This is my refutation to 'the NoPE Argument' by 'Negation of P' found in the video above.
(Negation of P also gets to #3 on the charts of the video "Top 10 ATHEISTS of 2013")
I've summarised negation of P's argument and put it in bold inside // marks. My responses are below those statements.
//This is a stand-alone argument – so please address the argument and not the person presenting it.//
Unless the argument is being claimed to be divine revelation then it can’t stand alone. In order to know that it is true, and in order to even formulate the argument you’ve had to use your reasoning. So the question ‘How do you know your reasoning is valid?’ is still very much a massive and insurmountable problem for you and anyone else who would reject God. The argument was devised by you and thus cannot be separated from you in terms of the validity of the argument and the validity of your reasoning.
//God’s plan could include erasing individuals from existence without us knowing it.//
No it could not. This would be equivalent to lying and God cannot lie. God can destroy people, but he has never and will never do this in a deceptive way where this happens and no one knows about it.
//Until someone demonstrates why God could not or would not erase individuals without us knowing it, the NoPE argument in my opinion is both sound and valid//Well I'm doing just that by refuting your argument which is neither sound nor valid. It is indeed merely your "opinion" and an incorrect one at that. In contrast, I know some things for certain by revelation from God, such as God's existence and the truth of the Bible.
//The NOPE argument in a nutshell – if the universe exists as a presuppositionalist would have us believe, there are no fundamental properties governing the universe rendering everything subjective and unknowable. Absolute knowledge is therefore not possible.//
God cannot change and does not lie. He upholds the universe in a logical and consistent way because this is His nature, and he has promised to do so. Therefore the NoPE argument is a strawman.
//Naturalism enables us to have knowledge via scientific testing and data gathering.//
However science does not give us truth. Science is based on the fallacy of hasty generalisation, and it’s also based on the uniformity of nature – which can be accounted for with God, but not without Him.
//Science doesn’t give certain knowledge, but if correct the theories themselves would be true.//
But this is begging the question. If you can’t be sure that any theories or knowledge is absolutely true then how can you be sure to ANY degree? Guesswork does not bring us truth.
//Absolute knowledge is attainable.//
If you have no way of knowing if it’s true – then no it’s not. Absolute knowledge presupposes the biblical God.
//Miracles mean that God is suspending the laws of the universe, therefore there is no absolute knowledge of the universe.//
This is the black or white fallacy. God performing miracles in no way hinders us from knowing absolute truth. God has revealed things to us with certainty – such as His existence.
//Presuppositionalism Implodes - Another video presents this argument with Matthew4nineteen, BibleThumpingWingnut, and Colin Pearson.//
According to your presuppositions you’re declaring yourself the ‘winner’ but how can you know that? I’ve watched the video ‘Presuppositionalism Implodes’ and it was painful because you kept bringing up irrelevant issues and things that in your worldview you can’t know, and then claiming that because they interrupted you that this meant they were avoiding the issues. They weren’t avoiding the issues – you were playing the martyr.
So what do I say to the NoPE argument by way of summary? Am I impressed? Nope. Is the NoPE argument valid? Nope.
The NoPE argument is the kind of absurdity that people resort to in order to deny the God they know exists but are in rebellion against. If you are not a follower of Christ I pray that you would stop denying God and that you'd repent and trust in Jesus.
Atheists Stupid Statements #6 (Exposing the self-refuting nature of the NoPE argument)