Skip to main content

Sye - endgame

Well Sye said he has an argument for his premise (1). We have asked him countless times what it is. He won't say. Indeed, he just gets weirdly evasive. So I think we are justified in concluding he hasn't got any argument for premise (1).

(1) is, then, a contentious and unargued for premise. But then, while Sye's argument is deductively valid, it relies on a contentious and unargued for premise, and so fails to establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

Having established that beyond reasonable doubt, we can now do a proper job of examining his endlessly repeated challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic. I'll do that next.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
You've got a lot more patience with him that I'd have! ;)

He must be right though - there's so many proofs ;)
August 6, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Psiomniac said…
Endgame it might be, but we know Sye's likely response in the end:
By who's standard do you judge I am in checkmate, and how do you account for these rules in YOUR system? Are they absolute? If not why should I pay attention to them? ....and so on.

It will do no good to point out that he had been happy to appeal to the rules of chess and play fairly until he got into difficulty, before he tried to apply backspin to all his moves.

There are many dis-analogies between the rules of logic and those of chess, but as I said before, the most irritating dis-analogy between playing chess and debating is that with the former, victory is clear and there really is nowhere to hide. With debating, there is infinite wriggle room, even if it fools nobody.
August 6, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Sye TenB said…
Actually my argument for premise one is that the contrary is impossible.
August 6, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Rayndeon said…
LOL Sye.

And what is your argument that the contrary is impossible?

Allow me to guess: you're going to ask me questions I already answered.

*Rolls eyes*

Did you miss Stephen's last few posts or something?
August 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Please tell me why you are still wasting time on this guy?

If you say, "I want to show him that he's wrong", then you are wasting your time.
August 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
anticant said…
Please see my post on "The Need to be Right":

http://antarena.blogspot.com/2008/03/need-to-be-right.html
August 6, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Anonymous said…
Sye, am I mistaken or is your "the contrary is impossible" argument simply an expression that you believe your stated premise to be correct since there are in your mind no other (contrary) premises possible?
August 6, 2008 at 1:42 PM
James F. Elliott said…
Sye, please detail the premises and conclusions encapsulated in "the impossibility of the contrary."
August 6, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Stephen Law said…
We're done here, Sye. Now we move on to your claim that atheists cannot account for the laws of logic.
August 7, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more