tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7705929738982274615..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Sye show continuesStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger250125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31089280749236436582018-11-20T08:29:43.741+00:002018-11-20T08:29:43.741+00:00Wow, this was such a long time ago that I'd fo...Wow, this was such a long time ago that I'd forgotten about it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The methodology of his argument is to assert something along the lines of<br /><br />"I know for certain that god exists"<br /><br />and he then invites his opponent to take the position<br /><br />"I know for certain that god does not exist"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.mknarrowboaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481375124463415543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15940289192166873992018-11-09T08:51:18.991+00:002018-11-09T08:51:18.991+00:00nothing new,syetenB loses again,this guy doesn'...nothing new,syetenB loses again,this guy doesn't care about humilation anymore,i guess.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246882089892048337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24066286532659739482012-04-30T00:40:45.837+00:002012-04-30T00:40:45.837+00:00Certainty isn't justifiable just because you f...Certainty isn't justifiable just because you feel it. Saying that you are certain because god can make you certain is the same thing as saying you are certain that you are certain.<br /><br />People who are that certain should not be listened to.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10941186395188446764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53102347097476242382012-04-30T00:37:54.122+00:002012-04-30T00:37:54.122+00:00This comments thread is hilarious. The "laws ...This comments thread is hilarious. The "laws of logic" Sye mentions were made up b Aristotle. Logic has moved on since Aristole. Look up modern conceptions of logic like paraconsistent logic, for example. Stephen, do you know of logician Graham Priest?Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10941186395188446764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56927481660743876842012-04-21T12:30:15.166+00:002012-04-21T12:30:15.166+00:00What were the three atheistic accounts of logic th...What were the three atheistic accounts of logic that you gave to Sye?Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10941186395188446764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34557818168273855442012-04-20T00:45:49.762+00:002012-04-20T00:45:49.762+00:00Sye TenB= pwned.Sye TenB= pwned.Aragornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17161621090445639028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73072032988424020422011-11-07T08:41:14.462+00:002011-11-07T08:41:14.462+00:00Also, God has revealed to me that Sye TenB was, in...Also, God has revealed to me that Sye TenB was, in fact, addled by a rock blow to the head.<br /><br />Prove otherwise.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84772590731366725272011-11-07T08:40:11.412+00:002011-11-07T08:40:11.412+00:00Sye TenB wrote: "Simple, God has revealed, su...Sye TenB wrote: "Simple, God has revealed, such that I can be certain of it, that I can use my senses and reasoning to gain certain knowledge."<br />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.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7215830454004290472011-04-11T10:28:12.949+00:002011-04-11T10:28:12.949+00:00PZ Myers (http://tinyurl.com/6ynbubw) links to an ...PZ Myers (http://tinyurl.com/6ynbubw) links to an interesting story (http://tinyurl.com/3dc4c7v) about Seventh Day Adventists.<br /><br />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 <b>hypothetical</b> thought experiment and more and more like a <b>metaphorical</b> 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".<br /><br />It turns out that the founder of Seventh Day Adventism was <b>literally</b> hit on the head by a rock and this seems to explain her, frankly, insane beliefs.Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32208611009914946452011-03-27T08:46:04.395+00:002011-03-27T08:46:04.395+00:00Ok, for masochists everywhere (particularly me, I ...Ok, for masochists everywhere (particularly me, I suspect) I'm writing up the transcript of the debate.<br /><br />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 :-(<br /><br />Dr Glenn Peoples feels a bit uncomfortable that I quoted him against Sye but confirms that I was correct to do so.<br /><br />I'm now being besieged by offers for a third debate - what it is to be popular.Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82272101326109196712011-03-27T01:31:43.365+00:002011-03-27T01:31:43.365+00:00Sye, I listened to the most recent Unbelievable? p...Sye, I listened to the most recent Unbelievable? podcast and was left absolutely befuddled as to how your argument supported the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. Perhaps I'm just a bit dense but I can't see how your position adds anything to the Anselmian first cause argument. If (as Paul suggested during the discussion) we accept everything you say, what do you rely mon to say that the foundation of logic is your god as opposed to Thor? BTW, Thor bless you.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87216707464223149142011-03-21T17:35:19.672+00:002011-03-21T17:35:19.672+00:00Having listened to it all the way through I'm ...<i>Having listened to it all the way through I'm extremely pleased with it. I</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85038905334900039672011-03-21T17:34:41.396+00:002011-03-21T17:34:41.396+00:00will check it out!will check it out!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10984235048670080552011-03-20T18:37:28.554+00:002011-03-20T18:37:28.554+00:00Second Debate on Presuppositional Apologetics - Pa...<b>Second Debate on Presuppositional Apologetics - Paul Baird v Sye Tenbruggencate - ready for download</b><br /><br />The show has now been posted and is available for <a href="http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/6edf007c-73a9-47c9-bbbd-c9e9a97a4113.mp3" rel="nofollow">download</a>. 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.<br /><br />Shownotes and <a href="http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx" rel="nofollow">audiofeed</a> available too.<br /><br />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.Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40312131433530334192010-09-11T19:23:50.945+00:002010-09-11T19:23:50.945+00:00HI Stephen, well I think we're done with Sye n...HI Stephen, well I think we're done with Sye now.<br /><br />That said someone posted a comment on my blog suggesting Surrendra Gangadean at http://gangadean.com/ as a more serious Presup.<br /><br />Have you heard of him and read his work and do you have any views on it ?<br /><br />Thanks.Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24336858491003102362010-08-19T07:50:24.501+00:002010-08-19T07:50:24.501+00:00I've had the pleasure of being involved in a l...I've had the pleasure of being involved in a long, long thread - 1180 posts(and that one of five on the go at the same time) with Sye on Premier Christian Radio's Unbeleivable forum.<br /><br />Sye's last post was <br /><br />Reply by SyeTenB 12 hours ago<br /> 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.<br /><br /> Cheers,<br /><br /> Sye<br /><br />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.Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38819425333724140462010-08-11T17:30:42.846+00:002010-08-11T17:30:42.846+00:00I had a quick look. It's the same old bollocks...I had a quick look. It's the same old bollocks.<br /><br />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.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54829305040630331632010-08-10T19:09:40.362+00:002010-08-10T19:09:40.362+00:00I've been debating Sye for a few weeks too ove...I've been debating Sye for a few weeks too over at Premier Christian Radio, I also had a Radio debate with him.<br /><br />Please feel free to add your 2p worth.<br /><br />Sye is still insisting that he won the rock scenario.<br /><br />His brain must be addled.<br /><br />Paul Baird<br /><br />http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/sye-and-paul-show-commentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1713831170060886692010-05-23T09:00:36.021+00:002010-05-23T09:00:36.021+00:00To Sye :
a) you essentially admitted that your Go...To Sye :<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />e) you use your senses? How do you know that's reliable? No circular reasoning here!Kylehttp://twitter.com/hellzballernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35582418744376551202010-05-10T23:02:42.993+00:002010-05-10T23:02:42.993+00:00"1. The Bible talks of the ‘laws of heaven an..."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." -Sye TenB<br /><br />I cannot see that we have any evidence that logic specifically is a "law of heaven and earth" in Jeremiah 33:25.<br /><br />Then the Isaiah verse, "reason" and "logic" are not interchangeable words.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?machi4vellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10538091084446197640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32499985158631793042010-05-10T22:56:12.727+00:002010-05-10T22:56:12.727+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.machi4vellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10538091084446197640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21646815160283520202010-05-10T22:45:11.531+00:002010-05-10T22:45:11.531+00:00Even if one accepted Sye's argument, is it not...Even if one accepted Sye's argument, is it not simply "you cannot justify your use of logic"? If one were to grant this, how does that in any way support the existence of god?<br /><br />Why could it not be true that Christians and non-Christians are both committing the same error in assuming logic to be infallible?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.machi4vellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10538091084446197640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-70352022139973418062010-05-10T22:38:44.375+00:002010-05-10T22:38:44.375+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.machi4vellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10538091084446197640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29735835094762598162010-03-29T21:51:37.787+00:002010-03-29T21:51:37.787+00:00Thanks Paul - good luck with that.
Incidentally S...Thanks Paul - good luck with that.<br /><br />Incidentally Sye says over there re. my "proof":<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Any justificatory argument he offers will simply *presuppose* he has not been hit on the head by rock.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?!!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19555343495874048492010-03-29T20:07:53.834+00:002010-03-29T20:07:53.834+00:00Stephen: if you're still reading this, you mig...Stephen: if you're still reading this, you might be interested in <a href="http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum/topics/the-presuppositionalismsye" rel="nofollow">a discussion I'm having with Sye</a> on the Premier Christian Radio forum. I've certainly found your thoughts here valuable in arguing against Sye's position.Paul Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07812075028283068443noreply@blogger.com