory statement or position is considered to be a logical certainty. We know that knowledge is possible because anyone who challenges its possibility contradicts their own challenge because they appeal to their own knowledge in their challenge. You’re only going to tie yourself into knots questioning whether the second premise is true.

What you're talking about is the cogito, which is different.

Yeah, it’s different by the fact that it’s not what I am talking about.

The whole point of that thought experiment is that it doesn't depend on the laws of the universe being constant, or the reliability of the senses, or memory, or any of the preconditions whose existence you say proves the existence of God.

Actually it does, it relies upon universal laws of logic, abstraction, and personal identity continuing through time which all require God’s existence in order to make any sense at all.

Descarte argued it was irrefutable regardless of whether those preconditions exist.

No, the preconditions I mentioned above must be true in order for Descartes’ argument to make any sense. However you are confusing two of my approaches, the preconditions of intelligibility are used in my syllogism that proves God exists, not in support of my premise that “knowledge is not impossible”.

If you're going to use it to support your argument, you really should understand the purpose of it and it's conclusion better than that.

I didn’t use it to support my argument, arguing that the very act of questioning the existence of knowledge is self-contradictory is not the same thing as Descartes’ Je pense donc je suis (simply because two arguments are both indirect doesn’t mean they are synonomous). In fact it’s much more akin to Kant’s proposed transcendental proofs a century later. If you’re going to critique my argument you should first possess a better understanding of what it is.

Not that the cogito is "proof" of anything, either. Descarte could have been wrong.

What? How could someone who doesn’t exist be “wrong”? Your statement above refutes itself because Descartes would have to exist in order to be wrong, and if he existed then he was not wrong at all. It’s the very definition of logical certainty.