I was sent a link to this, for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here.
PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is:
My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock.
Prove this is false, Sye.
Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a proof when you see it. So it fails."
Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: "But prove to me your mind is not addled, then, Sye". Which you won't be able to, for the above reason. I might then add, with a flourish - "So you see, my claim is proved by the impossibility of the contrary".
And of course I have a good explanation for why your brain is addled, Sye - you were hit on the head by a rock.
Have I proved to Sye that he was hit on the head by a rock? Of course not. Still I might tie Sye up in knots like this: each time he tries to offer an argument that his reasoning is reliable and justified, and/or that he wasn't hit on the head by a rock, I say, "Oh dear, Sye, you are trying to use logic - and you can't do so with justification till you have proved you were not hit on the head by that rock! My proof works!! I win!!" Repeat ad nauseum until he gives up. Then claim victory.
This, in effect, is Sye's core argumentative strategy. The first thing you need to know, before engaging with him, is that he will constantly run this argument over and over and over. But he has many other strategies too, to give him credit. Yes of course it's ultimately all bullshit, but boy he can really construct a complex edifice out of it!
Incidentally, we presented Sye with not one but three atheist-friendly accounts of logic, none of which did Sye refute, or even attempt to refute. Yet he keeps claiming there are none. Some chutzpah.
PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is:
My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock.
Prove this is false, Sye.
Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a proof when you see it. So it fails."
Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: "But prove to me your mind is not addled, then, Sye". Which you won't be able to, for the above reason. I might then add, with a flourish - "So you see, my claim is proved by the impossibility of the contrary".
And of course I have a good explanation for why your brain is addled, Sye - you were hit on the head by a rock.
Have I proved to Sye that he was hit on the head by a rock? Of course not. Still I might tie Sye up in knots like this: each time he tries to offer an argument that his reasoning is reliable and justified, and/or that he wasn't hit on the head by a rock, I say, "Oh dear, Sye, you are trying to use logic - and you can't do so with justification till you have proved you were not hit on the head by that rock! My proof works!! I win!!" Repeat ad nauseum until he gives up. Then claim victory.
This, in effect, is Sye's core argumentative strategy. The first thing you need to know, before engaging with him, is that he will constantly run this argument over and over and over. But he has many other strategies too, to give him credit. Yes of course it's ultimately all bullshit, but boy he can really construct a complex edifice out of it!
Incidentally, we presented Sye with not one but three atheist-friendly accounts of logic, none of which did Sye refute, or even attempt to refute. Yet he keeps claiming there are none. Some chutzpah.
Comments
1. The Bible talks of the ‘laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25) and accounts for universal, abstract, invariants. We have been given the capacity to reason, and in fact, are commanded to reason (Isaiah 1:18). The Bible clearly states that all things are “from [God] and through [God]" (Romans 11: 36), and “all things” necessarily includes the laws of logic.
2. No one has ever said that Christians have the exclusive use of logical laws, in fact we are all commanded to reason. The difference is that Christians can account for those laws, whereas you cannot.
”It is absurd for Sye to believe he can reason, but others cannot, and it is arrogant for him to assume God has granted him alone some special power.”
Again, that is not my position, but still by what absolute standard of logic would that be absurd, and how do YOU account for that standard?
Now, I have demonstrated how this ‘rock’ scenario does not even parallel the presuppositional argument, as I never claimed that Stephen was not able to reason, just that he has given no justification for his ability to do so (other than the IPU). I have made no claims about the state of his mind, or his ability to answer my questions, but it is clear that he simply refuses to give an honest answer (other than his IPU suggestion – which until I get another I will take as genuine).
This post has now gone over 200 comments, and I think that the point is well made. I am happy to give you the last word Stephen, as I know it will be just more of the same.
Cheers,
Sye
"once you deny having knowledge, you should be consistent, and stop making knowledge claims"
I made no claims to knowledge. I made claims about what Sye thinks, I made claims about logic, I made claims that there exists no "basis" that will found secure knowledge.
I did not make claims to know what Sye was thinking, know that logic was "valid" or to know that there exists no "basis" that will found secure knowledge.
I will make another two claims, without claiming that I know them:
1. Just as there is a difference between "X" and knowing "X" there is a difference between claiming "X" and claiming "I know X".
2. Whoever, when faced with someone who not only does not claim "I know X" but avows that they do not know X, persists in asking them "but how do you know X" is either stupid or dishonest.
Take another apologist, Alister McGrath, arguing for the existence of God from the "fine tuning" of the universe. McGrath specifically denies that the "fine tuning" argument amounts to knowledge. McGrath claims it is reasonable to claim that God exists because (in part) God is the best available explanation for what looks like fine tuning. Such is a rational apologist.
A rational atheist counters, not by listing McGrath's claims and saying "how do you know that" but by making his own claims and trying to show were McGrath's claims are wrong, rather than unsupported.
This is what happened when Stephen debated McGrath at the Conway Hall. Very stimulating it was too (I brought my Christian next-door neighbour along and he enjoyed it). It was certainly much more satisfiying than:
- "how do you know?"
- "I don't, but I think it's right. Can you give me any reason why it's wrong and I should accept what you say?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
-"how do you know?"
You are attacking a straw man, Sye. I did not say God could or that he could not do such a thing. I simply asked how you know that you are actually in such a situation, rather than that you think you are because you were hit on the head by a rock.
You could claim that being hit on the head could never cause someone to think they were in such a state. But of course it could cause such a delusion. And in any case, you couldn't justify the claim that it couldn't cause such a delusion, because that would require that you had already justified non-question-beggingly your claimthat you were not hit on the head by a rock and your brain addled.
So you're screwed, Sye.
I ask again: what is your non-question-begging justification for supposing you were not hit on the head by a rock and your thinking addled (causing you mistakenly to think you had received such a certain revelation)? Justify your claim that your use of logic is reliable. Justify your claim that God has revealed certain things to you as certain, rather than you mistakenly think he has.
I keep asking over and over for your justification, but we only ever get more and more evasions, or question-begging justifications.
So I have "proved" you were hit on the head by a rock, by means of your own ridiculous argumentative strategy.
Of course my "proof" is stupid. And so is yours.
Incidentally, someone could just as easily claim the IPU revealed to them the truths of logic in such a way that they can be complete certain about them. You'd dismiss such a claim. But it would be as "justified" as yours. i.e. not at all. Obviously such a person would be nutcase.
Not at all, but your concession that I could have certainty invalidates your objection, as basically, you are conceding that I could have certainty, and you have no basis for certainty from which to challenge my claim.
I can easily say that I am certain that my brain is not addled, and you must concede that possibility, and also concede that you cannot be certain that it is not (or of anything for that matter).
”So you're screwed, Sye.”
Are you certain of this Stephen? If so, please tell us how you can be certain of this (or anything). If not, you have no point.
”Incidentally, someone could just as easily claim the IPU revealed to them the truths of logic in such a way that they can be complete certain about them. You'd dismiss such a claim.”
Not at all, I’d challenge such a person to debate such a claim (scroll up).
”Obviously such a person would be nutcase”
Again, scroll up.
Take this quote from Sye:
"(Y)our concession that I could have certainty invalidates your objection, as basically, you are conceding that I could have certainty, and you have no basis for certainty from which to challenge my claim."
The best I can analyse this includes a claim that:
A: If it is possible for Sye to have certainty then Sye has certainty.
"A" is either:
1: An argument in modal logic with a non-modal conclusion. Or
2: The claim that if Sye has certainty in one possible world then Sye has certainty in all possible worlds and is necessary. This could, of course, only happen if Sye was also in all possible worlds and thus was necessary and thus God.
Both are so ridiculous that we cannot reasonably conclude that God planted this idea in Sye's head. To explain Sye holding this idea we must look to another explanation. The best available one may be that Sye was hit on the head by a rock (or non-metaphorical equivalent).
It's beginning to seem to me pretty obvious that Sye really has been "hit on the head by a rock".
that is not my position
If so, why so curious as to why I find it absurd? Your position gets more ridiculous by the minute.
"(Y)our concession that I could have certainty invalidates your objection, as basically, you are conceding that I could have certainty, and you have no basis for certainty from which to challenge my claim."
The best I can analyse this includes a claim that:
A: If it is possible for Sye to have certainty then Sye has certainty.
I think it's more like this: Sye is claiming that in the game of logic, claims that invoke certainty are trumps, and thus always defeat any claims from other "suits." Thus the Two of Certainties beats the King of Probabilities.
I pointed out to him that this was an absurd way to reason, since it would follow (for example) that all any defense attorney would have to do, to gain an acquittal, would be to say God had told him his client was innocent. That would trump any presentation of DNA evidence, or even film of the accused committing the crime, since those things can't prove with absolute certainty that the accused was guilty.
I think Sye's response was "How do you KNOW that this is a bad way to reason?" Or something equally memorable.
Surely you see the problem with admitting that I can in fact be certain of some things, and then following that with a suggestion that I cannot be.
The question becomes, how can any of you be certain that I am not certain (or of anything for that matter)?
2) People have said Sye could be certain of things, if other claims of his were true, but that there was no apparent reason to believe those claims were true.
3) Thus there is nobody who is guilty of the contradiction Sye charges them with, of simultaneously claiming that he both can and cannot be certain of things.
4) Sye's response to this (if any) will not be to attempt to show the falsity of points 1, 2 or 3, but to demand a demonstration of the source of my certainty that they are true.
5) My response: I will do so just as soon as Sye meets my repeated demand that he demonstrate it would serve any useful purpose for me to do so.
Nope, you have made a mistake, Sye. Suppose the Old Testament God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn can give people certainty, in the sense that they can hook someone up to certain facts in such a way that they they cannot be mistaken. They are infallible: necessarily, if that person believes P, then P.
Does the mere *possibility* of being granted such infallible access to facts allow you to deal with my sceptical challenge?
Actually, no. Because being banged on the head by a rock could cause someone to believe they had mistakenly been granted such infallible, certain, access to truth.
So I ask you: how do you know you have such access, rather than were hot on the head by a rock and merely think you have it? Provide your justification for claiming you have it?
You cannot. All you can do is say "But I do have it!" a" But even the person hit on the head by a rock will say that, and they don't.
Saying, "It's at least *possible* I have it! might perhaps be true, but even if it is, that doesn't allow you to justify your claim that you do (as the person hit on the head by the rock, and the IPU person, can say it too, and they are not justified!).
And of course the nutcase who says the IPU has granted them infallible certain access will say it too. They are obviously not justified in supposing they have it either, despite the fact it's just *possible* that there is an IPU that really has granted them such access.
So how do you justify your use of logic Sye, if you cannot justify your belief you were not hit on the head by a rock?
The only way out is for you to say "I don't need justification for knowledge."
But then you undermine your case for saying we heathens don't know.
When are we going to get it? All we get are evasions or hopelessly question-begging answers!
Sye, why do YOU think YOU have the AUTHORITY to command me to answer your questions? There is nothing in your Bible to suggest this is allowed.
This post has now gone over 200 comments
I am off to the seaside for a few days, but I fully expect this thread to be still active when I come back. There's no limit to blogger comments, so it's quite possible this conversation could go on ad infinitum.
Cheers
No wrong again Sye. Your God may be a metaphysical impossibility and so may any such "avenue"". I don't say that such an "avenue" exists or might exist.
The point I am making, which you keep choosing to just ignore, is this.
Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that there might be an IPU and that the IPU miight be able to furnish people with certain infallible knowledge of certain truths, such as those of logic.
Does this mean that a unicornist who claims in all sincerity that they possess such certain and infallible unicorn-granted knowledge is, then, justified in believing they really have such knowledge, rather than that they were, say, hit on the head by a rock or in some other way caused mistakenly to believe they possess such knowledge?
Answer: No (not even if, as a matter of fact, they really do).
But then you are not justified in claiming you possess such knowledge, either. Even if you do.
You still cannot supply the non-question-begging justification I repeatedly ask for, and which you never ever supply, for supposing you were not hit on the head by a rock and your brain addled.
To keep saying "I have an avenue of certainty!" or even "I might have an avenue of certainty - prove I don't!" is simply to ignore this fatal problem with your so-called "justification", not to solve it.
By all means keep on ignoring this fatal problem with your "justification"if you like. It'll just make you appear even more evasive!
**You cannot justify a claim P by pointing out that someone has not, or even cannot, prove/justify the claim that not-P.**
That's why my "proof" is crap.
The fact that Sye either has not, or cannot, prove/justify his belief that he was not hit on the head by a rock does NOT "prove" that he was.
Similarly the fact (if it were a fact, which in any case it probably isn't) that we have not or cannot prove/justify the claim that it's false logic must depend on God, doesn't "prove" that logic must depend on God.
Hence Sye cannot claim to have "proved" that logic depends on God by showing either that we have not, or even cannot, disprove that thesis (Tony made this point well ages ago).
Just so that's clear...
Of course Sye understands all this perfectly well, but pretends not to.
Probably he'll ask **completely irrelevantly** "But Stephen, how do YOU account for the laws of logic?", and if no answer is forthcoming, he'll claim victory!
Thus thereby committing the very fallacy I've been lampooning!
He MUST know this by now, of course.
"Does this mean that a unicornist who claims in all sincerity that they possess such certain and infallible unicorn-granted knowledge is, then, justified in believing they really have such knowledge, rather than that they were, say, hit on the head by a rock or in some other way caused mistakenly to believe they possess such knowledge?
Answer: No (not even if, as a matter of fact, they really do)."
I NOW ADD: Actually, a Unicornist COULD say that, if they are the recipient of such Unicorn-granted knowledge then they do possess a way of telling this, a justification. The unicornist hit on the head by a rock, by contrast, merely thinks they possess this.
Of course it is *very* difficult to make much sense of how they could possess this "way of telling"! But suppose for the sake of argument that they could. Does that mean that someone who claims to possess such Unicorn-granted knowledge is justified in supposing they do?
Yes, possibly!
But where does this get us? Well, it gives *us* no reason whatever to suppose they possess such Unicorn-granted knowledge. For all we know they were hit on the head by a rock. They CANNOT "PROVE" OR JUSTIFY TO US THEIR CLAIM THAT THEY POSSESS SUCH A FACULTY. They can merely assert that they possess it. And that's all Sye can do.
Just as in the case of the Unicornist, we are justified in rolling our eyes and saying, "Yeh, right, maybe the Unicorn has given you such certain access. But you've failed to provide US with any reason to think so, and indeed we have excellent reason for treating your claim with a great deal of scepticism."
And of course none of this gets Sye any nearer his "proof" of the existence of God, any more than it gets the Unicornist any nearer a "proof" of the existence of the Unicorn. See preceding email.
I'd quite like to explore it more, because there are some useful distinctions to be made between infallibility, subjective certainty (feeling certain), Cartesian certainty, etc.
Infalliblity (which Sye earlier appealed to) is not a form of "certainty" that's going to help him re. justifying his belief that he wasn't hit on the head by a rock (as I pointed out before). Note that someone could be infallible - incapable of error - re certain facts, yet not realize this, or be very doubtful about it. Sye could be infallible about the basic laws of logic, yet not know them. Or even feel sure about them. So Sye's first stab at characterizing certainty wouldn't work.
But I have (in preceding post) suggested a different kind (I don't know why I am helping him) - possession of something like a transparently reliable way of telling that P is true - that might do the trick.
Of course, a transparently reliable way of telling that P is a deeply mysterious idea that probably doesn't even make sense. But it is intriguing.
Of course, as I have pointed out, the Unicorn could also grant this kind of certainty, if the Unicorn exists.
And of course possession of this "way of telling" can't be demonstrated to others.
Also, if to "prove" or justify something, it must be "proven" or justified in such a way that *others* can recognise its truth/justification, then Sye cannot "prove" or justify his claim that he was not hit on the head by a rock etc. even if he does have God-given certainty of the above sort.
If one were minded to challenge the claim, "An omnipotent being could grant us certain knowledge of some facts," one could say:
1) "Knowledge" is justified, true belief;
2) But, given the existence of an omnipotent being, ANY belief we hold could be an irresistible illusion planted in us by that being;
3) If any belief we hold could be a false one, then no belief we hold would be justified;
4) Thus, if an omnipotent being exists, no knowledge is possible.
So it could easily be argued that, far from providing an "avenue to certainty," theism completely blocks that avenue.
Of course this is all just reinventing the wheel (or reinventing descartes).
Sye likes to use the term "unassailable" instead of "infallible," but refuses to say what it could mean in this context to say that a premise is "unassailable." (Does it mean that one literally cannot challenge it? Because the premise jumps out of logic space into physical space and strangles you before you can get out the words "How do you know?" or "No it isn't"?)
By this definition, however, it does not at all follow that "unassailable premises" are all true ones! For example, we cannot continue the exercise of discussion without accepting the premise that we are capable of understanding one another's words and seeing the point when our interlocutor makes a point. To deny those premises makes all discussion futile. But it may well be that in fact we don't understand one another words, and refuse to see one another's point.
So an "unassailable" premise isn't something that gives us a pass to Certaintyland, it's more like a "concession fee" we pay to enter Discussionland in the first place.
This is great! It perfectly captures Sye's attitude. For Sye discussion is not a way of testing ideas, seeing where yours can be improved, deciding whether to accept or reject others suggestions and mutually trying to move towards truth. For Sye discussion is a game, you have your thesis and the aim is to "prove" it is true (whether or not it is) by means of rhetorical tricks and strategies. The actual truth can go hang.
On this basis isn't being "granted an avenue to certainty" something like:
"Aha! With you playing the IPU I can finesse the Ten of Logic in Dummy leaving the Two of Certainties to beat your King of Probabilities"
Or one might try continuing the Monopoly simile. ("You've landed on Logic, but my worldview owns that, so you have to pay rent. You can't get off the space until you pay me a proof that you can know things.")
Damn!
Incidentally Sye says over there re. my "proof":
"See this is just a clear misunderstanding of presuppositionalism. It is NOT the presuppositionalist claim that professed unbelievers do not, or cannot know, or prove things (as Stephen Law is suggesting here) it is simply the claim that professed unbelievers cannot account for what they are doing."
Stephen says: Actually, it's Sye who has misunderstood the challenge I set him here. I agree Sye doesn't claim unbelievers cannot use logic to prove things. But he does ask unbelievers to *justify* their use of logic (and when they fail, he says "Aha, so by the impossibility of the contrary, I win! I have proved that only we Christians can possess such a justification!"). I simply set Sye the same challenge - to *justify* his belief that his brain is not addled by a rock.
Any justificatory argument he offers will simply *presuppose* he has not been hit on the head by rock.
Actually, I think the greatest threat to Sye's presuppositionalism is its self-refuting character. Sye's Old Testament God supposedly underwrites science and reason. But science and reason establish beyond reasonable doubt that there's no such God (thank goodness - that God is a total arse). So even Sye must still end up rationally driven back to scepticism.
Point this out to him and Sye'll say - ah but you are using logic! How do you justify (and account for) your use of it?!!
You are right to keep bringing up other religious views, such as Islam, which can play the same presuppositional card. As you know, I embraced invisible pink unicorn presuppositionalism.
I tried to convince Sye to send his supposedly brilliant argument off to a leading philosophy of religion journal, to see what response he gets. Deep down, he already knows, of course...
Why could it not be true that Christians and non-Christians are both committing the same error in assuming logic to be infallible?
Suppose logic has an empirical character -- using logic has worked everywhere we have tried, we think, but we are not sure that it will always work. Why must we claim to know for sure?
Sye's "revelation" is not something anyone else can be expected to accept as evidence, so it is irrelevant. This is the only thing he uses to justify his use of logic.
I cannot see that we have any evidence that logic specifically is a "law of heaven and earth" in Jeremiah 33:25.
Then the Isaiah verse, "reason" and "logic" are not interchangeable words.
In the Romans quote, it says "all things" come from God. Is this all things that exist or all things? Do blue apples come from God? Suppose there are no universal and unchanging laws of logic?
I see nothing in the parts of the Bible you have presented that guarantee logic exists to one who accepts the Bible as valid evidence. Perhaps it is spelled out more clearly somewhere else in the Bible?
a) you essentially admitted that your God is no different than Law's unicorn, because all you sought to "prove" was that he's not an atheist, and that's no positive proof for your God.
b) you've failed to disprove his unicorn exists, which is why you "were happy to leave it at that". So that means you are unable to refute claims made by anybody under your presuppositional stupidity argument.
c) even though you never said Stephen's head is hit by a rock, the fact you try to undermine his reasoning and use of logic, or take credit for his use of logic by attributing it to your God, or your belief of his belief of God, or his belief of God, IS the same as saying "you're otherwise no different than a person who's been hit by a rock". The point of being hit by a rock is that a person's brain and sense cannot be trusted, and if you do not think Stephen's brain can be reliable, you must show what COULD convince you otherwise (and how you have met that standard yourself).
d) Saying "God revealed it to be that I can know for certain" is not an answer, if that's your best answer, thanks for cutting it short.
e) you use your senses? How do you know that's reliable? No circular reasoning here!
Please feel free to add your 2p worth.
Sye is still insisting that he won the rock scenario.
His brain must be addled.
Paul Baird
http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/sye-and-paul-show-comments
Like I say I am a bit disappointed with PCR that they put a huckster like Sye on - lowers the tone a bit. Most of the Christian debaters they have had on have been really good, interesting speakers.
Sye's last post was
Reply by SyeTenB 12 hours ago
Alright ladies, thanks for your time, but I'm taking a much needed break. Have fun while I'm gone :-) If you have a (short) question that you would like addressed, please PM me.
Cheers,
Sye
I now have my own blog at http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2010/08/and-in-end.html just to keep a record in case he shows up again.
That said someone posted a comment on my blog suggesting Surrendra Gangadean at http://gangadean.com/ as a more serious Presup.
Have you heard of him and read his work and do you have any views on it ?
Thanks.
The show has now been posted and is available for download. The last show reached 14,000 downloads and got into Premier Christian Radios top 10 mainly thanks to Dr James White over at Alpha and Omega Ministries so I'll be interested to see how this one does.
Shownotes and audiofeed available too.
Having listened to it all the way through I'm extremely pleased with it. I was able to correct a number of issues from the first debate and also to press Sye on a number of issues and particularly revelational epistemology and to show the problems with that.
Amazing how an atheist who appeals to revelation from a 'god' for logic, is pleased with this show. Pleased enough to post the link for more people to listen to it. Indeed, check it out and see how an atheist accounts for logic.
Cheers,
Sye
It's at http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2011/03/second-debate-transcript-work-in.html and the first 33 minutes are done, only another 47 to go :-(
Dr Glenn Peoples feels a bit uncomfortable that I quoted him against Sye but confirms that I was correct to do so.
I'm now being besieged by offers for a third debate - what it is to be popular.
As the "discussions" with Sye developed Stephen's "Sye has been hit on the head with a rock" argument began to seem less and less like a hypothetical thought experiment and more and more like a metaphorical description of the actual situation. We could use "hit on the head by a rock" the same way we use "two sandwiches short of a picnic".
It turns out that the founder of Seventh Day Adventism was literally hit on the head by a rock and this seems to explain her, frankly, insane beliefs.
How is it that you, as a non-omnipotent being, can get over the problem of recognising that you've had a genuine revelation experience? It seems like you're trying to borrow God's omnipotence, yet you'd need to establish that you as a finite and non-omnipotent being would be capable of knowing the difference between a genuine revelation and the illusion of it.
Prove otherwise.
People who are that certain should not be listened to.
I think the "brain addled" rebuttal is useful but I have to admit that I struggled with it at first. I think that there are a number of issues with Sye's argument and I'd be interested in your views.
The methodology of his argument is to assert something along the lines of
"I know for certain that god exists"
and he then invites his opponent to take the position
"I know for certain that god does not exist"
which is the Parlour Trick. The original assertion is Sye's and yet he forces his opponents into defending a line of argument that they do not actually advance themselves.
I cannot prove for certain that god does not exist but that does not mean that god does exist by default. Yet that is how it plays out.
Sye asserts that god can reveal some things to him (and has indeed done so) such that he knows them for certain. If this is the case then there must be a part of Sye that is infallible in order to be able to possess that knowledge. One line of enquiry then might be to Sye if he has ever forgotten anything or been incorrect about anything - which would be the addled brain rebuttal. Sye's response is then to assert that his opponent has to prove that god could not do such a thing whereas the original assertion is his - that god has done such a thing. It up to him to prove it and not up to us to disprove it. It's a bit like writing your name on the surface of a water pond - yes, you can do it, but the water surface cannot retain the information.
Another issue that Sye asserts is that anyone engaging him must defend their own specific worldview. As you demonstrated, someone can advance several worldviews. To suggest that you should only advance one worldview only is a bit like suggesting to a lawyer that they can only defend themselves in court, or a to a surgeon that they can only operate on themselves. It's a useful debating trick in that he tries to narrow down as much as possible what avenues are available to his opponents, but it's unrealistic.
My final point is a bit left-field. One of the supporters of the Presuppositional Apologetic suggested that it's purpose is to "stop up the mouth of the non-believer", which is suitably defensive but it's not a viable proselytizing technique. I'd suggest that we engage with religions mainly because we have to. There is an interest, the outcome matters to our daily lives.
The danger for religions is when we no longer have an interest, the outcome no longer matters. In which case hiding behind a shield is not very persuasive. So when a YEC asserts 6,000 years and is asked about the distant starlight problem and responds with the PA justification of knowledge line of argument the result is not a new convert but someone who just walks away after about 10 minutes - not because the argument has defeated them or they have defeated it but because, for them, the result holds no interest.