Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Sye's website - add a link, Sye!

By the way Sye, as you clearly think you have "won" this debate - and with a professional philosopher no less! - you will certainly want to put a well-publicized link to this debate on your website, for all to see, right?

Do let me know when you have put the link up!

I suggest just linking to this entire run of posts:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries%27%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22

105 comments:

Db0 said...

Pwned :D

The Barefoot Bum said...

I must admit I'm not very impressed. This topic has already been adeqyately covered in the literature: On the nature of arguments, Cleese, Palin, et. al, BBC, 1972

The Barefoot Bum said...

... adequately ... et al. ...

Maragon said...

Steven,

It's been wonderful to read your(and many contributors) rebuttals to Syes nonsense. He may refuse to learn anything from the ordeal, but I know myself and probably many other lurkers have picked up quite a bit by reading your refutations.

I won't claim to be any sort of philosophy expert, in fact I majored in biology and dropped the only philosophy elective I ever took - however, this has piqued my interest and I wonder and hope that you(or any of the other contributors here) would be able to recommend a good book(s) to start exploring this field of study.


Thank you kindly,

Meagan

Nick said...

Maragon,

"...I wonder and hope that you(or any of the other contributors here) would be able to recommend a good book(s) to start exploring this field of study"

Stephen would probably be too modest to say so, but his own books would probably be a good start. You might also be interested to know that Oxford University does a part-time online course based upon Stephen's 'Philosophy Gym' book.

Nick said...

Maragon,

I should include a link to that course:

http://onlinecourses.conted.ox.ac.uk/subjects/philosophy.php

Maragon said...

Thank you very much Nick, those are wonderful suggestions.

Nick said...

No problem :-)

Anonymous said...

The Open University has some excellant philosophy courses but the fees are quite high.

Stephens 'Philosophy' was the first philosophy book I ever bought.

Kyle P. said...

Stephen's books helped me understand more about philosophy and how to think than I ever could have on my own, that's for sure. I second everything said here already about his books.

As for Sye,
"The difference is, that I have demonstrated how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in my worldview, whereas you have not done the same in a worldview without God (and you won’t – cause you can’t)"

You used logic to try to show that, though. You could not have with your worldview, as my proof clearly showed. Sye, you've lost, and as others have said before me, you are argumentum ad nausea-ing and argumentum ad baculum-ing.

David B. Ellis said...


The difference is, that I have demonstrated how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in my worldview, whereas you have not done the same in a worldview without God (and you won’t – cause you can’t)"


1. Logical truths are propositions which can, under no circumstances, be false (ex: internally contradictory propositions are never true).

2. Sye claims that if God didn't exist there could be no logical truths.

3. It follows from this that if God didn't exist internally contradictory propositions could be true.

4. But it is impossible for internally contradictory statements to be true under any circumstance (including the circumstance described by my worldview---there being no God).

5. Conclusion: therefore, there are logical truths if atheism is true (by the impossibility of the contrary).

Sye, feel free to attack this argument at any premise you like:

If you dispute 1, then please give an example of an internally contradictory statement (or other contradiction of a logical truth) which would be true if God didn't exist.

If you dispute 2, you concede your argument's conclusion was mistaken.

If you dispute 3, again, you concede defeat (if internally contradictory statements couldn't be true without a God existing then there are logical truths in an atheistic universe).

If you dispute 4, then you are disputing 1 (its simply a more specific statement of 1) and, again, please give an example of a logical impossibility which would be true if God didn't exist.

Good luck,

David E.

Sye TenB said...

Hello Stephen,

I don't have links on my website, but I have directed several people here already.

It would be nice for people who visit my site to see how atheistic philosophers reason, but then again, letting your blog drift back into the relative obscurity it enjoyed before I came here might be a more deserving option :-)

I'll think about it though!

Cheers,

Sye

Paul C said...

What's truly astonishing is that he does think that he's "won".

Paul C said...

Also - for somebody who believes that the laws of logic are universal and invariant, he doesn't seem to pay them much attention, does he?

jeremy said...

Well Stephen is quite happy to have the entire paper trail exposed, but is Sye?

I'd be willing to bet a whole whack of money that he won't place a link to this series of posts, as Stephen offered.

I wonder why not?

Db0 said...

but then again, letting your blog drift back into the relative obscurity it enjoyed before I came here might be a more deserving option :-)

Aaahahaahahahahahahahahahahah
*gasp*
Aaaaahahhahahaha

Stephen Law popularity > Sye Popularity


PS: One-time awareness link for blogspot users.

Anonymous said...

Sye said:
"I don't have links on my website, but I have directed several people here already."

An out and out lie. There are several internal links and at least one external one going to a Disney site.

Anyhow if you are opposed to technology in the for of html you can simply quote the URL (as several have done in these threads)

anticant said...

"letting your blog drift back into the relative obscurity it enjoyed before I came here might be a more deserving option".

Sye reminds me of Disraeli's celebrated description of Gladstone [another religious nutter]: "A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity."

Nick said...

Sye,

I'm just wondering what is the actual point of your argument? Are you trying to convince atheists of the error of their ways, or is it just for your own benefit, or for the benefit of other theists?

If your aim was to actually convert atheists, then I'm afraid that you have failed dismally in this case. The perceived flaws in your argument (as pointed out to you on numerous occasions), together with your unwillingness to properly explain your case (beyond just asking us to prove it, saying that the contrary is impossible etc.)have left us unimpressed. Surely, if you actually wanted to convince us, you should have been prepared to argue on our terms, by laying out your premises and demonstrating explicitly how they entail your conclusion, as you were asked. By not doing so, you appear to have converted nobody here.

You might think that there is no necessity to lay out your argument as we have requested, as its validity is self-evident to you, and should be to us too. However, by taking this stance you have shot yourself in the foot really, as we perceive your lack of compliance to be an indication that you don't have a good argument at all. You may think that we're wrong but, if your aim is to convince us, then the onus is on you to tailor your argument in such a way that we will find it compelling.

From your perspective, I would imagine that this is surely a missed opportunity.

From our perspective, we see you as being trapped in a hall of mirrors, with no apparent way out. You have already admitted that no evidence or argument would ever shake your faith, as it is the foundation upon which all else is built. In that case, if you are wrong about your beliefs, then you will be trapped forever in a false worldview, with no hope of ever seeing your error. Just consider that for a moment.

We, by contrast, are amenable to reason and evidence, and might have been convinced if you were able to produce something compelling. We failed to convince you too, but we actually stood no chance anyway, as you admitted that your mind is closed.

So, nothing that I say will ever convince you that you might be wrong, but you might be interested to read the following, as it was written by a former evangelical Christian. I suspect that you think that evangelicals are wrong on many points, but the principle still applies.

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/

Billy said...

It would be nice for people who visit my site to see how atheistic philosophers reason, but then again, letting your blog drift back into the relative obscurity it enjoyed before I came here might be a more deserving option :-)


Maybe your stupidity just brought lurkers out in force. I recomend this site to friends because it is a good one. I have recommended your site to others in the past as an example of how not to design a proof. Interestingly, some of my christian friends see you have no argument there either - what does that say?

anticant said...

I doubt whether Sye is seeking converts. He is proclaiming what he sees as "truth", and trouncing what he deems to be "error".

Far from being a missed opportunity, having been encouraged to parade his gobbledygook here at such length and for so many days must strike him as a major triumph.

And as he has stubbornly refused to answer our sensible questions, and we have not answered his nonsensical ones to his satisfaction, he clearly believes he has "won".

He will probably respond to this by enquiring on what basis we consider his questions and assertions are nonsensical.....

Sye TenB said...

Jeremy said: "I'd be willing to bet a whole whack of money that he won't place a link to this series of posts, as Stephen offered."

Alright, I'm in - how much? Or are you going to give some excuse to back down from this? (As if I need to ask :-D ).

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Billy said: "Interestingly, some of my christian friends see you have no argument there either - what does that say?"

That you engage in straw-man argumentation :-D

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Nick said: ”I'm just wondering what is the actual point of your argument? Are you trying to convince atheists of the error of their ways, or is it just for your own benefit, or for the benefit of other theists?”

Just exposing the suppression of truth. Proof does not equal persuasion.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "An out and out lie. There are several internal links and at least one external one going to a Disney site."

Duh, now I know why you post anonymously. Yes, my website has linked pages, but I have not posted any links. Surely you aren't that daft?

Cheers,

Sye

Anonymous said...

Sye :

I see you have not yet retracted your claim to have no links on your site.

Anonymous said...

Looks like our posted were in preparation at the same time.

Well people might well accept that internal links are part of the struture of your document and not "proper" links but there is still the blatant promotion of Disney and that is an external link.

Geert Arys said...

Sye asked,

How would you interpret what those ‘facts’ are telling you without logic???

Again, logic is not needed to observe facts. You need eyes and other senses for that.

Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before our forefathers ‘developed’ the law of non-contradiction?

"Logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and demonstration." That's the definition. What definition are you using? Why should anything need the law of contradiction to exist? Or math? Or the word 'sun'?
Inference and demonstration are not a prerequisite for a bird to fly. Wings are.

Why are there not a multitude of conflicing laws of logic ‘developed’ by the forefathers of other cultures? How would you determine which were valid?

Already answered that one. By checking if they can predict stuff correctly in the reality we live in.

” You can know a premise is true or false only by observing reality.”

Example please.


OK, I see an egg in a chicken run. I can treat that as a fact. I can use it as a (true) premise. No logic yet, I'm not inferencing (reasoning) yet. Just an observation. When I start thinking about the fact that there must have been chickens here, I'm reasoning and using logic.

What do you use to intepret your observations if not presupposed valid laws of logic?

Well, I can see if the result of that logic still holds in reality.

When I'm starting interpreting I can be using 'modus ponens' arguments (which I can observe it predicts well when using true premises) or I can be using 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' arguments (which I can observe it produces good results but sometimes fails - and is thus invalid).

So I can judge the predictive capacity of my reasoning. Does 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' also comes from God, Sye?

Are the laws of logic universal?

They are only used by humans, by my knowledge. I'm not sure there is much inference and demonstration on the planet Venus.

”Now what is wrong with this basic world view? Why is it conclusively impossible?”

For one, it makes logic contingent to past observations (not that I grant you knowledge of the validity of your reasoning), and proceeding on the expectation that logic applies today because it applied yesterday, is question begging.


You make a reasoning fallacy, Sye, it is not because it is not proven, that it is impossible. I did admit that 'logic cannot prove logic'.
I may be even begging the question and still be absolutely right in my conclusion:
- All shiny objects in the sky are stars
- the sun is a shiny object
therefore - the sun is a star.
As you can see, I've been begging the question, but still, my conclusion is right.
You need to do more than that to prove impossibility. As, remember YOU said it was IMPOSSIBLE. So YOU need to prove that.

Actually, I was not even begging the question, I was just relying on induction and so, I encounter David Hume's problem of induction.

Now consider this problem:
- God is almighty and exists;
- An almighty God can break the laws of logic at any time;
therefore - the laws of logic could be broken at any time.

So, you can't count on the laws of logic either, don't you? You have exactly the same problem as I do.

Sye TenB said...

db0 said:

"Stephen Law popularity > Sye Popularity"

Well, even though your link refers to hits on the entire blogspot.com system :-D I was referring to the amount of posts Stephen got prior to my being here, compared to now. You guys really are smart though :-P

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "Well people might well accept that internal links are part of the struture of your document and not "proper" links but there is still the blatant promotion of Disney and that is an external link."

Blatant promotion of Disney! HA! You kill me :-D It's called humour. (Many atheists have commented that they did indeed like the joke, I hadn't figured that some wouldn't get it though).

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. Perhaps you could refer me to the place on my site that contains a posted external link though - didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Re Disney link.

"It's called humour."

Whether people appreciate the humour or not is beside the point it is still an external link.


"P.S. Perhaps you could refer me to the place on my site that contains a posted external link though - didn't think so."

Ah. Well now you are saying something different. Lets say you can distinguish between a "posted" link and another sort. Not an issue. You said ""I don't have links on my website.."

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "Ah. Well now you are saying something different. Lets say you can distinguish between a "posted" link and another sort. Not an issue. You said ""I don't have links on my website.."

I guess you really are that daft. Who knew?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

@ Geert,

I said: ”How would you interpret what those ‘facts’ are telling you without logic???”

You answered: ”Again, logic is not needed to observe facts. You need eyes and other senses for that.”

Um, read the question again. How would you interpret what those ‘facts’ are telling you without logic? For that matter, how do you know that your senses are reliable? Surely you are not suggesting that you sense that your senses are reliable???

I asked: “Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before our forefathers ‘developed’ the law of non-contradiction?”

Naturally, you avoided the question.

I asked: “Why are there not a multitude of conflicing laws of logic ‘developed’ by the forefathers of other cultures? How would you determine which were valid?”

You answered: ”Already answered that one. By checking if they can predict stuff correctly in the reality we live in.”

And what would you check them with, if not logic???

You said: ” You can know a premise is true or false only by observing reality.”

I asked for an example and you gave this:

OK, I see an egg in a chicken run. I can treat that as a fact. I can use it as a (true) premise. No logic yet, I'm not inferencing (reasoning) yet. Just an observation. When I start thinking about the fact that there must have been chickens here, I'm reasoning and using logic.


How do you know that what you see is actually an egg and a chicken run?

I asked: “What do you use to intepret your observations if not presupposed valid laws of logic?”

You answered: ”Well, I can see if the result of that logic still holds in reality.”

How do you do this without logic???

”When I'm starting interpreting I can be using 'modus ponens' arguments “

How do you know that modus ponens is valid? Where did you observe THAT???

I asked: ”Are the laws of logic universal?”

You answered: ”They are only used by humans, by my knowledge. “

Do they necessarily apply to all humans?

”Actually, I was not even begging the question, I was just relying on induction and so, I encounter David Hume's problem of induction.”

Um, his problem with induction being that it begs the question. Sheesh.

”- An almighty God can break the laws of logic at any time;”

Um no, since the laws of logic are a reflection of His nature, and the way He thinks. God cannot be ‘not-God.’

”You have exactly the same problem as I do.”

Well no, but thanks for admitting that you have a problem. Your atheist friends here are not that intellectually honest.

Cheers,

Sye

Db0 said...

Well, even though your link refers to hits on the entire blogspot.com system :-D I was referring to the amount of posts Stephen got prior to my being here, compared to now. You guys really are smart though :-P

Errr...no it isn't. This is the entire blogspot domain.

The only thing that calculates the entire domain always is the "Complete Rank" part but the rest is accurate.

Oh, and you think that YOU brought visitors here suddenly? How did you manage to do that without linking from your site pray? Or did your 5 friends you told about this argument count x1000 each?

Unfortunately, further to your illusions of logic you seem to have illusions of grandeur.

You fail again but nice try.

Anonymous said...

I may well be daft.

Perhaps you an explain how a link (yes really a full fledged link to an external site) can exist on your site and yet you can claim "I don't have links on my website.." ?

Sye TenB said...

DbO said: "Oh, and you think that YOU brought visitors here suddenly? How did you manage to do that without linking from your site pray?"

Um like this?

Plus, people google 'Sye TenB' all the time. Just look at how many visitors the Raytractors get that way.

Methinks you do not know of what you speak.

Cheers,

Sye

Db0 said...

Perhaps you an explain how a link (yes really a full fledged link to an external site) can exist on your site and yet you can claim "I don't have links on my website.." ?

Because of the impossibility of the contrary :P

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "Perhaps you an explain how a link (yes really a full fledged link to an external site) can exist on your site and yet you can claim "I don't have links on my website.." ?"

Um, when Stephen asked me to "put up" a link to his blog, I responded that I don't have any. If you can't figure out that this means that I have no posted links to external sites, I really can't help you.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
you said:
“Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before our forefathers ‘developed’ the law of non-contradiction?”

Sye,
does a "truth" exist void of a proposition? If so, give me an example of one.

Now, I think you're savy enough to realize you can't acually answer this question, which is of course why truth is not absolute, but systemic. And this is why you've always avoided me and why your proof is really just:
1.) God exists.

Db0 said...


Methinks you do not know of what you speak.


Riiight. Dear Sye, I unserstand you are not very familiar with this internetubes thang but be aware that site popularity is not based only on number of visitors (not that you would exceed Stephen in that) but also in backlinks (among others). The Google Pagerank is generally a good indicator and as you can see you're a whole level below Stephen Law.

To claim that you are the only reason this blog "came out of relative obscurity" is because of you, is beyond laughable.

But hey, you can ignore the laws of logic, why not ignore reality while you're at it...

Sye TenB said...

Andrew Louis said: "does a "truth" exist void of a proposition? If so, give me an example of one."

God

Sye TenB said...

db0 said: "To claim that you are the only reason this blog "came out of relative obscurity" is because of you, is beyond laughable."

Then why do you suppose it came out of relative obscurity? :-D

Cheers,

Sye

Db0 said...

Then why do you suppose it came out of relative obscurity? :-D

Well I would suggest it is because of Stephen writing good content since the time of inception and then word-of-mouth advertisement.

Generally a slow process that takes months or years :P

Geoff said...

Sye wrote,

Andrew Louis said: "does a "truth" exist void of a proposition? If so, give me an example of one."

God


Just saying "God" doesn't make us quake in awe of truth. Your concept of God is based on propositions, unless all the following are equally true:

God is the creator of the universe.

God is a myth created by humans.

God is flying plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Table.

Chair.

Tony Lloyd said...

Sye,

You have a LOT to learn. You aren't going to learn it without being responsive to criticism.

"Proof does not equal persuasion" and it's pretty obvious that our combined efforts are not going to persuade you. Why not contact a Christian philosopher and run the argument past them? Roger Trigg, the retired head of the Philosphy Department at Warick University springs to mind. He has a "special interest in the relationship between science and religion", he's used to talking to non-philosophers (I know Stephen is, but Stephen's an atheist, Roger Trigg isn't).

He knows loads and he isn't out to persuade you that atheism is the thing.

Tony Lloyd said...

Er... that WarWick

Roger Trigg's homepage there:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/staff/trigg/

Bill Snedden said...

"God" is not a *truth*. Existents are neither true nor false, they simply are. "True" and "False" are properties of propositions, not existents.

It seems to me that this, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Sye's argument: the confusion of truth-makers with truth-bearers. "God" is a truth-maker, whereas the statement "God exists" is a truth-bearer. The fact of God's existence (or non-existence) is what renders the statement "God exists" true or false, but "God" is not a proposition and therefore has no truth value.

Sye TenB said...

Db0 said: "Generally a slow process that takes months or years"

Which just happened to take fruition at about the time I showed up eh? Perhaps you should do a little research. Look at the amount of comments prior to my showing up, and compare them with after I showed up. Or, just think up some other inane reason, why you think you are right - your choice.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
thankyou... You've just demonstrated that your argument is nothing more then.

1.) GOD EXISTS

I think we all know what that means; So you may want to think about changing your website around so that it has only two clickable buttons, GOD EXISTS, GOD DOESN'T EXIST. One can go to Disney World, the other can go to your picture.

I think I'll take Disney, as I'm not gay and I have Kids anyway.

Billy said...

That you engage in straw-man argumentation :-D


I wasn't aware that was an argument, more an observation. Naturallly I disagree with their reasons to believe in god, but they at least know enough about logic to know a bad argument when they see one.

Anytime you are willing to present your case, just let me know.........

I'll pop back tomorrow, if you haven't presented your case by then , then have a nice life.

Sye TenB said...

Andrew said: "you may want to think about changing your website around so that it has only two clickable buttons, GOD EXISTS, GOD DOESN'T EXIST."

Good argument there Andrew, but I've come to expect as much from you.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Billy said: "Naturallly I disagree with their reasons to believe in god, but they at least know enough about logic to know a bad argument when they see one."

By what standard of logic do you determine whether an argument is bad Billy, how do you account for that standard Billy, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument Billy?

Perhaps when you pop back tomorrow Billy, you can answer those questions. (But I won't hold my breath Billy).

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Bill Snedden said: ""God" is not a *truth*. Existents are neither true nor false, they simply are. "True" and "False" are properties of propositions, not existents."

Perhaps you can tell us one proposition which you know to be true, and how you know it to be true.

Cheers,

Sye

James F. Elliott said...

Promoted from an earlier thread:

Sye said, "No other god can account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, while the God of Christianity does."

Um, the God of the Old Testament or the Koran encompasses the exact same properties you are arguing for. How, then, do you arrive at the truth of Christ as the Messiah rather than Judaism or Islam from your argument? Remember, it's the SAME GOD OF ABRAHAM, based on your argument. Therefore, how is the truth of Christianity argued for as you claim?

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
if the only thing true void of a proposition is God (as you say), then God is the only absolute, not logic, science and morality. As we've both agreed just now, truth is systemic.

So those two buttons would be the way to go for a good solid proof. Everything else is just meaningless assertions.

theObserver said...

Sye is a text book case of Ferrous Cranus. The only course of action is to let him stew in his own ignorance and be grateful he does not vote in your country.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Sye TenB said...

Andrew Louis said: "As we've both agreed just now, truth is systemic."

Well, I know I've asked this many times, but just to keep the peanut gallery entertained...Andrew, is it absolutely true that truth is systemic?

Cheers,

Sye

theobserver said...

Grr last link didnt work!

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
you answered that question yourself already.

If it was absolute, as we just discussed, truth would exist void of propositions. But it doesn't.

Pay attention Sye and you won't have to ask these meaningless questions.

As well,
If there is no absolute truth, then your question is hopelessly meningless Sye.

If God is the only absolute, as we've established that's all you have, then you have to PROVE IT.

Sye TenB said...

@ James F. Elliot,

Your childish ad-homs aside, you said: ”Um, the God of the Old Testament or the Koran encompasses the exact same properties you are arguing for.”

Prove this please.

”How, then, do you arrive at the truth of Christ as the Messiah rather than Judaism or Islam from your argument?”

Islam refutes itself by affirming, then rejecting the truth of the Bible in the Qur’an, and Judaism does the same with the Torah, in the Talmud.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Andrew Louis said: "If it was absolute, as we just discussed, truth would exist void of propositions. But it doesn't."

Um, is THAT absolutely true Andrew???

(Thanks for the comic relief).

Cheers,

Sye

Anonymous said...

"Um, when Stephen asked me to "put up" a link to his blog, I responded that I don't have any. If you can't figure out that this means that I have no posted links to external sites, I really can't help you."

Perhaps not, unless you can bestow the gift of telepathy as well as getting rid of my daftness, but you can help everyone by creating a link as Stephen suggests. If you don't have the tech skills to hand then I am sure someone here will explain how or know someone who can.

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "but you can help everyone by creating a link as Stephen suggests."

I gave my reasons for not doing so, but if Jeremy comes up with the cash, I'll post it immediately.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
you just admitted truth did not exist void of a proposition, except for God.

So the answer is no, it's systemically true. As again, absolute is meaningless.

ba-dump-tsst

anticant said...

Congratulations, Stephen. Sye has made you famous!!!!

Rayndeon said...

@Sye: Prove this please.

The only properties you have mentioned so far are omnipotence and omniscience, both of which Allah and YHWH and the deistic God possess.

Islam refutes itself by affirming, then rejecting the truth of the Bible in the Qur’an,


I don't know about the Talmud, but I know quite a bit about the Quran and Islam and you are entirely wrong here. The Qur'an says quite simply that the Bible is corrupted and not correct - aspects of the Bible that are affirmed in the Quran are just the uncorrupted sections. The Quran doesn't say that the Bible is all wrong and all right - that is a contradiction, but it says that some aspects are correct and other aspects are wrong due to human corruption and that is non-contradictory. Unsurprisingly, presuppositionalists tend to misrepresent the positions that conflict with their own.

Tony Lloyd said...

"engage in straw-man argumentation"

"childish ad-homs aside"

Sye! You don't know what a "straw-man" is. You don't know what an "ad hom" is. You show no knowledge of logic. You don't appear to know the difference between induction and deduction, premise and conclusion, epistemology and ontology.

For crying out loud learn some philosophy!

Anonymous said...

"I gave my reasons for not doing so,"

I missed that bit. Daft of me I expect.

"but if Jeremy comes up with the cash, I'll post it immediately."

How much cash does this cost then? My ISP allows that sort of thing for free. Don't let them rip you off.

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "How much cash does this cost then?"

Looks like you missed alot. Jeremy said: "I'd be willing to bet a whole whack of money that he won't place a link to this series of posts, as Stephen offered."

I don't know how much a 'whole whack' is, but as soon as he comes up with it, that link is going up :-D

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Tony Lloyd said: "For crying out loud learn some philosophy!"

Um, good argument there Tony!

Cheers,

Sye

Tony Lloyd said...

"Tony Lloyd said: "For crying out loud learn some philosophy!"

Um, good argument there Tony!"

This is the second time (at least) in this thread that you have shown that you have a faulty understanding of what an argument is. "For crying out loud learn some philosophy" is not an argument: it is a plea.

Please Sye, for the love of whatever pick up a philosphy book, search the net, read wikipedia. Lets have a proper discussion not some Pythonesque row.

The Barefoot Bum said:
"I must admit I'm not very impressed. This topic has already been adeqyately covered in the literature: On the nature of arguments, Cleese, Palin, et. al, BBC, 1972"

No it hasn't.

Anonymous said...

Sye said "I don't know how much a 'whole whack' is, but as soon as he comes up with it, that link is going up"

I guess its one of those American units.

Anyone care to take Jeremy's bet then?
Better set a time limit as well.

Sye TenB said...

Rayndeon said: ”I don't know about the Talmud, but I know quite a bit about the Quran and Islam and you are entirely wrong here. The Qur'an says quite simply that the Bible is corrupted and not correct - aspects of the Bible that are affirmed in the Quran are just the uncorrupted sections.”

Reaaaaaally. I can produce many quotes from the Qur’an that state otherwise, but how’s this one from Surah 40:
70. Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our apostles: but soon shall they know,-
71. When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along-
72. In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned;


Doesn’t look like a good deal for those who reject the Book (The Bible).

Furthermore the Qur’an was written a full 300 years AFTER the Bible was assembled in its current form. What evidence is there that the Bible that is being referred to in the Qur’an is any different from the one that was established 300 years before it, and which we have manuscripts of TODAY?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Anonymous said: "Anyone care to take Jeremy's bet then?"

YES ME!!!!!!!!!

Once the cash is in the hands of a neutral third party, a timeline can be set. Plus, I will leave it up to that neutral third party to determine what a 'whole whack' of cash is, to see if Jeremy is holding to his bet.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Tony Lloyd said: "For crying out loud learn some philosophy" is not an argument: it is a plea."

Um, Tony, that's my point. Is it dark in there?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Andrew Louis said: "So the answer is no, it's systemically true. As again, absolute is meaningless."

Um, is it absolutely true that 'absolute is meaningless?'

Thanks again Bud!

Cheers,

Sye

Rayndeon said...

@Sye:

Reaaaaaally. I can produce many quotes from the Qur’an that state otherwise, but how’s this one from Surah 40:
70. Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our apostles: but soon shall they know,-
71. When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along-
72. In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned;

Doesn’t look like a good deal for those who reject the Book (The Bible).


Sye, perhaps you should refrain talking about things you know nothing about. The Book refers to the "Qur'an" not the Bible. In case you didn't know, the Qur'an has a particular word for the "uncorrupted" Bible: the Injeel. The fact that you think that "al-Kitab" (Arabic for "the Book") refers to the Bible indicates that you do not understand the Quran. The Qur'an refers to the Bible as the "Injeel" and refers to its corruption as the corrupted Injeel - not al-Kitab (the Book). See any standard tafsir. Here are a couple of links to reputable mufasireen:

Tafsir al-Jalalayn on 40:70

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs on 40:70

Furthermore the Qur’an was written a full 300 years AFTER the Bible was assembled in its current form. What evidence is there that the Bible that is being referred to in the Qur’an is any different from the one that was established 300 years before it, and which we have manuscripts of TODAY?

While there is evidence with respect to the Bible's particular mutability, it is irrelevant. Your argument is deductive - not inductive. If there is no contradiction here, the inductive facts are irrelevant to your argument.

Or are you making an inductive argument instead? Please make up your mind.

Rayndeon said...

Correction: The Qur'an refers to the New Testament as the Injeel. It refers to the Torah as the Taurat, which the Qur'an affirms as being given to Musa (Moses).

Anonymous said...

Sye, As a person who is part of an event being bet on, it would be unfair of you bet in this way. Rather like a boxer betting that he himself will go down in the first round.

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
you said:
"Um, is it absolutely true that 'absolute is meaningless?"

No it's systemically true. Since there is nothing true void of propositions as you said; then to apply absolute to truth is not even a valid proposition. So prove that it is and we'll be on our way.

Hay Sye,
we're doin it again buddy! We've had this exact conversation and it lead to you not being able to prove anything.

But check it out Sye.
You state the follwoing are absolute:
1.)Truth
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Morality

But since none of these are actually true void of a proposition (as you say) then none of them are in fact absolute. so once again your argument is simply.

1.) God exists.

WOO-HOO! You go with your empty argument Sye.

Andrew Louis said...

(On the inside of Sye's mind exists this bit of logic):

1.) "Sye being right" is the necessary precondition for argumentation.
2.) Argumentation exists.
3.) Therefore Sye is right.

Phaedrus said...

andrew louis,
ha ha, you are the man. love your blog by the way.

It's too bad Sye won't change his argument to a more credible one. The TAG theory was never looked upon with any seriousness by professional scholars.

Phaedrus said...

Besides, the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42. Duh Sye. I know this because of the impossibility of the contrary!

Andrew Louis said...

The last post was not my idea, another deserves a laugh for that one.

But thanks!

James F. Elliott said...

Sye,

Your childish ad-homs aside

An ad hominem attack would be saying "We shouldn't believe Sye because he's a semanticist piece of shit," not "Sye, you're a semanticist piece of shit." See the difference?

Prove this please

Sye, this is pretty basic comparative religion, not exegesis. Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, the God of Abraham. All three religions encompass the definitive nature of God as outlined in the Pentateuch. The aspects to God advanced in the New Testament add to, but do not diminish or change, the nature of God as attested to in the Pentateuch; your "proof" does not encompass any attributes of the Abrahamic God unique to Christianity.

Ergo the question: How do you come by your assertion that your proof is proof of the Christian God?

Islam refutes itself by affirming, then rejecting the truth of the Bible in the Qur’an, and Judaism does the same with the Torah, in the Talmud.

Prove the Bible is true.

theaceofclubz said...

wait
Sye's internal logic unfolds as

1.) "Sye being right" is the necessary precondition for argumentation. (Due to impossibility of the contrary)
2.) Argumentation exists.
3.) Therefore Sye is right.

Bill Snedden said...

Sye: "Perhaps you can tell us one proposition which you know to be true, and how you know it to be true."

I can give you two:

1) I exist

2) "It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect." (Aristotle)

Both can be known to be true by the impossibility of the contrary. I.e., any attempt to prove them false necessarily assumes their truth.

Sye TenB said...

Bill Snedden said: "Both can be known to be true by the impossibility of the contrary. I.e., any attempt to prove them false necessarily assumes their truth."

And how do you know THAT?

James F. Elliott said...


And how do you know THAT?


Because Bill's ability to perceive his own thoughts cannot both be and not be, you insufferable twit, else he'd not be able to perceive his own thoughts. His very ability to do so proves you wrong.

I wish I could hate you to death.

Db0 said...

Let me pretend to be Sye for a sec

Because Bill's ability to perceive his own thoughts cannot both be and not be, you insufferable twit,

Is that absolutely true?


...eugh

I have to take a bath now

Cassanders said...

In rare occations there are times when a proper ad-hominem is called for.
Allow me the disgrace:-)

I assume many of you had the best of intentions when engaging in a "debate" with the figure Sye TenB. There is no need to cater for this attention-seeking *RUMP-GNOME*

His m.o. should be clear by now.
His repeated pseudo-arguments are usually content-free ("prove that" when the relevant arguments just has been spelled out for him).
He is somehow reminicent of the rump-gnomes in Astrid Lindgrens Ronja Robberdaughter recursively asking: Why so, why so.("vaffö då då - vafför-då-då")

Cassanders

Anonymous said...

Re Bill's comment on (2)

Actually I think this is true from the definition of "same" (or perhaps it forms the definition of same) and the twinned definition of "different"

james - I think you have empirically shown the inefficacy of prayer.

Any counter parties to that bet yet?

Billy said...

By what standard of logic do you determine whether an argument is bad Billy, how do you account for that standard Billy, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument Billy?

Sorry Sye, it doesn't work that way and you have been told why - it is very evasive and dishonest of you to try and put me on the spot when you are the one making the claim. I asked you to justify your position you didnt. Good job jesus is the product of prophecies taken out of context and cobbled together or he would be very unhappy with your evasive approach (1:peter 3:15)

Perhaps when you pop back tomorrow Billy, you can answer those questions. (But I won't hold my breath Billy).

See above. Since you think a random statement like your needs to be refuted, rather than proven, perhaps you can prove why I am not god. Bear in mid, that being god I have declared that my ways are higher than yours and that you cant test me - remember I tortuted my sevant Job for a bet with satan just because I was feeling insecure that day, so dont disappoint me - prove I am not god.

Please come up with something less predictable this time, or I will just assume you are an evasive fundie preacher without a proof

anticant said...

"I will just assume you are an evasive fundie preacher without a proof."

Most of us assumed that a long time ago, so it's puzzling that this mad mental carousel is still careering round and round.

Time to follow P.T.Barnum's famous sign "This Way to the Egress".

Sye TenB said...

James F. Elliot said:

” Because Bill's ability to perceive his own thoughts cannot both be and not be, you insufferable twit, else he'd not be able to perceive his own thoughts. His very ability to do so proves you wrong.”

It was one of your own philosophers, Bertrand Russell, who pointed out the fallacy of Descarte’s “I think therefore I am.” He suggested that all one could ever hope to say, is “I think, thereofore somewhere in the universe there is thinking going on.”

”I wish I could hate you to death.”

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Cheers,

Sye


P.S. You really should pay the wedding photographer, rather than rip off his proofs (or at least photoshop away the type).

Sye TenB said...

@ Billy

I asked: ”By what standard of logic do you determine whether an argument is bad Billy, how do you account for that standard Billy, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument Billy?”

You said: ”Sorry Sye, it doesn't work that way and you have been told why”

Does it absolutely not work that way? How do you know this?

” - it is very evasive and dishonest of you to try and put me on the spot when you are the one making the claim.”

Um, you were the one suggesting that my argument was “bad.” Support your claim, or retract it. By the way, not that I agree with you, but is evasiveness, and dishonesty in argumentation absolutely wrong?

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
you're getting humorous. And you're avoiding me again.

Any time you can't use your script, you take off.

Sye,
you said:
"Um, is it absolutely true that 'absolute is meaningless?"

No it's systemically true. Since there is nothing true void of propositions as you said; then to apply absolute to truth is not even a valid proposition. So prove that it is and we'll be on our way.

Hay Sye,
we're doin it again buddy! We've had this exact conversation and it lead to you not being able to prove anything.

But check it out Sye.
You state the follwoing are absolute:
1.)Truth
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Morality

But since none of these are actually true void of a proposition (as you say) then none of them are in fact absolute. so once again your argument is simply.

1.) God exists.

Sye TenB said...

Andrew Louis said:

"Sye,
you're getting humorous. And you're avoiding me again."


I'm avoiding you becasue you obviously cannot grasp the absurdity of systemically denying absolutes! If you believe that truth is only systemic, you can't know ANYTHING absolutely, the least of which, that absolutes cannot exist.

I simply don't feel obliged to waste my time with your lame argument.

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
you're completely missing the point, you agreed with me that there are no absolutes. Except of course for God which you are unable to prove.

Again when I asked, "Name one thing that is true void of a proposition", you could only name God.

So I say again, if logic is absolute void of propositional language, give me an instance of this. If your answer is going to again be God, then prove God's existance. If you can't prove that logic absolute, then you can't use it as proof that God exists.

Nick said...

Sye said: “Just exposing the suppression of truth. Proof does not equal persuasion.”

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, the relevant definitions of the word ‘suppress’ are as follows:
1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.

I presume that by ‘truth’, you are referring to your own religious beliefs? So, do you claim that your beliefs are being forcibly put an end to, or are being subdued? Is some agency seeking to curtail or prohibit your religious activities? Are your beliefs being prevented from being revealed, published, or circulated? If you do make some or all of these claims, then please explain who is responsible for this suppression, and how they are doing it.

I must say that I find your claims to be rather implausible, as I believe that in Canada, where you live, you do have the necessary freedoms required to hold and practice your religious beliefs, and to freely express these beliefs in speech and writing. Is that not so? And, if you are free to do this, then in what sense is the ‘truth’ being suppressed? And please don’t waste my time by asking me to ‘prove’ that your beliefs are not being suppressed. You are the one making the claim, so the onus is upon you to substantiate your claim, not upon me to disprove it. I strongly suspect that what you call suppression of truth is actually the type of debate, disagreement, and compromise that is inherent in free societies such as yours where multiple worldviews must coexist. Fortunately you do not have the power to compel other people to believe what you do, and to adhere to your religious strictures, but that doesn’t equate to your beliefs being suppressed.

There is something of an irony here, although it might be lost on you. In a secular and enlightened society, such as that in Canada, you do have the necessary freedoms to practice your religion, and to publicly talk and write about it. However, this was not so in Europe when the church held all the power, and is still not the cases in theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan. During the European Dark Ages free inquiry, thought or expression were not tolerated, and the Church’s authority was absolute. Scientific and philosophical progress that been made within Ancient Greece and elsewhere now stagnated or regressed, and countless thousands of people were tortured and executed for religious ‘crimes’ such as blasphemy and heresy. Of course, this continued into the Middle Ages and beyond with the Crusades, Witch hunts, Inquisitions, religious wars and so on (all sanctioned or fully supported by the Church), and only started to change with the weakening of the Church’s grip on power, and the general decline in religiosity, during the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment.

You should really be thankful that you live in a free and secular society. If some religion other than yours was to gain control, then history strongly suggests that your religious beliefs and actions really would be suppressed – unlike the current situation.

Furthermore, as I discussed in my comment, your so-called ‘proof’ fails by the standards of logic universally accepted by secular philosophers and logicians (just look up deductive logic in any philosophy textbook). Since it is to such people that you are attempting to appeal, it achieves nothing for you to refuse to set out your proof in a way that they can accept.

Andrew Louis said...

Sye,
if there are no truths void of propositions, then truth is systemic as I've maintained all along.

I don't deny absolutes, it's simply not a valid proposition to say that absolute truth exsts, it's meaningless.

Your proof for God rests in the ability to show that absolutes exists, but you cannot even do that.

TALK ABOUT ABSURD

Billy said...

Does it absolutely not work that way? How do you know this?


Another evasion Sye. You still have not shown that if absolutes exist that your god is essential for them. Do you think that question was an answer? Do you think that is a challenge?

Um, you were the one suggesting that my argument was “bad.” Support your claim, or retract it. By the way, not that I agree with you, but is evasiveness, and dishonesty in argumentation absolutely wrong?


No Sye, you have been well refuted already, you prove I am wrong - show us the evidence.

Does something have to be absolutely wrong to be shown that it provides no explanation? Evasiveness and dishonesty do not help you prove your case? Also, feel free to demonstrate absolute wrong actually exists. then your question might actually mean something.

Oh, and why wont you refute my claim that I am god?

James F. Elliott said...

P.S. You really should pay the wedding photographer, rather than rip off his proofs (or at least photoshop away the type).

Wow, now there's an accusation without proof. I own the proofs, you moron.

martino said...

Sye: "Perhaps you can tell us one proposition which you know to be true, and how you know it to be true."

Propostion:
Sye's claimed proof of god is not a proof.

How:
(i) The evidence of all the threads with Sye in it in this blog
(b) His reactive reapplication of the above question type to any answers of the "how" or "know" variety, such as requested and provided here.

Bill Snedden said...

Sye: "And how do you know THAT?"

Already asked and answered.

I have direct sensory experience of my own existence; experience that cannot be anything but veridical (for the act of denying it confirms its truth). Q.E.D.

The LoNC is known to be true in the same way: I have direct sensory experience of existence and cannot deny the LoNC without affirming its truth.