Skip to main content

Sye - endgame

Well Sye said he has an argument for his premise (1). We have asked him countless times what it is. He won't say. Indeed, he just gets weirdly evasive. So I think we are justified in concluding he hasn't got any argument for premise (1).

(1) is, then, a contentious and unargued for premise. But then, while Sye's argument is deductively valid, it relies on a contentious and unargued for premise, and so fails to establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

Having established that beyond reasonable doubt, we can now do a proper job of examining his endlessly repeated challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic. I'll do that next.

Comments

Anonymous said…
You've got a lot more patience with him that I'd have! ;)

He must be right though - there's so many proofs ;)
Psiomniac said…
Endgame it might be, but we know Sye's likely response in the end:
By who's standard do you judge I am in checkmate, and how do you account for these rules in YOUR system? Are they absolute? If not why should I pay attention to them? ....and so on.

It will do no good to point out that he had been happy to appeal to the rules of chess and play fairly until he got into difficulty, before he tried to apply backspin to all his moves.

There are many dis-analogies between the rules of logic and those of chess, but as I said before, the most irritating dis-analogy between playing chess and debating is that with the former, victory is clear and there really is nowhere to hide. With debating, there is infinite wriggle room, even if it fools nobody.
Sye TenB said…
Actually my argument for premise one is that the contrary is impossible.
Rayndeon said…
LOL Sye.

And what is your argument that the contrary is impossible?

Allow me to guess: you're going to ask me questions I already answered.

*Rolls eyes*

Did you miss Stephen's last few posts or something?
Anonymous said…
Please tell me why you are still wasting time on this guy?

If you say, "I want to show him that he's wrong", then you are wasting your time.
anticant said…
Please see my post on "The Need to be Right":

http://antarena.blogspot.com/2008/03/need-to-be-right.html
Anonymous said…
Sye, am I mistaken or is your "the contrary is impossible" argument simply an expression that you believe your stated premise to be correct since there are in your mind no other (contrary) premises possible?
Sye, please detail the premises and conclusions encapsulated in "the impossibility of the contrary."
Stephen Law said…
We're done here, Sye. Now we move on to your claim that atheists cannot account for the laws of logic.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist