tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post374851719391432359..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Sye's Presuppositional ApologeticsStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger257125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52876604564220137102009-02-20T03:13:00.000+00:002009-02-20T03:13:00.000+00:00Sye, if you're still reading, did you ever get aro...Sye, if you're still reading, did you ever get around to providing the full, formal explication of the univarsal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? You know, all the necessary axioms and rules for inference presented so that anyone can understand them?<BR/><BR/>I mean, you <I>assert</I> that they exist. You <I>assert</I> that you use them when reasoning. You keep referring to them as your <I>standard</I>, 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 <I>can</I> account for logic.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, you're asking us to <I>believe</I> that you've reasoned correctly. And we can't really give a rip about belief, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66840338560172627902009-02-12T04:41:00.000+00:002009-02-12T04:41:00.000+00:00But as we approach almost 3000+ posts on the subje...<I>But as we approach almost 3000+ posts on the subject...</I><BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-578966898904013772009-02-07T03:22:00.000+00:002009-02-07T03:22:00.000+00:00Guys, Sye said:Before I go over to Dan's though, d...Guys, Sye said:<BR/><BR/><I>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<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>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<BR/><BR/>What about we translated every time Sye does this:<BR/><BR/>Sye means:<BR/><BR/><I>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).</I><BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87433297192649448822009-02-06T17:55:00.000+00:002009-02-06T17:55:00.000+00:00Dr Funk,You'll notice that Sye didn't respond to y...<I>Dr Funk,<BR/><BR/>You'll notice that Sye didn't respond to you, but he kind of responded on Dan's blog....</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>(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.</I><BR/><BR/>It's bizarre - even when the direct quotes are posted side by side<BR/><BR/>'the proof is the impossibility of the contrary'<BR/><BR/>'I never said it (a contrary worldview accounting for logic) was impossible'<BR/><BR/>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 supposeRocky Rodenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620894198842461714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71199212034274049662009-02-06T15:51:00.000+00:002009-02-06T15:51:00.000+00:00Stephen,you said:"Also, even if I don't know Sye i...Stephen,<BR/>you said:<BR/>"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)."<BR/><BR/>This sounds like reasonable doubt to me?Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11125101311820149442009-02-06T13:36:00.000+00:002009-02-06T13:36:00.000+00:00Stephen - Tee hee...PSI certainly don't think you ...Stephen - Tee hee...<BR/><BR/>PS<BR/>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.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51378276428802876782009-02-06T12:27:00.000+00:002009-02-06T12:27:00.000+00:00Dr Funk,You'll notice that Sye didn't respond to y...Dr Funk,<BR/><BR/>You'll notice that Sye didn't respond to you, but he kind of responded on Dan's blog....<BR/><BR/><BR/>My response from Dan's blog:<BR/><BR/><BR/>I quoted Sye as saying both:<BR/><BR/>"impossibility of the contrary" (with respect to his worldview)<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"I have never claimed that it would be impossible" (with respect to an Invisible Pink Hammer worldview)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sye repsonded:<BR/><BR/>"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)."<BR/><BR/><BR/>So I'm quote-mining? Really? I think not.<BR/><BR/>Sye said that ALL contrary worldviews are impossible....FACT<BR/><BR/>And then claimed that he never said that the Invisible Pink Hammer worldview was impossible...FACT<BR/><BR/>This is a direct contradiction. (Nothing out of context)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>(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)rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50169107568383493462009-02-06T12:26:00.000+00:002009-02-06T12:26:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69331556084947715192009-02-06T08:22:00.000+00:002009-02-06T08:22:00.000+00:00Hey Sye - I have suddenly seen the light!Yes, like...Hey Sye - I have suddenly seen the light!<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>You are right, that certainly DOES give you a great argument that God exists. Amazing!<BR/><BR/>And the fact that I'm not sure how crop circles are formed is also a great argument that aliens made them.<BR/><BR/>Wow! I am going to be able to prove so much with this form of argument!<BR/><BR/>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!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26762985249257988832009-02-06T08:06:00.000+00:002009-02-06T08:06:00.000+00:00Sye said: "Before I go over to Dan's though, don’t...Sye said: <I>"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"</I><BR/><BR/>Why should intellectual honesty be "funny", Sye?<BR/><BR/>I will again repeat why he does not have to give an alternative to disprove yours. Read carefully.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>not</B> give a valid account why logic holds.Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57379196464713587872009-02-05T21:03:00.000+00:002009-02-05T21:03:00.000+00:00Before I go over to Dan's though, don’t y’all thin...<I>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. </I><BR/><BR/>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 <B>your</B> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17199156131540769389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57726098765556385542009-02-05T19:54:00.000+00:002009-02-05T19:54:00.000+00:00Yawn. Please support your claim that I admitted th...<I>Yawn. Please support your claim that I admitted that I only have a possible route to certainty.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm aware that you <I>believe</I> your answer to be correct - but what I have repeatedly pointed out that merely having the <I>possibility</I> of answer doesn't make that certain, which below you seem to agree with.<BR/><BR/>Sye: The fact that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, <B>is, in itself not proof that God exists,</B> (<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>Sye: however <B>it is an admission by you that I have, at least, a possible avenue to certainty, </B> whereas you have none from which to level any argument.<BR/><BR/>Me: Yup, but then again <B>possible is not the same as actual</B><BR/><BR/>Sye: <B>Never said it was</B><BR/><BR/>This next bit is from Dan's blog (somewhere between posts 201-400) <BR/><BR/><I>Yawn X2. Please support your claim that I concede that there may be a possible alternative.</I><BR/><BR/>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?”<BR/><BR/>Sye: Although I do not believe that it would be possible, <B>I have never claimed that it would be impossible, </B>I am simply challenging you to formally debate our respective deities and revelations from same. You are unwilling to(for obvious reasons).<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Again, I am aware you <I>believe</I> your answer to be correct, but I'm not disputing that. Your ovearching claim is that you can <I>prove</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>So refute away.Rocky Rodenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620894198842461714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47829749937931201042009-02-05T19:28:00.000+00:002009-02-05T19:28:00.000+00:00That cheap rhetorical ploy might work in a meeting...That cheap rhetorical ploy might work in a meeting, Sye, but here, where people can scroll back through the endless times you've tried that tactic, it really ain't going to convince anyone, is it?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Premises and conclusion, please.<BR/><BR/>You haven't got one, have you?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22830053211294309152009-02-05T19:20:00.000+00:002009-02-05T19:20:00.000+00:00Before I go over to Dan's though, don’t y’all thin...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 :-DSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53027917764640554872009-02-05T19:19:00.000+00:002009-02-05T19:19:00.000+00:00If he was honest enough to actually discuss it, I ...If he was honest enough to actually discuss it, I might be willing to entertain the first option. But as we approach almost 3000+ posts on the subject (from my experience alone), I'm forced to admit that III is much more likely...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10738239472444922832009-02-05T19:08:00.000+00:002009-02-05T19:08:00.000+00:00Carrying on my line of thought from my last commen...Carrying on my line of thought from my last comment - what we CAN say with confidence, I think, is:<BR/><BR/>Sye's "proof", in effect, is something like:<BR/><BR/>1. Only the Christian God can account for logic<BR/>2. Logic exists<BR/>Conclusion: The Christian God exists<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>We ask him what the argument "by the impossibility of the contrary" is.<BR/><BR/>Sye responds with the question "How do you account for logic then?"<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>But maybe Sye's question is supposed (implicitly) to supply the missing argument "by the impossibility of the contrary"?<BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58305405187506474962009-02-05T18:59:00.000+00:002009-02-05T18:59:00.000+00:00Dr. F. Said: ”However, over 2 different blogs, 3 t...Dr. F. Said: <I>”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”</I><BR/><BR/>Yawn. Please support your claim that I admitted that I only have a <I>possible</I> route to certainty.<BR/><BR/><I>”another of Sye's admissions (over on debunking atheists) is that he concedes that there may be a possible alternative,”</I><BR/><BR/>Yawn X2. Please support your claim that I concede that there may be a possible alternative.<BR/><BR/>(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).<BR/><BR/>(I’ll be at Dan’s Blog catching up for a bit, then possibly back here later).Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84422875250202102962009-02-05T18:42:00.000+00:002009-02-05T18:42:00.000+00:00By the way Andrew, you also say: "All he’s saying ...By the way Andrew, you also say: <BR/><BR/>"All he’s saying is that, I have a means of absolute certainty through the Christian God."<BR/><BR/>No Sye's not just saying that, is he? He is clearly also saying he can "prove" that his particular God exists. <BR/><BR/>He is also saying that no atheist, or even non-Christian, account of logic is possible.<BR/><BR/>His "proof" of God's existence actually rests on the premise that<BR/>no atheist, or even non-Christian account of logic is possible.<BR/><BR/>If this is to function as a "proof" the premise needs, presumably to be self-evident or supported by argument.<BR/><BR/>Sye says it is both.<BR/><BR/>I deal with the self-evidence claim in the post on which these are comments.<BR/><BR/>The argument for the premise is, according to Sye, "by the impossibility of the contrary."<BR/><BR/>What is the argument "by the impossibility of the contrary" though?<BR/><BR/>Sye never says. He just asks the question: "How do YOU account for logic then?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But if that's not the argument, then what is?<BR/><BR/>So what fallacy or error is Sye committing in this particular instance?<BR/><BR/>It's hard to say, because we don't actually know what his argument is. So far, he has not given one!<BR/><BR/>He just keeps asking a question!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23973280278812113292009-02-05T18:31:00.000+00:002009-02-05T18:31:00.000+00:00Andrew, the problem is that Sye has (following the...Andrew, the problem is that Sye has (following the lead of so many other apologists) adopted a stock of rhetorical devices that he employs ad nauseum. <BR/><BR/>It goes roughly like this (as I'm sure you know):<BR/><BR/>I have a belief A that accounts for vitally important phenomenon B that we need to to rely on even to conduct this argument<BR/><BR/>The idea contrary to this view is impossible<BR/><BR/>In order to proceed you must provide me with an alternative, which I have already claimed cannot even in principle exist.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/><BR/>he only has a <I>possible</I> route to certainty, as opposed to an <I>actual</I> 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. <BR/><BR/>-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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Rocky Rodenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620894198842461714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78571069168595711202009-02-05T18:24:00.000+00:002009-02-05T18:24:00.000+00:00Absolutes don't exist, and I am absolutely sure of...Absolutes don't exist, and I am absolutely sure of that. <BR/><BR/>Given that my ability to perceive reality is limited, that absolute surety is not absolute. It is 'absolute to the best of my knowledge'Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39845212108097426892009-02-05T18:07:00.000+00:002009-02-05T18:07:00.000+00:00Anrew, you said: "If you believe in absolutes, or ...Anrew, you said: "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."<BR/><BR/>Andrew - I think you are confused about my view.<BR/><BR/>I didn't say absolute certainty is possible, nor do I claim to be absolutely certain about anything.<BR/><BR/>Also, absolute certainty is not a requirement for knowledge.<BR/><BR/>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).Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28449224160846351432009-02-05T18:01:00.000+00:002009-02-05T18:01:00.000+00:00Stephen,I’m not convinced that Sye is actually com...Stephen,<BR/>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….<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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”?” <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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… <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>P.S.<BR/>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 Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16642557592239097062009-02-05T17:35:00.000+00:002009-02-05T17:35:00.000+00:00Incidentally Sye, I allow everyone to comment on m...Incidentally Sye, I allow everyone to comment on my ideas and arguments here. If people can show me the error of my ways - and sometimes they do - well that's a little uncomfortable for me. But really - it's a good thing. I don't want to hold false beliefs or fall foul of crappy arguments. So everyone is welcome here. You too. And I make a point of responding.<BR/><BR/>Your website, on the other hand, allows no comments at all. Why not?<BR/><BR/>You go round others websites availing yourself of the freedom they provide you to comment.<BR/><BR/>But you provide no such freedom.<BR/><BR/>why not?<BR/><BR/>Shouldn't this be a two way street? What have you got to fear, given your arguments are so powerful?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Could it be that you're afraid...?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43306990584359546372009-02-05T16:58:00.000+00:002009-02-05T16:58:00.000+00:00Although he pretends to be utilizing logic, he can...Although he pretends to be utilizing logic, he can't really hide the fact that his argument is faith-based. This explains the prevalence of logical fallacy, and of his willingness to avoid valid counter arguments.<BR/><BR/>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...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75922632816082210812009-02-05T16:53:00.000+00:002009-02-05T16:53:00.000+00:00I wanted to avoid bringing this debate over here, ...I wanted to avoid bringing this debate over here, but since I see that Sye still will not address Stephen's three potential atheist friendly worldviews accounting for logic, I will point out why this is for all of you reading here.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><I>(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><BR/><BR/>(I am not sure how to insert a link on here, but this is from the Debunking Atheists blog).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17199156131540769389noreply@blogger.com