tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post5055854480657176678..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Sye's latest responseStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56274165150055517502008-08-08T06:03:00.000+00:002008-08-08T06:03:00.000+00:00Sye says: "Interesting how Dr. Johnson invokes God...Sye says: "Interesting how Dr. Johnson invokes God in his retort." <BR/><BR/>Dr Johnson, you ignorant twit [I don't suppose you have ever heard of him, or of Boswell's "Life"], was a devout Christian.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83503754705129495232008-08-08T04:24:00.000+00:002008-08-08T04:24:00.000+00:00David Gawthorne said: "Given this argument, I cann...David Gawthorne said: <I>"Given this argument, I cannot see how God’s existence can justify our beliefs about logical laws."</I><BR/><BR/>The argument begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of their validity.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28060571711576664182008-08-07T23:23:00.000+00:002008-08-07T23:23:00.000+00:00Why would a God design sensory systems that easily...<I>Why would a God design sensory systems that easily fail?</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, Doc, don't give him the chance to bring in "The Fall" and original sin. Please.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1593929182346198192008-08-07T22:07:00.000+00:002008-08-07T22:07:00.000+00:00Sye,Note that I was careful to separate out episte...Sye,<BR/><BR/>Note that I was careful to separate out epistemological considerations (relating to questions as to what and how we can know) from metaphysical considerations (relating to questions as to the fundamental explanation of things).<BR/><BR/>Saying that logical laws and/or God do not require explanation if they exist because they would exist necessarily is a metaphysical claim.<BR/><BR/>How we know whether there are such necessary laws or beings is another question.<BR/><BR/>Next, the problem of evil is relevant if we rely on God to explain our knowledge because of the issue of our fallibility. <BR/><BR/>Let’s ignore the moral absolutes of good and evil for a moment. I grant the logical possibility that a good God could have just reasons for creating the world as it is. That we are fallible in our thought processes would fall within this constraint of God having good reasons for making or allowing the world to be the way it is. <BR/><BR/>Okay, so the epistemological question becomes, how do you know that God does not have good reasons to allow you to be in error about any of the knowledge that you seek to explain via God’s existence?<BR/><BR/>Maybe the true laws of logical are completely different to the way you think they are and God had some good reason to make the world such that you have wrong beliefs about logic.<BR/><BR/>Given this argument, I cannot see how God’s existence can justify our beliefs about logical laws.<BR/><BR/>If true logical laws require no independent explanation, and God cannot explain our knowledge of logical laws, I do not understand the deficit that the existence of God alleviates in relation to logical laws.David Gawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028985071894991230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55929804684123308482008-08-07T19:38:00.000+00:002008-08-07T19:38:00.000+00:00Actually Geert, we can rely on our senses as we kn...<I>Actually Geert, we can rely on our senses as we know that they are a gift from God</I><BR/><BR/>This is something Fitelson and Sober brought up in their response to Plantinga's EAAN (another favourite of presuppers)<BR/><BR/>I wear glasses, as do many other people. Others suffer from various sensory disorders both physical and psychological. Why would a God design sensory systems that easily fail?<BR/><BR/>I also gather that eyewitness testimony is one of the leading causes of wrongful imprisonment, and psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus have argued that it should no longer be used in court trials such is its unreliablity.<BR/><BR/>I think Stephen also pointed out that these apparently reliable senses lead the vast majority of the world's population to accept worldviews that you would consider false. Why would they be geared to do this?<BR/><BR/><I>God has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it</I><BR/><BR/>Yo haven't really added anything to Frame's 'we just know we know' statements by saying this - I can just ask 'how do you account for how the revelation is imparted to us/being certain?'Rocky Rodenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620894198842461714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28454449509116709242008-08-07T17:15:00.000+00:002008-08-07T17:15:00.000+00:00God has revealed it in such a way that we can be c...<I>God has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it</I><BR/><BR/>How?<BR/><BR/>(If you say "The Bible," you're automatically disqualified.)James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74702851588034836112008-08-07T17:05:00.000+00:002008-08-07T17:05:00.000+00:00For poop's sake, now all Sye's doing is re-framing...For poop's sake, now all Sye's doing is re-framing questions negatively and then asking you to prove them. Fine: Sye, prove you're not a douche.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7589112413333752272008-08-07T15:15:00.000+00:002008-08-07T15:15:00.000+00:00Actually Geert, we can rely on our senses as we kn...<I>Actually Geert, we can rely on our senses as we know that they are a gift from God,</I><BR/><BR/>- Senses are a gift from God<BR/>- Logic is how God thinks.<BR/><BR/>HOW can I believe in the Christian worldview WITHOUT using my senses or using my LOGIC?<BR/><BR/><I>you, on the other hand have the hopelessly circular argument of: “I sense and reason, that my senses and reasoning are valid.”</I><BR/><BR/>At least, that's how know logic is consistent with observed reality.<BR/>I KNOW I need an axiom (everything in my observed reality is true). <BR/><BR/>You do too.Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20049007328282015632008-08-07T14:53:00.000+00:002008-08-07T14:53:00.000+00:00Sye daid: "you, on the other hand have the hopeles...Sye daid: "you, on the other hand have the hopelessly circular argument of: “I sense and reason, that my senses and reasoning are valid.”"<BR/><BR/>For those interested in a rather more comprehensive and sound naturalistic justification for the reliability of senses and reason than Sye's straw man, I would recommend the following:<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.htmlNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26430693574027403452008-08-07T14:44:00.000+00:002008-08-07T14:44:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "Actually Geert, we can rely on our sens...Sye Said: "Actually Geert, we can rely on our senses as we know that they are a gift from God..."<BR/><BR/>Prove that your God exists, and that our senses are a gift from that GodNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4079795860270617292008-08-07T14:39:00.000+00:002008-08-07T14:39:00.000+00:00Geert said: ”But NO, we can't EVER be certain in y...Geert said: <I>”But NO, we can't EVER be certain in your view.”</I><BR/><BR/>On the contrary, it is only in the Christian worldview that one can have certainty. Watch: Geert, what are you certain of, and how are you certain of it?<BR/><BR/><I>”Even then, in your view, I can never believe my eyes. I would need to RELY ON REALITY.”</I><BR/><BR/>Actually Geert, we can rely on our senses as we know that they are a gift from God, you, on the other hand have the hopelessly circular argument of: “I sense and reason, that my senses and reasoning are valid.”<BR/><BR/><I>”You know, observing REALITY... what I do to validate logic.”</I><BR/><BR/>Give me an example of how your observations validate logic, without using logic.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88786787461145333342008-08-07T14:10:00.000+00:002008-08-07T14:10:00.000+00:00Simple, God has revealed it in such a way that we ...<I>Simple, God has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it, which, you would be forced to admit, is at least a possible avenue to certainty. What is yours?</I><BR/><BR/>Ow, Jezus came to my door, rang, and delivered "the book" himself, giving me his captivating smile saying he loves me while reascending to heavens.<BR/><BR/>I'd believe then, Sye.<BR/><BR/>But NO, we can't EVER be certain in your view. Even then, in your view, I can never believe my eyes. I would need to RELY ON REALITY.<BR/><BR/>You know, observing REALITY... what I do to validate logic.Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14579163961798243232008-08-07T14:00:00.000+00:002008-08-07T14:00:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "Simple, God has revealed it in such a w...Sye Said: "Simple, God has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it..."<BR/><BR/>Prove that your God actually exists, and has done what you sayNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81772015172248839382008-08-07T13:58:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:58:00.000+00:00Dr. Funkenstein said: "But how do you 'account for...Dr. Funkenstein said: <I>"But how do you 'account for' God's revelation being real and not just lies/wishful thinking on the part of the writers of the bible"</I><BR/><BR/>Simple, God has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it, which, you would be forced to admit, is at least a possible avenue to certainty. What is yours?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83354619420969707712008-08-07T13:49:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:49:00.000+00:00Anticant said: "I agree, and am content to stick w...Anticant said: <I>"I agree, and am content to stick with Dr Johnson's sceptical lady who, when the good doctor asked her what she DID believe in, replied "I believe in the universe" to which he retorted "By God, Madam, you'd better!"</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting how Dr. Johnson invokes God in his retort. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-70511693072011433192008-08-07T13:43:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:43:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "God necessarily exists"Prove it!Sye Said: "God necessarily exists"<BR/><BR/>Prove it!Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7819489145055596152008-08-07T13:40:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:40:00.000+00:00David Gawthorne said: "Logical laws are necessaril...David Gawthorne said: <I>"Logical laws are necessarily true."</I><BR/><BR/>Hello David, and welcome. God necessarily exists. How do you like your argument now?<BR/><BR/><I>"It can be seen, therefore, that using God to underwrite human knowledge claims DOES make the problem of evil relevant to this debate."</I><BR/><BR/>Alright, fine. David, what is 'evil' in any atheistic worldview?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52265176804873889592008-08-07T13:27:00.000+00:002008-08-07T13:27:00.000+00:00Geert said: "YOU said God cannot create ANYTHING o...Geert said: <I>"YOU said God cannot create ANYTHING outside his own nature."</I><BR/><BR/>Where have I said that? <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Sye<BR/><BR/>P.S. I had saved your previous post to respond to today actually, but the point is now moot.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12044234747938397352008-08-07T11:49:00.000+00:002008-08-07T11:49:00.000+00:00Quite. The futility of meaningful debate with the ...Quite. The futility of meaningful debate with the likes of Sye has now been tested to destruction here. Let's move on.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21707897637266825662008-08-07T11:30:00.000+00:002008-08-07T11:30:00.000+00:00Stephen,If you read the transcripts of debates wit...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>If you read the transcripts of debates with other presuppositional apologists, you will see that they all stick to the same TAG script as Sye:<BR/><BR/>1) Assert that logic cannot be accounted for on any worldview but their own.<BR/>2) Refuse to ever justify this assertion by means of a valid deductive argument (or set of arguments) using premises that are themselves justified (or properly basic in a non-contentious way).<BR/>3) Make further unjustified metaphysical and theological assertions (such as those relating to revelations), and refuse to answer any criticisms of these assertions.<BR/>4) Always ask opponents how they explain logic on their worldview. If no arguments are presented, then assume that they win by default. <BR/>5) If arguments are presented for this or anything else by the opponent, then either ignore them or repeately ask the opponent to 'prove' everything they say, even when an absolute proof is not possible (only an argument to the best explanation), in order to put them on the defensive. <BR/>6) Go back to step 1<BR/><BR/>See here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/debates.html#Transcendental<BR/><BR/>IMO, the best that can ever be hoped for with such people is a stalemate. This can only be achieved by never presenting one's own arguments, as that will just invite further "but how do you prove that" questions to put you back on the defensive. The only tactic, so far as I can see, is to close them down by doing nothing but asking them to 'prove' their own assertions. They will never do this, of course, just revert back to more unjustifed assertions. At this point, you just ask them to 'prove' those assertions. Eventually, the debate will just degenerate into a Mexican Standoff.<BR/><BR/>This is not very enlightening or entertaining, of course, so one might choose to present one's own arguments anyway. However, in this case, the opponent will just revert back to their script, and the whole thing becomes futile.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38169547690993497182008-08-07T09:33:00.000+00:002008-08-07T09:33:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "There is no logical contradiction with ...Sye Said: "There is no logical contradiction with God’s being all good, and the presence of evil, as you cannot show that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for the evil in this world."<BR/><BR/>You show that God actually exists, and does have morally sufficient reason for all the suffering that currently does and has previously existed in the world.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1472558123607998002008-08-07T09:30:00.000+00:002008-08-07T09:30:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "Their debate presupposes the laws of lo...Sye Said: "Their debate presupposes the laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God’s revelation. That same God also reveals that He is all good."<BR/><BR/>Prove that the laws of logic cannot be accounted for on any other wolrdview. Prove that your God exists, and is all good.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65866783739596485892008-08-07T09:24:00.000+00:002008-08-07T09:24:00.000+00:00Sye Said: "Please prove that God cannot reveal som...Sye Said: "Please prove that God cannot reveal some things to us via our senses in such a way that we can be certain of them."<BR/><BR/>No - you prove that God really exists and actually does this.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369291708879545309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91727612412051299182008-08-07T07:58:00.000+00:002008-08-07T07:58:00.000+00:00What does sye do?"I am a presuppositionalist, not ...What does sye do?<BR/><BR/>"I am a presuppositionalist, not an evidentialist."<BR/><BR/>"Presuppositionalist?" In other words, this basic method of thinking is that unless one has absolute certainty, one is denied the right to question anything, even if they have evidence! <BR/><BR/>Note that if someone comes with evidence, Sye just SLAPs them in the face with the fact they are not arrogant enough to presuppose they have the key to truth. He thinks, they have no basis to know ANYTHING.<BR/><BR/>In order for you to believe ANYONE Sye first FORCEs them into accepting his presupposed absolute truth, or ignore argument. Including saying that he can reject anyone who questions the bible before they accept it as the truth. (Inversion of burden of prove)<BR/><BR/>The way to prove someone is WRONG, to anyone else but himself, is either to claim they have no basis to think (unless they accept his premise).<BR/><BR/>Catch 22 thinking.<BR/><BR/>Another trick he often uses is to simply invert the burden of truth, as shown above.<BR/><BR/>But FEAR NOT! You can also be a presuppositionalist, just say: "I am always right (by the impossibility of the inverse)". This logic is consistent and unbreakable. Indeed, in this world, the inverse is indeed impossible!<BR/><BR/>Every 'evidentionalist' will claim you have a very limited power of prediction, and try to show you hard evidence that you are wrong. But hey, as long as they have no basis to believe their own eyes, they can not prove anything! IF they come up with another basis, like Sye does, just say "That's are wrong". It must be true, because you're a presupposionalist that whatever you say is true. What a bliss!<BR/><BR/>@Sye <BR/><BR/>Now I also see why you chose to ignore my *previous* post. I am obviously an 'evidentialist'.<BR/><BR/>But HEY, I understand you:<BR/><BR/><I>"Their debate presupposes the laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God’s revelation."</I><BR/><BR/>You don't have to prove that, right? Because if I don't accept it, you'll just say I have no basis to question you.<BR/><BR/>Catch 22. Rejecting arguments unless we agree with you.<BR/><BR/><I>That same God also reveals that He is all good. There is no logical contradiction with God’s being all good, and the presence of evil, as you cannot show that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for the evil in this world.</I><BR/><BR/>Catch 22. Inversion of the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/><I>You can’t even tell us what evil is, apart from an absolute standard of morality (God).</I><BR/><BR/>Catch 22. Inversion of the burden of truth.<BR/><BR/>YOU said God cannot create ANYTHING outside his own nature. YOU said there is evil. Why is evil?Geert A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936401274628873383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38943892661617779672008-08-07T05:57:00.000+00:002008-08-07T05:57:00.000+00:00Coming into a blog debate at this point is probabl...Coming into a blog debate at this point is probably a mistake, but I am both confused and intrigued by the claim that the existence of God could somehow account for logical laws.<BR/><BR/>Logical laws are necessarily true.<BR/><BR/>Even if it is granted that God is a necessary being (and assuming we know what that means) I do not see how the existence of God could explain logical laws.<BR/><BR/>Traditionally, it has been argued by theists that God does not require an explanation because he is a necessary being and only contingent beings require an explanation.<BR/><BR/>If logical laws hold necessarily then, on the same basis, they do not require an explanation.<BR/><BR/>It is not as though true logical laws could have been otherwise. Thus, something being necessarily so constitutes an explanation of that thing (state of affairs, law).<BR/><BR/>Asking WHY something is necessarily so seems to imply a kind of hyperintensionality that can never be satisfied by any explanation as there will always be a higher order question as to why something is necessarily necessarily so, or necessarily necessarily necessarily so, and so on.<BR/><BR/>In that case, I would suggest that the onus passes to the inquisitor to explain why the explanation that something is necessarily so is insufficient.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the debate has also been framed in epistemological terms, such as how we can know which of the argument forms are underwritten by validity.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, the suggestion that we know logical laws via our knowledge of God is similar to Descartes’ use of the ontological argument to ground human knowledge of anything. This is interesting because in explaining why human knowledge is EVER fallible, Descartes had to deal with a form of the problem of evil. It can be seen, therefore, that using God to underwrite human knowledge claims DOES make the problem of evil relevant to this debate.David Gawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028985071894991230noreply@blogger.com