Alright lol there's a lot of claims here. I will try to see to you all.
First of all let me clear up confusion by being more nuanced in my statement.
Saying "knowledge is impossible" is admittedly an oversimplification.
What is a better statement is perhaps "I don't know anything, not even that I know nothing."
Even more nuanced is saying: I have not yet come across something that I thought I knew. I may in the future, but that is just one more thing I do not know.
Now to your claims.
I think I answered you, Typical Guy, if not I can rephrase.
dwburke says he knows he's hungry. Does he though? How can he be sure it is not just a feeling that he takes for hunger. What if he goes to eat and realizes that the feeling was not hunger at all, but instead it was, say, stomach acid dissolving his insides? Dwburke, can you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are really hungry? Is there any room for doubt? If there is, you do not know it, you only believe or suppose it or think it to be likely.
Dwburke again, on the triangle.
There are two reasons I (and also you I presume) do not know this. For one, this is merely tautological in that this is a definition given for a triangle.
But furthermore, you do not know that there cannot be a triangle that does not meet those requirements (putting aside your tautological definition of a triangle for a moment, which honestly nullifies your point). If you can acknowledge that, say, God made a triangle that is not like that or that there is triangle not like that in another dimension, etc., then you acknowledge you cannot know this about a triangle.
Just because I can't *draw* you such a triangle does not mean it does not exist. But anyway as I said your statement is tautological.
@Maniac spelling knowledge is a priori. It is not a "fact" that you can know per se. It is related to dwburke's post about triangles in that you only know it because you have defined a characteristic of it yourself. You don't actually know anything, you've only said, "knowledge is spelled K-N-O-W etc. Why? Because that's how its spelled."
If you don't understand I can try to clarify. As to having "seen it spelt that way many times, it follows spelling rules and it is easily understood that when I type/write knowledge in this way that the people i am corresponding with know what I mean."
Allow me to break down the claims you are making:
1) You trust your memory (which could be fooling you) when it tells you you have seen knowledge spelled that way before.
2) There are "spelling rules" to be followed. That is a fact that you are claiming to know as well, but cannot. How do you know there are spelling rules? Is it because words are spelled the same all the time? That again relies on memory, but even if your memory is accurate, it relies on inductive reasoning which is also not really knowledge, since it could turn out wrong on the 1001st time.
3) You type and write "knowledge" and assume without knowing for sure that there are others to read it, that they understand you, and that they saw it at all.
Once again, if you can imagine a scenario in which what you just said is not actually the case, then you do not know it, but merely suppose it. To know you must be certain, and nothing is certain.
Back to dwburke. You claim we are able to communicate. How do you know we are able to communicate? How do you know there is a we? What if it is just you? What basis do you have that provides complete certainty for knowing that claim?
And no I meant all knowledge Draug, including of God, which is what makes me a "strong agnostic."
You cannot lose knowledge if you never had it, LordVipor. You can *believe* you know something, which many of you seem to do, but beliefs are often wrong. That's just the way it is.
Draug thinks he knows he exists. On what basis Draug? Your thoughts?
I will admit to you that this, at one time, was the last frontier for me, the last thing I gave up that I thought I knew. But even this could be wrong.
What do you know about "I" or "existing?" You believe you know you exist because of your thoughts, but how do you know those thoughts are what you presume?
That is, how do you know that it logically follows, "I think, therefore I am?" Descartes imagined an evil deceiver who was omnipotent, capable of deceiving him in every way, even twisting logic. He then asked, what do I still know?
He thought the only thing left was that he existed. I dispute this.
When he said: "I think *therefore* I am" he was relying on logic. If logic is twisted as well, perhaps the *correct* conclusion is "I think, therefore I am not." He would not know this though, since logic is twisted. If he ever existed at all of course.
I admit to you Draugnar that your is the hardest to refute. It is mind-bending. But the point is, in that situation as well I can imagine a scenario in which I do not actually exist.
And now to cover my ass:
The smarter ones among you may jump out and say "AHA! But you make assumptions of your own! How can you know THOSE? Such as: 'If you can imagine a scenario in which it is not true, you cannot know it.' But Thucy!" you might say, "Does that not ALSO rely on logic, which you yourself have questioned?"
Yes it does rely on logic. But if you concede that logic is also up for debate, what you claim to know either? Everything we say relies on logic. I do not claim that anything I say is knowable. I do not claim that anything is knowable. It could all be wrong, or it could all be right. See my first post on the matter of faith in OT Gods, Brahman, Buddha, or the FSM. All have claim.
So there you go. I will clarify points that may not be so clear readily.
Country Elimination Thread
. Each post, you may add a point to one country and subtract a point from another country. When a country gets to 0 
)
)
)