tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4664560213504342223..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Logic and God (II)Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77135375086402669842008-08-01T16:06:00.000+00:002008-08-01T16:06:00.000+00:00Sye,Only that which He has revealed to us, part of...Sye,<BR/><BR/><I>Only that which He has revealed to us, part of which is His absolute nature.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, please offer the extension of your proof that goes from "God" to "Christian God." What, in your proof, pertains to the veracity of the Bible?James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45643118247458812952008-08-01T08:59:00.000+00:002008-08-01T08:59:00.000+00:00So, then would you ‘acknowledge that you might be ...<I>So, then would you ‘acknowledge that you might be wrong???’</I><BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/><I>How, in fact, do you know that my position is wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>I have given you a four-point list of reasons why I think your arguments are not valid, and hence your position wrong.<BR/><BR/><I>Um, so you do not think that you are right, and I am wrong???</I><BR/><BR/>We are not talking about 2+2=4 but a self-evidently more complex question. The more complex a question, the more I bear in mind that it is possible that I am wrong - indeed that the basic terms of the question may be open to question themselves. I think I am more likely to be right and you are more likely to be wrong. These probabilities may shift.<BR/><BR/><I>You do not think that being right, is intellectually superior to being wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>No. Being right is often a matter of luck and timing, especially when it comes to complex questions. The important thing is how you approach the truth - whether you are humble and aware of your own limits, or whether you are brimming with hubris and concerned only with demonstrating your superiority.<BR/><BR/><I>So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction???</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but that is based on my experience. My only means of persuasion is to share that experience, but if they do not recognise that their thinking needs correcting, then that's as far as it goes. Black swans, mate.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?</I><BR/><BR/>What do you mean by experiences being valid?<BR/><BR/><I>What exactly do your expereince have to do with anyone else’s reasoning?</I><BR/><BR/>My experience and the conclusions drawn from it is the only measure I have to judge their reasoning.<BR/><BR/><I>Hmmm, but you say that the laws of logic are based on expereince, what does that have to do with my defining premises?</I><BR/><BR/>If your premises are ill-defined and contentious, this means they are not a useful description of observed patterns.<BR/><BR/><I>But, you could be wrong about that right?</I><BR/><BR/>I could be.<BR/><BR/><I>Well, naturally I disagree, but would it be absolutely wrong to do so?</I><BR/><BR/>Whether it's "absolutely wrong" or not has nothing to do with whether you are in fact arguing in bad faith, and everything to do with getting back to your script. QED.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76964266126826913022008-08-01T02:28:00.000+00:002008-08-01T02:28:00.000+00:00Furthermore our idea of quantity is directly taken...Furthermore our idea of quantity is directly taken (systemicaly) from the world. From here the language and symbolism we use and assent to (relative to our community), is judged right or wrong based on how we use it relative to our current situation. <BR/><BR/>To put it another way:<BR/>What we sense with our senses is not what's in the wrong; what ends up being in the wrong is the way we communicate what we're sensing relative to the language we speak, and the meanings of the words we're using in context. In other words it's not nature that's right or wrong (nature holds no property of truth), it's the way we're communicating it relative to our communal language that's wrong.<BR/><BR/>Which gets me back to SYSTEMIC TRUTH where it is only propositions which are true or false. And we (mind) are the method of resolution to get to that.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88096298305393738782008-08-01T02:16:00.000+00:002008-08-01T02:16:00.000+00:00Sye,I'll comment on one thing here, you said:&...Sye,<BR/>I'll comment on one thing here, you said:<BR/>"So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction??? How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?"<BR/><BR/>2+2=4 is meaningless until applied to "SOMETHING". There is nothing valid or invalid about this, and also nothing absolute about it, it's jsut scribles. However when we understand these signs to represent quantities relative to the world (notice I said RELATIVE), we see that penguin is absurde, because we know penguine not to correspond to quantity. But perhaps there is a language where "penguine" is "4". However we wouldn't know such things unless you ask what a person means by that. <BR/><BR/>Whatever language and sybolism someone uses to communicate the idea of quantity is arbitrary. I could just as easily say, C&t#L. Now clearly you can see this statement is nonesense. But if I said to you that the symbol "C" represented a quantity 2 of something, "t" likewise 3, L was 5, and that the & sign represented the idea that we were summing these two quantities, and # equals the final answer 5. We now know that penguine, doesn't fit here, because of course a penguine is not an idea of quantity, it's word that correspnds to an object / mamal, that lives in the south pole.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33904462251238701622008-08-01T01:56:00.000+00:002008-08-01T01:56:00.000+00:00Paul C. said: No. That would be like me saying tha...Paul C. said: <I>No. That would be like me saying that 2+2=3 and you saying 2+2=5. Stephen Law comes along and demonstrates that 2+2=4. I realise that he is right and change my position”</I><BR/><BR/>So, <B><I>then</I></B> would you ‘acknowledge that you might be wrong???’ If not, how is that any different from my position? How, in fact, do you know that my position is wrong? <BR/><BR/><I>”I have never pretended to be intellectually superior to you. I have only pointed out that my position is more honest and more flexible.”</I><BR/><BR/>I guess we can determine that once, you answer the above question.<BR/><BR/><I>”If you think those attributes make my position intellectually superior, that's your interpretation not mine.”</I><BR/><BR/>Um, so you do not think that you are right, and I am wrong??? You do not think that being right, is intellectually superior to being wrong? Riiiiiiight.<BR/><BR/>I asked: <I>”Against what do you correct the course of your way of thinking, and how do you know that my way of thinking needs correction?”</I><BR/><BR/>You answered: <I>”I correct the course of my thinking through experience. Only you can say if the course of your thinking needs correction based on your experience.”</I><BR/><BR/>So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction??? How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?<BR/><BR/>I asked: ”Alright then, on what basis would you call any reasoning ‘mistaken?’”<BR/><BR/><I>”You answered: <BR/><BR/>a. Because the arguments you present do not match with my experience or understanding of the world.”</I><BR/><BR/>What exactly do your expereince have to do with anyone else’s reasoning?<BR/><BR/><I>”b. Because I don't think that you have successfully defined the premises of your argument, so I feel no need to follow the conclusion.”</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm, but you say that the laws of logic are based on expereince, what does that have to do with my defining premises?<BR/><BR/><I>”c. Because a number of people on this thread have successfully countered (if not completely destroyed) your arguments.”</I><BR/><BR/>But, you could be wrong about that right?<BR/><BR/><I>”d. Because you are clearly arguing in bad faith, without any interest in interaction with other people.”</I><BR/><BR/>Well, naturally I disagree, but would it be absolutely wrong to do so?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29187685157195319482008-08-01T01:45:00.000+00:002008-08-01T01:45:00.000+00:00Sye, (nice to see you ignored everything save what...Sye, (nice to see you ignored everything save what you can apply your script to)<BR/>I will gladly tell you what a sinner is, Sye, if you do me the honors of proving to me, "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition; then state an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.<BR/><BR/>And furthermore you acknowledge post #4 on this thread where I completely debased your argument and left you with nothing but:<BR/>1.) God exists.<BR/><BR/>But you won't do that, so why should I continue answer to you?<BR/><BR/>And, just because. I'd like to restate what Paul C wrote:<BR/><BR/>Alright then, on what basis would you call any reasoning ‘mistaken?’<BR/><BR/>a. Because the arguments you present do not match with my experience or understanding of the world.<BR/>b. Because I don't think that you have successfully defined the premises of your argument, so I feel no need to follow the conclusion.<BR/>c. Because a number of people on this thread have successfully countered (if not completely destroyed) your arguments.<BR/>d. Because you are clearly arguing in bad faith, without any interest in interaction with other people.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23899048314387577662008-08-01T01:37:00.000+00:002008-08-01T01:37:00.000+00:00Andrew Louis said: "Sye,and I am a sinner of the w...Andrew Louis said: <I>"Sye,<BR/>and I am a sinner of the worst kind, this is the way it is."</I><BR/><BR/>What is 'sin' Andrew, and how do you know this?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16901415381299160492008-08-01T01:34:00.000+00:002008-08-01T01:34:00.000+00:00Andrew Louis said: ” Your statment here:"And as I ...Andrew Louis said: <I>” Your statment here:<BR/>"And as I said way back, you may claim to not profess atheism, but you are not a theist, you are an idolator, with an idol of your own making, not God."<BR/>Is a clear cut example of the sort of fundamentalist attitudes which states that if you don't think like me, then you're going to the stake. As if you know the mind of God.”</I><BR/><BR/>Only that which He has revealed to us, part of which is His absolute nature. If your ‘god’ is anything other than that, it is simply one that you made up. If you care to dispute this, please tell me about your ‘god,’ what you know about it, and how you know this? <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15192560953621390882008-08-01T01:10:00.000+00:002008-08-01T01:10:00.000+00:00How did you make this determination, and how do yo...<I>How did you make this determination, and how do you know that the laws of logic have not changed such that my argument is valid?</I><BR/><BR/>a. I made this determination by observing that the laws of logic are coherent with my experience of the visible universe.<BR/>b. I don't, but I have no indication that they have changed and your argument appears to be invalid.<BR/><BR/><I>Well, it looks like you are in a disagreement with some of your professed athesit friends here, like Stephen Law,</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. That's because there's no such thing as an atheist worldview.<BR/><BR/><I>still though, prove your assertion please.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not an assertion so I don't have to prove it.<BR/><BR/><I>Look, you made the assertion that the laws of logic do not emanate from the mind of God, either prove it, or retract it please.</I><BR/><BR/>Look, you made the assertion that concept of dinner time does not emanate from the mind of God, either prove it, or retract it please.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know. It doesn't make any sort of sense, does it?<BR/><BR/><I>Please tell me which prior experience tells you that the future will probably be like the past?</I><BR/><BR/>Pretty much all of it.<BR/><BR/><I>Why? What bearing does a law of logic in one domain, have on another domain?</I><BR/><BR/>It has no bearing. It's just a description.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, just out of curiosity, why are the laws of logic so consistent in producing results that ‘work?’</I><BR/><BR/>Because logic is a description of observed patterns in the visible universe. If it wasn't an accurate description, it wouldn't produce results that work.<BR/><BR/>I'm done, I think.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10161080513699072892008-08-01T01:06:00.000+00:002008-08-01T01:06:00.000+00:00Oh Sye!I knew you would bring this one up sooner o...Oh Sye!<BR/><BR/>I knew you would bring this one up sooner or later.<BR/><BR/>That was a statement of certainty out of my reasoning on the subject, not of fanaticism. I cannot think of any way in which anybody can convince me that god is necessary for logic. And believe me, I have listened to most of what you said (I cannot say with certainty that I listened to everything you said, because, for instance, I did not read all of your posts around this blog). Since I do not see your stuff making any sense, I can safely conclude that I will never be convinced that a god is necessary for logic. When something is convincing enough I find it awkward to say "the probability that I will be convinced is infinitesimally small," when it is quite safe to say I will never be convinced. After all, these are conversations or debates, not scientific journals.<BR/><BR/>My choice of words might make it look fanatical. But it is not, it is a reasoned conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Clear enough?<BR/><BR/>Please, again, save the "script." I will not engage into that useless debate with you again.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28180299127689919542008-08-01T00:59:00.000+00:002008-08-01T00:59:00.000+00:00That would be like you saying that if I say that 2...<I>That would be like you saying that if I say that 2 + 2 = 4, and you say that it equals 19 but your answer can be corrected, then you somehow hold an intellectually superior position.</I><BR/><BR/>No. That would be like me saying that 2+2=3 and you saying 2+2=5. Stephen Law comes along and demonstrates that 2+2=4. I realise that he is right and change my position; you sit in the corner protesting that 2+2=5 because God told you.<BR/><BR/>I have never pretended to be intellectually superior to you. I have only pointed out that my position is more honest and more flexible. If you think those attributes make my position intellectually superior, that's your interpretation not mine.<BR/><BR/><I> Against what do you correct the course of your way of thinking, and how do you know that my way of thinking needs correction?</I><BR/><BR/>I correct the course of my thinking through experience. Only you can say if the course of your thinking needs correction based on your experience.<BR/><BR/><I>Alright then, on what basis would you call any reasoning ‘mistaken?’</I><BR/><BR/>a. Because the arguments you present do not match with my experience or understanding of the world.<BR/>b. Because I don't think that you have successfully defined the premises of your argument, so I feel no need to follow the conclusion.<BR/>c. Because a number of people on this thread have successfully countered (if not completely destroyed) your arguments.<BR/>d. Because you are clearly arguing in bad faith, without any interest in interaction with other people.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of bad faith, I also notice that you have singularly failed to address the challenges to your position laid out by the host of this blog. Personally I think that's because those challenges literally cut the legs out from under your argument, but if you believe otherwise perhaps you should address them.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80712877399948062742008-08-01T00:51:00.000+00:002008-08-01T00:51:00.000+00:00Futhermore Sye, as long as I'm now ranting since y...Futhermore Sye, as long as I'm now ranting since you won't reveal your proof of absolutes; let me say this:<BR/><BR/>Your statment here:<BR/>"And as I said way back, you may claim to not profess atheism, but you are not a theist, you are an idolator, with an idol of your own making, not God."<BR/><BR/>Is a clear cut example of the sort of fundamentalist attitudes which states that if you don't think like me, then you're going to the stake. As if you know the mind of God.<BR/><BR/>In my daly life I'm not one to pass judgement, but you seem to be rather good at it. Your whole website is ONE, GREAT, IDOL. (unless of course you can offer that proof)<BR/><BR/>I think your real problem is, that your lost in solipsism.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5733026341730998612008-08-01T00:33:00.000+00:002008-08-01T00:33:00.000+00:00Sye,and I am a sinner of the worst kind, this is t...Sye,<BR/>and I am a sinner of the worst kind, this is the way it is.<BR/><BR/>I will say this, you have no claim to profess what I am. Who are you to place judgement on me?<BR/><BR/>Are you now saying that since you think you have some great proof, that you're now the great judge as well? Shame on you Sye.<BR/><BR/>Here is a judgement of my own:<BR/>Once again, you have no proof of what you say, and evidently no faith either. Your idol, Sye, is the proof you've built up which is completely empty. You've made an idol out of God in your false logic; you mistake the finger for the moon.<BR/><BR/>I pray, <BR/>for you.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73463852408855110492008-08-01T00:07:00.000+00:002008-08-01T00:07:00.000+00:00Andrew Louis said: ” And, as I said way back, I AM...Andrew Louis said: <I>” And, as I said way back, I AM NOT an athesit myself.”</I><BR/><BR/>And as I said way back, you may claim to not profess atheism, but you are not a theist, you are an idolator, with an idol of your own making, not God.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72220746749130180312008-08-01T00:01:00.000+00:002008-08-01T00:01:00.000+00:00GE said: ”He will never snap off his intellectual ...GE said: <BR/><BR/><I>”He will never snap off his intellectual black hole, and he will never say he just has faith but proof. What worries me is this feeling that people should not be entrapped into such things. Not that way, not so bad. Fanaticism is among my top worries about the world.”</I><BR/><BR/>Well then, how does this post sound?<BR/><BR/><I>”But why Sye, even if I were convinced that you need a god to have logic (I will <B>never</B> be)…”</I> (emphasis mine)<BR/><BR/>That’s right, that was you at the Raytractor’s blog in the “Hijacked” thread. You will never be convinced eh? How is that not a fanatical fundamentalist position? <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15989470228298903522008-07-31T23:39:00.000+00:002008-07-31T23:39:00.000+00:00GE,you said:"So, my friend, do you think there is ...GE,<BR/>you said:<BR/>"So, my friend, do you think there is a way of snapping fundies out of their extremism"<BR/><BR/><BR/>By attacking absolutism, NOT GOD. But of course my strategy hasn't been working to well with Sye. And it' not going to.<BR/><BR/>I deleted my comment on the top thread. My vote is lets let Stephen do his thing and not clutter it up with comments Sye is going to ignor anyway. At least for now. <BR/><BR/>Finally,<BR/>this is my first introduction to this type of extreem thinking. It's deffinately been a learning experience for me, and dubious from the start.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21172010609765523002008-07-31T23:36:00.000+00:002008-07-31T23:36:00.000+00:00Ups, i think one part did notcome out as a complet...Ups, i think one part did notcome out as a complete thought:<BR/><BR/>When I fist time I argued with Sye I was more worried about what he was about, and was trying to show him that his idea was bogus. Not necessarily that his god did not exist.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3083220391440897962008-07-31T23:29:00.000+00:002008-07-31T23:29:00.000+00:00Hey Andy,I know you are not an atheist, and I unde...Hey Andy,<BR/><BR/>I know you are not an atheist, and I understand it is his absolutism that you are kinda afraid of (??).<BR/><BR/>When I said he is unreachable, well, I think you know what I meant.<BR/><BR/>I respect you view on theology, of religions being fingers pointing to the important thing out there. That is nice and unifying, and poetic, and respectable.<BR/><BR/>I do not think I was trying to convince Sye that there is not a god at the beginning of my arguing with him. I was more worried to know what the heck this guy was all about. Then he irritated me with his treachery, until I got tired. After that I would engage the guy just to understand him better. Knowing already that he is unreachable. <BR/><BR/>He will never snap off his intellectual black hole, and he will never say he just has faith but proof. What worries me is this feeling that people should not be entrapped into such things. Not that way, not so bad. Fanaticism is among my top worries about the world.<BR/><BR/>So, my friend, do you think there is a way of snapping fundies out of their extremism and helping them accept that they should let other people be happy? I mean, for instance like stop giving homosexuals a hard time because they want to be able to marry? I also mean without attacking their belief in God? If so what would be your strategy?<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52320564316707003812008-07-31T22:21:00.000+00:002008-07-31T22:21:00.000+00:00Kyle S,my response will be long. So I'll post a li...Kyle S,<BR/>my response will be long. So I'll post a link to my blog. I don't want to crunch it in this little space we have here. And you can respond here or there......Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11984160221473196162008-07-31T22:15:00.000+00:002008-07-31T22:15:00.000+00:00GE,you made the comment that Sye was unreachable. ...GE,<BR/>you made the comment that Sye was unreachable. I think I know what you meant by that, but I'd like to be clear in personally stating that it's not my intention to prove Sye wrong and rape him of his Christianity. This, if it were possible, would be an awfull thing to do in my mind; I have all the respect in the world for Christianity.<BR/><BR/>My issue is simply with Sye's arguement and absolute idealogy - it's that simple. And, more importantly, I love this debate; even though Sye tries to dodge me and I accused him of sock-puppeting. Which is simply a reflection of this debate waring on me, which it is.<BR/><BR/>I'd really love for Sye to honestly answer my questions, and I'd really love for Sye to say that he has faith. I've asked him before about faith, and he simply respnded that you didn't need it, because he had proof. Even though Biblically, that's all Paul talks about.<BR/><BR/>So a win for me in this debate would be for Sye to say he has "FAITH" that what he says is true - I respect that. But as it stands, he says he has PROOF.<BR/><BR/>And, as I said way back, I AM NOT an athesit myself.<BR/><BR/> - theres my sapAndrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74499948252166652772008-07-31T20:53:00.000+00:002008-07-31T20:53:00.000+00:00Incidentally, I don’t agree with James F. ElliottY...<I>Incidentally, I don’t agree with James F. Elliott</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I think we covered that when I stated I wasn't making any sense. I think I'm on to something, but it's a very vague something at the moment.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58689266603838057922008-07-31T20:44:00.000+00:002008-07-31T20:44:00.000+00:00Sye responds to my previous comments by asserting:...Sye responds to my previous comments by asserting: “The only way that anyone can know ANYTHING is by or through divine revelation, else it becomes an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know THAT?’ Indeed, I can know that truth is universal, only by God’s revelation.” This is nothing more than yet another of Sye’s endless assertions, which are never backed up by any supporting evidence, let alone proof. There is indeed a problem of infinite regression, but it concerns the nature of God. If God created the universe, who or what created God? And who or what created pre-God? And so on, ad infinitum. Why assume that the universe was created, or required a creator? Sye will be telling us next that unless we accept his version of events, we have no warrant for believing that the universe exists, or that we do, despite the evidence of our senses.<BR/><BR/>I said: ” Sye has no evidence for his presupposition that there is a God – at least he hasn’t produced any yet, apart from mere assertion.” Sye responded: “So, does this mean that you are admitting that you have no evidence for YOUR a priori assumption? The difference is, that my a priori assumption accounts for the very laws of logic you are trying to evaluate my argument, but yours does not.” With respect to his first sentence, I do not need to produce any evidence for my a priori assumption that there is no God apart from the fact that all the available evidence [and lack of evidence] overwhelmingly demonstrates that the existence of Sye’s God, or any other, is highly improbable.<BR/><BR/>Sye’s remaining points in answer to mine are either reiterations of his previous assertions unsupported by evidence, or demands that I should prove a negative – which is impossible. This is getting tedious. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I don’t agree with James F. Elliott that the laws of logic “are simply impositions of order based on the interaction of premises, facts, whatnot”. They are a set of verbal conventions designed to facilitate fruitful discussion, and can be changed if they are found to be erroneous or fallacious.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32230138330716970172008-07-31T19:59:00.000+00:002008-07-31T19:59:00.000+00:00Look, I don’t want to sound sappy, but of all the ...<I>Look, I don’t want to sound sappy, but of all the people here, and at the other blog, I feel a particular soft spot for you. I do not doubt, or even mind, if that is met with ridicule, but I sense the frustration that you must be going through, and I feel bad about it. (Feel free to deny that to save face if you must).</I><BR/><BR/>Oh but the reason could well be that I am sappy Sye. Ridiculously so. That might be the reason you sense frustration, but the frustration is of a very different nature than you MIGHT be implying. Part of my frustration is this feeling that your mind might be unreachable, combined with how easily you "cheat." I cannot reconcile what I used to think of what a christian is (an image that I truly respected), and what you do. Another part of my frustration is that I still think people are entitled to their beliefs [whether they include a god or not]. I think a belief in a god can be useful for them. That does not make me any more inclined to accept such fantasies as true. I did not want to discuss or fight against any belief in god (for the reason above), but I was pulled into that by the intolerance and prejudices that exudate from such beliefs (at least among christian fundamentalists). So, of course I feel frustration. Yet another source of frustration is that it seems impossible to expose the dishonesty used by the likes of Ray C. (or discovery institute, or you name it) to abuse other people's beliefs (I do not know what for, but selling books and videos of recycled lies might explain it).<BR/><BR/>So, thanks for the feelings Sye. As of your prayers, I understand what they mean to you, so I can only feel grateful. (As I said I am sappy.)<BR/><BR/>And again, I will not entangle any more into your debate. So please save that repetition.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52392884278831835182008-07-31T19:19:00.000+00:002008-07-31T19:19:00.000+00:00Kyle S then,so that I can "slowly" explain this. W...Kyle S then,<BR/>so that I can "slowly" explain this. What exactly is it that you don't understand about my proof?<BR/><BR/>The question, how can something be "A" and "-A" I've already answered on several occasions. I don't understand what your hang up is. Perhpas if I did, that would explain Sye's hang up as well.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40941326921773270112008-07-31T19:09:00.000+00:002008-07-31T19:09:00.000+00:00NO,IT CAN'T BEEEEEEEEEENew postNO,<BR/>IT CAN'T BEEEEEEEEEE<BR/><BR/>New postAndrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.com