Presuppositional Apologetics Destroyed

A very short overview of a fraction of the dumbest argument for the existence of a god:

Epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with the question of how we obtain and justify knowledge, has a well known infinite regress of justification. That is, any justified belief must be justified by a further justified belief which must be justifed by another justifed belief and so-forth.

Most toddlers discover and grow tired of demonstrating this infinite regress of justification by the time they enter elementary school asking an infinite number of Why questions to which the only finite answer is as Lawrence Krauss puts it: "Go to bed."

One slightly more satisfying attempt to escape infinite regression is foundationalism, which asserts that there are certain beliefs or axioms which can be used to justify other beliefs but don't themselves require justification with the caveat that these axioms are self-evident, incorrigible, or pragmatically indespensible. These axioms are sometimes called 'properly basic beliefs'. Christian apologist Dr.William Lane Craig explains:

Now, William Lane Craig follows a slightly different version of Foundational Epistemology called Reformed Foundational Epistemology in which belief in God is included (unnecessarily I would argue) among other properly basic beliefs but only in addition to the other properly basic beliefs, not as a way to justify other properly basic beliefs.

-But for now let's leave the question of whether or not belief in God can be included as an axiom and talk about knowledge. Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. This I think is a source of confusion.

In order for any justifiable belief to even have the possibility of being true, it must by definition be falsifiable. It is literally impossible to hold a justified true belief that isn't falsifiable. Knowledge and certainty are mutually incompatible because certainty excludes falsifiability rendering that belief unfalsifiable which is as Wolfgang Pauli put it: Not even wrong.

Now, once any claim has been investigated and verified, it becomes perfectly rational to hold that belief tentatively
and with the understanding that further investigation could alter or modify the veracity of that belief.
https://youtu.be/WyeiJrzSZZY