Friday, January 30, 2009

Sye is back - and telling fibs?

If you were reading this blog last July/August you will remember a very, very long exchange between myself and Sye, of Sinner Ministries.

Sye has a "proof" of God which is based on "presuppositonal apologetics". We spent ages - two or three weeks and over 30 main posts - slowly and carefully unpacking Sye's arguments and rispostes, until, eventually, he was left with nowhere to run.

I kind of enjoyed doing it, but some of you got highly irritated, I know.

Anyway, the 30 odd posts can be found listed under "sinner ministries" on my sidebar menu.

Well, Sye now turns up on the debunking atheists website where he is peddling the exact same arguments, winding people up all over again.

When one commentator mentioned that I had dealt with a point Sye raised on this blog, Sye, I'm told, said:

"I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic."

Sye later added:

"He did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to commit to a view he knew I would dismantle."

Notice how Sye seems actually to be presenting himself as the victor in our discussions. He's suggesting that he cornered me.

Now some of you may remember that I did in fact offer not one but three different atheist-friendly views of logic, not one of which Sye was able to refute. If you want to count them, they are here, here and (Quinean one, from my book) here.

It's pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that Sye is just telling a barefaced lie here and hoping no one will notice (Sye's lying for Jesus, I guess?)

Care to come over here and explain yourself Sye?

If you want to check out what Sye's up to now see the debunking atheism thread here (it's huge - you need to scroll down and then hit "newest" to reach the end).

165 comments:

anticant said...

I've had more than a bellyful of Sye and his nonsensical endless circular 'proofs', thanks very much. For goodness' sake don't encourage him to resurface here [sighs...]

Anonymous said...

No-one takes presuppositionalism seriously in philosophy. This critique by Michael Martin should make it clear why:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

Paul C said...

Every single presuppositionalist that I have ever seen "contributing" to an online discussion relies on one tactic, and one tactic only: endlessly repeating one point without paying any attention to the arguments placed against them. They will do it in any forum, moving to the next forum, never realising that their arguments are invalid because they never sufficiently understood them in the first place. Presuppositionalism continues to exist largely because it's perfectly suited to the web, where discussions are usually a war of attrition rather than a genuine discourse.

Kosh3 said...

I thought Stephen's counterexample of the injury was absolutely brilliant, and I will be sure to use it should it suit an occasion.

Sye TenB said...

Stephen said: "It's pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that Sye is just telling a barefaced lie here and hoping no one will notice."

Well, since I asked how YOU account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview, or on what basis YOU proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold, and since you apparently do not hold to any of the views that you posted, you have yet to answer my question. When you do, I’ll be glad to address it.

When you finally (if ever) tell us what YOU actually believe, please post it at Dan's Blog, as I'd rather drive the traffic there, than here.

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. (to anonymous): You do realize that Michael Martin backed out of a debate with presuppositionalist Dr. Greg Bahnsen eh? Dr. Bahnsen, since his opponent backed out, gave a lecture instead.

Tony Lloyd said...

Yay! It's Sye!

I'll leap in and answer your questions to Stephen with my own position (your questions are, more or less, "how are bananas blue")

how YOU account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic
I don't "account" for them, any more than I "account" for drinking.

according to YOUR worldview,
I don't have an (a priori) worldview

or on what basis YOU proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold,
No basis. There is no "basis".

Jackie said...

Sye,

Stephen has given you three accounts for how logic can hold without a god, and you have not rebuked any of them. Whether or not Stephen subscribes to any of those beliefs is has no baring on their validity. You might as well be asking whether he wears boxers or briefs. It doesn't matter.

Sye TenB said...

Jackie said: "Stephen has given you three accounts for how logic can hold without a god, and you have not rebuked any of them."

Actually, I briefly addressed the first 2 in the comments section, and I do not recall addressing the third. Simple fact is, I do not have the time, nor the interest, in addressing positions that the person I am arguing with does not hold. For you see, if I defeat that position, they could simply state: "Well, I don't believe that anyways, here's another."

I am concerned with what people claim to know, and for the purposes of argumentation, could not give a rip what they profess to merely believe, or claim that others believe.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Simple fact is, I do not have the time, nor the interest, in addressing positions that the person I am arguing with does not hold.

Did Stephen actually say whether he did or did not hold to the arguments he put forward? As far as I can remember I don't think he did (I may be wrong though). There's also nothing wrong if someone is uncertain of an answer in putting forward suggestions, even if they later decide they disagree with the idea.

This is how I've seen the TAG (presuppositonalism argument) laid out in its simplest form.

P1. If X* exists, God exists
P2. X exists
C. Therefore, God exists

*X usually being the laws of logic, but sometimes maths, uniformity of nature etc

I've yet to see any reason why anyone should be expected to accept P1 as being true. In fact, it seems to be simply on the likes of Van Til and Bahnsen's own assertion of authority that they'd like us to accept P1, minus any substantive argument as to why. They simply declare atheism can't account for X - well gee, good enough for me; if Greg Bahnsen says so, it must be true!

Of course, when you probe further you realise these people have no explanation for things that are central for defending their 'argument' (and I use the word loosely...) - such as John Frame's admissions that he has no idea how God imparted his revelation to the biblical authors, or how they know the Bible is God's word, or likewise how God actually set up the laws of logic and imparted them to us (since they don't actually know how they know the bible is God's word, that rules it out as the explanation). Frame simply declares 'we know we know, without knowing how we know' [as far as I recall these are his exact words]. These are facts apologists somehow 'just know' - amazing!


To my mind these are just a few more of the problems with the presuppositionalism script:

a. It presents a false dichotomy - ie present me an answer or I am right. Let's say I have no answer - so what? How does this prove the truth of the Goddidit version? This is also just a God of the gaps 'argument'.

b. I'll be generous and say for argument that Goddidit is an 'account' for the laws of logic.
Again, so what? Having an answer is very different from having the answer. 2000 years ago a lot of people thought demonic possession was a good 'account' for psychological illness. Of course, guess what? It wasn't.

c. Arbitrariness - the 4 in 1 God of Fristianity 'accounts' for the laws of logic just as well. Having just this second received revelation from the Fristian God, I am now a convert to this wonderous religion. Please disprove my account of the laws of logic.

d. You say these laws are universal and invariant - this means that they hold in all instances in all possible worlds - you have presumably therefore understood and refuted ideas such as dialetheism and various other paraconsistent logics. There are a surprising number of philosophers and mathematicians that have put forward proposals and arguments that highlight areas where the LoEM and LoNC may not be applicable

e. Have you actually tried to seriously investigate possible non-theistic explanations for the existence of logic, or have you simply assumed there isn't one? Because every time I have debated this with presuppers, I have found there's a surprising number of viewpoints they had no idea existed (such as the ones in d), yet somehow claim to have refuted them with ever having come across them or read about them.

Dr Funkenstein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Funkenstein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Funkenstein said...

You do realize that Michael Martin backed out of a debate with presuppositionalist Dr. Greg Bahnsen eh?

was that not because Martin refused to participate in a debate where the proceeds went to a Christian organisation?

I initially thought Bahnsen had actually debated TAG with Martin, but in fact it was John Frame.

The Atheist Missionary said...

Sye's website is amusing but I don't think I've had quite enough shiraz to distil it completely. This quote appears near his conclusion: "Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature." I think his problem is by introducing the concept of materiality. Even if a concept is abstract, the concept cannot be conceived unless the conceiver exists in a material world. So, if one accepts that the world is random and only material in nature, that is the end of the story. Am I missing something here?

scott gray said...

i see someone left the door open, and he's back!!

now sye's links to his pennies-per-hit disney site is raking in the big bucks.

kev said...

I just went to his website. His "logic" is more circular than the logic that I normally see on the rapture ready message board.

Chris said...

Sye, Sye, Sye, Sye, Sye

Why are you telling such lies? Is it the old brain injury acting up? :-)

You wrote "He did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to commit to a view he knew I would dismantle."

The ONLY way you could know why Mr. Law did anything is because you could read his mind. But you can't! You lied about knowing Law's motives didn't you Sye? Just like you've told lie after lie before.

Now are you going to answer my question about your head injury? Or are you going to bravely run away like you did on the last blog. ;-)

Stephen Law said...

[By the way, I just posted this on Sye-Dim presuppositionalism, where Sye attempted to refute my proof that he is suffering from a brain injury after being hit on the head by a rock...]

Hey Sye, you old bullshitter. You are back!

Stephen said: "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."

Sye said: Your very demand of proof from me presupposes that I can understand the request, and that my mind is, in fact, not addled.

Stephen replies. Oh dear Sye. You seem to be trying to use an argument against me, and thus logic. But you can't do that until you have first proved you weren't hit on the head and that your use of logic is reliable.

[P.S. Sound familiar?!]

Go on - have another go. This is fun!

Chris said...

Oh by the way Sye

Need I remind you that I have already shown through using presupp rules that either
a) presupp is garbage
or
b) you are brain damaged

Now please none of this ignoring me - a thing which YOU claimed was 'significant"- or attempting to change the subject by merely using some more presupp BS questions.

Or I need merely remind everyone that either presupp is a logical fallacy [and so any questions based upon this need not be answered]

or

Presupp is valid and therefore, since it has already been proven through presupp methods, you are brain damaged and cannot understand any answers provided.

Sorry to have stolen your argument Mr. Law.

If anyone really doesn't want Sye here merely all use the presupp argument Mr. Law suggested and Sye will bravely run away.

Chris said...

@ Mr. Law

You wrote that Sye responded "Sye said: Your very demand of proof from me presupposes that I can understand the request, and that my mind is, in fact, not addled."

I can't believe he's STILL using that counter. I demolished it by saying Sye's nurse interpreted the question for him. Considerably dumbing it down in the process.

When he replied to you I think Sye had forgotten who formulated the argument in the first place.

Oh and on a personal note I am a big fan of the "Philosopher's Gym" Mr. Law.

Sye TenB said...

Stephen,

Why will you not tell us what you actually believe, what are you afraid of? Why are you being so evasive? I have stated over and over, that I will glady address the position that you actually hold, but you refuse to give it. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold?

Surely a doctor of philosophy, an author and lecturer in philosophy no less, can give his position and defend it against lil ol' me?

Again, Stephen, what are you afraid of?

P.S. If you ever do, which I highly doubt, please post your answer at Dan's Blog.

Dr Funkenstein said...

How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold?

Sye, in the event noone can give you an answer for this, how does it go any way to proving the truth of Christianity, and furthermore how would it prove the truth of Christianity's 'account' any more than it would Fristianity's 'account'?

The Atheist Missionary said...

The answer, Dr. Funkenstein, is that in the absence of an explanation, God (whatever that means) gets the benefit of the doubt. A good example of this goofiness is in the mockumentary "Expelled" when Ed Stein tried to make Darwin's pitbull look silly because he couldn't provide a definitive explanation for the origin of biological replicators. Just because we can't explain something, why does God get the default? A pretty lazy and unimaginative approach in my opinion.

Chris said...

@ Sye

Ah did you forget Sye?

Your brain damage acting up again?

Let me refress your memory. Don't worry I know you're too cowardly & dishonest to answer me Sye.

Need I remind you that I have already shown through using presupp rules that either
a) presupp is garbage
or
b) you are brain damaged

Now please none of this ignoring me - a thing which YOU claimed was 'significant"- or attempting to change the subject by merely using some more presupp BS questions.

Or I need merely remind everyone that either presupp is a logical fallacy [and so any questions based upon this need not be answered]

or

Presupp is valid and therefore, since it has already been proven through presupp methods, you are brain damaged and cannot understand any answers provided.

Chris said...

@ Sye

Here's an easier one for you Sye.

Sye, Sye, Sye, Sye, Sye

Why are you telling such lies? Is it the old brain injury acting up? :-)

You wrote "He {Law] did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to commit to a view he knew I would dismantle."

The ONLY way you could know why Mr. Law did anything is because you could read his mind. But you can't! You lied about knowing Law's motives didn't you Sye? Just like you've told lie after lie before.

Now are you going to answer my question about your head injury? Or are you going to bravely run away like you did on the last blog. ;-)

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. said: "Sye, in the event noone can give you an answer for this, how does it go any way to proving the truth of Christianity,"

Simple,
P1. God is the necessary precondition to intelligibility by the impossibility of the contrary, P2. there is intelligibility,
C. therefore God exists.

Now I claim that God has revealed to us (all) the truth of P1 (but some choose to 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1: 18-21), and I will be happy to address the personal views of those who claim that such things as the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exists apart from God. I do not have time for, and am not at all interested, in addressing views that the person I am arguing with does not hold.

Now, rather than do what is likey Mr. Law's actual goal in taking up this argument again (driving traffic to his blog), I will be happy to address opposing views at Dan's blog.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

Chris said: "The ONLY way you could know why Mr. Law did anything is because you could read his mind."

Or by revelation, but I'll chalk this one up to an educated guess :-D

Chris said...

@ Sye

Still too afraid to answer my questions I see Sye. I find that very significant to quote you.

Why are you ignoring me Sye? Are you afraid to answer because you know you can't? Is that the reason? Or is the brain injury acting up again?

Stephen Law said...

Hi Sye

Sye says: "Why will you not tell us what you actually believe, what are you afraid of?"

I am. I am an atheist. That's my world view. You say you can refute this world view - "prove" it false. So do so.

I have no definite view about the nature of logic. There are lots of things I don't know the answer to. That's my honest position. Really. Do you know the answer to everything?"

Sye: "Why are you being so evasive? I have stated over and over, that I will gladly address the position that you actually hold, but you refuse to give it."

I keep giving it. You keep saying it's not my position! You said you could "demolish" my world view if I give it. It's given, demolish away.

"How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold?"

Well, I am not sure exactly what account is correct, though I quite like the first two of the three atheist-friendly views I gave, none of which you have refuted.

But remember, the onus is on YOU to PROVE that ALL atheist views - and indeed non-Christian theist views - are untenable. It's not on me to defend any particular theory of logic. Obviously. In fact this is so fucking obvious, Sye, and has been said so many times, that your inability to recognise it means you are either mentally deranged, or deliberately deceitful. I just don't know which it is.

"Surely a doctor of philosophy, an author and lecturer in philosophy no less, can give his position and defend it against lil ol' me?

Again, Stephen, what are you afraid of?"

As I keep saying - I don't sign up to any particular theory on this, though I think something like my first or second suggestions is likely to be correct. And, again, you have refuted neither.

If you now say, yet again, "But tell me what your theory is, and I will refute it." I will have no choice but to conclude you you are deceitful prick who knows full well when he's been cornered and just won't acknowledge it. And neither will any other fair minded reader.

Anyone reading this post will see that you are, indeed, someone who argues like this:

"I can prove that only fairies can make the flowers grow". OK do so. "Well, you explain how they grow, then." I'm not entirely sure how they grow (I can give you three non-fairy involving views I quite like). But that doesn't mean you've proved only fairies can do it. "Yes it does prove only fairies can do it!" [by the impossibility of the contrary].

Clearly, our fairyologist is either mental, stupid or a wind-up merchant.

Which are you?

Chris said...

@ Sye

You wrote "Or by revelation, but I'll chalk this one up to an educated guess."

You mean like the revelations brain injured people have Sye? Or the insane?

I've recently spoken to your doctor Sye. He assures me your delusional. But I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary.
Show me you can reason Sye.

That's all I ask.

Chris said...

@ Sye

You asked why Law was being so evasive. Why are you Sye? Why won't you answer my questions?

Chris said...

@ Sye

Are you going to bravely refuse to answer every time I ask you a question Sye?

All I want is for you to give evidence that you can reason.

If you can't even do that then how can you understand the answers of anyone here? :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

@ Sye

As I've shown you before Sye since you have a brain injury and therefore can't reason you can't understand the difference between a revelation from God & a delusion from your own delusions.

Didn't you remember that at all?

Your short term memory really is shot.

Chris said...

@ Sye

In case you are going to start this garbage again about how God has unmistakably revealed things to you I'll remind you of my last points.

You tried this before & I responded "No Sye you still need reason to tell the difference between a revelation from God & insanity. For example Peter Sutcliff knew absolutely & unmistakably that God had told him to go out & kill women. Trouble was Sutcliff was also insane. Like you perhaps? :-) :-) :-)

No? Then just provide evidence that you can reason Sye. Presupp rules will be applied to all answers. But that must be alright because YOU said presupp was valid. Or were you mistaken about that?

Dr Funkenstein said...

Simple,
P1. God is the necessary precondition to intelligibility by the impossibility of the contrary, P2. there is intelligibility,
C. therefore God exists.


Right, this is exactly what I already posted. It's circular logic for starters (a position your own worldview commits you to rejecting, since you maintain Christianity doesn't permit fallacious reasoning), secondly the Bahnsen rhetorical ploy (impossibility of the contrary) is something I expect you to be able to prove as opposed to assert - this means not only refuting my view, or the other posters' views, but every alternative. Since of course it's ridiculous to consider that anyone is capable of this, the statement can be dismissed as nonsense. At best you can prove that I and the other posters here have no answer, but this still doesn't affirm that there is no other alternative or the truth of Christianity - let's say noone here can explain the basis of a mental illness. Does this therefore affirm the idea that demonic possession is the cause of it? No, it certainly doesn't. All you've done is increase the burdens of what you have to prove from 1 thing to 2 now.

Now I claim that God has revealed to us (all) the truth of P1 (but some choose to 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1: 18-21), and I will be happy to address the personal views of those who claim that such things as the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exists apart from God.

First appealing to the bible just shows me that writers can make claims purporting to be on behalf of God. I can do that too. Now you have the burden of proving how you know that the words of the biblical authors are in fact revealed through the Christian God, as opposed to simply being the words of humans masquerading as such (whether because they are lying, mentally ill, drugged or just have a fertile imagination). That's now a 3rd burden for you. Top apologist John Frame has no answer for this other than simply declaring he knows this to be a fact, but perhaps you have a better answer.

You've been offered several alternative views, from the God of Fristianity to the laws of logic simply being a brute fact of the universe. Obviously I will subscribe to whichever view is the correct answer - if that entails me switching from atheism to Fristianity, so be it. Now please explain how alternative gods can't also 'account' for P1 in TAg as well as the biblical God. As I also pointed out, even if we accept that Goddidit does suffice as an explanation (as Gordon Smith stated when he debated Bahnsen, he pointed out that it attempts to solve the unknown by appealing to the unknowable, which solves nothing), again how will this be proven as the actual explanation, any more than demonic possession will be supported as the actual explanation for psychological illness?


I do not have time for, and am not at all interested, in addressing views that the person I am arguing with does not hold.

Actually, the popular rhetorical device of Bahnsen's that you also subscribe to [the impossibility of the contrary] suggests that in fact you can refute every alternative (even the options you've never heard of before!) - remember, I am going to subscribe to the view I think is the correct answer, whether that entails maintaining a position I currently hold or adopting a new one in light of it holding better explanatory power. Please show me how you have refuted every alternative (there are rather a lot of them, so good luck on that!)

Now, rather than do what is likey Mr. Law's actual goal in taking up this argument again (driving traffic to his blog), I will be happy to address opposing views at Dan's blog.

That's really just baseless ad hominem fluff, a fact I'm sure you're aware of.

Sye TenB said...

Stephen says: ”I am. I am an atheist. That's my world view. You say you can refute this world view - "prove" it false. So do so.”

But then he says: ”But remember, the onus is on YOU to PROVE that ALL atheist views... ...are untenable.”

So obviously there is more than one atheist view. To which one do you hold Stephen, and why are you afraid to tell me?

You say: ”As I keep saying - I don't sign up to any particular theory on this”

Fine, so you cannot account for logic according to your personal worldview, that is what I have been suggesting all along. Tell me then Stephen, how is it possible for you to know ANYTHING for certain then?

Chris said...

@ Sye

I would put it to you that the symptoms of your brain injury are:
1) Compulsions to troll discussion boards with the same Presupp BS, over, and over, and over again.

2) Delusional revelations from God.

3) Illogical thoughts.

There you go Sye. Glad I could help.

But this assertion can easily be refuted. Just show me that you can reason Sye. That's all. Presupp rules will be applied to all your answers of course.

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. said: "Right, this is exactly what I already posted. It's circular logic for starters"

Please tell us how you know that your reasoning about this, or anything, is reliable, without being circular. Then perhaps you can tell us why it would be impossible for an ominipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain.

Anonymous said...

"P.S. (to anonymous): You do realize that Michael Martin backed out of a debate with presuppositionalist Dr. Greg Bahnsen eh? Dr. Bahnsen, since his opponent backed out, gave a lecture instead."

That doesn't make Martin's critique fallacious, or even disingenuous.

However: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/reply.html

Chris said...

@ Sye
why are you refusing to answer me? Is it because you know that presupp is a logical fallacy?

Let's try this. In law silence indicates consent. So let's apply that principle here.

I'll ask you again & if you refuse to answer me then you are implying that the answer is in the affirmative.

Is the reason you are refusing to answer my request for evidence of your reasoning ability because you know that presupp is BS and refuse to admit it?

Only an admission or evidence of reasoning ability will be accepted as answers.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Please tell us how you know that your reasoning about this, or anything, is reliable, without being circular. Then perhaps you can tell us why it would be impossible for an ominipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain.

Firstly, you're evading the question - I asked why your version of Christianity is apparently the basis for logic, yet appeals to fallcious reasoning to support its position?

Secondly, if I appeal to circular argument to support my position(s) you should have no problem with that then?

Great - nature is uniform because I've always seen it to be so, therefore nature is uniform. You've already conceded circular reasoning is perfectly acceptable, so problem solved.

Bahnsen always described other views as circular, yet for some reason presuppositionalism's circular logic was described alternatively as self-contained. Somewhat of a double standard I feel.

I'd imagine you'd be aware of the blog Triablogue - they are some of the most vocal Calvinists on the net. It may interest you to know that several of its members admit that TAG doesn't actually make the case it purports to. I do wonder if apologists will admit this, why they expect the rest of us to consider it valid, but there you go.

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F said: ” I asked why your version of Christianity is apparently the basis for logic, yet appeals to fallcious reasoning to support its position?”

Are you suggesting that God could not reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

How is it possible for you to be certain of anything according to YOUR worldview?

Chris said...

@ Sye

Here Sye I'll help you over your delusions.

I can provide evidence of your delusion to you.

Would you like that Sye?

According to you God gave you a special revelation that law was refusing to answer you because Law was scared of your wonderful presupp. :-) :-) :-)

Ok Sye

I am thinking of a number between one & one million. What is the number in my mind at this time. I am writing it down as I write this.

Now since you get special revelations from God then He can reveal the number to you.

Of course if you are delusional then you will either:

a) make us some excuse to explain why you can't tell me
or

b) guess & miss.

Which is it to be Sye?

My guess is you will refuse to answer me because it would destroy your delusion. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

@ Sye

Thank you for admitting that presupp is a logical fallacy & therefore Bullshit.

Stephen Law said...

Sye says: "Fine, so you cannot account for logic according to your personal world view, that is what I have been suggesting all along."

No that's wrong. I have a several theories that might well account for or justify logic. I'm just not completely certain about any of them.

Moreover, even if none of these three is correct, that does not establish that NO atheist-friendly theory is available. Which is what you claim you prove. The onus is on you to prove it. Prove away, Sye.

In short, that my world view "cannot" account for logic has not been admitted or established.

You then say:

"Tell me then Stephen, how is it possible for you to know ANYTHING for certain then?"

I don't claim to know anything for certain (especially if that means, beyond ALL possible doubt).

However, we have established beyond reasonable doubt that your proof is, frankly, a joke.

Sye TenB said...

Stephen said: ”No that's wrong. I have a several theories that might well account for or justify logic. I'm just not completely certain about any of them.”

Scroll up, you can’t be completey certain about ANYTHING :-D
Look, I have no problem with your admission that you cannot account for logic according to your personal view, that’s what I have been saying.

”I don't claim to know anything for certain (especially if that means, beyond ALL possible doubt).
However, we have established beyond reasonable doubt that your proof is, frankly, a joke.”


Um, are you certain? :-D

Dr Funkenstein said...

Are you suggesting that God could not reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

1. I didn't ask that, I asked how a belief system that is apparently the basis for logic relies on fallacious logic to support it - if logic is part of God's nature and evidence for the existence of God (and therefore God cannot act illogically according to you), then use of illogical argument cannot be assumed to be a proof of God.

2. Are you suggesting The 4 in 1 God of Fristianity could not do the same? Or the gods of the millions of other religions past and present

3. How do you account for a. how revelation is transmitted and b. how you know it happens and its reliability (especially given the number of mututally incompatible revelation claims that have been made over the millenia)

How is it possible for you to be certain of anything according to YOUR worldview?

Easy - if circular argument is permissible (and thus far you've indicated that it is), you should have no problem with anyone pointing to a phenomenon to explain that phenomenon. Therefore I solve problems like understanding the uniformity of nature by appealing to uniformity of nature.

Chris said...

@ Sye

You ask Law "Um, are you certain?"

Are you certain Sye? Given the fact that you have a damaged brain & all?

And how would you understand the answer Sye?

Stephen Law said...

Incidentally, it seems Sye's proof relies on the fact he thinks "There can be no logic without God" is self-evident. Armed with this self-evident premise, he then argues:

1. There can be no logic without God
2. Logic exists
Therefore God exists

Now this could qualify as a "proof" if its a deductively valid argument (nec: if the premises are true the conclusion is) with self-evident premises.

Trouble is, why suppose premise 1 is self-evident? Sye can assert it is, but that does not make it so. (It's also puzzling why he then keeps trying, and failing, to prove it.)

The argument could, in principle, for some, be a "proof". But Sye is unable to demonstrate that it is to anyone not lucky enough to see 1 is self-evident. This is why he finds it important to say that it's self-evident to all of us, but being sinners, we fool ourselves. He's just trying to open our eyes!

One very obvious problem with Sye's "proof" is that, once God and logic are established, logic quickly disproves God (see e.g. my God of Eth). Which then undermines first premise.

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F,

Could an ominpotent, omniscient being reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain to be true? If not, why not, if so, where is the circularity?

Chris said...

Brave Sir Sye ran away. He bravely ran away, away.

When danger to presupp reared its head I'll bravely refuse to answer he said.

Brave, brave Sir Sye.

Chris said...

@ Sye

Why do you ask the same questions I've already answered Sye?

You asked "Could an ominpotent, omniscient being reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain to be true?"

Not if the individual was incapable of rational thought & couldn't tell the difference between insane delusions & a revelation.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Could an ominpotent, omniscient being reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain to be true? If not, why not, if so, where is the circularity?

Because I'm not asking what an omniscient being can do, I'm asking how you are aware of this fact without pointing to the phenomenon to explain that phenomenon - you cannot complain about my 'proofs' that employ circular argument if you are assuming a phenomenon to prove the very same phenomenon, otherwise you are working to a double standard.

Secondly, do you have a means to prove the reliability of revelation, and not only that prove the reliability of specifically Christian revelation versus eg Fristian revelation and all the other millions of revelation claims?

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. Please answer the question:

Could an ominpotent, omniscient being reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain to be true? If not, why not, if so, where is the circularity?

Dr Funkenstein said...

Could an ominpotent, omniscient being reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain to be true? If not, why not, if so, where is the circularity?

I'd also add, even if we grant for argument that an omniscient, omnipotent being can do this if it exists, how does this prove the existence of said being or the identity of said being as the God of the Bible?

Chris said...

@ Sye

You are now playing the hipocrite. Asking why Dr. F won't give you the answer you want when you won't answer me at all.

Chris said...

@ Sye

Why are you so terrified of answering me Sye?

Dr Funkenstein said...

Dr. F. Please answer the question:

Sye, you are continually evading my original question - how are you aware that this phenomenon [revelation] does actually happen or happened, and that said being does actually exist without circular argument?

As I said above, how does accepting that if revelations are indeed a potential action of a god in the event it exists, how we get from that possibility to showing that a. the specific God actually exists and b.imparted revelation as described in the bible?

After all, I can simply say 'if the 4 in 1 God of Fristianity exists, then it could have imparted revelations to us' Of course, this doesn't mean it does exist or that it has imparted revelations to anyone.

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Chris said...

@ Sye

Have you stopped beating your wife?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Dr. F. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

I've just answered yes on 2 occasions - if the being in question existed. Which there is no guarantee it does.

Quargon the fire-breathing dragon could breathe fire, if it existed. Except there's the minor catch that it doesn't, because I've just made it up.

Could you please now answer my question - how have you ascertained the specific being with the characteristics you ascribe to actually exists outside of the imaginations of the biblical authors, how revelation claims on its behalf can be validated as true versus all other revelation claims and how you have ruled out the existence of all other Gods (such as the 4 in 1 God of Fristianity) that can fulfill the conditions of your claim in the same manner?

The question is not what characteristics this God may or may not possess or what actions it can or cannot take, it is how are you aware of this fact without assuming it to be true to prove it (remember, if you employ this tactic, this allows anyone else to assume a phenomenon to be true to prove it, thus refuting your position), and how would you distinguish it from fantasy and all other mutually incompatible appeals to revelation as a means of knowledge?

CodewordConduit said...

Sye am I to assume that you have chosen to "bail" on our argument? I will re-post again, as I really do think we were getting somewhere.

......................

Sye:
"I’m sorry, you got the impression that I was the least bit interested in how, or why, you deny God’s revelation?"

You asserted that God has revealed himself to me via the existence of stars. I contradicted you. God has not revealed himself to me through nature. Your assertation is incorrect.

"Um, “to you and to me,” does not mean “universal.”"

Finally we're getting somewhere. So if you and I agree on any topic that doesn't mean that "it is absolutely true". Brilliant.

So "universal"= you+me+(how many people?)

"What I said was that the Holy Spirit reveals the certainty of salvation to the elect. This happens at different times, for different people."

No. I asked you how has God revealed himself to both you and I. You said:

"Many ways, some naturally, and some supernaturally. Some through His Word, some innately, some through nature, some through history, etc. etc. (Same for you and for me)".

You clarified "supernatural" as meaning:

"Supernaturally: God’s Holy Spirit revealing the certainty of salvation. (To the elect – don’t know about you)."

Your original implication was that supernatural revelation was "proof" available to both of us. The only proof you could offer was revelation through the Holy Spirit - a revelation available only to "the elect". You said you didn't know about me... Well he hasn't revealed himself to me. If this revelation is only available to the elect, this supernatural revelation is not universal.

It is personal.

It is a personal revelation.

In your own words:

"If I wanted to spend time refuting so-called 'personal revelations,' I’d go to the local mental hospital."

I also asked you to describe the first time the Holy Spirit revealed himself to you. You stated that:

I don’t remember the first time it happened. The revelation is constantly repeated in my inward assurance, however.

Well forgive me if I question as to whether it happened at all. You can't even recall it. Your "inward assurance" that something you can't even remember happening happened counts for nothing outside of your own head. You realize this, don't you?

I asked if the Bible should be taken literally. You said:

"No, I don’t, nor should anyone take the Bible completely literally, since it is not all meant to be taken completely literally."

Please detail exactly which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and how you came to possess this understanding.

...........................

If you have a problem with answering any of this, by all means have the grace to admit defeat. It's awfully rude to just ignore someone mid-conversation.

Cheers

Sarah

Billy said...

Sye,

You never answered this before.

Can god make square circles?
If no, then he is constrained by the laws of logic, which would tend to suggest that they exist without the need for him.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Dont try and change it - that's just dishonest!

Whateverman said...

Willfully Ignorant Sye did write P1. God is the necessary precondition to intelligibility by the impossibility of the contrary

And as has been shown, the contrary is fact on the quantum level.

Your presupposition fails before it even has a chance of being intelligible.

PS. incidentally, to all you SLaw bloggers, I apologize if I'm merely helping to encourage Sye here. He refuses to argue by the standards of logic he claims his God gave him, thus ruling any debate with him a complete waste of time. If you'd rather that he stop posting, just say so and I will avoid engaging him here.

anticant said...

"God is the necessary precondition to intelligibility by the impossibility of the contrary."

'The contrary' is that God is not the necessary precondition to intelligibility.

What's impossible about that?

Sye TenB said...

Billy said: ”You never answered this before.”

Where did you ask this before?

”Can god make square circles?”

No

”If no, then he is constrained by the laws of logic, which would tend to suggest that they exist without the need for him.”

No, God is constrained by His nature, from which the laws of logic are derived.

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F said: ” I've just answered yes on 2 occasions - if the being in question existed. Which there is no guarantee it does.”

You have not admitted the possibility prior to this post. If you care to support your claim, post the quotes please.

Now that you have admitted that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them,we have addressed my claim to certainty, whether you agree with it or not. What is yours? (Then I will be happy to compare our respective claims).

Dr Funkenstein said...

You have not admitted the possibility prior to this post. If you care to support your claim, post the quotes please.

Sye: Could an ominpotent, omniscient being reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain to be true? If not, why not, if so, where is the circularity?

Me: I'd also add, even if we grant for argument that an omniscient, omnipotent being can do this if it exists, how does this prove the existence of said being or the identity of said being as the God of the Bible?

I'd say it's fairly obvious there that I'm willing to accept that if such a being exists then it could have whatever characteristics you can dream up.

Now that you have admitted that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us,

This does not prove said being exists. Does my admission that if Quargon the fire breathing dragon exists he could breathe fire show that there is indeed a fire breathing dragon that exists somewhere? According to your logic, yes it does.

such that we can be certain of them,we have addressed my claim to certainty, whether you agree with it or not.

Correction - we have established that if (and this is a hugely important word) a certain being exists it may have certain characteristics that you have ascribed to it. No problem there. This does not establish the existence of said being - if it did, I can (for example) establish the 4 in 1 God of Fristianity by exactly the same method, or the existence of my aforementioned fire breathing dragon.

Essentially your whole argument for validating the existence of God relies on being able to show the reliability of revelation - please explain how do you separate revelation from imagination/insanity/lying/hallucination/revelations on behalf of alternative gods etc? It would appear that when you say

"If I wanted to spend time refuting so-called 'personal revelations,' I’d go to the local mental hospital."

you feel revelation claims are the preserve of nutcases. Yet this is the method by which you claim to have awareness of the existence of your God, and by which the biblical authors claim to have received the inspiration to write the bible.


You need to tell me not what God can or can't do, but how you are aware of these facts and how you distinguish them from fantasy.

What is yours? (Then I will be happy to compare our respective claims).

I've explained Sye - you are happy to indulge in circular reasoning to 'prove' your point (ie you first assume the existence of your God minus argument, ascribe it certain abilities (the only limit to these abilities being your own imagination) then take the fact you can imagine or believe in this being as proof said being exists and provides us with things derived from its nature).

In fact, you claim it to be a valid means of argumentation - therefore as I have pointed out several times, you should have no problem with me appealling to a phenomenon to prove the same phenomenon, right? If not, why not?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression you are occupying a default position - the fact is even if I can't provide you an asnwer this does not validate yours - all it proves is I don't have an answer to a question. So what? there are 1000s of questions I have no answer to. This does not entail validation of an alternative view - the person holding an alternative view can also be wrong.

I'm no philosopher Sye, but surely these are simply basic principles of argumentation apparent to pretty much everyone?

I answered your question Sye, perhaps you could be so kind as to deal with the many, many logical fallacies presuppositionalism relies on that myself and others have pointed out - there are rather a lot of them, so take your time.

get_education said...

Hey guys,

Just a note to Dr F.

Nice job! Most people allow Sye to change the conversation and thus not answer why he is using circular logic. His standard answer is "Of course I am not using circular logic. However, by what absolute standard of logic do you call my argument circular ..." All plain BS of course.

Billy,

You will be surprised at how much has Sye developed the rhetoric.

G.E.

Whateverman said...

Sye wrote God is constrained by His nature

Then he's not omnipotent.

Without omniscience, there's no reason to believe he'd be able to communicate something to us in a way that we can be sure of its truth.

Sye TenB said...

@Dr. F.

Me: “ You have not admitted the possibility prior to this post. If you care to support your claim, post the quotes please.”

You: ”I'd also add, even if we grant for argument that an omniscient, omnipotent being can do this if it exists, how does this prove the existence of said being or the identity of said being as the God of the Bible?

I’m sorry, where there did you say that YOU DO grant that possibility in that quote?

”I've explained Sye - you are happy to indulge in circular reasoning to 'prove' your point “

You have admitted that it is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient being could reveal things to us, such that we know them for certain. Where is the circularity there?

Now, what is your claim to certainty? I do not see it in your post.

get_education said...

Sye said:

Now that you have admitted that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them,we have addressed my claim to certainty,

Not his claim of certainty. Please guys do not let go. Your claim of "no circularity" is not solved. Nice try though. :-D

whether you agree with it or not. What is yours? (Then I will be happy to compare our respective claims).

Nope, you do not want to compare anything. You always claim "you might not like it" when the true problem is your fallacious "account." When people offer you an answer you use your doiuble standard: "If you do not see the circularity I cannot do much for you." Riiiiiiiight. But if that is the new rule, if you do not see the circularity on your arguments, then I cannot do much for you. You dishonest, double-standards, pressuposhitional scatologetic.

So, explain this little thing to me Sye. How does the use of rhetorical tricks qualify as "exposing the denial of the truth in unrighteousness"? It only makes sense if what is being "exposed" is your "denial of truth."

G.E.

PS Good luck guys. I am off (Sye's cue to: How conveeeenient!)

PSPS (Sye's probable answer: By which absolute standard do you call my argument rhetorical ... thus avoiding to answer... no surprise there)

Chris said...

@ Circular Sye


You were asked can God make a square cicle?

You replied "No, He is constrained by his nature.

But if God is logic itself then such a reply is utterly vacuous & no light has been shed & we have again gone in a circle. Well done sye.

Now here is another question for you. Since the rules of logic are, according to you, invariant, why do you keep using a logical fallacy over, and over, and over again? Can't your God give you a special revelation telling you not to do that?

No oh gutless one are you going to answer me?

Chris said...

@ GE

You wrote " PSPS (Sye's probable answer: By which absolute standard do you call my argument rhetorical ... thus avoiding to answer... no surprise there)"

No! It will be that answer PLUS some spectacular stupidity like "I won't hold my breathe until you answer."

Ah sye, sye, sye. Such a hypocrite.

get_education said...

Chris,

No! It will be that answer PLUS some spectacular stupidity like "I won't hold my breathe until you answer."

How could I have forgotten about that little bit.

Now I am off. (Sye: How conveeenient. Do not forget the multiple "e" like last time.)

G.E.

CodewordConduit said...

He's an ignorant git as well.

So far he has informed us that:

1) Personal revelations are bullshit.

2) The Bible is not to be taken entirely literally.

3) He can't remember when the Holy Spirit revealed himself to him.

4) However, his internal monologue constantly assures him that the Holy Spirit definitely did reveal himself to Sye, even if he can't ever remember it happening.

I put it to everyone that he is either lying about being a Christian, or ashamed of his "revelation".

Chris said...

@ Sye

Now if God has revealed the rules of logic to you Sye is a viciously circular argument valid?

If it is then there is no need to answer your Presupp BS. If it isn't then why are you using one?

Similar question with morality.
Since, according to you, God has revealed morality to you, is it correct morally to be a hypocrite?
If it is then we can behave like you & refuse to answer your question & it won't be "convenient" or "significant".

But if it isn't morally correct to be a hypocrite why are you one Sye?

Chris said...

@ CC

Or Sye is so brain damaged he can't remember one day to the next.

:-) :-) :-)

Isn't that right Sye? Yes it is. [reaches down & pats Sye's head]

Chris said...

@ Sye

Maybe I'll head off too Sye. You always we too scared to argyue with me but your courage returned when you could talk about me behind my back. You little hypocritical, lying coward you. Aren't you? aren't you? Yes you are. :-) :-) :-)

Dr Funkenstein said...

I’m sorry, where there did you say that YOU DO grant that possibility in that quote?

Me: If we grant for argument

we quite clearly being me and you since I am the one making the argument and agreeing with a point you made. Who else would it therefore be referring to apart from the two of us, since I don't decide other people's opinions for them? Secondly, the fact that we are engaged in the act of 'granting' [said claim as possible] ie accepting the truth of the claim, and my second point relied on accepting the possibility of this first claim it would suggest I'm willing to accept it for the purposes of discussion, would it not?

You're just trolling with this sort of crap - I think it's clear to anyone reading this that I was willing to assume the point for argument.

To quote a particularly apt phrase from the bible, 'Jesus wept'...

You have admitted that it is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient being could reveal things to us, such that we know them for certain. Where is the circularity there?

For about the fifth time - accepting this possibility does not by extension establish its truth, any more than accepting the possibility of millions of other things entails their existence or establishes them as factual!

The question as I have also pointed out numerous times is not what attributes or actions can be ascribed to God - it is how you have come to know these facts to be true

such as

establishing how you know a specific God exists, other than simply stating because it may be capable of a particular action if it exists that by extension means it actually exists

how you know revelation is a reliable means of acquiring knowledge (apparently it's not since you consider it the preserve of mental patients) - this is the means by which the bible authors and you claim to be aware of the existence of God

Now, what is your claim to certainty? I do not see it in your post.

I don't think I've made any claim to certainty - as far as I am aware the vast majority of what I've posted has revolved around pointing out flaws in your argument under the terms you have put on offer.

Second, let's say I don't have an explanation for logic - does this stop me using it? I don't think it does, any more than having no idea how my computer works prevents me typing this blogpost, or not knowing the lottery odds prevents me holding the winning ticket.

CodewordConduit said...

@ CC

Or Sye is so brain damaged he can't remember one day to the next.


That would certainly lend some credence to Stephen's "rock to the head" argument, eh?

C'mon Sye explain your amnesia and provide us with some evidence that it doesn't permeate your "logic circuits".

Chris said...

@ CC

Good luck with your argument but Sye has become rather gutless of late.

He was too scared to answer me though I wish you the best of luck in your attempt.

Oh and by the way nice job getting some major admissions out of Sye.

Here's another line of argument for you.

Sye has not only admitted that special revelations are bunk but he's also admitted that only people in a mental hospital have them.

But the only post he addressed to me claimed that he [Sye] had had a revelation from God about Mr. Law's motives.

Now if Sye maintain's his claim then he, by his own admission, belongs in a mental hospital. If he retracts the statement then Sye was lying about knowing Mr. Law's motives. :-) :-) :-)

Kaitlyn said...

Here is Sye's actual paraphrase of his argument, but I replaced the word "air" with "magical pixies."

Sye wrote with some modifications:
Actually Kaitlyn, it’s more like this.

I say: “Magical Pixes are necessary for you to be able to breathe.”

Random atheist answers: “No it’s not, I’m breathing, and there is no such thing as magical pixies.”

I say: ‘But how do you account for your ability to breathe, if you say there is no such thing as magical pixies?’

Random atheist answers: “There is no such thing as magical pixies, and I don’t need to account for my ability to breathe, liar.”

So Sye and all those who like hs argument, are you ready to admit that your ability to breath is accounted for by magical pixies as opposed to air in violation of the law of non-contradiction?

PS: Sorry to come in so late Stephen, didn't notice the conversation slipped over here too. And nice to meet you.

Chris said...

@ Sye

You poor poor brain damaged man.

You ask "You have admitted that it is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient being could reveal things to us, such that we know them for certain. Where is the circularity there?"

Poor poor man. An eight year old could point this out to you Sye.

P1: God exists and provides revelations
P2: proof of God's existence is the revelations to myself
Conclusion God exists & provides revelations

Notice premise one and conclusion are the same.

Viciously circular argument Sye.

Now would you like me to teach you how to spell cat?

Kosh3 said...

I said so last time, but I will say it again, as it received no attention from Sye.

One cannot argue for logic, for to do so is to utilise logic, and thus tacitly presupppose the thing argued for. It is disappointing surely, but an epistemological reality nonetheless. The whole idea of presuppositionalism is worthless, not because of what it aims for, but because of how it tries to do it.

Kaitlyn said...

"Kosh3 said...
One cannot argue for logic, for to do so is to utilise logic, and thus tacitly presupppose the thing argued for."

I totally see where you are coming from, but I have come to the conclusion that you can show that induction works through induction (see Problem of Induction).

If induction works, it should be internally consistent and reinforce itself that it is valid in the same way that self evidence is able to confirm the truth value of a proposition via the proposition itself.

But of course, the way I "account" for logic is not to use logic, but to state the self-evident truths upon which logic is based.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the subject.

You don't need to give account for how a motor operates to use a car. So this whole discussion is moot.

Sye TenB said...

Kash3 said: ”One cannot argue for logic, for to do so is to utilise logic, and thus tacitly presupppose the thing argued for.”

Indeed, the laws of logic, are universal, absract and invariant, and are presupposed, BUT what we must do is determine which worldview comports with such a presupposition. I have repeatedly asked the people here how universal, abstract, invariant laws make sense according to their professed worldview, but no one is willing to posit the worldview they hold, and answer that question.

Kaitlyn said...

"the laws of logic, are universal, absract and invariant, and are presupposed"

For the last time Sye, the laws of logic are not universal, they are not invariant, and they are derived via proofs, not presupposed.

Kaitlyn said...

Sorry, forgot to add that the laws of logic are instead objective and tentative instead of being universal and invariant.

Sye TenB said...

Kaitlyn said: "You don't need to give account for how a motor operates to use a car."

No, but you look like a blithering idiot if you claim that you are drving a car but have a worldview that does not allow for motors.

P.S. I answered your 'pixie' post at Dan's blog, and will address your coments there.

Sye TenB said...

Kaitlyn said: ” For the last time Sye, the laws of logic are not universal”

Do they necessarily apply to this argument?

”they are not invariant”

When have they changed, and on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that they will not?

”and they are derived via proofs, not presupposed”

Um, logical proofs? Perhaps you best rethink that.

Chris said...

@ Sye the coward

You wrote "Indeed, the laws of logic, are universal, absract and invariant," Wrong Sye as I've shown you time after time. Why are you lying Sye?

Is the head injury making you incapable of telling the truth?

You then add " and are presupposed," So we can presuppose that logic needs no further justification Sye. It is a brute fact.

Now are you going to answer me? You've already admitted that presupp is Bullshit Sye. Why are you trying to forcefeed your bullshit into others?

Chris said...

Sye wrote "No, but you look like a blithering idiot if you claim that you are drving a car but have a worldview that does not allow for motors."

But Sye you can't show that you can reason yet you claim to be using reason. Hence you can't account for it. That means YOU look like "a blithering idiot".

Nice try Sye :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

Poor Sye.

We must pity him.

He wrote "Kaitlyn said: ” For the last time Sye, the laws of logic are not universal”

Do they necessarily apply to this argument?
{more presupp bullshit Sye. You've already admited that this presupp is garbage. Don't you remember Sye?]

”they are not invariant”

When have they changed, and on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that they will not?

Poor, poor Sye. The RULES of logic have changed many times. Look up a history book.

”and they are derived via proofs, not presupposed”

Um, logical proofs? Perhaps you best rethink that.

Poor poor Sye. Now your ability to comprehension is being affected. You're adding in words.

Chris said...

Sorry to keep pressing you Sye but I'm just trying to bring you to the truth & sway you from your hypocrisy.

Chris said...

Oh by the way Sye

here's an important admission from YOU.

You admitted that claims to special revelation are more properly found in a mental hospital. Yet you also claimed to have had a special revelation concerning Stephan Law's motives.

Since that is a special revelation you, by your own admission, belong in a mental hospital. Well done Sye. This is a big step for you - admitting you are delusional.

Now can you bring yourself to admit the truth concerning your delusions or will you try & cover your slip by claiming it was all a joke? :-) :-) :-)

We're waiting Sye?

Anonymous said...

Oh & Sye

Can you really afford to be a coward & not answer this? After all everyone reading this blog will read that you have [indirectly] admitted that you belong, by implication, in a mental hospital.

only your sycophants will listen to you after that.

Chris said...

Anonymous was me Sye. Just in case your brain damage stops you from being able to follow the argument.

Chris said...

Let me help you Sye.

Remember we will take silence as assent to a question.

Now are you delusional Sye?

If the answer is yes please remain silent.

If the answer is no please provide evidence that you can use rational thought.

That shouldn't be hard to do if God really has revealed anything to you Sye.

Well?

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. said: ”Me: if we grant for argument.

I say: Me: IF we grant for argument. You hadn’t, to that point, as you claimed you had.

” I don't think I've made any claim to certainty”

What is your claim to certainty, or can you be certain about anything according to your worldview?

” Second, let's say I don't have an explanation for logic - does this stop me using it?”

Nope, I have never said that atheists cannot use logic, just that they cannot account for what they are doing.

Chris said...

@ Sye

Oh by the way Sye.

If you do meet my challenge concerning the changing nature of logic and actually read a history book may I sugest you start with a kiddies one. I'll help you with any big words I promise. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

But Sye you haven't made any claims to be able to use your reason. How can you use reason at all Sye?

If your questions are valid why are you dodging mine Sye? They are just modelled on yours. :-) :-) :-)

Kaitlyn said...

"P.S. I answered your 'pixie' post at Dan's blog, and will address your coments there."

You didn't address my pixie comment on Dan's blog, you dismissed them by saying that's not what I actually believe.

That's the FREAKING ENTIRE POINT of an argument from absurdity!!! Of course I don't believe that we believe that magical pixies account for our ability to breath therefore your logic is faulty!

Chris said...

@ all the readers

Notice how Sye hates to having to answer his own question?

That's because it is viciously circular. Viciously circular arguments are logical fallacies & can't be answered logically.

Hence the reason why Sye, or his nurse :-), refuses to answer.

Or he'll answer with another circular assertion such as God told him. Notice the circular nature again?

You gotta pity the poor obsessive guy. I don't believe that he really can think rationally anymore. :-) :-)

Chris said...

@ any readers

Sye, as everyone has shown, uses circular arguments to justify his assertions. i.e.

P1: God exists and provides revelations
P2: proof of God's existence is the revelations to myself
Conclusion God exists & provides revelations.

basically saying that Sye knows that God exists because he knows it. So if this is a valid argument then we can assert the same about logic & how it works. It is a brute fact nothing more.

Could an eight year old understand this? of course they could. But Sye seems to imply, by his non-comprehension, that he can't.

Now the question for all of us is:
1) Is Sye's calimed inability to understand caused by brain damage?
2) Or is such a claim caused by rampant hypocrisy? In other words can Sye really understand that his argument is self defeating but he resfuses to admit it. Hence he will avoid any questions which touch on this & then demand that others answer his questions.

Sye TenB said...

Kaitlyn said: "Of course I don't believe that we believe that magical pixies account for our ability to breath"

Then, as I suspected, your argument was disingenuous.

Sye TenB said...

Alright Chris, how do you know that your reasoning about this, or anything is valid? Please answer without being visciously circular.

Chris said...

No Sye Kaitlyn's argument was a demonstration of the absurdity of your argument.

Or are you saying that we are at fault when we prove you wrong?
:-) :-) :-)

Kaitlyn said...

Sye, do you believe that the square root of two is a rational number?

If not (and you shouldn't), then you have no objection to me using reductio ad absurdum to disprove your logic.

So Sye...

Do you believe that the square root of two is a rational number?

Chris said...

But Sye

By asking such a question you are trying to use reasoning. You haven't even shown that you CAN reason yet.


See Sye I'm just using your own Presupp BS. I've already asserted that since it is based on a logical fallacy it cannot be answered logically.

It is YOU who keep asserting that it is a valid argument. So answer my question Sye.

Why can't you answer it Sye?

Kaitlyn said...

Dear Sye,

You wrote:
"Then, as I suspected, your argument was disingenuous."

One of the most important proofs in both mathematics and logic is called "reductio ad absurdum" or argument from absurdity.

Using reductio ad absurdum, one uses the law of non-contradiction which is a logical tool you seem heartfelt on defending.

The only one being disingenuous here is you because if you assert that the reductio ad absurdum method is disingenuous, you must also admit that there is no way of know that the square root of two is not a rational number.

QED: You dismiss arguments that refute your logic as disingenuous, not argue against them.

Chris said...

Let me make this really simple Sye.

There are two possible reasons you cannot answer my question.

1) The presupp argument is bull but you refuse to admit it. [you are a hypocrite in such a case].

2) The presupp argument is valid [you do have a brain injury & can't think rationally].

which is it Sye?

Whateverman said...

Circuitous Sye wrote Then, as I suspected, your argument was disingenuous.

Yoda responds "The irony, strong with this one it is"

Chris said...

Face it Sye your argument is shot down in flames.

Yoda: Failed you have. Go into exile you must.

But never mind Sye. I'm sure your little sycophants will still believe whatever you tell them. So you can lie and give them the big tale of how you faced us all down & how, although you NEVERanswered my questions, you were only doing this because you are so brave. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

@ Sye [if you're still reading].

The reductio is defined by wiki as "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result."

So it seems kaitlyn was right Sye. Wasn't she?

Dr Funkenstein said...

I say: Me: IF we grant for argument. You hadn’t, to that point, as you claimed you had.

So you don't think it's fairly obvious that given the second point I made, and the continuing of any discussion, both relied on my agreement with the point you made, that I was in the process of accepting it for the purposes of argument with my statement?

Anyway Sye this is just diversionary drivel (a common tactic amongst presupps to avoid any real defense of the bullshit they peddle) - you've steadfastly avoided my main points regarding the fact your conclusions are complete overstatements from your undefended premises (according to your logic, Quargon the dragon exists on the basis that if he existed he'd have the attribute of being able to breathe fire, and the acknowledgment that he'd posses this ability in the event of his existence by extension confirms his existence!).

Secondly, the means by which you and the biblical authors claim to know of God's existence and attributes has been dismissed as the preserve of the mentally unstable in your own words!

What is your claim to certainty, or can you be certain about anything according to your worldview?

Stop evading the burden of proof Sye. I've made very little in the way of claims beyond the fact that the presuppositionalist argument is faulty. I've pointed out several times flaws in your argument as well as being gracious enough to answer some of your questions, despite your refusal to answer most of mine eg regarding revelation.

I've also pointed out that you should have no problem of me pointing to a phenomenon to explain it in an atheist worldview - since circularity is a valid form of reasoning according to presuppositional apologetics (and before you deny your view is circular, all the major presupp apologists affirm that it is - Bahnsen, Frame and Van Til for example)

Frame states

Rather, the argument is circular in that it appeals to criteria of truth and rationality which are themselves Christian in that they accord with Christian presuppositions. But if that is true, then we are presenting an argument that assumes from the outset that Christianity is true; it assumes, in other words, the conclusion it attempts to prove.

Now normally “circular argument” is considered a fallacy. This particular type of circularity, however, I believe, is not a fallacy, but a necessity of human thought.


So he admits circularity and states this as a necessity. So he should have no problem when others employ similar reasoning as proofs - indeed you should have no problem with Stephen's proof that your brain is addled after being hit with a rock. It's based on the same principles of reasoning as presuppositionalism after all.

Nope, I have never said that atheists cannot use logic, just that they cannot account for what they are doing.

Right so you agree I can use logic whether I have an explanation for it or not? Excellent. You'll note I've used it to point out the problems in your argument - so while there may be an explanation for logic, that explanation is not Christian theism as defended by the presuppositional argument. It may of course be that Christian theism is the 'account' for logic - however, your argument fails to establish this for reasons now too numerous to list.

Anyway, since you offer little in the way of addressing my main points despite repeated requests to do so, instead concentrating on evading the burdens of proof you've set for yourself or engaging in semantic games to divert from the fact you are evading backing up your claims, I think I'll leave you to it as there's little point in pointing out the flaws in your claims if you refuse to acknowledge or respond to them. Perhaps someone else can establish how you are able to both rely on revelation to affirm your view, yet dismiss it as the domain of the mentally deficient!

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. said: ” So you don't think it's fairly obvious that given the second point I made, and the continuing of any discussion, both relied on my agreement with the point you made, that I was in the process of accepting it for the purposes of argument with my statement?”

Point is you hadn’t accepted it, as you claimed you twice had.

” I've made very little in the way of claims beyond the fact that the presuppositionalist argument is faulty.”

I realize, I am only asking you how you can know anything with certainty according to your worldview. If you can’t, then all you are giving me is an arbitrary belief, and for the purposes of this argument, I could not give a rip about what you believe, I am interested in what you claim to know. You have admitted that my claim to certainty is possible. Please offer yours so that we can compare.

Cheers

Chris said...

Sye :-)

You're belief is arbitrary isn't it? If it isn't why can't you answer my question?

Chris said...

& need I add it's also been proven absurd. The only reason you keep coming back in the delusional belief that you still have an argument is that you won't admit it.

Quick Sye stick your fingers in your ears & scream "tralalala can't hear you".

You're so good at that. Or will you answer my question now?

Chris said...

@ Sye

Here's something else to ignore.

Christianity depends upon the existence of special revelation yet you admitted that special revelation was the province of those who belong in mental hospitals.

So Jesus, all the biblical prophets according to you belong in a mental hospital. So what is christianity based upon except arbitrary belief from madmen?

At least according to you. And you assert that you're a christian?

Chris said...

Sorry to nick your argument Dr. F.

Kaitlyn said...

I posted this in the thread over in debunking atheists, but I'm going to post again here since it's proof positive that Sye's argument is worthless.

Proposition:
Sye's argument is fallacious.

Proof: Reducto ad Absurdum

Replacing "air" with "magical pixies", Sye writes:
Actually Kaitlyn, it’s more like this.

I say: “Magical Pixes are necessary for you to be able to breathe.”

Random atheist answers: “No it’s not, I’m breathing, and there is no such thing as magical pixies.”

I say: ‘But how do you account for your ability to breathe, if you say there is no such thing as magical pixies?’

Random atheist answers: “There is no such thing as magical pixies, and I don’t need to account for my ability to breathe, liar.”

[End quote from Sye]

Therefore magical pixies are necessary for you to breath by the "impossibility of the contrary." <- Sye's terminology.

----------------------------

Since we know magical pixies are not necessary for us to breath, the conclusion is wrong.

------------------------------

QED: Sye's argument is fallacious.

Chris said...

Oh wait Sye.

I'm beginning to understand you.

According to you special revelations are the proper domain of madmen. But christianity is based upon special revelation. Therefore it follows that christianity, according to you, was based upon the delusions of madmen.

But wait there's more. Presupp says it can prove that the christian God exists. But, according to you, the christian God is nothing more than the product of madmen. So presupps are followers of madmen & their beliefs & arguments are based upon the product of madmen.

Wow Sye that is one powerful argument against presuppositionalism, & christianity as a whole.

Dr Funkenstein said...

One last one before bed I suppose!

You have admitted that my claim to certainty is possible.

Sye, you're not accurately representing what I've said here - now, since you can write and respond it can't be illiteracy that is the problem, since you seem fairly articulate I can probably assume it is not stupidity that is the cause of this, therefore one of the remaining options is deliberate evasion and dishonesty. It seems to be a general process of 'read answer, ignore answer, repeat original claim, do this enough time until opponent gives up in frustration, declare self the winner'.

Let's go through this very slowly:

a. If a god exists, then I agree he probably could impart revelation

b. I also think that if a fire breathing dragon existed he'd be able to breathe fire

c. However, my agreement as to whatever attributes something may possess if it exists, doesn't actually affirm the existence of said being.

d. on the other hand on Sye's logic, if he thinks that the claim that the Christian god would be capable of certain actions validates that God's existence, he must also acknowledge on the same basis that Quargon the dragon also exists

e. Obviously this is garbage - just as agreement that Quargon could breathe fire if he existed doesn't entail that Quargon exists, agreeing that God could impart revelation doesn't follow that God does exist and impart revelation

f. Finally, even if God does exist and imparts revelation, revelation claims are only made by the mentally unsound according to Sye - therefore revelation is not a reliable means of establishing any of the attributes of the Christian God, therefore Sye refutes his own position!

Now this is so simple a 10 year old could follow it, therefore I hope you are able to understand these points and deal with them. If not, I can only conclude you have nothing to back up what you are saying and are simply a troll looking to bore opponents into submission.

Please offer yours so that we can compare.

I just did - if you consider presuppositionalism a valid form of argument (which you obviously do), I can simply appeal to a phenomenon to prove the same phenomenon in an atheistic worldview (eg I can appeal to uniformity of nature to prove uniformity of nature, if as Frame asserts all valid arguments are circular,and circularity is a necessity in human thought).

Finally, this still goes no way to you attempting to deal with the deficiencies in your own claims. Instead of getting me to do your work for you, start dealing with these problems which must number above 30 now, ranging from inconsistencies, self-refutation and logical fallacies - until you do, noone is going to be convinced by this garbage you are promoting.

CodewordConduit said...

There's more you know.

Sye believes that he is one of the "elect" few who can even receive supernatural revelations from God.

God decided who the elect were at the beginning of "Earth time" and has chosen to only reveal himself to them.

Ask him about it.

It's great.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Sorry to nick your argument Dr. F.

No problem Chris - You never know, maybe Sye will actually try and respond to it if he hears it from enough people, given that it's fairly central to all his claims thus far!

Chris said...

@ CC

But, but Sye himself said that special revelations were more properly the domain of those in a mental hospital.

So if he is asserting that God has revealed to him that he is one of the elect then that is a special revelation. Even if it is a revelation given to all the elect.

Then according to Sye he, and all the elect, belong in a mental hospital.

:-) :-) :-)

Good boy Sye! I knew you could admit the truth if you tried. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

Thank you Dr. F.

very gracious of you

Dr Funkenstein said...

Point is you hadn’t accepted it, as you claimed you twice had.

You are aware I made the quoted claim (where I accept your argument) prior to the point that I stated I had agreed to your point twice?

Chris said...

For anyone still reading.

Brave Sir Sye ran away. He bravely ran away, away.

When danger to presupp reared its head "I'll bravely refuse to answer" he said.

Brave, brave Sir Sye.

Yes, brave Sir Sye turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Sye!

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

Thanks for the laughs Sye. Especially with the stupid Presupp & then your single-handed destruction of christianity. :-) :-) :-)

With defenders like you christianity really doesn't need enemies. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

I was a christian once Sye. With all the lies and hypocracy you've demonstrated I would have hated the thought that you were claiming to be a christian as well.

Tell me Sye. How does Jesus feel about hypocracy? Does Jesus object to it or not?

Chris said...

Hang on Sye

A thought just occured to me.

You claim that God revealed this presupp nonsense. But you've been defeated while using it. We've proven that it's a load of Bull.

so some implications from this:
1) we are smarter than God [Unlikely I think]
2) Sye's God deliberately sent him Bull & told Sye it was logical & to use it. [That would make God deceptive. Possible but not very likely].
3) Presupp was adopted as logical by Sye because Sye can't think straight. [That might explain his inability to answer certain questions & his obsession with repeating the same tired, stupid argument over, and over, and over again no matter how many times it's been disproved].

Which do you think it is Sye? Shall we tell him readers? Shall we give him a hint?

Sye TenB said...

Dr. F. said: ”You are aware I made the quoted claim (where I accept your argument) prior to the point that I stated I had agreed to your point twice?”

Um, ya, but you used that quote in support of your claim.

Chris said...

Hey Sye the coward returns.

Welcomee back Sye.

Try answering my questions no you drive-by chicken. :-) :-) :-)

Dr Funkenstein said...

Um, ya, but you used that quote in support of your claim.

What exactly is it you're not getting here Sye?

1. My statement in an earlier post

I have twice agreed with your claim

2. My action to support this

To quote a previous post I had written, where I can be seen agreeing with Sye. Indeed in the same quoted post I used to support my statement in 1, the argument I made in it relied on my having already agreed with Sye's point (which I stated I was willing to do for the sake of discussion in the very same post), something that is probably apparent to anyone who reads it. Anyone it seems, except Sye.

I believe I had also posted roughly the same thing as in 2. prior to that.

Since the statements in 2. preceded the claim in 1., it follows that i had indeed agreed with your claim prior to my pointing this fact out as per my statement in 1., above.

either way, this is a complete irrelevance that has little or no bearing on the main claims at hand. The fact that you would choose to belabour this completely trivial point, yet continually ignore the repeatedly made points that that highlight the difficulties for you in sustaining your claims says a lot.

Chris said...

For anyone reading I'll explain once again why Sye's argument is Bull.

Presupp is based upon a logical fallacy. It is impossible to logically answer an argument using a logical fallacy. To prove this I have used a reductio.

I have adopted Sye's argument style: I assert that Sye has been hit in the head by a rock [or that God exists & provided logic in Sye's case] so
provide evidence Sye that you can think rationally [or as Sye challenges that anyone can provide a basis for logic].

Now if he replies at all I need simply point out that his argument assumes that he can think rationally & he hasn't proven that yet. See? It's unanswerable but pure presupp in formation & application.

That's probably why Sye refuses to answer his own argument. He realises that it is Bullshit but is too much of a hypocrite to admit this. Either that or he really does have brain damage. :-) :-) :-)

Sye TenB said...

@ CodeWord Conduit,

I'm terribly sorry for not engaging our old argument. I don't really find anything new in what you have posted, but if you wait till things die down a bit, I'll gladly pick up where we left off at Dan's blog.

Thanks Sarah (it is Sarah isn't it?)

Chris said...

You mean where you can safely be among your sycophants Sye?

Where people like Dan can delete any questions that prove you wrong or that show you are too cowardly to answer?

Where people like Dani'el & Dan can hurl abuse at anyone who uses your agument against you.

You mean there Sye?

Sye TenB said...

Oh and CWC, cute limmerick :-D

CodewordConduit said...

@ Sye

How gracious of you to acknowledge your glaring oversight. It is just a shame that it took two re-posting and various prompts in order to remind you that our conversation occured.

Perhaps you forgot the initial argument? Be assured though, it happened. Luckily I have some evidence to substantiate that claim.

One would think that if my arguments were "old hat" then you would have been able to fire off a few responses rather easily.

I await your (no doubt brilliant) riposte.

In your own time, naturally.

Sye TenB said...

CwC said: "One would think that if my arguments were "old hat" then you would have been able to fire off a few responses rather easily."

If I wasn't bored to tears, I would have.

CodewordConduit said...

Glad you enjoyed it :p

CodewordConduit said...

I'm glad that you take your witnessing so seriously.

You truly are a fine example of the Christian faith.

Chris said...

For those readers who'd like to know Sye debated with me before at the site he mentioned.

He never provided an answer to my question merely another circular assumption which he couldn't back up.

I kept asking my question. 28 times. Sye in a cowardly fashion refused to answer me as he is doing now.

Then Sye's little sycophant Dan deleted most of my posts to stop Sye looking so bad.

Without asking my permission I might add.

All of this was after another of Sye's little sycophants Dani'el called me a coward for not answering Sye :-) and challenged me to return.

When I did return Sye himself said he was glad I was there & promptly ignored me again.

Sye TenB said...

CwC said: "You truly are a fine example of the Christian faith."

How very kind of you. Dan?

Chris said...

I'll give you a chance to witness to us lost souls Sye. Answer this question: What was Jesus' attitude to hypocrisy?

Sye TenB said...

What was Jesus' attitude to hypocrisy?

Well, at least you are finally spelling it right.

CodewordConduit said...

Funny enough no, I am not either of your groupies in disguise.

What's it like having a self-confessed male cheerleader daily stroke your (obviously modest) ego?

Kaitlyn said...

Just out of curiosity, Sye, are you self-taught in philosophy and apologetics, or do you have formal training of some kind?

Chris said...

No answer Sye? But the readers & I can guess why.

@ Everyone except Sye.

See the Jesus of the gospels condemned hypocrisy. Even hurling abuse at those who dared practice it.

Sye has practiced hypocrisy here. You only need to see his determination NOT to answer me yet his demands that others answer him.

A double standard & therefore hypocrisy. Does Sye stand condemned by the words of the Gospels? Of course he does.

My guess why he is indulging in such obvious hypocrisy is that Sye feels he is exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow.

In other words morality is for everyone else but not Sye.

Sort of laughable in a sad way isn't it?

Chris said...

But I'm not as familiar with it as you are Sye. You are the MASTER of hypocrisy.

My compliments on your accomplishment.

Chris said...

& according to your reply it would seem that jesus' only attitude to hypocrisy was that it be spelled correctly.

:-) :-) :-)

You're such a bore sye.

Chris said...

No answer Sye?

So much for your claim to be helping lost souls.

Another lie, it would appear, from the master hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

To any interested reader

It has become apparent that all Sye has left are insults. He can't really answer anyone's question so he obsesses about trivialities or mocks those who prove him wrong. :-) :-)

@ Sye

I'm afraid your opinion of me is as irrelevant as you & your presupp BS. I have no interest in the opinions of those I do not respect. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

Tell me Sye.

Since you are so terrified would it help if I go away?

Then you can talk about me behind my back & claim victory by default because I'm not answering you.

You know just like you did on the last blog. :-) :-) :-)

Would that help Sye? You only have to ask. I'm nothing if not reasonable. :-) :-) :-)

Chris said...

By the way anonymous was me in case Sye wants to obsess about little things again.

Just thought I'd help the nurse out Sye. Now go back to your bed & stop anoying the nurses at the cranial trauma ward. They might strap you down if you don't Sye.

Chris said...

How many Sye's does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: "what light bulb? What is your basis for asserting that a lightbulb exists?" :-) :-) :-)

The comedy styling that are presuppositionalists. Ya gotta laugh.

Chris said...

I will anow attempt the incredible. I will prove, through presuppositional reasoning, that Sye, his sycophants, & indeed all presuppositionalists, are suffering from insanity, & delusions of adequacy.

Let us, for the sake of argument accept that a God exists who is capable of revelation. As Sye himself has pointed out only general revelations can be considered genuine.

Now my presuppositional argument: There has been a general revelation from God that:
1) presuppositionalism is bullshit.
2) Sye & all other presuppositionalists are insane cowards.

Now how would we prove such a thing? Quite easily. Presupp exists. Everyone who has experienced it has been repulsed by its illogical nature & by the cowardly & downright insane behaviour of the people who hold it [except for the presuppositionalists themselves of course].
God is resposible for this. Therefore God according to this very presupp argument, is saying that:
1) Presuppositionalism is illogical bullshit.
2) Sye & all other presuppositionalists are insane & cowardly.

But if this is a general revelation shouldn't Sye know this as well? My answer is yes but he [Sye] is supressing it as are all other presuppositionalists.

Steven Carr said...

Stephen said: "My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock.

CARR
Actually, Sye believes there are demons that are highly motivated to attack his senses and thinking and perfectly capable of deceiving him.

So how can Sye use logic when he believes there are demons in the world deceiving people?

Chris said...

@ Steven

Good point. But I can guess what Sye would reply.

He will say that God has told him unmistakably.

If you then remind him that the demons could well be confusing him & making him believe that he has an unmistakable revelation from God sye will:
1)Bravely refuse to answer you.

Or
Dismiss your argument telling you that he's bored with this "old hat stuff"

or

Hysterically change the topic & demand to know how you can know anything then.

Ah Sye. The coward's coward.

anticant said...

"Presuppositionalism is illogical bullshit."

Of course it is. All religious 'faith statements' are mere assertions, unsupported by any independent evidence other than the speaker's "it's true because I say so".

Ibrahim Lawson teaches his pupils that Islam is a given ‘truth’ not to be questioned, while the Archbishop of Canterbury says that Christianity is “unequivocally true”. How can these and other incompatible statements by the advocates of competing faiths ever be reconciled? They are all equally unsupported and illogical. In plain words, rubbish.

Billy said...



Where did you ask this before?


Last time you were here

”Can god make square circles?”

No


So he is not omnipotent then - how does that affect you?

”If no, then he is constrained by the laws of logic, which would tend to suggest that they exist without the need for him.”

No, God is constrained by His nature, from which the laws of logic are derived.


Again he is not omnipotent then. The last part of your answer is just a statement and is not argued for. It is therefore not an answer at all.

If I remember correctly, the laws of logic are one of your "proofs" of gods existence (which you could not argue for). Now, you are saying that they are derived from his nature. Why dont you jus drop the pretence at having a case and just shout "god exist - so there" while puting your fingers in your ears?

Stephen Law said...

I just put up a new post on this topic btw...

Billy said...

I just put up a new post on this topic btw...

It doesn't appear to be there

Stephen Law said...

sorry -it's up now...

Sye TenB said...

Busy day today. I'll get to some of these later today if I get the chance.