A vogue is going around with some Christian apologists. They ask the question "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?"
If the atheist answers, "Yes," the apologist says, "Then you don't know anything for sure."
Well, I say if the atheist answers "Yes," then the atheist could be wrong about his "Yes" claim--therefore, since he is wrong about saying he could be wrong, the atheist does know things for sure!
For that reason, it's not a very good question to ask.
Plus, the question and the answer to it doesn't bring anybody any closer to proving that the Christian God exists. In this case, all the Christian apologist does is to say that he himself has a special revelation from God and to claim that he knows something for sure, because of the revelation.
I say that it's unnecessary for the Christian apologist to ask, "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?" The apologist should just cut to the chase and claim God sent a special revelation to him/her. And then, I suppose, expect others to believe him/her.
In other words, I say the apologist's question, "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know," hasn't anything to do with telling whether Jesus is real. As an approach to support Christianity, the question fails to convince anybody about the Christian doctrine.
Here's an example of the question:
Eric Hovind vs. 6th Grade Atheist
So, any thoughts anyone?