Friday, August 1, 2008

New argument

What's wrong with this argument, Sye? Which premise do you reject? Or is the logic faulty?

1. God exists
2. If God exists, the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain
3. A law of logic (or, if you prefer, principle of good argument) is that an argument containing an unargued for and contentious premise does not establish the truth of its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Sye's argument contains an unargued for and contentious premise
Conclusion: Sye's arg does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt

If you accept the laws of logic etc. and that God exists, and you say you do, it seems you must accept the conclusion.

15 comments:

get_education said...

I cannot but admire your tenacity. I know Sye's answer, but will not spoil it for you.

Remember that I said he will change or forget your context, his context, your words his words, your meaning, his meaning, your position, his position, your interpretation, his interpretation, whatever it takes to go back to his assertions and claim them as the only possible explanation for anything. It will not matter if he contradicts anything he said previously. Cheating comes naturally to Sye.

G.E.

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
a vary brief point (phrased differently from earlier):

You often accuse us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.

However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."

So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY. So really you’re saying that it's NECESSARILY the case that you don't have a proof because you’re violating one of your absolute and thus violating the nature of God.

(oh boy, violating God)

The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (which you believe to be absolute as well). I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.

(and violating God’s nature yet again, sheesh)

So you only have a proof if you can violate God’s nature.

Sye TenB said...

@ Stephen Law,

Well, I don't quite understand premise #2, but I reject any premise which states "If God exists," as His existence is the necessary precondition for logic. (Yes, by the impossibility of the contrary).

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
#2 states:
"If God exists, the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain"

Following "1", the laws of logic and principles of good argument are objectively [true, applicable].

Anonymous said...

Sye - surely we are obliged to accept premise 2 because God exists?

Andrew Louis said...

Syem you didn't say you disagreed with #4?

Anti-Sye said...

Speaking of premises, and having to reject one...

==============

Sye: "I do not take my Biblical exegesis from those who deny the Bible’s authority. But, just so you don’t think I am ducking your claim, God did not change His mind about whether people should live in the Garden of Eden. Only people without sin were to live there..."

Anti-Sye: I do not take my secular exegesis from those who believe in the literalism of Genesis. But, just so you don't think I am ducking your unargued-for assertion, God CREATED the Garden of Eden's serpent, AND Lucifer.

God, if he were all-knowing, would have known that Lucifer would turn against him. Also, if God were all-knowing, he would have known Adam would sin if he made the Tree of Knowledge. (Unless God WANTED sin)

If God's knowledge of the future can be overturned by our free will, then he's not really omniscient, which you claim he is on your website.

And if God's laws of science WERE universal and unchanging, all brains and people would behave deterministically, meaning there is no free will, meaning we're not to blame for our sin. But then who is? Why, the person who created all science, GOD, is to blame.

If God's laws of science are NOT universal, and God can change them, then your transcendental argument fails.

So, we're left with God WANTING sin. But since God is all good, he would never want that.

If these were all logical contradictions, Sye, then your ideas of absolute truth (Which you claim one of which is the Law of Noncontradiction) would fail, meaning your transcendental argument fails and your arguments against Andrew fails.

================

What is wrong with your world view, Sye? Which premise(s) do you reject?

==============

Beers,

the Anti-Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Here is a direct quote from Sye:

"this website is in no way trying to prove that God exists, I am only using this website to demonstrate that there IS proof that God exists. The proof for God’s existence offered here is not meant to satisfy the demands of those who would put God on trial, but it is meant to expose the suppression of truth."

The quote can be found here:

http://www.unitybaptistsbc.com/links.htm

Tony Lloyd said...

“I reject any premise which states "If God exists," as His existence is the necessary precondition for logic.”

Sye, this is hilarious. Feigning not to understand a conditional simply because the antecedent is true!

So, if you reject “If God exists, the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain” then you accept “it is not the case that if God exists then the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain”. Let’s use letters: “G” and “L”. You are saying that, as G necessarily exists, “not (if G then L)”. “G then L” can be rewritten “L or not G”, the negation of which is “G and not L”. Denying the second premise is to deny the laws of logic.

Anonymous said...

Could I reword the second point to the following:

2. God exists therefore the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain

--

I am wondering:
What are the laws of logic Sye keeps going on about, could we get a list of what they are?

I actually always felt that logical reasoning was not an absolute law that governed the universe. More a technique that will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not.

My understanding for any argument you need:
1] premises - which can be true or false
2] inference
3] conclusion

I think the "argument" is:

Premise 1] God Exists
Premise 2] Logic Exists
Inference] Logic can not be explained with out God.
Conclusion] Logic is in the nature of God.

If I am wrong it would be nice if Sye could list out his explicit premises, his inference and his conclusion.

I think one mistake that Sye continually makes is expecting someone to give a counter worldview that supports logic. This is not necessary to prove that his argument is wrong.

That is I can prove that your explanation of something is wrong, without having to provide a counter explanation.

I do this all the time at work; someone states that a bug in the software is caused by X. I can explain why X is not causing the bug, without knowing what is actually causing the bug.

I do think there is alot of dancing in circles here, and despite best intentions I don't think some individulls will ever understanding the failings in their reasoning.

Andrew Louis said...

Sye says that the absolute laws of logic are as follows:

”traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. (Britannica online Encyclopedia)"

Stephen Law said...

Sye, you reject any premise that begins "If God exists..." because "God is a necessary precondition of logic."?

Then presumably you also reject any premise that begins "If God doesn't exist..." too, for the same reason.

Oh, hang on, your own premise (1) is, in effect, "If God does not exist, the laws of logic cannot hold absolutely."

You'll need to do much better than that Sye....

Nick said...

"...His existence is the necessary precondition for logic. (Yes, by the impossibility of the contrary)"

So you keep saying, but we're still waiting for the proof of this assertion. If you have such a proof, let's see it. Don't keep us waiting any longer Sye, please put us all out of our misery!

anticant said...

It's Sye who needs putting out of his misery - not the rest of us.

anticant said...

Sye, Sye, buzzing like a fly
Believes in God but can't say why.
All he proffers as evidence
is "the contrary's impossible", which makes no sense.