I had a thought - not one that's going to convince Sye, of course, but anyway, here it is, for discussion:
Sye's proof appears to be:
1. Logic cannot exist without God
2. Logic exists
Conclusion: God exists
This is a deductively valid argument (necessarily, if the premises are true, so is the conclusion).
Of course, for a "proof" you need more than validity. So what else? Self-evident premises? Well, if so, then Sye will say: my premises are self-evident (and of course to him they seem to be). So it is a proof!
Trouble is, what he is really supposed to be doing is proving to us that God exists. Now you cannot prove something to an audience in this way if the premises are not self evident to your audience.
Illustration: I can prove I just drew a three-sided figure:
1. I just drew a triangle
2. Triangles are three sided figures
Conclusion: I just drew a three-sided figure
Have I "proved" to you my conclusion? Of course not. You still have no idea whether I drew a three sided figure or not. It might be evident to me that the premises are true. But of course the first premise is not evident to you. So the "proof" fails.
The same of course is true of Sye's "proof" if it's not self-evident to us that his premise is true. Which it is not.
Now, this is where Sye gets ingenious - he says, in effect, "It IS self evident to you - God HAS given you this knowledge - but you choose to hide it from yourself, being miserable sinners. That means I HAVE proved it to you that God exists."
This is a key move for Sye, then. He relies on saying that we are somehow deluded.
Of course, someone is deluded here about the self-evidence claim. The fact that even most Christians - many of whom I would guess are far more holy and virtuous than Sye - scratch their heads and say "But it isn't self-evident!" (I include here even those who think the premise is true - they don't think it's self-evident!) should certainly suggest to Sye that he's the deluded one.
At the end of the day, all he's got is an assertion - that we're all (including the majority of Christians) deluded and that's why we can't see he's got a proof.
That's the sort of thing nutters always say, of course!
As I say, any fair-minded reader of the posts over at Dan's blog surely won't be able to avoid the conclusion that Sye is either a bit mental (religion can do that to you, of course, as I'm sure even Sye will recognise when it comes to certain other religious folk) or just a willful bullshitter.
Sye's proof appears to be:
1. Logic cannot exist without God
2. Logic exists
Conclusion: God exists
This is a deductively valid argument (necessarily, if the premises are true, so is the conclusion).
Of course, for a "proof" you need more than validity. So what else? Self-evident premises? Well, if so, then Sye will say: my premises are self-evident (and of course to him they seem to be). So it is a proof!
Trouble is, what he is really supposed to be doing is proving to us that God exists. Now you cannot prove something to an audience in this way if the premises are not self evident to your audience.
Illustration: I can prove I just drew a three-sided figure:
1. I just drew a triangle
2. Triangles are three sided figures
Conclusion: I just drew a three-sided figure
Have I "proved" to you my conclusion? Of course not. You still have no idea whether I drew a three sided figure or not. It might be evident to me that the premises are true. But of course the first premise is not evident to you. So the "proof" fails.
The same of course is true of Sye's "proof" if it's not self-evident to us that his premise is true. Which it is not.
Now, this is where Sye gets ingenious - he says, in effect, "It IS self evident to you - God HAS given you this knowledge - but you choose to hide it from yourself, being miserable sinners. That means I HAVE proved it to you that God exists."
This is a key move for Sye, then. He relies on saying that we are somehow deluded.
Of course, someone is deluded here about the self-evidence claim. The fact that even most Christians - many of whom I would guess are far more holy and virtuous than Sye - scratch their heads and say "But it isn't self-evident!" (I include here even those who think the premise is true - they don't think it's self-evident!) should certainly suggest to Sye that he's the deluded one.
At the end of the day, all he's got is an assertion - that we're all (including the majority of Christians) deluded and that's why we can't see he's got a proof.
That's the sort of thing nutters always say, of course!
As I say, any fair-minded reader of the posts over at Dan's blog surely won't be able to avoid the conclusion that Sye is either a bit mental (religion can do that to you, of course, as I'm sure even Sye will recognise when it comes to certain other religious folk) or just a willful bullshitter.
Comments
Sye said: This of course begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us via, or wholly apart from our senses, such that we can know them for certain.
I don't see how it does that. But no matter, say I accept your lemma, then:
You said He could, but how do you know for certain he did and you're not just delusional? So you still have no basis. Because you need your senses and logic to determine that you're not delusional.
Geert said: ”(Funny thing is, your revelation never even talks about logic.)”
Sya answered: Not if you are not looking for it.
Yes, if you 'look for it', you can easily justify slavery too. Christians plead you need common sense and logic to find the 'right answers', Sye. You know that. So, you still have no basis: 'looking for it' is a logic process.
Geert said: ”The 'that's just the way it is' part is why both statements are equivalent. It is called "presupposionalism". You take an axiom.”
Sye said: No, a transcendental necessity, or neceeary starting point differs from an axiom in that it is provable. The proof of the Christian starting point (God) is that without Him, you couldn’t prove anything.
Easy to prove that wrong (petitio principii fallacy). To understand that, realize that the same holds if you substitute "Christian God" by "Allah", or "Gaia", or "the great Manitou", or "evolution". It holds also with "universe" and "your Mother" - with the connotation that it makes more sense with the latter two.
And you are using an axiom Sye, you claim that "transcendental necessity" is proof. Which is term in logic. How can you be sure that holds, if you use it to prove logic itself?
Sye said: Well, which is your claim? Are you sticking with “That’s just the way it works?”
You're using word games commonly used by lawyers in a courtroom, Sye. My position for logic is that I can not give a basis for logic, and neither can you. Because you have the same problem as I do.
Sye said: Problem is the very concept of ‘falsifiability’ is something which you cannot account for, and this ‘checking over and over’ requires absolute laws of logic which you also cannot account for.
But you claim you can account for those laws, so I don't have to. By consequence, you should be able to do it and I should be able to evaluate if you are still consistent with the logic you claim to prove. Reflexive consistency, Sye, that's what I need to find in your thesis.
The problem with your position is that you probably do realize the use of falsifiability, and subscribe to it, but you can't make your claims falsifiable.
Remember Sye, you, not I, claim to have found the golden egg where countless generations of philosophers and theologicians have bitterly failed: to find an absolute a basis for 'reason' and proof it beyond any doubt.
I humbly ask you make it falsifiable and to solve the logical fallacies you used.
Never said that it was.
Right, but on the other hand you don't just claim to have a possible route to certainty, you claim to have an actual route to certainty, one that can rule out every single alternative (even the ones you have never heard of, which is quite a feat!)
In fact, you were quite clear in chiding Stephen for only offering possible atheism-compatible 'accounts' for logic.
The following all provide possible routes to certainty as well:
Logic simply being a fact of the universe's nature
The God of deism that reveals things through the natural order of the world
As above, except for the God of pantheism
The God of a variant of Christianity that you don't subscribe to
The God of Islam
The God of Judaism
Geusha, God of the Lahu tribe
Ahura Mazdra, the God of Zoroastrianism
The God of the Baha'i faith
Abassi, God of the Efik tribe
in fact, there are rather a lot of world religions and worldviews (I'm sure you can look them up if need be), in addition to the well known ones, that offer a possible route to certainty. I'm wanting to know why I should choose Christianity above and beyond any of them, and where you've posted a refutation of the ones I should reject (this includes all the ones I didn't explicitly list). Now, you claim to have done this already, so it should be a problem to point me to a detailed analysis of each of the disproofs of these.
It's really no issue to me if I eventually have to conclude that I presuppose Ahura Mazdra in order to justify my use of logic! But I just want to be clear on why the possible avenue offered by the Christian God succeeds while the others fail, other than simply the say so of apologists such as yourself Sye
”Well since I haven't actually stated my belief on that front, I'm not sure how you would know this and have refuted me, but perhaps you can read minds...”
Allow me to rephrase: “You have offered none, from which to level any argument.”
Right, but we need to deal with your claims first and establish that they hold up. Thus far we've got to the point where you acknowledge that the Christian God gives us a possible route to certainty, but we haven't seen a refutation of all the other possible routes to certainty yet. We need to do this first before we deal with anything I believe.
”That said, as Stephen has suggested already, if logic is simply a fact of existence or a result of the facts of existence that would also be a possible avenue to being able to rely on logic, would it not?”
Are you keeping track, that’s 2 now Stephen: “LOGIC JUST IS!” :-D
And this is any different to saying "the fact that logic is part of God's nature JUST IS!" in what way?
[X]is part of [Y's] nature, which accounts for the existence of [X]
now if I put in logic for X and either the universe's nature or God's nature for Y, or indeed Ahura Mazdra's nature, where's the fundamental difference in what is being claimed? Remember, you don't claim to have a means to understand logic that is comparable to another explanation, you claim to have one that is above and beyond and that excludes all other explanations. So you're going to have to show me the difference between appealing to any of the other Gods and deities I listed (and the rest) or simply appealing to the universe's nature, because I really can't see that there is one.
Sye's generic claim #1:
"God has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it."
Sye uses this when questioned about the validity of his own senses or about how he knows his revelation was accurate. Of course, its a ridiculous claim. It can be used by anyone to claim anything. Indeed, when I claimed that the Invisible Pink Hammer revealed to me that Sye is a liar in such a way that I know it to be certain, Sye was unable to refute it and had to admit that he cannot say it is impossible:
Sye said "Although I do not believe that it would be possible, I have never claimed that it would be impossible"
This would apply to an infinite number of other worldviews and so Sye would also have to admit that he cannot say that they are impossible. If so, then if he is honest (a big assumption I know!) he could not be absolutely sure that his ‘Christian God’ version of the truth is 100% correct. This would first involve ruling out every other worldview, which by his own admission he has not done.
Also:
-Sye has never been able to account for the reliability of his ‘innate’ revelation
-why should anyone believe Sye’s claim over any other claim?
-why does God always seem to reveal these things to people in private and then expect them to pass on the message to non-believers?
-why doesn’t ‘omniscient omnipotent’ God reveal these things to the whole world right now in a big loud booming voice? I for one would be convinced
-if God revealed these things in such a way that Sye could be certain, why does Sye need the bible? Why does he need further support for what is already certain?
-Sye has never been able to prove that his revelation was not from Satan, from computer programmers or just a hallucination. All of these scenarios are possible.
Sye's generic claim #2:
"The problem is, absent an absolute standard, you cannot tell, know, understand, account for…..anything"
Sye uses this (or something similar) when a non-Christian gives an answer for any of his 'account for X according to your worldview' questions. Sye’s point is that there is a way the world ‘should’ operate based on absolute standards and laws handed out by God. Since he knows and accepts this he has a foundation from which to work, whilst non-Christians do not. Again, this is ridiculous. Why must there be an absolute standard? In order for him to prove this he must first reject every other possible way of accounting for logic, reason, morals, etc….of which there are many (he still hasn’t refuted Stephen’s three for logic). There are plausible evolutionary reasons for why morals exist but that doesn’t make them absolute standards, just basic ‘rules’ which most of us abide by in order to live with others peacefully. Not to mention that God had no problem wiping out whole cities so he certainly isn’t a very solid foundation for morality.
Also:
-what absolute standard did Sye use as his foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
-Sye often claims that God has an unchanging character. Sye must use induction to claim this, the very thing he asks non-Christains to account for.
-can Sye prove that his standards have been 100% accurate throughout time everywhere in the universe?
-has Sye’s reasoning ever let him down? Has he ever made a bad decision, no matter how minor? If so, the foundation he bases everything on is not 100% reliable.
Sye's generic claim #3:
"…you DO know God, but are ‘suppressing that truth in unrighteousness’ (Romans 1: 18-21)). "
So essentially…‘You know you’re wrong but you’re lying’. I think this is technically known as the ‘liar liar pants on fire’ approach. Now I know many people have called Sye a liar and have been criticised for it by his cheerleaders, but Sye is really just doing the same thing. It is just Sye’s opinion, based on his interpretation of a bible passage written by man which he has said before should not be taken literally. As Pvblivs said, any con will include a section instructing the targeted not to trust outsiders who don’t fall for the con.
Also:
-how can Sye know that I know that I am wrong?
-if I know God, and have thus received his revelation, which is certain, why would I suppress that truth? Why would I inflict Hell upon myself knowingly?
Sye's generic claim #4:
"I am not interested in addressing worldviews that the person I am arguing with does not hold"
Here Sye is essentially giving up. I don't see the problem with hypothetically assuming a worldview to make a point. This is a standard technique in debating. Maybe Sye can explain why he doesn't want to address hypothetical scenarios? I find this especially strange from someone who apparently deals with logic and philosophy. Surely pondering and refuting hypothetical scenarios should be his forte?
Perhaps the fact that an infinite number of hypothetical worldviews illustrate the fallacies of Sye's worldview is the very reason why Sye is not interested in addessing them. They use the same standards as his worldview and are internally consistent, but instead of refuting them, he ignores them. Sure, he has suggested a formal debate, but as has been pointed out, dishonest people prefer formal debates as they are much more ‘off the cuff’ and thus much easier to score points on something irrelevant. If Sye had a refutation of other worldviews he would give it here in detail and allow us to examine and address it. But he doesn’t, so he doesn’t.
In short, although I was initially sceptical about the value of debating this clown, I'm happy to say that I've changed my mind. You've provided EASILY the most accessible refutation of this category of nonsense on the internet, and it can be simply linked to whenever Sye raises his head. Thanks!
And I would heartily recommend that all atheists do so! Read through the hundreds of posts, and see on what basis Dr. Stephen Law proceeds on the expectation that the laws of logic WILL hold, or how he accounts for them, according to his personal worldview.
I can save you all a lot of trouble though (it ain't there).
Problem is, most people here refuse to state their actual worldview (ala Stephen), and end up making up B.S. ones (ala rhiggs) just to waste my time. Sorry, I ain’t playin.’
Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument...
"And I would heartily recommend that all atheists do so! Read through the hundreds of posts, and see on what basis Dr. Stephen Law proceeds on the expectation that the laws of logic WILL hold, or how he accounts for them, according to his personal worldview."
Sye, I said at the outset that I (like probably the majority of philosophers) am not sure I know what account of logic is correct.
If you are suggesting that this fact somehow supports your view, you are committing the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance".
My last three or four posts simply repeated this point.
You continue to commit the fallacy.
Over and over and over again, choosing each time just to ignore the fact that your fallacy has been endlessly pointed out to you.
I am fairly confident you'll now just commit the very same fallacy again. Go on - surprise me. Do commit a different fallacy for a change!
It is my view that you cannot account for logic according to your wordview, or provide a sound basis on which you proceed with the assumption that it WILL hold. You have affirmed my view.
The only thing self-evident in this long, circular argument is Sye's own damnably persistent dishonesty, maddening arrogance and entry-level "logic" skills.
I used to think Sye was simply stupid. But sadly, I've been party to several ~1000 post threads, and a few ~x00 threads - and his argument never changes.
He occasionally feigns innocence, often posts in an effort to draw you in, and always dances away from answering valid challenges to his opinions.
No, he's not stupid. He's lying for Jesus.
"It is my view that you cannot account for logic according to your wordview, or provide a sound basis on which you proceed with the assumption that it WILL hold. You have affirmed my view."
-----
Uhhhh, so what...? You admit that atheists can use logic just fine, so why does one need to justify it by your standard?
This is where you give your canned response, “because then you’d be suppressing the truth.” But then I’d ask again, “So what.” Beyond whether you believe you have proof in something or not, if there is no utility and/or pragmatic reason to include God as a means of justification, then why do it?
I’ve said this many times in the past and will point it out here again that you have two responses to this question:
A.) Suppression of truth
B.) Hell
The obvious is that you’ve shown no utility for “A”, and “B” is nothing more then “Pascal’s Wager”. Which means you’re really not a pre-suppositionalist at all, but a dummy who’s cleverly modified Pascal’s Wager.
On a different blog, someone asked him a specific question about the nature of his supposed "revelation." Sye declared it "irrelevant." But that is my point. Sye evades questions while insisting that everyone else answer his questions his way. It's a complete sham.
What I find bizarre is that he avoids it by saying 'noone has stated their worldview/given me their justification for using logic'
even if let's say atheism isn't compatible with the laws of logic (and there are many many worldviews that include atheism as a part of them, let's not forget, but we'll generalise for the sake of brevity), and we all agreed to this - assuming we are all atheists of course!- does he expect us to then just say 'OK, well I suppose the only alternative is Christianity'?
Of course not - there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other possibilities to choose from! I'd simply pick something else like deism, pantheism, Geusha worship, Zoroastrianism etc.
I can't see any way that a religion such as Zoroastrianism does not fill Sye's 'proof' just as well as Christianity. It's -
-got a supreme creator deity (Ahura Mazdra)
-monotheistic (properly monotheistic, none of this Trinity nonsense that even top brass presupps such as John Frame admit they can't properly explain)
-revealed via a prophet
-has a redemption promise etc etc
-its stories are still sufficiently different from Christianity as to be obviously distinct from it
-predates the Abrahamic faiths from what I gather
I would love to how Sye has disproven this religion as an 'account' for the laws of logic - if we agreed for argument that he's successfully refuted atheism - great, now I'm a Zoroastrian. Please show how my newly chosen worldview fails to properly account for logic Sye.
Van Til as far as I recall said almost nothing about other religions, Bahnsen touched on them a bit but in no great deal as far as I know - but are we expected to believe these guys are (or were in Bahnsen and Van Til's case as they are both dead) familiar with the central tenets of every other religion, and have enough scholarship to show them internally inconsistent? I somehow doubt it
I love this gem from presupp apologist Gleason Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (written to address the many internal incoheriences in Christian theology/the Bible) where he says:
"Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists [to explain a perceived contradiction], even though you have not yet found it.'
Of course, what Archer apparently neglected to realise is that this makes every other holy book (and indeed every other book full stop) inerrant if we apply this method! So according to presuppers no alternative religion can be false (as some harmonisation of an inconsistency may be possible), yet they can at the same time prove them to be wrong. Cognitive dissonance or what?
Not that this isn't apparent to most, but these guys are just snake oil salesmen, nothing more.
Sye responds: "It is my view that you cannot account for logic according to your wordview, or provide a sound basis on which you proceed with the assumption that it WILL hold. You have affirmed my view."
(i) The fact I am not sure of the answer "affirms" your view is correct in the same way that I'm not sure how crop circles are formed "affirms" they can only be made by aliens.
I.e. It doesn't. This fallacy is called "argument from ignorance." As I have pointed out clearly in my last 4 or 5 comments, and possibly a hundred times across all posts. You never, ever, deal with this. Just repeat your claim.
(ii) In any case, I have produced three theories of logic, not one you've refuted.
So it's like this: Fred claims only aliens can produce crop circles - this is established by "the impossibility of the contrary". He insists his view is "affirmed" by the fact that we are not sure how the circles are formed, despite us having provided three plausible theories none of which Fred has refuted. When it's pointed out to Fred that he is committing the fallacy "argument from ignorance", he ignores this and just endlessly repeats his claims over and over and over again.
Fred is clearly a crank, or, worse, a deliberate bullshitter.
It is my view that your account of logic according to your worldview, Sye, is based on fallacies defined in the very logic you yourself account for.
I'm sure Stephen agrees to this.
See my post earlier for clarification.
"Problem is, most people here refuse to state their actual worldview (ala Stephen), and end up making up B.S. ones (ala rhiggs) just to waste my time. Sorry, I ain’t playin."
What a dishonest person Sye is. He refuses to attempt a refutation of other worldviews because he claims we are just trying to 'waste his time'. If he was as intelligent as he likes to make out, he would understand that these other worldviews illustrate the problem with his. That is why we are adopting them, TO MAKE A POINT...
Of course, Sye does realise this, and he knows that he can't refute these other worldviews. In fact he has admitted that he cannot say that they are impossible:
Sye said "Although I do not believe that it would be possible, I have never claimed that it would be impossible"
Thus he cannot be absolutely sure that his ‘Christian God’ version of the truth is 100% correct. This would first involve ruling out every other worldview, which by his own admission he has not done.
Not to mention that he didn't even attempt to answer these other questions (he will either ignore them or come back with one of his generic copy and paste responses to avoid answering them):
-Sye has never been able to account for the reliability of his ‘innate’ revelation
-why should anyone believe Sye’s claim over any other claim?
-why does God always seem to reveal these things to people in private and then expect them to pass on the message to non-believers?
-why doesn’t ‘omniscient omnipotent’ God reveal these things to the whole world right now in a big loud booming voice? I for one would be convinced
-if God revealed these things in such a way that Sye could be certain, why does Sye need the bible? Why does he need further support for what is already certain?
-Sye has never been able to prove that his revelation was not from Satan, from computer programmers or just a hallucination. All of these scenarios are possible.
-what absolute standard did Sye use as his foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
-Sye often claims that God has an unchanging character. Sye must use induction to claim this, the very thing he asks non-Christains to account for.
-can Sye prove that his standards have been 100% accurate throughout time everywhere in the universe?
-has Sye’s reasoning ever let him down? Has he ever made a bad decision, no matter how minor? If so, the foundation he bases everything on is not 100% reliable.
-if according to Sye, I know God, and have thus received his revelation, which is certain, why would I suppress that truth? Why would I inflict Hell upon myself knowingly?
And in case Sye decides to use the same argument for science and objective morality, they too presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.
Hmmm, I say: “"It is my view that you cannot account for logic according to your wordview, or provide a sound basis on which you proceed with the assumption that it WILL hold. You have affirmed my view."
You say: ”(i) The fact I am not sure of the answer "affirms" your view is correct in the same way that I'm not sure how crop circles are formed "affirms" they can only be made by aliens.”
Read the post again Stephen, it affirms my view that you cannot account for logic according to your wordview, or provide a sound basis on which you proceed with the assumption that it WILL hold.
I have never said that the fact that you personally cannot account for logic, or give us your basis for assuming that it WILL hold, on its own proves the position I take on my website, but it clearly does not hurt it.
Gap in your knowledge??? Perhaps you can tell us what (if anything) you know for certain, and how you know it.
I've read it again Sye. Very carefully. Three times.
You are committing the fallacy "argument from ignorance".
The fact that I am not sure which theory of logic is correct does NOT support or "affirm" your view that all atheist world views are incapable of accommodating logic.
Anymore than the fact that I am not sure how crop circles are made supports or "affirms" the view that no non-alien involving account can possibly be correct!
Obviously. This is indeed the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."
Sye said: "I have never said that the fact that you personally cannot account for logic, or give us your basis for assuming that it WILL hold, on its own proves the position I take on my website, but it clearly does not hurt it."
Duh.
First, yes, of course, you don't say my unsureness "proves" the view on your website.
However, you do suppose, don't you, that the unsureness of myself, and other atheists (and Christians, in fact), about what view of logic is correct, provides, if not "proof", then at least *pretty strong support* for your thesis that only your particular Christian world view can accommodate logic?
This argument, even if not intended as a irrefutable "proof", STILL commits the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."
(Compare: the fact that I am unsure how crop circles are made does not provide even *pretty strong support* for the thesis they are made by aliens).
Incidentally, your comment about what "hurts" your view involves a devious change of subjects: from a discussion of what "supports' or "affirms" your view to a discussion of what does not "hurt" it.
The fact that polar bears are white does not "hurt" your position either. But it clearly does not support or "affirm" it, does it?
Yes of course the fact that I am unsure about what view of logic is correct does not "hurt" your view. Who ever said it does "hurt" it?!
My point is - it does not establish, or even confer a fair degree of support to, your view.
To suppose otherwise is to commit the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."
PS: yes my first post here and i just found that word and it seemed so appropriate considering what it applies to.
Maybe Sye is making an attempt on a World record - most times someone can commit the same fallacy in a single thread?
Sye is pretty much screwed repeating the same fallacy over and over.
I think we'll see a change of tactic next (my guess is - he'll say: when I asked how you account for logic, I was never offering any sort of argument for my claim that only the Christian word view can account for logic, or inviting readers to draw any sort of conclusion! Moi?!)
That'll get him off the hook with the fallacy (you cannot commit a fallacy if you do not offer any sort of argument) but will land him in another pile of crap. Let's see if he goes for it, though. That particular leap out of the fire must be getting very tempting for him by now, seeing the way he's currently getting fried on "argument from ignorance".
I posited that perhaps we all live in a computer simulation and all of our senses, experiences and thoughts as well as the operation of the universe are programmed. This would "account" for why the universe seems to act in a logical way (because it was programmed to do so). Sye's answer for why this could not be true?
(By the way, your computer simulation scenario is false, because if it were true, the Bible would have to be false, and then any truth claim (such as your hypothetical worldview) would be meaningless).
(I am not sure how to insert a link on here, but this is from the Debunking Atheists blog).
Assuming this, is it not plain that Sye would immediately discount all Gods other than his own? The Bible is his justification for doing so...
Your website, on the other hand, allows no comments at all. Why not?
You go round others websites availing yourself of the freedom they provide you to comment.
But you provide no such freedom.
why not?
Shouldn't this be a two way street? What have you got to fear, given your arguments are so powerful?
Surely you'd welcome the chance to take on opponents on your own turf, so that you can show your readers just how amazing your arguments really are?
Could it be that you're afraid...?
I’m not convinced that Sye is actually committing the fallacy “argument from ignorance”, or in the least he isn’t seeing it that way. I would say he’s merely shifting the burden of proof….
All he’s saying is that, I have a means of absolute certainty through the Christian God; you’re saying that you don’t, however have three possibilities. But there’s no reason for Sye to commit himself to arguing against your three possibilities unless you commit yourself to one.
Imagine if this were a chess match and Sye proclaimed, “Check mate, I’ve won!” And you state, “Hold the show, what if I move piece “A”, “B” or “C”?”
but there’s no reason for Sye to answer that question until such time that you commit yourself to moving a piece, he can simply sit quietly back (as he is) and say the burden of proof is on you to commit to a given stance – otherwise he’s won.
Furthermore, since he’s arguing for absolute certainty (which I reject as a pragmatist), yet you maintain a stance that doesn’t attempt to refute such a thing (or the possible necessity of it), then it’s fair play for him when you state that his logic is fallacious to ask how you can be certain of this. Again, he’s merely shifting the burden of proof on you – since you admit you’re not certain, then how do you know his argument is incorrect? You have no basis by which to make such a claim.
Also, from his point of view, on what basis can you claim that his proof is incorrect if you’re unwilling to commit to a move? You’re merely speaking arbitrarily – you MIGHT be wrong because of this, you MIGHT be wrong because of that…
To me the argument is always, “absolute certainty is bullshit!” – but so long as one never refutes that you’re continually playing the game of “lets beg the question over the other” until we’re blue in the face. If you believe in absolutes, or the possibility of absolute certainty, yet you don’t commit yourself to a stance, then you have no basis (again) to call Sye wrong no matter how great your argument sounds.
P.S.
I’m not defending Sye of course, I’ve argued with him enough and am done with it – I simply don’t see that he’s committed himself to that fallacy.
Andrew - I think you are confused about my view.
I didn't say absolute certainty is possible, nor do I claim to be absolutely certain about anything.
Also, absolute certainty is not a requirement for knowledge.
Also, even if I don't know Sye is wrong, I can actually still succeed in proving he's wrong (that last point might seem paradoxical - we can discuss if you like).
Given that my ability to perceive reality is limited, that absolute surety is not absolute. It is 'absolute to the best of my knowledge'
It goes roughly like this (as I'm sure you know):
I have a belief A that accounts for vitally important phenomenon B that we need to to rely on even to conduct this argument
The idea contrary to this view is impossible
In order to proceed you must provide me with an alternative, which I have already claimed cannot even in principle exist.
Sye's essentially arguing from the point of 'I got my claim in first, so now everyone has to prove me wrong'. ie shifting the burden of proof as you say. What it relies on is that people won't be patient enough to get him to make various admissions.
However, over 2 different blogs, 3 topics and about 1800 posts contributed to by about 50+ different people, we have seen Sye admit to the following:
he only has a possible route to certainty, as opposed to an actual route to certainty - this is no different from what Stephen has proposed in his atheist friendly accounts, apart from Sye has decided that he likes his one so he's going with it, but has already conceded it's only a possible route to certainty - ie there's no guarantee presupposing it actually makes it true.
-another of Sye's admissions (over on debunking atheists) is that he concedes that there may be a possible alternative, he just claims not to have heard it and doesn't believe one exists - of course Sye not believing it is not the same as it not existing. However, his 'proof' also depended on 'the impossibility of the contrary' - but now he admits the contrary is possible even if just in principle, or because of an idea he has not yet been availed of.
the means by which he claims to 'know with certainty' ie personal revelation has a. been dismissed (at least in some instances) as the preserve of mental patients - by Sye himself b. only true if what he admits is a possible route to certainty is also true (ie God exists) But nowhere has he proved this, he's simply assumed it.
So putting all this together, by Sye's own admission the best he can offer us up is that his worldview's account of logic is merely a possibility - exactly like Stephen's offerings. Since the playing field is now level, what does he actually have in his arsenal, given that he's just undermined himself by that series of admissions? Well the best we've seen is that it would make the bible false, an idea which Sye doesn't really like all that much. At which point the pendulum swings back the other way again and we revert to 'without the bible being true you can't prove anything to be true, so the contrary is impossible' and we go back round again like the dog chasing its tail.
"All he’s saying is that, I have a means of absolute certainty through the Christian God."
No Sye's not just saying that, is he? He is clearly also saying he can "prove" that his particular God exists.
He is also saying that no atheist, or even non-Christian, account of logic is possible.
His "proof" of God's existence actually rests on the premise that
no atheist, or even non-Christian account of logic is possible.
If this is to function as a "proof" the premise needs, presumably to be self-evident or supported by argument.
Sye says it is both.
I deal with the self-evidence claim in the post on which these are comments.
The argument for the premise is, according to Sye, "by the impossibility of the contrary."
What is the argument "by the impossibility of the contrary" though?
Sye never says. He just asks the question: "How do YOU account for logic then?"
If the argument is: "if you cannot account for logic, then I can reasonably conclude only the Christian God can", then Sye is committing the fallacy argument from ignorance.
But if that's not the argument, then what is?
So what fallacy or error is Sye committing in this particular instance?
It's hard to say, because we don't actually know what his argument is. So far, he has not given one!
He just keeps asking a question!
Yawn. Please support your claim that I admitted that I only have a possible route to certainty.
”another of Sye's admissions (over on debunking atheists) is that he concedes that there may be a possible alternative,”
Yawn X2. Please support your claim that I concede that there may be a possible alternative.
(This is where you post quotes that do not at all support the claims you have made, and force me to tediously go over them to point that out to everyone – again).
(I’ll be at Dan’s Blog catching up for a bit, then possibly back here later).
Sye's "proof", in effect, is something like:
1. Only the Christian God can account for logic
2. Logic exists
Conclusion: The Christian God exists
We ask him why we should believe premise 1. He says it is (i) revealed to us all by God, and (ii) also supported by the argument "by the impossibility of the contrary."
We ask him what the argument "by the impossibility of the contrary" is.
Sye responds with the question "How do you account for logic then?"
Trouble is, a question is not an argument (an argument contains one or more premises and a conclusion, where the premises are supposed to support the conclusion).
But maybe Sye's question is supposed (implicitly) to supply the missing argument "by the impossibility of the contrary"?
If so, the argument is something like - (premise) YOU can't account for logic; (conclusion) therefore only the Christian God can." Not only does this argument have a false premise, it commits the fallacy "argument from ignorance".
If, on the other hand, Sye's question is NOT the missing argument, then Sye's premise 1 remains unargued for. It remains, as yet, just an assertion. Sye's simply trying to draw our attention away from this fact by endlessly repeating his question.
So, in the end, Sye's proof rests on either: (i) a revelation from God (ii) the fallacy "argument from ignorance" or (iii) smokescreen questions designed to obscure the fact he ain't got an argument.
Like I just said, you are either committing the fallacy "argument from ignorance" or you are asking a smokescreen question to obscure the fact you ain't got an argument.
Provide your argument for your claim that only the Christian God can account for logic. You know, the one you said you had, and we said we'd love to see, but which you never, ever provide.
Premises and conclusion, please.
You haven't got one, have you?
I'm aware that you believe your answer to be correct - but what I have repeatedly pointed out that merely having the possibility of answer doesn't make that certain, which below you seem to agree with.
Sye: The fact that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, is, in itself not proof that God exists, (
ie you agree it is possible that revelation would provide certainty, but that doesn't prove God exists and revelation actually happens. I've agreed several times that if God exists, it would provide an avenue to certainty. You not only accept this possibility, but consider it to be true. However, from what you've said, you realise that having a possibility is not the same as having a certain answer (even in the event you believe it to be true).
Sye: however it is an admission by you that I have, at least, a possible avenue to certainty, whereas you have none from which to level any argument.
Me: Yup, but then again possible is not the same as actual
Sye: Never said it was
This next bit is from Dan's blog (somewhere between posts 201-400)
Yawn X2. Please support your claim that I concede that there may be a possible alternative.
Rhiggs : ” Why it would be impossible for the Invisible Pink Hammer to reveal to me that you are a liar, such that I can know it to be certain?”
Sye: Although I do not believe that it would be possible, I have never claimed that it would be impossible, I am simply challenging you to formally debate our respective deities and revelations from same. You are unwilling to(for obvious reasons).
Now perhaps you can explain how this bit in bold squares with the impossibility of the contrary statements Sye? After all that claim was your 'proof' was it not?
Again, I am aware you believe your answer to be correct, but I'm not disputing that. Your ovearching claim is that you can prove your belief to be 100% correct. If you agree that the contrary is not impossible (as you clearly do above) then you're no longer making a claim of certainty - ie you're offering us a possibility just as Stephen and others have, albeit you are offering one you are convinced of.
Now, at least one of Stephen's accounts provides a possible avenue to certainty (ie logic being a brute fact of existence) - if one were to simply presuppose this as you do your God, that meets your challenge. Not only that, but it has the advantage of riding on something that you presumably don't (and indeed can't) deny - existence.
So refute away.
I don't need to answer for Steven, but the way you use the term "account" puts a demand on a person which they have not said they are willing to meet. What I mean by this is Stephen has said that he cannot provide an answer that "accounts" for logic which he can say is accurate with 100% certainty (Stephen can correct me if I am wrong). Yet you are unwilling to debate your argument that the Christian God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary unless he commits to saying that he is certain about a specific "worldview" accounts for logic.
If somebody is conceding that they do not know, that does not mean you win because you claim absolute certainty. Your argument is not sound just because somebody else is not willing to make an opposing argument that is as ridiculous as yours.
Why should intellectual honesty be "funny", Sye?
I will again repeat why he does not have to give an alternative to disprove yours. Read carefully.
I try again: Your claim must be consistent with itself. So it must be consistent with the laws of logic you claim to account for.
So... there is no need to give an alternative to use logic to find the gaping holes in yours because you already accept logic and so do I.
I also refer to the post at the very top of this page (nr 201), which you must have missed. Because there, I clearly indicate why you did not give a valid account why logic holds.
Yes, like probably most professional philosophers, I don't claim to be certain which theory of logic is correct (though I gave you three accounts, two of which I quite like, none of which you have been able to refute).
You are right, that certainly DOES give you a great argument that God exists. Amazing!
And the fact that I'm not sure how crop circles are formed is also a great argument that aliens made them.
Wow! I am going to be able to prove so much with this form of argument!
You're a genius. You MUST MUST publish this in one of leading peer reviewed journals of philosophy as soon as you can - it's going to revolutionize philosophy! You owe it to humanity. Thank you so much for finally being able to prove so simply what the some of the greatest minds over thousands of years have failed to prove - that God exists!
You'll notice that Sye didn't respond to you, but he kind of responded on Dan's blog....
My response from Dan's blog:
I quoted Sye as saying both:
"impossibility of the contrary" (with respect to his worldview)
and
"I have never claimed that it would be impossible" (with respect to an Invisible Pink Hammer worldview)
Sye repsonded:
"Yawn. You seem to be a master at taking quotes out of context. Quote mining they call it right? You positted a particular worldview (about pink hammers), and my answer reflected that I did not claim that that particular worldview (about pink hammers) was impossible. It is my belief that it is impossible, (as I said), I just had not addressed that one (about Pink Hammers) in a particular claim. Yes, I positted that all contrary worldviews are impossible, I just never said that about that particular one (about Pink Hammers) specifically because it has been my position to only address those worldviews which people actually hold. I did say though, many times that if you posit the Pink Hammer as your actual diety, I will glady address our respective deities and revelation from same in a formal debate. You declined (for obvious reasons)."
So I'm quote-mining? Really? I think not.
Sye said that ALL contrary worldviews are impossible....FACT
And then claimed that he never said that the Invisible Pink Hammer worldview was impossible...FACT
This is a direct contradiction. (Nothing out of context)
The Invisible Pink Hammer worldview is NOT Sye's worldview, and so is necessarily included in 'all contrary worldviews'. Same as the computer programmer worldview and the Flying Spaghetti Monster worldview. Its a very simple dichotomy.
Sye's attempts to wriggle out of this and call me a quote-miner are pretty pathetic. He continually demands that I participate in a formal debate on this, and then critisizes me for declining. Formal debates, as we know, are far inferior platforms for honest debate as they are very 'off the cuff' and dishonest people, like Sye, can score easy points on irrelevant topics. We are already debating here on these two blogs, and I have challenged Sye to refute my worldview here. It is HE that is declining my challenge, for obvious reasons...
(My guess is Sye slipped up when he responded to me originally and now realizes that he contradicted himself, but his ego won't let him admit it. Perhaps he didn't have his list of copy and paste answers at hand at the time)
PS
I certainly don't think you hold the beliefe that certainty is necessary, was just throwin that out there as another idea on the board.
you said:
"Also, even if I don't know Sye is wrong, I can actually still succeed in proving he's wrong (that last point might seem paradoxical - we can discuss if you like)."
This sounds like reasonable doubt to me?
You'll notice that Sye didn't respond to you, but he kind of responded on Dan's blog....
I kind of expect it to be honest, you generally have to put the same simple point to him about 20 times to get a yes or no answer. Once you do that, you have to repeat the process to get the next answer - hence the reason it takes several days and several thousand posts to get to the stage where you can put the answers together and show he's refuted his own points.
(My guess is Sye slipped up when he responded to me originally and now realizes that he contradicted himself, but his ego won't let him admit it.
It's bizarre - even when the direct quotes are posted side by side
'the proof is the impossibility of the contrary'
'I never said it (a contrary worldview accounting for logic) was impossible'
then denies he's even said such things, never mind that they contradict! It's an exceptionally strange way to discuss ideas with people, but each to their own I suppose
Before I go over to Dan's though, don’t y’all think it’s funny that Stephen keeps pointing out alleged logical fallacies in my arguments, when he has yet to account for the laws of logic he appeals to in levelling them, or for the assumption that they WILL hold. I do :-D
Yawn. Not showing an account for logic does not take away the fact that Sye's bullshit is all fallacies over fallacies. As Sye himself admitted, we can use logic all right. So, asking anybody to account for logic before calling his arguments fallacious is just a red herring to avoid properly answering the problem. Dishonest rhetoric, and nothing but dishonest rhetoric. I shall repeat: What a pitiful god who cannot even reveal the proper logic to Sye. :-D
What about we translated every time Sye does this:
Sye means:
Shit, they found me out, I better ask them to account for logic again, so that they get distracted about my lack of logic (and about the poor revelation skills of my god).
G.E.
Funny, isn't it, that this guy who claims he doesn't have time to address positions not held by his opponents evidently has more than enough time to troll a dozen (or more?) blogs/forums at once, running the response totals up over 200 in virtually every case...
--
Stan
I mean, you assert that they exist. You assert that you use them when reasoning. You keep referring to them as your standard, but you won't let anyone else see them. Isn't it at least charitable to let others read them? That would be the fatal blow to atheist reasoning---you truly can account for logic.
Otherwise, you're asking us to believe that you've reasoned correctly. And we can't really give a rip about belief, eh?