Thursday, July 31, 2008

Sye - latest installment

Hi Sye

Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. This post deals with your response to my post Sye's argument below.

Gosh this is getting all very complicated, what with others challenging you on the objectivity of logic, etc. But let's not lose sight of the original debate. It was about the "proof" you offer on your website for the existence of God.

OK, so to summarize:

My contention is that the argument on your website is not a “proof’ – certainly it does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You insist it is a “proof” and now add that it does establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

We have both previously set out the argument like so:

1. The existence of the laws of logic necessarily requires the existence of the Christian God
2. The laws of logic exist
Therefore: the Christian God exists

I point out that for an argument to provide such a proof, it must be more than just deductively valid. It must not, for example, contain any contentious and unargued-for premises.

Now the first premise is contentious and unargued-for. So this argument fails as a “proof”

Now of course I pointed out that you might supply supporting argument for (1). But no such argument is actually supplied in your presentation of your "proof". You simply assert:

"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."

Thus, as it stands, your argument fails as a proof.

True, you want, it seems, to now try to salvage your original “proof” by saying (1) is established “by the impossibility of the contrary”.

But that is not something you even attempted to establish in your original “proof” – the one I am criticizing. You merely asserted (1) without any supporting argument.

So, it obviously fails as a proof. Right?

[incidentally, I notice you are saying that not only is the argument deductively valid, its premise is also true. But of course even this is not enough to establish the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You can’t just assert the first premise is true. Nor is it enough that it happen, as a matter of fact, to be true. Given the first premise is highly contentious, you need to demonstrate to your audience, beyond reasonable doubt, that it’s true. And that, in your website’s presentation of the “proof” you fail to do. You simply assert (1.)].

I will deal with your response to God and Logic (II) in a separate post. But, so far as I can see, the issue of whether or not your original argument, as presented on your website, proves beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, has now been resolved. It doesn't.

29 comments:

Sye TenB said...

Hello Stephen,

It is getting kinda nuts around here isn't it? :-D

Fact is, I will have to cut back soon, as I am writing a book on the subject, but these arguments have certainly been helpful. No doubt it is apparent that I have zero formal education in philosophy, but I do my best.

You said: "True, you want, it seems, to now try to salvage your original “proof” by saying (1) is established “by the impossibility of the contrary”.
"But that is not something you even attempted to establish in your original “proof” – the one I am criticizing. You merely asserted (1) without any supporting argument.


Actually, I state this quite clearly on my website, but, I understand that I may have to juggle the order around a bit.

Cheers,

Sye

Stephen Law said...

Hmm, that must be in the part of the website I did not find, perhaps because it's behind the button "I believe in God" Didn't press it, cos I don't!

But let me get this straight - you present your argument as a proof, and say that anyone who denies it's conclusion is illogical. And then, only after they have said they believe in God, you tell your audience that actually, it isn't as it stands, a proof at all! But that you do, actually, have a proof if they bear with you....?

Weird!

Sye TenB said...

Stephen Law said: ”Hmm, that must be in the part of the website I did not find, perhaps because it's behind the button "I believe in God" Didn't press it, cos I don't!”

Nope, as soon as you get to the proof, and click “continue” it’s there.

”But let me get this straight - you present your argument as a proof, and say that anyone who denies it's conclusion is illogical. And then, only after they have said they believe in God, you tell your audience that actually, it isn't as it stands, a proof at all! “

Nope, I believe that the proof is valid, I only argue for the truth of the premises afterwards, rather than beforehand, and as I said, I am considering changing that around.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen Law said...

Sye, I am confused. Behind the "continue" button there are two paras, which I quote in full:

"Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

In logic, this type of proof is called 'transcendental logic,' or 'the impossibility of the contrary,' where God is the basis for any rational thought. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality."

Sye - where in the above passage is the argument that *only* a Christian world view can logically support rationality?

There isn't any!

True, if you bother to hit link "Only a Christian world view can support rationality", you get a Christian explanation of rationality.

But that doesn't establish that *only* a Christian world view can support or allow for rationality/laws of logic.

Nor is there any acknowledgement that the preceding argument fails as a proof until you provide support for that premise.

In short: the conclusion of your argument: "without Him you couldn't prove anything" is presupposed by the entire argument.

So my charge still stands - your argument fails as a proof.

You need to supplement it with an argument that *only* a Christian world view can allow for rationality.

Yes, I know your argument for that seems to be: "Well, you atheists explain how the laws of logic can exist without God, then."

That is a crap argument. But that's not my point. The point is, crap or not, *it's not even there in your "proof".*

Your "proof" actually omits your key argument.

You simply say "Of course everyone uses universal, immaterial, unchanging laws, but many do so denying their only possible source [i.e. the Christian God]."

Please quote to me the argument you supply to support this claim.

It's not there, is it?

Having established that, we can now further assess your attempt to bolster this failed "proof" by means of your challenge: "well you atheists explain the laws of logic, then" .....

Anonymous said...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it appears to me that Sye is giving a causal explanation for the laws of logic: God made them.
But that is not really a logical support for rationality, is it?

Tom

Sye TenB said...

Tom said: "As I mentioned in an earlier post, it appears to me that Sye is giving a causal explanation for the laws of logic: God made them."

Nope, God did not make the laws of logic, they are a part of His nature, and a reflection of the way He thinks.

Cheers,

Sye

Bill Snedden said...

Sye: "Nope, God did not make the laws of logic, they are a part of His nature, and a reflection of the way He thinks."

Okay, so you would agree that the "laws of logic" are descriptive (of God's nature) rather than prescriptive, right? That is to say that what makes them true is the fact that they accord with God's nature rather than any kind of absurd self-prescription or other circularity.

Fair enough. That makes sense to me. But given that, what stops the non-theist from postulating that the laws of logic are simply a part of the nature of existence? If they are not (and cannot be) grounded in God's will, why do we need God to instantiate them? Why cannot they simply be true as a result of their accordance with the nature of existence rather than God?

Sye TenB said...

Bill Snedden said: ”Why cannot they simply be true as a result of their accordance with the nature of existence rather than God?”

Here are three reasons (There are more). First and foremost, because they are not in accord with the nature of existence. Nature is replete with changing particulars, yet the atheist wishes to postulate unchanging universals from it. Secondly, the atheist has no way of even knowing what the nature of existence is, since he/she can only appeal to their very limited experiences. And thirdly, by what standard does one determine if they are, in fact, in accord with the nature of existence? One would first have to assume that there are valid, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, in order to determine whether the laws of logic are ‘true as a result of their accordance with nature,’ which begs the question.

Cheers,

Sye

Paul C said...

Fact is, I will have to cut back soon, as I am writing a book on the subject, but these arguments have certainly been helpful. No doubt it is apparent that I have zero formal education in philosophy, but I do my best.

Can I say - and please don't anybody think I'm saying this with any malice towards Sye specifically - that this paragraph sums up the presuppositionalist faction perfectly. Sye admits to no formal education in philosophy - his understanding of the laws of logic apparently drawn from the Encyclopedia Brittanica - but he still feels equipped to write a book on it. One can't help but admire the hubris.

Paul C said...

Nature is replete with changing particulars, yet the atheist wishes to postulate unchanging universals from it.

I don't.

Secondly, the atheist has no way of even knowing what the nature of existence is, since he/she can only appeal to their very limited experiences.

And that's a problem because?

And thirdly, by what standard does one determine if they are, in fact, in accord with the nature of existence?

Observation.

These questions are getting easier.

Bill Snedden said...

"Here are three reasons (There are more). First and foremost, because they are not in accord with the nature of existence. Nature is replete with changing particulars, yet the atheist wishes to postulate unchanging universals from it."

There are at least two possible responses to this. The realist can say, "We can postulate universals precisely because some aspects of reality are unchanging. I.e., unchanging universals are as much a part of the nature of reality as changing particulars." Further, this response (yours) doesn't address the basic issue I've raised: what is it about *God* that *existence (sans God)* doesn't have? What suits "god" to the task of grounding logic and not existence itself? It can't be universals as we can simply say that universals are as grounded in existence as particulars.

Oh, and the non-realist can simply deny the objective reality of universals. I.e., nominalism. Either approach renders your response moot.

"Secondly, the atheist has no way of even knowing what the nature of existence is, since he/she can only appeal to their very limited experiences."

This makes no sense. The theist and non-theist are also on equal grounds here. All the information we get comes through the same sets of senses, so whether we're postulating about the nature of God or existence, we're using the same faculties to do it. If the non-theist has only limited experience of reality and can draw no conclusions from it, then the theist has only limited experience of God and can likewise draw no conclusions from it. There is simply no advantage to be gained from assuming "god".

Further, one doesn't need exhaustive experience to recognize the absolute truth of the laws of logic. Even though it's the case that I've certainly not seen or experienced every circle in existence, I can state conclusively that there are no square circles.

One doesn't need to be omniscient to recognize analytic truths (see below).

"And thirdly, by what standard does one determine if they are, in fact, in accord with the nature of existence? One would first have to assume that there are valid, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, in order to determine whether the laws of logic are ‘true as a result of their accordance with nature,’ which begs the question."

No, one determines that they are in accord with the nature of existence by retorsion (i.e., "the impossibility of the contrary"), exactly the same method by which you claim to demonstrate the existence of your God. IOW, the laws of logic are known to be absolutely true NOT because of empirical observation, but because they simply cannot be false.

Sye TenB said...

Bill Snedden said:

”There are at least two possible responses to this. The realist can say, "We can postulate universals precisely because some aspects of reality are unchanging. I.e., unchanging universals are as much a part of the nature of reality as changing particulars."

How would they differentiate between them, and what keeps unchanging universals from changing?

”Further, this response (yours) doesn't address the basic issue I've raised: what is it about *God* that *existence (sans God)* doesn't have? What suits "god" to the task of grounding logic and not existence itself? It can't be universals as we can simply say that universals are as grounded in existence as particulars.”

You could say that, but you would have no way of recognizing them, differentiating between them, or have any basis for proceeding with the expectation that they will not change.

”Oh, and the non-realist can simply deny the objective reality of universals. I.e., nominalism. Either approach renders your response moot.”

But we have already seen, in this very blog, what universally denying universals looks like.

I said: "Secondly, the atheist has no way of even knowing what the nature of existence is, since he/she can only appeal to their very limited experiences."

You answered: ”This makes no sense. The theist and non-theist are also on equal grounds here. All the information we get comes through the same sets of senses, so whether we're postulating about the nature of God or existence, we're using the same faculties to do it. If the non-theist has only limited experience of reality and can draw no conclusions from it, then the theist has only limited experience of God and can likewise draw no conclusions from it. There is simply no advantage to be gained from assuming "god".”

This begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them.

”Further, one doesn't need exhaustive experience to recognize the absolute truth of the laws of logic. Even though it's the case that I've certainly not seen or experienced every circle in existence, I can state conclusively that there are no square circles.

The difference being that in both cases you presuppose the validity of the laws of logic, wholly apart from your experience. What do you determine the truth of the laws of logic with if not logic?

”No, one determines that they are in accord with the nature of existence by retorsion (i.e., "the impossibility of the contrary"), exactly the same method by which you claim to demonstrate the existence of your God. IOW, the laws of logic are known to be absolutely true NOT because of empirical observation, but because they simply cannot be false.”

So, does that mean that you believe that God exists??? If not, what makes your argument valid, and mine invalid?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Stephen Law said:

”Sye - where in the above passage is the argument that *only* a Christian world view can logically support rationality?”

“By the impossibility of the contrary.”

”In short: the conclusion of your argument: "without Him you couldn't prove anything" is presupposed by the entire argument.”

Just as your conclusion that God does not exist is presupposed in any argument you have against His existence.

”So my charge still stands - your argument fails as a proof.
You need to supplement it with an argument that *only* a Christian world view can allow for rationality.”


I have, ‘by the impossiblity of the contrary.’

”Yes, I know your argument for that seems to be: "Well, you atheists explain how the laws of logic can exist without God, then."
That is a crap argument. But that's not my point. The point is, crap or not, *it's not even there in your "proof".*”


That the proof is valid by the impossibility of the contrary, is stated on the site, that you cannot account for uiversal, abstract, invariants apart from God, is further support of the validity of the proof.

”Your "proof" actually omits your key argument.
You simply say "Of course everyone uses universal, immaterial, unchanging laws, but many do so denying their only possible source [i.e. the Christian God]."
Please quote to me the argument you supply to support this claim.”


It is true, by the impossiblity of the contrary, which I mention on the page following the proof, if you feel that I should mention this on the previous page, I will consider it.

”Having established that, we can now further assess your attempt to bolster this failed "proof" by means of your challenge: "well you atheists explain the laws of logic, then" .....

I can’t wait :-D

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

@ Paul C.

I said: “Nature is replete with changing particulars, yet the atheist wishes to postulate unchanging universals from it.”

”I don't.”

Only because you take the ridiculous position that logic is not universal, a position which you do not live by. You posit that logic is contingent on experience in one breath, then in another, say that you would determine if a law of logic had changed if it no longer comported with your experience!?! I asked, how you would know if the law of logic was invalid, or if your experience was, and you did not answer.

I said: “Secondly, the atheist has no way of even knowing what the nature of existence is, since he/she can only appeal to their very limited experiences.”

You answered: ”And that's a problem because?”

The problem is, this would make logic contingent on those limited experiences, and not necessarily apply outside of those experiences, and you can say that this is the position you take all you like, but you do not live this way.

I asked: ”And thirdly, by what standard does one determine if they are, in fact, in accord with the nature of existence?”

You answered: ”Observation.”

To which I have asked on many occasions, how you know that your observations, and reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid. (This is where you beg the question – again) (if you decide not to evade the question that is)

Cheers,

Sye

Maragon said...

“By the impossibility of the contrary.”

Prove it.

Steven Carr said...

SYE
"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."

CARR
There goes Christianity, which teaches that if something looks like a snake, crawls like a snake, and acts like a snake, then it could well be Satan in disguise.

A universe governed by magic has no universal, unchanging laws.

Water can turn into wine, if there is a god.

Wafers can transubstantiate into the flesh and blood of Jesus, if there is a god.

Sye has no right to talk about logic if he believes in magic.

Steven Carr said...

SYE
“Nature is replete with changing particulars, yet the atheist wishes to postulate unchanging universals from it.”

CARR
So is Sye claiming that Nature does NOT contain unchanging universals, it ONLY contain 'changing particular'.

Sye's logic really runs,
“Nature is replete with unchanging universals, yet the atheist wishes to postulate unchanging universals from it.”

This assumes of course , that Sye really does believe that anybody, even an atheist, can see for themselves that 'nature is replete with unchanging universals'

How does Sye account for 'changing particulars' when the only way to account for nature is to claim it reflects his alleged gods' nature?

Is his alleged god's nature changing all the time, resulting in a nature that contains changing things?

Let us hope Sye does not try to give a logical answer, as he at once would deny his worldview, which claims that human reasoning could be under attack by demons.

Poor Sye. The very act of his posting is a denial of his presuppostions of a world where demons are at work, attacking human reasoning and senses.

Stephen Law said...

Hi Sye

So here's your last response to me (the references are to this page of Sye's "proof", and the page behind yellow link):

ME ”Sye - where in the above passage is the argument that *only* a Christian world view can logically support rationality?”

YOU “By the impossibility of the contrary.”

ME ”In short: the conclusion of your argument: "without Him you couldn't prove anything" is presupposed by the entire argument.”

YOU Just as your conclusion that God does not exist is presupposed in any argument you have against His existence.

ME ”So my charge still stands - your argument fails as a proof.
You need to supplement it with an argument that *only* a Christian world view can allow for rationality.”

YOU I have, ‘by the impossiblity of the contrary.’

Now yes, you use the phrase "the impossibility of the contrary". But look at the context, which I quoted, and now quote again:

"The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

In logic, this type of proof is called 'transcendental logic,' or 'the impossibility of the contrary,' where God is the basis for any rational thought. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality."

First off, simply to say "by the impossibility of the contrary" is not yet to give an argument for the impossibility of the contrary; it's to draw a conclusion by presupposing that the contrary is impossible. There's no argument in the above passages that the contrary is impossible. Yet this is where you say the argument is.

However, you are referring to an argument, interestingly, and calling it "impossibility of the contrary". And it appears to be the entire argument running up to that point. But that entire argument actually relies on the premise that the contrary is impossible.

You actually CONCEDE this as you say: "Just as your conclusion that God does not exist is presupposed in any argument you have against His existence".

I note the "Just as" [my italics]. You are doing a "tu quoque" here ["You're doing it too!"], thereby acknowledging that my accusation is actually correct.

So we finally AGREE, then, that your entire argument, as presented on your website, simply presupposes that the laws of logic cannot exist without God.

Hoorah!

You know what this means, don't you...? It ain't a proof.

Paul C said...

Only because you take the ridiculous position that logic is not universal, a position which you do not live by.

a. Don't just assert that my position is ridiculous, prove it.
b. Don't just assert that I do not live by that position, prove it.

You posit that logic is contingent on experience in one breath, then in another, say that you would determine if a law of logic had changed if it no longer comported with your experience!?!

I'm struggling to see how this position is not valid.

I asked, how you would know if the law of logic was invalid, or if your experience was, and you did not answer.

What do you mean by my experience being invalid?

The problem is, this would make logic contingent on those limited experiences, and not necessarily apply outside of those experiences, and you can say that this is the position you take all you like, but you do not live this way.

Yeah, I do. I have repeatedly explained that I believe that logic is a description of observed patterns in the universe, and subsequently without observation there is no logic.

Your problem is that you have stolen from the Greek platonic idealist worldview for your description of logic. That's understandable - early Christianity pretty much lifted all of its philosophy from the Greeks.

In your case, however, hilarity ensues because - despite the fact that you've stolen from the Greeks - you now accuse everybody else of stealing from you. This is like a burglar complaining about his car being stolen.

I'm not an idealist, so I don't suffer any of the problems you do in trying to justify the "laws of logic", because as far as I'm concerned they're all in the mind, and not out there in the universe.

And you still haven't demonstrated why this is a problem, rather than being a position that you personally don't like.

To which I have asked on many occasions, how you know that your observations, and reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid.

a. What do you mean by observations "being valid"?
b. By matching observations against previous observations and the conclusions drawn from those observations.

Sye TenB said...

Steven Carr said: ” So is Sye claiming that Nature does NOT contain unchanging universals, it ONLY contain 'changing particular'.”

Where have I made that claim? I just want to know how the atheist can know anything to be universally true, and how they can reconcile unchanging universals with changing particulars. Why, for instance, do the laws of logic not change?

”How does Sye account for 'changing particulars' when the only way to account for nature is to claim it reflects his alleged gods' nature?”

Huh? I have never said this. The laws of logic reflect God’s nature and the way He thinks, nature is His creation.

”Poor Sye. The very act of his posting is a denial of his presuppostions of a world where demons are at work, attacking human reasoning and senses”

Huh, I don’t know who you are arguing with, but it sure ain’t me.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Steven Carr said: "Sye has no right to talk about logic if he believes in magic."

Well, I don't believe in magic, but still, what right do YOU have to talk about logic? How do you account for the universal, abstract, unchanging laws of logic according to YOUR worldview?

Cheers,

Sye

Bill Snedden said...

Sye: "How would they differentiate between them, and what keeps unchanging universals from changing?"

What keeps God from changing? It's the same question, Sye. Why is God's nature as it is rather than some other way and why doesn't it change?

Answer: because it's His nature to be immutable, etc. The same answer applies to existence. God is God because it's His nature to be God. Universals are universals because it's their nature to be universals.

"You could say that, but you would have no way of recognizing them, differentiating between them, or have any basis for proceeding with the expectation that they will not change."

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. I can certainly recognize that you are not a pencil box. Reason is the tool by which we integrate the evidence of our senses and do exactly that which you deny we are incapable of doing. You are proceeding from an assumption that human reason is worthless. There is no reason to accept that assumption and numerous reasons to reject it.

"But we have already seen, in this very blog, what universally denying universals looks like."

No, we've seen an exceedingly naive, in the philosophical sense, approach to the problem of universals. Nominalism is rather more subtle than simply "denying universals". Nominalism accepts the existence of universals, it merely denies their *objective* existence.

"This begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them."

You're right. But claims to "special knowledge" are of no avail in philosophical debates, so the point is rather moot. After all, I could also wave my hands and produce some vague claims as to special knowledge hardwired into humans by natural means. Mysticism is not an answer, it's the avoidance of one.

"The difference being that in both cases you presuppose the validity of the laws of logic, wholly apart from your experience. What do you determine the truth of the laws of logic with if not logic?"

As I noted, the truth of the laws of logic is seen by the impossibility of the contrary.

"So, does that mean that you believe that God exists??? If not, what makes your argument valid, and mine invalid?"

Your argument appears to be that ONLY the Christian God can provide a foundation for the existence of logical laws. However, the fact that logical laws can be demonstrated absolutely true (via retorsion) REGARDLESS of God's existence renders your argument unsound.

Sye TenB said...

@ Paul C.

Alright, let’s narrow this down.

I said: “You posit that logic is contingent on experience in one breath, then in another, say that you would determine if a law of logic had changed if it no longer comported with your experience!?!”

You said: ”I'm struggling to see how this position is not valid.”

My point is this, you say that the laws of logic are dependent on experience, but how would you know if a law of logic was invalid or if it had changed? You say that you would know that a law of logic had changed if it no longer comported with your expereince. How then would THAT law be contingent on your experience??? In other words, if a particular law of logic no longer comported with your experience, how would you know whether the law had changed, was invalid, or if your experience was invalid – by that I mean, how would you know if you actually had the experience, or if it was a false memory, or whether or not the reasoning with which you interpreted your experience was valid?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Bill Snedden said:

” Sye: "How would they differentiate between them, and what keeps unchanging universals from changing?"
What keeps God from changing? It's the same question, Sye. Why is God's nature as it is rather than some other way and why doesn't it change?”


The differnce being Bill, that God has revealed to us His unchanging nature, yet you have no way of knowing this about the laws of logic.

”Universals are universals because it's their nature to be universals.”

But how do you know that they are universal?

”I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. I can certainly recognize that you are not a pencil box.”

Not without FIRST assuming the validity of your reasoning.

”Reason is the tool by which we integrate the evidence of our senses and do exactly that which you deny we are incapable of doing.”

Never denied it, just saying that you cannot account for what you are doing.

”You are proceeding from an assumption that human reason is worthless.”

Not at all, I believe that it is a wonderful, valuable, gift from God.

”But claims to "special knowledge" are of no avail in philosophical debates, so the point is rather moot.”

Why not? I say that I can be certain of some things by revealtion from God, how can you be certain of anything?

”After all, I could also wave my hands and produce some vague claims as to special knowledge hardwired into humans by natural means.”

You could, and I would be happy to engage you on this, if this is what you believe.

”As I noted, the truth of the laws of logic is seen by the impossibility of the contrary.”

I agree with this, but that is not what you were saying. Also, that the laws of logic are true by the impossibility of the contrary does not tell us how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic make sense in a worldview without God.

”Your argument appears to be that ONLY the Christian God can provide a foundation for the existence of logical laws. However, the fact that logical laws can be demonstrated absolutely true (via retorsion) REGARDLESS of God's existence renders your argument unsound.”

Again, demonstrating that they are true, and accounting for their existence are different animals. Plus the atheist can only assume that they are true, he/she has no way of knowing this for certain.

Cheers,

Sye

James F. Elliott said...

Sye,

Please offer how one arrives from "proving God exists" to "proving the Christian God exists." What part of your proof gives us the "truth" of the New Testament?

Steven Carr said...

By the very act of posting,Sye has contradicted his worldview that there are supernatural demons who can attack his reasoning and senses.

Sye's world view is that there are being highly motivated to attack his reasoning, and highly capable of doing so, yet Sye contradicts his worldview every time he tries to use the reasoning that his world view claims is under potential attack by demons.

And Sye still cannot explain how an alleged god that can magic things into existence can guaranteee not to magic these laws out of existence.

As Sye believes in the supernatural, he is automatically disqualified from taking part in rational debate.

With God 'anything is possible', so Sye has no basis for thinking the laws of logic can never be changed.

And as Sye teaches that demons can disguise themselves as anything,Sye has no warrant for claiming that when the sun rises tomorrow morning,it will not be Satan in disguise.

Only naturalists are allowed to say that nature is natural.

No doubt Sye will post more, continuing to demonstrate that his world view of demons and satans is self-contradictory.

Paul C said...

My point is this, you say that the laws of logic are dependent on experience, but how would you know if a law of logic was invalid or if it had changed?

So you do not in fact have an argument that this position is not valid. It's simply that you don't understand the point I was making. I have a sneaking suspicion that when Sye says "your position is not justified", he actually means "I don't understand your position".

I note that I asked you to demonstrate that my position was ridiculous, which you have not done. I also asked you to prove that I do not live by my position, which you have not done. I won't press you on those points, but can you give me a good reason why I should continue answering your questions when you do not answer mine?

Sye TenB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.