Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Sye - it's the final countdown

Hi Sye

You said:

Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this:

1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.

All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God. You folks are going on and on about the format, why not offer your refutation?

ANSWER: We did. One way to show you have no proof (a "proof" establishing something as true beyond reasonable doubt) is to show (1) is false. But that is not the only way (do you agree?). Another would be to show that (1) is contentious and unargued for, which it appears to be.

You say your (1) is not unargued for - there is an argument for it: "impossibility of the contrary".

You refuse to say what the argument is, though (i.e. you refuse to spell it out as premises and conclusion). Instead, you do say WE must "prove 'impossibility of the contrary' is NOT an argument.

Well we have already proved that - an argument involves premises and conclusion. This doesn't. Here's the proof:

1. An argument contains premise(s) and conclusion
2. 'impossibility of the contrary' does not contain premises and conclusion
Therefore: 'impossibility of the contrary' is not a proof.

Rather 'impossibility of the contrary' seems to be the title you give some as yet unspecified argument.

Now, identify that argument. Supply the premises and conclusion to support your first premise that 1. God is the necessary precondition for logic. Or we are left with no choice but to conclude you have none.

And thus no proof.

It really is put up or shut up time.

52 comments:

Jaxon said...

I would highly suggest for you, and any one else interested to read the book ""The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions." by self-professed secular Jew and mathematics/philosophies teacher David Berlinski.
This tells the story of a Jew who was forced to dig his own grave prior to being shot by a German soldier. Prior to being shot, the old Jewish man advised the German that “God is watching what you are doing.” The Jewish gentleman pointed what i think is the real problem with atheism. "If you have the time please check the book out

Anonymous said...

Sye said: "My Christian beliefs are foundational. It is because God exists that I am able to reason."

Sye's other words have shown an inability to reason.

either:

a) God has turned His back on Sye and withdrawn the Gift of Reason.

or

b) Sye is knowingly speaking in a way which is contrary to God's gift, rejecting it and is committing a grave sin.

Repent Sye. Make restitution. Buy some of Dr.Laws books or contribute to
a charity of his choice.

Jonathan said...

Is "impossibility of the contrary" supposed to mean that Sye thinks that it is impossible for universal laws of logic to exist without God to sustain them?

Have I missed where he explained this?

anticant said...

Put up or shut up? He's not in the least likely to do either. His programming doesn't allow for that - it would be contrary to his script, and therefore impossible.

Billy said...

Have I missed where he explained this?


Nope, because he never did explain it. His argument is basically god exists because I say he does. It fails at the first hurdle.

Sye, how about god is necessary for paedophilia because of the impossibility of the contrary? Can you tell me exactly how your "argument" has a more concrete foundation than that one? Oh, and do you think it is reasonable for me to ask you to prove otherwise to me?

anticant said...

Jaxon: If you think that the real problem with atheism is that people who don’t believe in God have no consciences, and feel free to commit murder and every other crime in the calendar on impulse, you should have another think. If you think that the only thing that restrains believers from murder and all manner of wickedness is that an imaginary God is looking over their shoulder, that’s a pretty poor advertisement for belief!

Having read the weird review you link to, I shan’t bother reading Berlinski’s book. The reviewer opens with the profoundly ignorant observation that “It is my opinion that the German language tends to be very utilitarian, a language that is not often associated with love songs and endearments. It is a language which is more likely to be associated with engineering specifications than with sweet nothings or with words filled with spiritually uplifting connotations.” If he believes that, he would believe anything, and I had to force myself to continue reading his observations.

The next one that struck me is that the author “is just a guy who knows that atheism, in it's most nightmarish form, is what caused the Holocaust.” There is, of course, no proof offered for this “fact”, which completely ignores the enthusiastic part played in Nazism by many devout anti-semitic Christians who believed the old Catholic slander [for which the Pope has only recently apologized] that the Jews “murdered” Christ.

The reviewer then quotes, with obvious relish, the author’s opinion that Richard Dawkins “is very intelligent, but he is something of a reptile.” A far from charitable remark, and without any indication of what sort of a reptile Dawkins is. The reviewer also chides Dawkins, Harris and other “militant atheists” for their cheek because “rather than simply allowing that intelligent people may arrive at different conclusions about the existence of God and about Darwinian evolution, they have taken to ridiculing and belittling theists.” Actually they don’t really need to – theists do most of the job for them by the absurdity of their pronouncements.

He then says that Berlinski suggests another reason for the existence of the militant atheists when he says, “The advent of militant atheism marks a reaction – a lurid but “natural” reaction – to the violence of the Islamic world.” “This is a theory worthy of consideration” our reviewer solemnly adds. So at least somebody has noticed the elephant in the room! He then congratulates Berlinski for “subjecting these guys to ridicule that makes them look astoundingly silly.”

But not as silly as this smug and ignorant review.

Billy said...

Anticant,

I dont think I'll bother reading the review now. Thanks. What a stupid claim. Hitler was actually strongly supported by christian parties, so you have to wonder why their christian moral values never prevented the holocaust. In fact, the vatican even signed a concordat legitimising Naziism

Db0 said...

Don't bother with Jaxon. He's spamming any atheist blog he can find.

anticant said...

"The Vatican even signed a concordat legitimising Naziism."

Indeed it did. It was negotiated by Pacelli, the Vatican's representative in Germany, who was strongly pro-Nazi and later became "Hitler's Pope" [Pius XII] - see book of that name.

What the Concordat did was to allow the Church to retain control over Catholic schools in exchange for dissolving the German Catholic centre party. So Hitler eliminated a potential adversary at the stroke of a pen.

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
(From the previous thread)

If you admit that your argument is circular, then you admit that it begs the question. RIGHT?

If it begs the question then it's not a proof. But if you say it's a proof then it only is by violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Lets grant that you're correct in saying, "in a non-circular fashion how you know that your reasoning is valid? " specifically that this cannot be done.(perhaps this fits with Godel's Theorems). but this means that you cannot prove God either. That, Sye, is really the whole point of this discussion; THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A PROOF. Your argument is really a "The God of the Gaps" argument, which I believe Kyle P mentioned threads ago.

Dissertator said...

I'll play Sye:


By what standard of logic is my argument circular?

My God provides my proof.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Dissertator,
Sye has already admitted that his argument is circular.

I Quote:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."

So by his own standard he's being circular. By his own standard he's begging the question.

Dissertator said...

@Andrew

You misunderstood my comment. The only noncircular argument is the one that proceeds from the Almighty. God is not circular, and, in my view, He gave life to logic.

Unless you have another source for logic, I would love to hear about it.

But you don't, and thus you will not respond.

Cheers,

Sye

captain howdy said...

I just won't waste much time on that guy, though I've exchanged pleasantries with him previously.

Sye demands that I account for the rules of critical thought I base my worldview on. But when I turn the question around and demand how he can be so sure his own reasoning is correct, he replies that it was revewaled to him in such a way as to preclude the slightest possibility of error.

In other words, he demands that I re-assemble the rules of logic and evidence that all sides in the discussion agree upon, while his own confidence doesn't have to be justified, since God revealed it to him in a puff of smoke and I'll just have to take his word for it.

As we say here in the sunny south--That dog don't hunt.

Dissertator said...

"But when I turn the question around and demand how he can be so sure his own reasoning is correct, he replies that it was revewaled to him in such a way as to preclude the slightest possibility of error."

This is true, because God is the truth.

How do you account for the rules of logic? You have yet to prove this, because you can't.

Cheers,

Sye

captain howdy said...

Sorry--that was supposed to be revealed

captain howdy said...

How do you account for the rules of logic? You have yet to prove this, because you can't.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In other words, Why is there something (rules of logic) instead of nothing?

Sye's whole argument boils down to the First Cause argument and little else.

Dissertator said...

@Captain Howdy

Can you prove that? I've already proven my argument. The onus is on you to disprove the proof. You cannot do it. All i've learned from philosophers is that they love to shuck and jive.

Again, can you account for the origin of the rules of logic?

You are making it too, too easy for me.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Ok,
I'll play along.

Sye-sertator,
if the laws of logic are absolute, then state for us something absolute and how it is not systemic.

Where absolute falls into the follwoing criteria:
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance

Sye could never answer this, so he started to ignor me.

Jonathan said...

Sye-

define "impossibility of the contrary". Why can universal laws of logic not exist without God to sustain them?

You are making the claim that the contrary is impossible, surely you can back it up?

Dissertator said...

@Andrew Louis

According to the rules of logic as i understand them, God is the only absolute. He Is.

God meets all of your criteria. This debate reminds me of the one between Copleston and Russell in "The Existence of God". Copleston wiped the floor with Russell as I am doing with many of you.

Sye

*I'm doing all this in jest. So no need to respond. I'll stop now. I'm sure the real Sye will come along soon enough. I don't want to clog up the thread with more galloping nonsense.

The Celtic Chimp said...

Stephen,

Once again you astound me with a Herculean feat of inhuman patience. How you have managed to go round and round the merry-go-round with circular Sye for so long is beyond me. Has anyone bothered to explain to Sye that the laws of logic are not written on stone tablets anywhere. There are merely formalised expressions of how we find the world. As well to try to explain why gravity exists. I don't mean explain how gravity works or what causes it but instead to explain why it exists. Why does it always work the same way? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant law of gravitation?

Sye argument is confused and ill thought out. He has pulled his usual tactic when asked to actually explain anything. He has simply refused until we can prove him wrong (i.e. he doesn't have an explanation). I suggested to him once that the laws of logic are derived from our experience of how things are. Sye responded by taking the sceptical position. When I asked him how it was that he was apparently immune to the sceptical position he responded that he had the truth revealed to him by God. When pressed on this he informed me that the truth was revealed in such a way that he could be certain it was true. I mean FFS! Logic is a bargaining chip to Sye, he uses it only when it suits him (and then badly) and happily defies it the rest of the time.

Anonymous said...

"by the impossiblity of the contrary"

This appears to be a rhetorical trick meant to place the burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with what preceeds it.

Terence said...

It seems to me this "argument" is just a variation of the you-can't-have-design-without-a-designer argument (which creationists cite in opposition to evolution). In this case he seems to argue that logic (as some sort of "designed" and imposed framework -- and there are problems with this view) couldn't exist without some independent designer or creator, we know logic exists, therefore its designer/creator must exist.

Nick said...

there once was man called circular Sye
who claimed logic impossible without God, but would never said why
when pressed for a proof he merely retorted
the impossibility of the contrary
and considered it sorted
when asked for his premises he said only no
the onus is on you to prove that I'm wrong
but you can't I am sure, as God told me so

Billy said...

This appears to be a rhetorical trick meant to place the burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with what preceeds it.


Yes, and it doesn't work here. Come on Sye, why should we just accept this - you run away from the tought questions - you are just starting to look silly. can you back up your claim? Why is god necessary? Why is the alternative impossible. As others have pointed out, A Muslim could make the same argument - what validates yours?

You are being very rude ingnoring everyone who wants verification. You are nothing more than a closed minded preacher who will carry on spouting the same stuff and not listen to those around you - this approach will not work - you are not convincing anyone. Please give what is constantly being asked of you or shut up.

Sye TenB said...

Hello Stephen,

I said: ”All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God. “

You answered: ”We did.”

Hmmm, I posted this on another thread, but since it was ignored, I’ll ask again:

1. How can you know anything to be universally true or false, without universal knowledge? Where have you posted your answer to this?

2. How do YOU account for abstract entitities according to YOUR worldview? You haven’t even told us to which brand of atheism you subscribe, so claiming that you have answered this is mistaken at best.

3. How do you know anything to be invariant? How do you know that the laws of logic have not changed, or that they will not change? Where have you posted your answer to this?

4. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that nature is uniform? You totally avoided that question. I also asked that if you denied the uniformity of nature, why you squeazed your toothpast tube this morning? (Considering that you are from England, make that a hypothetical question :-)

”You refuse to say what the argument is, though (i.e. you refuse to spell it out as premises and conclusion). Instead, you do say WE must "prove 'impossibility of the contrary' is NOT an argument.
Well we have already proved that - an argument involves premises and conclusion. This doesn't. Here's the proof:

1. An argument contains premise(s) and conclusion
2. 'impossibility of the contrary' does not contain premises and conclusion
Therefore: 'impossibility of the contrary' is not a proof.”


Your first premise is unargued for – um, isn’t that what you were saying about my proof?
How is this a proof with an unargued for premise???

Thanks Stephen!

”It really is put up or shut up time.”

I’m still waiting for you to ‘put up’ the answers to those 4 questions above? Since I’ve waited almost 2 weeks, it appears that you have opted for shutting up.

Cheers,

Sye

Jonathan said...

Sye (once again)-

define "impossibility of the contrary". Why can universal laws of logic not exist without God to sustain them?

You are making the claim that the contrary is impossible, surely you can back it up?

Rayndeon said...

Stephen, I think it's time to stop. He just doesn't get it, does he. And he's not going to. Anyone can read this series of threads and comments and see that presuppositionalism has been thoroughly refuted here, even if Sye doesn't realize just how badly he's been refuted here.

Sye, you may want to spend some time looking up "undercutting defeaters" and "rebutting defeaters."

You may also want to spend some time looking up "logic" "argumentation" and "logical fallacies", as well as "evidence" and "the burden of proof." The latter five are things you refuse to offer for your assertion that no non-Christian worldview is compatible with or can account for logic and induction.

By the way, Sye, the first premise is true by definition. ._. That's what an "argument" means.

Rayndeon said...

By the way, Sye, WE DID ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. You seem to continually ignore my posts that do so. ._. See my posts (and your non-answers) in the "God and logic" thread, "Sye - let's go round again" thread, and the "Sye, nowhere to run baby" thread.

jeremy said...

Sye says:

Your first premise [an argument contains premise(s) and conclusion] is unargued for – um, isn’t that what you were saying about my proof?
How is this a proof with an unargued for premise???


For God's sake, Stephen was very clear to jettison only unargued-for, CONTENTIOUS conclusions as premises if we are to establish a proof.

It is quite staggering that Sye can't see that. Or does he really think that the statement "an argument contains premise(s) and conclusion" is contentious????

Please, Stephen, let this clown go...

anticant said...

That should have been "let go of this clown".

James F. Elliott said...

Jaxon,

It's a deal if you read Primo Levi in turn.

splittter said...

Let's just leave this one shall we ... after all that I think Sye's just basically peddling a version of the argument from ignorance:

- I don't get how there couldn't be a God
- So God exists!

captain howdy said...

@dissyetator--

@Captain Howdy

Can you prove that? I've already proven my argument.


You did?

Sye TenB said...

Jeremy said: ”It is quite staggering that Sye can't see that. Or does he really think that the statement "an argument contains premise(s) and conclusion" is contentious????”

So, let me guess, the presenter of the argument gets to determine what is, and is not contentious?? Well then, my premise is not contentious either. How do you like your argument now?

Cheers,

Sye

splittter said...

Actually i think Sye's argument might have the form

- I can contradict everything any atheist says
- Atheists say God doesn't exist

- Therefore God exists!

captain howdy said...

@sye tenb--

So, let me guess, the presenter of the argument gets to determine what is, and is not contentious?? Well then, my premise is not contentious either. How do you like your argument now?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, in the end Sye, that's what it's really all about, isn't it? Rhetorical devices and framing?

The point of fact, there is no reason to believe in the literal existence of an invisible super- entity that could easily appear if he chose to, but pretends to not be there instead. It's a gigantic head game.





Cheers, Sye

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, I get it now. Happy daze!

Sye TenB said...

Captain Howdy said: "The point of fact, there is no reason to believe in the literal existence of an invisible super- entity that could easily appear if he chose to, but pretends to not be there instead. It's a gigantic head game."

God 'appears' in every thought that you make sense of. Let's not kid ourselves here, I believe that my ability to reason comes from God, according to your worldview it comes from a rock (which came from nothing).

Cheers,

Sye

Rayndeon said...

Sye:

according to your worldview it comes from a rock (which came from nothing).

Strawmaning much?

._.

By the way, Sye... are you ever going get around to answering any substance of my posts in the "God and logic" thread, the "Sye - let's go round again" thread, or the "Sye - nowhere to run baby" thread?

Paul C said...

according to your worldview it comes from a rock (which came from nothing).

But remember folks - Sye has never accused all atheists of being reductive materialists!

captain howdy said...

@Sye--

Captain Howdy said: "The point of fact, there is no reason to believe in the literal existence of an invisible super- entity that could easily appear if he chose to, but pretends to not be there instead. It's a gigantic head game."

Sye: God 'appears' in every thought that you make sense of. Let's not kid ourselves here, I believe that my ability to reason comes from God, according to your worldview it comes from a rock (which came from nothing).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sye, my atheism is what I guess you could call practical atheism. I'm really not very concerned even if you could somehow prove the literal existence of a God who hides and leaves clues to his existence only by means of fuzzy kittens and pretty sunsets.


You insist there really is a God that wants to have a relationship with us. Put him on the speakerphone so we all can actually hear him.

Until you can do that, I'm just not very concerned with your rhetorical gymnastics.

Sye TenB said...

Paul C. said:

"But remember folks - Sye has never accused all atheists of being reductive materialists!"

That's right Paul, I haven't. Just Captain Howdy with whom I have a long history at another blog. Stil though Paul, where does YOUR ability to reason come from?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Captain Howdy said:

”Sye, my atheism is what I guess you could call practical atheism. I'm really not very concerned even if you could somehow prove the literal existence of a God who hides and leaves clues to his existence only by means of fuzzy kittens and pretty sunsets.”

As I said, God reveals Himself in every one of your thoughts. You can choose to ignore Him if you wish, but I don’t think you’ll be calling it ‘practical atheism’ when you stand before Him.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Captain Howdy said:

”Sye, my atheism is what I guess you could call practical atheism. I'm really not very concerned even if you could somehow prove the literal existence of a God who hides and leaves clues to his existence only by means of fuzzy kittens and pretty sunsets.”

As I said, God reveals Himself in every one of your thoughts. You can choose to ignore Him if you wish, but I don’t think you’ll be calling it ‘practical atheism’ when you stand before Him.

Cheers,

Sye

captain howdy said...

Sye--

You: "Captain Howdy said:

”Sye, my atheism is what I guess you could call practical atheism. I'm really not very concerned even if you could somehow prove the literal existence of a God who hides and leaves clues to his existence only by means of fuzzy kittens and pretty sunsets.”


You: As I said, God reveals Himself in every one of your thoughts. You can choose to ignore Him if you wish, but I don’t think you’ll be calling it ‘practical atheism’ when you stand before Him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If your God reveals Himself fully on Judgment Day, that suggests He hasn't fully revealed Himself to us now.

The most important question about your hiding God isn't Does He exist but rather Does it even matter if He exists?

When viewed in that light, your entire apologetic becomes little more than a big rabbit hole, a theological theme park for bored atheists to ride.

Sye TenB said...

Captain Howdy said:

"If your God reveals Himself fully on Judgment Day, that suggests He hasn't fully revealed Himself to us now."

Your point?

"The most important question about your hiding God isn't Does He exist but rather Does it even matter if He exists?"

You only claim that God is hiding based on your presupposition that He does not exist. As I said, God reveals Himself in every one of your thoughts.

"When viewed in that light, your entire apologetic becomes little more than a big rabbit hole, a theological theme park for bored atheists to ride."

The finish is a doozy!

Cheers,

Sye

anticant said...

"Does it even matter if God exists?"

No, it doesn't. What matters is that billions of people around the globe believe in a supernatural being who created the universe and demands that they obey him according to their lights.

The catastrophic consequences of this insane myth are obvious to anyone who looks at what's going on in the world.

captain howdy said...

@Sye--

You only claim that God is hiding based on your presupposition that He does not exist. As I said, God reveals Himself in every one of your thoughts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, if that's the case, then God is laughing at you right now.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Paul C said...

Stil though Paul, where does YOUR ability to reason come from?

Sye, Sye, Sye. I explained all of this in the other thread, remember? You accused my position of being "ridiculous" but promptly gave up when you realised you didn't have an argument against it.

captain howdy said...

And STAY out!!

Nick said...

Sye said: "As I said, God reveals Himself in every one of your thoughts."

Prove it!