Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers has given his opinion of Sye TenB's silly little website. In case you haven't heard of this guy, he's a presuppositionalist with a rather high opinion of himself.
PZ's verdict is that it is......
*drumroll*
.......a silly little website.
It's a dreary exercise in the fallacy of the excluded middle. You are lead through a series of binary choices, in which you are asked to choose one alternative or the other, with the goal of shunting you to the desired conclusion, which is, of course, that God exists. Building on a fallacy is bad enough, but even worse, it can't even do that competently — it cheats. All of the options are designed to bounce you to only one line of reasoning, and if you don't play the designer's game, it gets all pissy at you and announces that you aren't serious and you should go away. Some proof, eh?
Over 200 comments and no sign of Sye yet. Hopefully when he checks his Google alerts for his own name he will show up there and defend himself. I would dearly love to see him try his circular nonsense on the vultures at Pharyngula.
BigMKnows, one of the commenters there, has posted his own refutation of the site which is also worth a read
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
Upon waiting one hour and eleven minutes for a response Sye said:
Mob eh? Crickets here, crickets there. I have better things to do than wait around for your responses.
Cheers,
Sye
June 27, 2009 2:09 AM
Well, after evading questions for over 200 comments, there has been no response from Sye for 48 hours. Using his own time-scale, I guess that means he's packed up and moved on...
216 comments:
1 – 200 of 216 Newer› Newest»Actually my site tracker alerts me when someone posts a link to my site, so I don't need to Google my name :-)
Haven't seen anything worthy of a response there though.
Cheers,
Sye
Hmmm, something doesn't add up here...
One of the biggest atheist sites on tinternet has written a piece slating your site. This has obviously drawn a lot of attention to you, evidenced by the fact that there are now over 300 comments discussing the false dichotomies and circular logic you use. This would be ample opportunity to take on the masses on the big stage and show them the error of their ways. But you claim that you have seen nothing worthty of a response! LOL
Contrast that with my timid reporting of said article on my modest little blog. Lo and behold, Sye makes an appearance!! Am I to assume my piece was worthy of a response from his Syeness whilst PZ and hundreds of his commenters weren't?
Rubbish.
You are afraid to dip your toe in the shark-infested waters over at Pharyngula.
Are ya yella?
Hardly, it's the same old blather with a forum that does not lend itself to debate.
I've been preparing for a very important, unrelated matter which takes place today, and will have more time for their nonsense later. Since it appears you want me to take them on, they'll have you to blame :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Hardly, it's the same old blather with a forum that does not lend itself to debate.
You're describing your website now, right?
Since it appears you want me to take them on, they'll have you to blame :-).
This is gonna be good...
BTW I recently read through some of the threads at Dan's site again and came up with a list of questions that you continually dodged before you left (Hat-tip to fellow SMRTs).
Here they are for the record. Feel free to address them or continue to dodge...
1. Explain how these two contradictory quotes of yours are compatible: "Impossibility of the contrary" with respect to your worldview and "I have never claimed that it would be impossible" with respect to a contrary worldview. (Links to these quotes can be provided)
2. You consistently claim that your version of the truth is certain, but seeing as you have agreed in the past that there are people who are certain of truth but are in fact wrong, how can you know that you are not one of these people?
3. If you discount the validity of personal revelations as a source of truth (the contrary being that any hallucination can be considered as truth), how is it that you were able to arrive at the conclusion that presupposing God's existence is the foundation of rationality, since you wouldn't have been able to judge it to be the correct position without already having accepted it?
4. Give an example of an absolute truth, i.e. a truth that does not require a system in order to exist. When you provide your example, please include how you came to the conclusion that it was a valid example.
5. What is the evidence that your ability to reason is valid? (Note that the evidence must demonstrate your ability to reason but cannot use reason itself as this would presuppose the very thing you are trying to provide evidence for.)
6. Provide evidence that your revelation was not from Satan posing as God, or that it wasn't from a computer programmer or that it wasn't just a hallucination. All of these scenarios are possible.
7. What absolute standard did you use as your foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
8. How did you come to the conclusion that God has an unchanging character?
9. How do you know your senses or your extrasensory perception were reliable prior to and at the time of your revelation? If you claim your revelation wasn't sensory or extrasensory but that it was 'innate', how do you justify the assumption that your innate perception is reliable?
10. Occasionally, when a tough question arises, instead of answering you respond with a phrase like "you have no basis for that question/claim". If a person has no basis for one claim then he/she also must have no basis for any claim. So why do you answer any questions from anyone with a different worldview, since they never have a basis for their question?
11. As you have told us, God cannot murder or lie. This means that God is not all powerful or 'omnipotent', since it is conceivable to imagine a God-like deity that could also murder and lie. So, since God is not omnipotent, how can you be sure that he was able to reveal truth with absolute certainty to you?
12. Consider this claim: an all-knowing entity (e.g. the Invisible Pink Hammer) reveals knowledge to me in such a way that I know it to be certain? Part of this reveation is that your Christian God does not exist. I do not know how this happens, but it is innate and does not require senses or rational thinking. Through these revelations I have found the Truth and have also been told that you are a liar and that your religion is false. Please offer a refutation of this claim. If you cannot, you must concede that this claim is equally as likely to be true as your own, regardless of whether anyone actually believes it.
13. Have your senses and reasoning ever let you down? Have you ever misread something or made a mistake (including during childhood)? I imagine even you would admit that it occasionally happens. How do you explain these examples of your senses and reasoning failing you, when you have been gauranteed that they are reliable? Are they only reliable some of the time?
Be happy to answer your questions, but first I need to know if you believe in absolute laws of logic by which you will evaluate my answers. You see, if you don't, then it would be a waste of my time to answer them. If you do, please tell me how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview, and on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold. Surely you would also see that borrowing the foundations of logic from MY wordview, to critique MY worldview would be self-defeating.
Cheers,
Sye
Continuing to dodge then...
Logic is axiomatic as any disproof of logic would necessarily use logic. If you disagree, perhaps you can offer a disproof of this without using logic...
Cheers!
I agree that logic is axiomatic, but that does not explain how the axioms of logic comport with YOUR worldview. How do unchanging, abstract entities comport with a constantly changing material universe, how do you know that the laws of logic are universal, and on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that the laws of logic WILL hold?
It is one thing to claim that the laws of logic are axiomatic, it is quite another to explain how such axioms comport with one's worldview.
Logic is a tool we use to reason. It is not a magical entity, but simply the mechanism our consciousness has evolved to process data. That is my position.
Your questions include phrases such as "unchanging, abstract entities" and "laws of logic are universal". That's all very nice, but why are you asking me to account for something that I have never stated? They are your phrases so you account for them if you like. I have no need to.
Remind me what your account for God is again? Oh yeah, you have none...
Now, care to have a go at the list of questions or are you going to dodge with another round of semantics...?
Alright fine, if logic is not universal, then I claim a new law of logic which states that everything you say is fallacious, while everything I say is sound. If logic is not absolute, then nothing, let alone my new law, can be absolutely fallacious.
See, there was no need for me to answer those questions after all :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Semantics then...
Well if that's your position then fine...I'll let it speak for itself. It has no bearing on me or anyone else that bases themselves in reality.
The terms 'universal' and 'absolute' necessarily incorporate everything both inside and outside of consciousness. My position is that logic only applies to consciousness. So I don't need to account for a position that I don't hold.
Of course, I'm still waiting for you to account for your God. While you're at it can you please also back up your position that logic is universal, i.e. there are no logical contradictions to be found anywhere in the universe.
BTW I hope you're not backing out of your promise to take on the Pharyngula mob...
I've already booked my front row seats!
How odd. He claims to be too busy and to find nothing of interest in my criticisms to discuss at Pharyngula, yet here he is in the comments on a post that simply mentions the ongoing argument, and he's yakking away.
Something doesn't add up.
Something doesn't add up.
That something would be Sye's cowardice...
So, if logic only applies to conciousness, is it your position that the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before their were minds to formulate the law of non-contradiction?
Oh, and I posted over at P.Zs. I see that patience is not one of your virtues :-)
It was what, Sye, only 5 or 6 pages back in history? You are a true beacon of hope and light for the world.
@Sye
What do the laws of logic have to do with the existence of the universe. Surely you are not so arrogant as to imagine that the existence of the universe depends on human perception of it. The law of non contradiction and the law of identity apply to logic and argumentation. The universe doesn't have the ability to care what we think, it exists without our input.
Also how do you account for the existence of logic in your worldview. It is impossible for logic to be reliable or credible in the presence of an omnipotent interventionist being therefore those who pretend such a being exists have no ability to process logic. Only those of us who allow for the existence of constants have any credibility in the field of logic, magical thinkers such as yourself deny logic through your worldview.
Also terms such as absolute are inherintly false when applied to logic. They violate the law of the excluded middle. Saying something is absolutelt true implies that there are degrees of truth which is not possible in logical reasoning. Something must either be true or false there are no degrees. You and those who share your worldview pretend these degrees exist because it supports your circular and dishonest arguments to do so. Actual logical argument refutes your silly premise trivially so it is necessary for you to invent false qualifier to make your case.
@Sye
If you wish to engage in honest discussion instead of the typical presup nonsense then perhaps you will answer a few questions.
Explain how the terms absolute, universal, and immaterial apply to the concept of logic.
Explain why you believe that logic needs to be accounted for apart from axioms and refutation.
Present an instance where any logical axiom can not be presented without reference to a magical being.
Present an axiom showing the impossibility of a contrary argument for your magical entity.
Present a positive ontology for the existence of your magical entity.
So far I have never encountered a presup with the ability to do so.
Ryk said: ”The universe doesn't have the ability to care what we think, it exists without our input.”
So, please answer the question then, could the universe have both existed, and not existed, at the same time, and in the same way before humans were around to give our logical input?
”It is impossible for logic to be reliable or credible in the presence of an omnipotent interventionist being”
According to what standard of logic are you making this determination, how do you account for that standard, and why does it necessarily apply?
”Also terms such as absolute are inherintly false when applied to logic. They violate the law of the excluded middle.”
Well, if the law of excluded middle is not absolute, then why should it matter that you feel it is violated? Perhaps this is one of those instances where it does not apply, for all you know.
”Saying something is absolutelt true implies that there are degrees of truth which is not possible in logical reasoning.”
Again, if the laws of logic are not absolute, so what? I, however, am not at all implying that there are degrees of truth, just trying to remove the ambiguity of those who would posit that truth is relative. For the purposes of our discussion, I would be happy to remove the ‘absolute.’ Ryk, does truth exist, and how is it possible for you to know if anything is true?
Cheers,
Sye
Mob eh? Crickets here, crickets there. I have better things to do than wait around for your responses.
Cheers,
Sye
Ah cute :-) I just checked Ryk's blog. You had to call him over here to help you out :-) Priceless.
Well, get to it Ryk, you at least are in a compatible time zone.!
Mob eh? Crickets here, crickets there. I have better things to do than wait around for your responses.
One hour, eleven minutes later!!
And apparently patience is not my virtue!
Talk about inconsistency from the man who waited 10 days to respond to the Pharyngula thread slamming his own site...conveniently allowing interest in it disappear.
You are a constant supply of LOLs Sye...
I'm sure it hasn't escaped anyone's attention that Sye has yet to account for his God...
"conveniently allowing interest in it disappear."
Erm, but it was this morning that you said: "You are afraid to dip your toe in the shark-infested waters over at Pharyngula."
Unless by "shark-infested" you actually meant "one guppy." :-D
@ TenB
I am using the only standard of logic which exists, the one that describes consciousness and uses axioms and refutation to facilitate argumentation. According to that one your position is crap. If you have another please describe it.
According to what the human mind is capable of comprehending, i.e. what is logical then the universe could not both exist and not exist at the same time. However this is only relevant to human consciousness.
What the universe is actually capable of is completely independent of our logic. Logic helps us understand the universe it does not determine how the universe functions.
The law of the excluded middle is true, the qualifier absolute is completely irrelevant and only exists as a prop for your fallacious argument.
Also the remaining laws of logic are also true and again the qaualifier absolute is meaningless and only exists because such terms are the props for your fallacious argument.
Truth can be determined axiomatically and through refutation. Since true and false are all that is relevant there is no need to invoke irrelevant magical entities to account for irrelevant qualifiers.
However thanks for not answering my questions it confirms that you are no different from the rest of the presuppers. I am a little disapointed but not at all surprised.
So far it is you who have failed to account for the possibility of truth.
You subscribe to a worldview that if it were true would preclude the possibility of truth.
You use fallacious qualifiers which have no bearing on logical argumentation and dodge the opportunity to present an argument as to how they could relate.
You reference a magical entity yet fail to provide an argument in favor of it's existence.
So exactly how do you pretend to account for truth. I have given my answer. Through argumentation and refutation. Let us hear yours.
@Ryk
Alright, so I asked: “According to what standard of logic are you making this determination, how do you account for that standard, and why does it necessarily apply?”
And you answer: ”I am using the only standard of logic which exists, the one that describes consciousness and uses axioms and refutation to facilitate argumentation.”
Conveniently absent from your response was how you account for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applies.
”According to what the human mind is capable of comprehending, i.e. what is logical then the universe could not both exist and not exist at the same time. However this is only relevant to human consciousness.
What the universe is actually capable of is completely independent of our logic. Logic helps us understand the universe it does not determine how the universe functions.”
So, please answer the question then, could the universe have both existed, and not existed, at the same time, and in the same way before humans were around to give our logical input?
”The law of the excluded middle is true,”
How do you know? Is it true everywhere, at all times? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that it WILL hold 5 seconds from now? What, if anything, does it necessarily apply to, and why?
”the qualifier absolute is completely irrelevant and only exists as a prop for your fallacious argument.”
By what standard of logic is my argument fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
”Also the remaining laws of logic are also true”
How do you know? Are they true everywhere, at all times? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold 5 seconds from now? What, if anything, do they necessarily apply to, and why?
” and again the qaualifier absolute is meaningless and only exists because such terms are the props for your fallacious argument.”
By what standard of logic is my argument fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
”Truth can be determined axiomatically and through refutation.”
Fine, please give an example of something which you know to be true, and please tell us how you know it to be true.
”Since true and false are all that is relevant”
How do you know? Is this true? Is this true everywhere, at all times? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that this WILL be true 5 seconds from now?
” there is no need to invoke irrelevant magical entities to account for irrelevant qualifiers.”
“Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed. ~ Paul Manata.
”However thanks for not answering my questions it confirms that you are no different from the rest of the presuppers. I am a little disapointed but not at all surprised.”
I would be happy to address any and all of your questions once you justify the laws of logic according to your worldview. Surely you see the futility in logically answering questions for someone who cannot account for logic, and to whom logic does not necessarily apply.
cont'd
” So far it is you who have failed to account for the possibility of truth.”
Truth is what corresponds to reality as perceived by God. In order to know if ANYTHING is true, one must know EVERYTHING, or have revelation from a being that does, else you end in an infinite regress of “And how do you now THAT?” (Which I would be happy to demonstrate, if you answer my questions).
”You subscribe to a worldview that if it were true would preclude the possibility of truth.”
Is that true? How do you kow this to be true? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that this will be true 5 seconds from now?
”You use fallacious qualifiers which have no bearing on logical argumentation and dodge the opportunity to present an argument as to how they could relate.”
By what standard of logic are those qualifiers fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to those qualifiers?
”You reference a magical entity yet fail to provide an argument in favor of it's existence.”
Erm, see website :-D
”So exactly how do you pretend to account for truth.”
See above ;-)
”I have given my answer. Through argumentation and refutation.”
Again, perhaps you can give an example of how this is done to arrive at ‘truth.’ You see, especially if you subscribe to evolution, the BEST you could hope to arrive at is “That which has helped us to survive,” not “That which is true,” but I’ll wait for your example.
Cheers,
Sye
@Sye
Ho Hum the silly old how do you know dance. Has thios ever worked, if so you must talk to lots of stupid people.
Why must logic be accounted for apart from argumentation and refutation? Since logical axioms can not be refuted they are true. What part of this requires magic?
It is clear that you are imagining that logic has some effect on the universe. Do you think that logical axioms are some magical ritual that causes the universe to exist. Logic describes how the mind understands and processes the universe. It is true because it is irrefutable. It is also true due to the impossibility of the contrary. For example logic exists any attempt to refute this would use logic therefore proving logic exists. The rest of the "laws of logic" as you call them are shown true in the same way. Truth is trueth there is no need to muddy things up with silly qualifiers like absolute.
Of course I suspect you know this and prefer to dance around it with your made up qualifiers rather than admit that logic shows the impossibility of your mythology being true.
So thanks for the concession, I have once again accounted for truth and logic as requested and presupper X has once again refused to do so. Yeah me!
Ryk said: ”you must talk to lots of stupid people.”
Well, not necessarily stupid, but those who [[ahem]] dodge and weave around the questions I ask.
”Why must logic be accounted for apart from argumentation and refutation?”
Where is the example I asked for? Please show me how you account for logic via argumentation and refuation.
”Since logical axioms can not be refuted they are true. What part of this requires magic?”
None of it requires magic, but to know that logical axioms cannot be refuted requires omniscience, or revelation from same, which you, apparently, do not claim to have. How do you know that logical axioms cannot be refuted? How do you know that they are universal? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will be true 5 seconds from now? If you are not intentionally dodging those questions, perhaps you ARE just stupid.
”It is clear that you are imagining that logic has some effect on the universe.”
How ‘bout you quit your straw-manning and answer the question? Could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were humans in it?
”Logic describes how the mind understands and processes the universe. It is true because it is irrefutable.”
How do you know it is irrefutable? How do you know that your reasoning about this is sound? How do you know ANYTHING for that matter?
”It is also true due to the impossibility of the contrary.”
Now perhaps if you were omniscient, or had revelation from someone who was, you could know that the contrary is impossible, but clearly this is not your claim, so, how do you know that the contrary is impossible?
”For example logic exists any attempt to refute this would use logic therefore proving logic exists. The rest of the "laws of logic" as you call them are shown true in the same way.”
So, are you suggesting that since logic would require logic to refute it, that all forms of logic are true??? Alright, I just made up a new law of logic which states that everything you say is fallacious, whereas everything I say is sound, and since it would require logic to refute this claim, the claim must be true! Brilliant!
”Truth is trueth there is no need to muddy things up with silly qualifiers like absolute.”
As I said, 11 posts ago: “For the purposes of our discussion, I would be happy to remove the ‘absolute.’ Ryk, does truth exist, and how is it possible for you to know if anything is true?”
I believe that this is where you resume your dodging.
Cheers,
Sye
I am glad you have finally abandoned the crutch of false qualifiers, Yes truth exists this is trivial.
I am typing on a keyboard. Yeah truth. Logic exists. Yeah truth. Why must there be omniscience in order to know something is irrefutable. Refute the existence of logic and maybe you might have a point, of course obviously you would need to do so without using logic.
You offer the premise that truth must have a meaning beyond correlation with what is observed, yet you offer no reason why this must be so. Truth is not magical it is a statement that corresponds with perceived evidence, what else could it be?
As to your question, could the universe have existed and not existed prior to humans being around to observe it. It is irrelevant in discussion of logic since logic only applies to consciousness. According to how the human consciousness is able to perceive the universe it is impossible for the universe as a whole to have both existed and not existed at the same time, that is why the law of non contradiction is valid and true, because it is irrefutable. So a simple answer to your question is No it could not. However quantum physics illustrates that there are possible exceptions to the law of identity. Human logic can not account for these exceptions so they are considered illogical however mathematically(which is another type of logic) they are true.
This seeming contradiction is nothing of the sort it merely indicates that another common presupper qualifier, "immutable" is also fallacious. True being a statement reflecting perceived evidence is mutable when the perceived evidence is altered. If quantum science demonstrates exceptions to the law of non contradiction then the law of non contradiction will be revised and is thus mutable.
Why is a magical being necessary in order to make statements which are in accordance with perceived evidence? If you answer that it isn't then your argument fails, if you answer that it is then explain why this would be so.
What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness is interesting enough but has no bearing on a discussion of logic. At best it is relevant to postmodernistic philosophy, of course presup apologetics is pretty much postmodern philosophy so I can understand why you would see things that way.
Ryk said:
”I am glad you have finally abandoned the crutch of false qualifiers,”
Oh, they are not false, and I have only ommitted them for you, since you seem unable to understand them.
”I am typing on a keyboard.”
How do you know?
”Why must there be omniscience in order to know something is irrefutable.”
Cause if you don’t know everything, the refutation could lie in the thing you don’t know about. So, again, what do you know to be true, and how do you know it to be true?
”You offer the premise that truth must have a meaning beyond correlation with what is observed,”
Not at all, Im only saying that apart from omniscience you cannot justify the validity of your observations, and can therefore not arrive at truth. If you ever answerd my question as to what you know, and how you know it, I’d be happy to point this out to you.
”Truth is not magical it is a statement that corresponds with perceived evidence, what else could it be?”
No, it is that which corresponds with reality, which again, apart from omniscience, or revelation from same, you cannot justify.
With regards to my question: “Could the universe have both existed, and not existed, at the same time and in the same way before there were humans in it, you finally answered:
”No it could not.”
Why not?
”However quantum physics illustrates that there are possible exceptions to the law of identity. Human logic can not account for these exceptions so they are considered illogical however mathematically(which is another type of logic) they are true.”
Perhaps you can tell us what in quantum physics has been deemed a ‘possible exception to the law of identity.” If you are referring to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and the double slit experiment, might I suggest that you study it very closely before you make your presentation.
”This seeming contradiction is nothing of the sort it merely indicates that another common presupper qualifier, "immutable" is also fallacious.”
But that could change right? Riiiiiiiight :-)
”Why is a magical being necessary in order to make statements which are in accordance with perceived evidence? “
A magical being isn’t, omniscience is. Again, I’d be glad to demonstrate the necessity for omniscience if you ever did answer my question as to what you know to be true, and how you know it.
”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness is interesting enough but has no bearing on a discussion of logic.”
Why not, and how do you know this?
You make many claims about what has ‘no bearing,’ or about what is ‘impossible,’ but you have yet to back ANY of them up. Not holding my breath though.
Why is omniscience necessary to make a statement that corresponds to perceived evidence? You quibble over semantics yet ignore the substance. Obviously because you have no substance.
Since truth is that which corresponds with reality, and perception is the means of appreciating reality and argumentation and refutation are the means of defining the accuracy of perception then nothing apart from that has any meaning.
Yes as I have said if new evidence is presented then truth can change, what is unusual about that. That is why absolute truth is fallacious. Only what is known has any relevance to logic. Unknown things may matter a great deal in practical terms, an unseen bus can squish you for example, however this has nothing to do with truth. The statement I did not see the bus is true and the statement there is a bus is also true. The statement there was no bus is false. All nice and neat. Nothing absolute or immutable about it.
The flaw in your argument is that you presuppose that the universe would be disorderly without a god providing order. Yet you provide no evidence or argument why this would be the case. Perceived evidence indicates that the universe is orderly therefore the simplest explanation for that evidence is to assume that the state of the universe is orderly. Assuming that magical beings are required to create order is needlessly multiplying entities.
Since the simplest presupposition is that the universe is orderly.
then, logical thought through observation, argumentation, and refutation is the best way to process information. In order for logic to be invalid the universe would need to be disorderly. Do you propose such? If not in what way has the validity of logic been not accounted for? In what way are omniscient magical beings a simpler answer than an orderly universe?
In what way have I not backed up my premise? Observation, argumentation, and refutation, that accounts nicely for logic and determining truth. This is the fourth time I have "accounted for truth and logic" and the fourth time you have failed to refute my account. Since I am a charitable soul I will continue to allow you as many chances as you need but I am not holding my breath, I fully expect another round of the "how do you know?" dance.
That is the problem with you postmodernists, you create a reality based on empty words and then use those empty words to support your construct. Circularity may play well with the rubes but it isn't getting you anywhere here.
Sye:
I said I wouldn't be drawn back in, didn't I?
Oh well...
Is believing something the same as knowing something?
CwC asked: "Is believing something the same as knowing something?"
No, (Sarah isn't it?) knowledge is justified, true belief, not just run of the mill belief.
Ryk said: ”Why is omniscience necessary to make a statement that corresponds to perceived evidence?”
Again, truth is that which corresponds to reality, not merely the arbitrary perception of it. For example, if a person who is colour blind, says that an apple is grey, based on his perceptions, that does not make it true that the apple is grey. Outside of omniscience, one cannot justify the validity of their perceptions, and therefore cannot justify whether or not a thing really corresponds with them, and therefore cannot justify the truth of anything.
Again I ask, Ryk, what do you know to be true, and how do you know it?
” Yes as I have said if new evidence is presented then truth can change, what is unusual about that.”
The sheer folly of it (actually that’s not unusual :-) Can new evidence ALWAYS change truth? So, if new evidence is presented, then the truth can change that new evidence can change truth, such that it is true that no new evidence can ever change truth, or is that one of those truths that can’t change? :-)
”The flaw in your argument is that you presuppose that the universe would be disorderly without a god providing order.”
Um, that is not my argument, but that you could not even make sense of argumentation without God (as you are clearly demonstrating).
”Perceived evidence indicates that the universe is orderly therefore the simplest explanation for that evidence is to assume that the state of the universe is orderly.”
Again, how do you know that your perceptions, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the universe will be ordlerly 5 seconds from now?
” Assuming that magical beings are required to create order is needlessly multiplying entities.”
Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed. ~ Paul Manata
”Since the simplest presupposition is that the universe is orderly.”
All you could ever hope to justify assuming (if you could account for the validity of your senses and reasoning, which I do not grant) is that the universe HAS BEEN orderly, to assume that the universe IS orderly, because it HAS BEEN orderly, is QUESTION BEGGING. What is your basis for assuming that the universe IS orderly?
”In what way have I not backed up my premise? Observation, argumentation, and refutation, that accounts nicely for logic and determining truth.”
Still waiting for that example there Rykster. If you do not feel the need to supply one, then here: “Observation, argumentation, and refutating accounts nicely for God.” How do you like your argument now?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye:
"No, (Sarah isn't it?) knowledge is justified, true belief, not just run of the mill belief."
By what process of justification does "run of the mill" belief become knowledge/"true belief"?
:)
CwC said: "By what process of justification does "run of the mill" belief become knowledge/"true belief"?"
Correspondence with reality as perceived by valid senses and interpreted with valid reasoning (which can only be justified through revelation) and by revelation.
That's quite a mouthful.
Mind breaking it down a little bit so that it's easier to take in?
Thanks.
Hello Sye you old chicken shit.
Ready to answer my question now?
Here it is again.
Seeing that we presuppose that you [Sye] have had a sudden blow to your head which has resulted in brain injury can you provide evidence that you can think rationally? As pointed out before I'm just using TAG logic Sye.
Now answer the question or admit that TAG is based upon a logical fallacy.
And since you have such a hard time admitting you're wrong we'll go by our little code. If you merely reply by making fun of me or my question, ask another question instead of answering, or merely ignore the question that will mean that you [Sye] admit that the question exposes the fact that TAG is based upon a logical fallacy but you're too filled with ego [not to mention brain damaged] to answer me. :-)
Syster or tenster or whatevster
Actually I am very happy with argumentation, observation, and refutation accounting for the existence of God. please present your argumentation so that it can be refuted. I have presented my proof of logic for refutation and you have failed to do so. So please present some argumentation in favor of your deity or some observed evidence. Of course you won't but don't imply I wouldn't welcome it.
And yes if perceived evidence contradicts what was believed to be true then what is believed to be true will change. As far as logic goes this is perfectly correct. What the actual state of being is may be different from what is perceived but logic can only account for what is perceived. How could logic ever account for something not perceived?
What argumentation do you offer to claim the universe was ever disorderly. Since observation accounts for an orderly universe it would require some sort of evidence to indicate that this is not how it was all along. Do you have such evidence? Therefore the presupposition of an orderly universe, which is no more or less likely than a disorderly one, is a more rational conclusion than the existence of magical entities. Can I prove that the universe was always orderly? No. Can you prove it wasn't? No. Therefore we are both making a presumption. I presume an orderly universe you presume an omnipotent magical being. I can not see how you manage to pretend yours makes more sense.
There is nothing stopping you from choosing to believe in magic, but the orderly state of the universe does not rely on such presupposition nor could it.
@Syester
I tried to visit your website as you suggested unfortunately it kept asking these questions. Most of them were fallacious from the start giving two false answers in the multiple choice. I did try to soldier on and give the most correct answer out of the choices given but was repeatedly kicked off.
So unless I can access your site without having to give a bunch of false answers to deceptive questions I am not going to be able to see whatever proof you said was there. Perhaps you might offer it here. Of course I don't expect it as you like the rest of the presupos I encounter have not offered anything beyond unsubstantiated assertions and circular reasoning. However hope springs eternal.
@Tenster
I like how your website is as circular as you are, that is both amusing and consistent. I use your website as a perfect example of why the term absolute is a fallacious qualifier. Removing it from your little game would result in the questions. "Does truth exist?" which I would answer yes to and then "Is this true?" to which I would also answer yes.
In this context absolute is as I have said just a prop without which your argument fails. Don't feel to bad, it is not that you are necessarily stupid it is just that you are pushing an unsupportable premise. If given a plausible position to follow you might be able to sound coherent and even sane.
Sye said "So, if logic only applies to conciousness, is it your position that the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before their were minds to formulate the law of non-contradiction?"
I honestly don't know. But as Ryk pointed out, discussing what could have happened prior to 'minds' existing is irrelevant, since our position is that logic only applies to consciousness.
Now read your question again with my emphasis:
"So, if logic only applies to conciousness, is it your position that the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before their were minds to formulate the law of non-contradiction?"
You will notice that you used the wrong spelling of the highlighted word, 'their' instead of 'there'. How do you you account for this failure of your senses and reasoning, given that you have apparently been assured of their reliability? Are your senses and reasoning only reliable some of the time?
"In order to know if ANYTHING is true, one must know EVERYTHING, or have revelation from a being that does"
But unless YOU are omniscient you CANNOT know for certain that your revelation IS true. If it is your position that an omniscient omnipotent being can reveal things in such a way that you know them to be certain, you yourself would HAVE to be omniscient to know THIS for certain.
Anyway, is it possible for a omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, to tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true? If not, why not?
Hi Sye! Thought I'd clarify this to CwC, since she asked. Feel free to add your own explanation:
CwC asked:
"By what process of justification does "run of the mill" belief become knowledge/"true belief"?"
Sye TenB:
Correspondence with reality as perceived by valid senses and interpreted with valid reasoning (which can only be justified through revelation) and by revelation.
Codeword Conduit asked:
"That's quite a mouthful.
Mind breaking it down a little bit so that it's easier to take in?
Thanks."
The stuff before the bracket is legitimate, and every human being alive follows it. Basically: if our belief matches all the data we get from our senses, and is logical, then we believe it to be knowledge. It still might not be (optical illusions or bad logic, for example), but that's the way we interpret it.
Sye claims that neither of these (senses and logic) can be "justified" without "revelation," which (insofar as I can tell) means his god giving him an experience via the bible, and him interpreting it to mean that his senses and logic are valid.
...
In other words:
P1: Logic and our senses are axiomatic, and thus must be assumed true in order for us to operate in reality. As a result, no human can ever be absolutely certain about something, because they have to make the assumption that their logic and their senses are valid before they can come to any conclusion, which (by definition) is not a certain assumption.
P2: This is a problem for some reason.
P3: Only God can solve this problem.
C: Therefore, God exists.
Sye said "So, if logic only applies to conciousness, is it your position that the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before their were minds to formulate the law of non-contradiction?"
Naughty, naughty sye. Popa smack!
All truth is systemic. Objects do NOT have truth values only propositions do. Therefore the PRINCIPLE of non-contradiction [which is a proposition] did NOT exist before there were any minds to propose it.
For example could an object be a rock & not a rock before there were minds to propose the Principle of non-contradiction?
My answer would of course be that whether an object is a rock or something else is a proposition & therefore the product of a mind.
The above being so, to ask a question like can the principle of non-contradiction be violated before minds is to ask can a proposition exist & be true before a mind existed to propose it. Short answer no it can't! Long answer - the entire question is incredibly dumb & one which can only be the product of a damaged brain. :-)
Oh & Sye when are you going to answer my question? People are beginning to talk about your cowardice. They're saying that you CAN'T answer the question & that is why there is such deafening silence whenever I ask you.
For those readers who don't know the question here it is again.
Seeing that we presuppose that you [Sye] have had a sudden blow to your head which has resulted in brain injury can you provide evidence that you can think rationally? As pointed out before I'm just using TAG logic Sye.
Now answer the question, admit that TAG is based upon a logical fallacy, or admit that you are brain damaged.
That is unless you don't have the honesty nor the courage to answer.
I await your reply. [crickets chirping]. I thought as much.
To Rhiggs & Quasar
I've already shown Sye that the PRINCIPLE of non-contradiction cannot be absolutely true since it is false in one area - paradoxes.
A pradox can be both partially true & partially false.
Sye in reply proposed a paradox involving the PRINCIPLE of non-contradiction & declared that his paradox proved me wrong.
In other words since his paradox was only partially true that proved that the PRINCIPLE of non-contradiction must always be true.
And Sye actually thought that his argument made sense. I kid you not.
Poor, poor brain damaged man. :-)
@Chris
Yes I can see how he would find such an argument sensible. Syester is not the first presuppo I have encountered. I was a bit disappointed. I had heard he was a bit smarter than the others I have sparred with but sadly that was shown false.
It is a bummer that he ran off, I was just getting amused at his floundering, when he disapeared. If it was you who scared him away, for shame, I was just starting to have fun.
Of course his ducking your question is no surprise, I asked him to explain how the qualifiers absolute, universal and immutable were relevant to a discussion of logic and he tucked his tail between his legs and did the "how do you know?" dance. Which is presuppo speech for wow this one destroys my argument.
Sorry folks, was busy today, will try to get to these tomorrow.
Let me just leave you with a question that you seem to be repeatedly ducking Ryk: "What is your basis for assuming that the universe IS orderly?"
As far as Chris' rant goes, I have answerd him on numerous occasions, on numerous blogs, and am thoroughly bored by him. He has my answers, he just does not wish to acknowledge them (for obvious reasons).
Cheers,
Sye
Oh, and another you have been repeatedly ducking Ryk, "What do you know to be true, and how do you know it?"
Cheers,
Sye
Yay Sye is back!
Hey Sye, using your own logic, provide a positive ontology for God. If you cant, why should we trust your logic?
Repeatedly ducking syester. I haven't ducked anything. It is you who would rather do the how do you know dance than actually answer a question. Try answering Chris or Me. Nah you wouldn't do that you lack the ability to answer and the courage to admit you are wrong.
Anyway I know what is perceived by my senses and substantiated by logical thought which have both been shown to exist by the impossibility of the contrary.
So unless you have some way of refuting the existence of perception or logic that doesn't rely on them then my case is made.
As to the orderly nature of the universe, I asked you first, what is your basis for assuming that it would be disorderly apart from your imaginary friend?
However as I am magnanimous I will answer anyway. Perception, argumentation and refutation lead to the conclusion that the universe is orderly, if the universe were not orderly then logic would not function in an orderly fashion, since logic does function in such fashion then the universe is orderly. Since the universe is indicated to be orderly and there is no evidence to the contrary it can also be assumed that the universe has always been orderly.
Now taken that this is not axiomatic we are left with it as one of a number of alternatives.
One being that the universe is by nature orderly and that the patterns and rules we observe with our senses are constant and non arbitrary.
Another being that the universe exists at the whim of a magical being and is only orderly when this entity wills it to be and becomes disorderly whenever this entity chooses to intervene, in this reality the patterns and constants we perceive through our senses are not constant but are simply the whims of the magical entity.
I am inclined to accept the first option. However if you have some evidence that an orderly universe requires or is even compatible with magical entities I will be glad to hear it.
@Tenster
Which blogs have you answered Chris on? Name a couple so I can see. Nah you won't do that. "Bored" huh? Funny I am bored with people claiming to be bored with a question instead of admitting they can't answer it.
Your claim of boredom is like your "how do you know?" dance. It is just a way of dodging having to actually present an argument or answer a question. You subscribe to the argument from annoyance theory. You operate on the assumption that if you make unsubstantiated assertions, circular arguments and empty statements and then repeat them over and over people will eventually get so annoyed they stop talking to you and then you pretend to have won.
Well I am waiting for an an answer to Chris question or mine. Why do you believe that the terms absolute, universal and immutable apply to a discussion about truth or logic? On what basis do you assume that a supreme being is required for the existence of an orderly universe?
There you go three questions one from Chris two from me. How many can you answer, I am betting on none.
@Syetenbster
Oh wait that is four questions counting the one from Vagon.
Simple Sye wrote "As far as Chris' rant goes, I have answerd him on numerous occasions, on numerous blogs, and am thoroughly bored by him".
Now Sye you know that is just a lie. Tsk tsk. :-)
The only answer you have ever given me is that my asking you the question implies that you can answer."
And, as I have answered many, many times before it implies no such thing. I am presupposing that you have a nurse in the cranial trauma ward who is dumbing down the answers for you. Try angain oh lying one. :-) That blow to your head is really making you imagine things. :-)
To everyone who isn't sye allow me to illustrate sye's lies :-)
Sye wrote "As far as Chris' rant goes, I have answerd him on numerous occasions, on numerous blogs."
Hmm. Let's see. Would that be
pharyngula where you've refused to do anything but laugh at me for daring to ask you this question?
Source: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/proof_that_god_exists_1.php
Perhaps it was at we are smrt where you just ran away rather than answering me?
Source: http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=498&p=8612#p8612
Or perhaps at Stephen Law's blog where, once again, all you would do is make fun of me for daring to ask the great Sye a qestion he can't answer.
Source:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/sye-is-back-and-telling-fibs.html
I could also mention the Raytractor's site where, after attempting to answer me & me demolishing your answer you came up with "so how would you answer the question?" & my personal favourite "I've already answered your question you just don't like my answer."
Oh but there's more. At Dan's Blog I kept asking my question. 28 times. Sye in a cowardly fashion refused to answer me as he is doing now.
Then Sye's little sycophant Dan deleted most of my posts to stop Sye looking so bad.
Without asking my permission I might add.
All of this was after another of Sye's little sycophants Dani'el called me a coward for not answering Sye :-) and challenged me to return.
When I did return Sye himself said he was glad I was there & promptly ignored me again.
Now watch reader as I make this incredible prediction. Sye will eaither resort to mockery [translation: Sye know's he's wrong but isn't going to admit it] or he'll ignore me again in manly fashion. :-)
Ah Sye. A legend in his own mind. :-)
Dedicated to Sye [a man who deserves this poem if anyone does].
Brave Sir Sye ran away. He bravely ran away, away.
When danger to presupp reared its head "I'll bravely refuse to answer" he said.
Brave, brave Sir Sye.
Yes, brave Sir Sye turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Sye!
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.
Ryk said: "Oh wait that is four questions counting the one from Vagon."
Not to mention the list of 13 questions I posed to Sye at the very start of this thread.
And he has the audacity to pop in and claim that other people are 'repeatedly ducking' his questions...!
Rhiggs wrote:
"Not to mention the list of 13 questions I posed to Sye at the very start of this thread.
And he has the audacity to pop in and claim that other people are 'repeatedly ducking' his questions...!"
I gotta admit Sye kills me. :-) He comes up with the most bald-faced lies & then when caught out adopts this innocent pose & says "who me?"
Ya gotta laugh.
These are interesting questions, will Sye answer them? Especially 2,3,5 and 13.
1. Explain how these two contradictory quotes of yours are compatible: "Impossibility of the contrary" with respect to your worldview and "I have never claimed that it would be impossible" with respect to a contrary worldview. (Links to these quotes can be provided)
2. You consistently claim that your version of the truth is certain, but seeing as you have agreed in the past that there are people who are certain of truth but are in fact wrong, how can you know that you are not one of these people?
3. If you discount the validity of personal revelations as a source of truth (the contrary being that any hallucination can be considered as truth), how is it that you were able to arrive at the conclusion that presupposing God's existence is the foundation of rationality, since you wouldn't have been able to judge it to be the correct position without already having accepted it?
4. Give an example of an absolute truth, i.e. a truth that does not require a system in order to exist. When you provide your example, please include how you came to the conclusion that it was a valid example.
5. What is the evidence that your ability to reason is valid? (Note that the evidence must demonstrate your ability to reason but cannot use reason itself as this would presuppose the very thing you are trying to provide evidence for.)
6. Provide evidence that your revelation was not from Satan posing as God, or that it wasn't from a computer programmer or that it wasn't just a hallucination. All of these scenarios are possible.
7. What absolute standard did you use as your foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
8. How did you come to the conclusion that God has an unchanging character?
9. How do you know your senses or your extrasensory perception were reliable prior to and at the time of your revelation? If you claim your revelation wasn't sensory or extrasensory but that it was 'innate', how do you justify the assumption that your innate perception is reliable?
10. Occasionally, when a tough question arises, instead of answering you respond with a phrase like "you have no basis for that question/claim". If a person has no basis for one claim then he/she also must have no basis for any claim. So why do you answer any questions from anyone with a different worldview, since they never have a basis for their question?
11. As you have told us, God cannot murder or lie. This means that God is not all powerful or 'omnipotent', since it is conceivable to imagine a God-like deity that could also murder and lie. So, since God is not omnipotent, how can you be sure that he was able to reveal truth with absolute certainty to you?
12. Consider this claim: an all-knowing entity (e.g. the Invisible Pink Hammer) reveals knowledge to me in such a way that I know it to be certain? Part of this reveation is that your Christian God does not exist. I do not know how this happens, but it is innate and does not require senses or rational thinking. Through these revelations I have found the Truth and have also been told that you are a liar and that your religion is false. Please offer a refutation of this claim. If you cannot, you must concede that this claim is equally as likely to be true as your own, regardless of whether anyone actually believes it.
13. Have your senses and reasoning ever let you down? Have you ever misread something or made a mistake (including during childhood)? I imagine even you would admit that it occasionally happens. How do you explain these examples of your senses and reasoning failing you, when you have been gauranteed that they are reliable? Are they only reliable some of the time?
June 26, 2009 1:20 PM
@Chris
Yep, he is a beacon of dishonesty and double standards...
@Glen20,
will Sye answer them?,
I hope so, but I have come to expect little in the way of honest debate with Sye...
He will first ask you/me/anyone to account for the logic they will use to evaluate his answers.
We have.
He is still dodging...
Riggs wrote
"Yep, he is a beacon of dishonesty and double standards..."
Well actually Sye has got me thinking. Sye gives every indication that he suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder. For example his compulsive need to argue this TAG nonsense over, & over, & over again.
Add to that his grand-standing. His almost megalomania [he believes himself to be one of the elect of God & so morality is for everyone else - not Sye. Not to mention that since God is revealing everyday things to Sye it seems that Sye is implying that he cannot be wrong about anything]. Not to mention Sye's almost compulsive lying.
I would argue it all adds up to one big case of mental instability. To put it mildly - Sye is crazy as a loon.
Hey Ladies! :-)
Rhiggs is right, I will be happy to answer your questions once you account for the logic necessary to formulate them, let alone understand the answers. I made this clear in my third post, but the only one who has even attempted to justify logic is Ryk, but his attempt is so pathetic as to not be worthy to be called an attempt.
Ryk posits that logic can be accounted for via argumentation, observation, and refutation, but since he does not believe that the laws of logic are transcendental, he is engaging in vicious circularity. Surely he can see that argumentation, refutation, and the interpretation of observations ALL require logic, so to say that logic can be accounted for using them is to assume the very thing that is being asked. How do you argue without assuming logic? How do you interpret observations without using logic? How do you engage in refutation without using logic? Not only that, I asked him on numerous occasions for an example of an argument, refutation, and observation which gives us a logical law, but he has continually refused to provide one.
Even if Ryk could escape the vicious circularity of his argument (which he can’t since his justification lies in the same plane as that which he hopes to justify), he takes the equally absurd position that truth could change! In other words, if Ryk could justify that it is true that A cannot be both A, and not A, at the same time in the same way, he refutes himsef by suggesting that THAT truth could change. He can never get to a law which statest that A cannot be not A, because for all he knows, it could be.
That brings us to the questions which he is continually ducking: What is your basis for assuming that the universe IS orderly and, what do you know and how is it possible for you to know it?
To the question about order he says: “Perception, argumentation and refutation lead to the conclusion that the universe is orderly,” but I have repeatedly pointed out that if I grant him the ability to justify the validity of his senses and reasoning to make this determination (which I do not), all he could ever hope to justify is that his very limited perceptions of the universe indicate that it HAS BEEN orderly, and that is NOT my question. I am asking what his basis is for assuming that the universe IS orderly. Surely all of you can see that to say that the universe IS orderly, because it HAS BEEN orderly is question begging.
As far as his answer to what he can know, and how he can know it, he says: “I know what is perceived by my senses and substantiated by logical thought” And that is Ryk? What do you know that has been perceived by your senses and substantiated by logical thought, and how do you know it? Besides, if the laws of logic can change, how is it possible for you to substantiate knowing anything with them???
My questions have been geared to getting you people to justify rationality according to YOUR worldviews. It hardly makes sense to borrow the foundation of rationality from my worldview, in order to argue against my worldview. There are a host of other questions that Ryk has ducked regarding his basis for rationality, and if he denies this, I will be glad to post them, but unitl he can justify the basis for rational thought according to his worldview, engaging him is sensless.
I will get to Chris in my next post.
Cheers,
Sye
Ah Chris, the faithful puppy dog that follows me from blog to blog. A clearer example of obsession, I have not seen :-)
Rather than dig through the numerous encounters we have had, I’ll take his lame ‘argument’ on here for all to see.
Chris is under the zany impression that he has a defeater for TAG, but all his ‘argument’ shows is that he has no clue what TAG entails.
He states: “Seeing that we presuppose that you [Sye] have had a sudden blow to your head which has resulted in brain injury can you provide evidence that you can think rationally? As pointed out before I'm just using TAG logic Sye.”
Problem is Chris, you are engaging in false analogy. TAG does not ask the atheist to provide evidence that they can think rationally, nor does TAG assume that the atheist CANNOT think rationally, but merely that they have exactly zero justification for the foundations of rationaly thought. Indeed, the very fact that Chris is posing his question to me, assumes that I am capable of the rational thought necessary to understand it, which even blows his false analogy out of the water.
YES, I assume that the atheist can think rationally when I ask them a question, but the atheist has exactly zero justification for rational thought – THAT is the point.
The Bible teaches that all people know God, yet some suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Again, I am not saying that atheists cannot know things, or cannot think rationally, I am merely saying that they are suppressing their only possible justification for their ability to do so. Quite simply put, if the worldview of the atheist was true, they could not be doing what they claim to be doing.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye, sye sye. I've already answered your question.
Logic is a source of systemic truth. It is not absolute since it requires a mind to formulate its propositions.
Objects, by themselves do NOT possess truth properties - only propositions possess such properties.
That means that the PRINCIPLE of non-contradiction is a systemic truth. It required a mind to formulate it. It also cannot be an absolute truth since it possesses limitations - e.g. paradoxes.
Math is a systemic truth since it requires a mind to formulate it.
Now please provide an example of an absolute truth which is not a systemic truth.
I'm guessing that your obsession & your compulsive lying will make you unable to answer my question Sye.
To be serious for just a second. Normal people are not obsessive Sye & they do not compulsively tell lies. Please seek professional help. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm sorry if I have but please seek the help of a psychiatrist.
Rhiggs said: ""Yep, he is a beacon of dishonesty and double standards..."
Which would indicate your precommitment to the wrongness of 'dishonesty, and double standards,' yet another thing which you have no absolute standard to evaluate, further exposing your inconsistency.
Cheers,
Sye
Chris said: "Now please provide an example of an absolute truth which is not a systemic truth."
How about you provide an example of a system where truth is not true? ;-)
Sye, sye sye.
Still lying.
You wrote that my analogy was false & then wrote "TAG does not ask the atheist to provide evidence that they can think rationally, nor does TAG assume that the atheist CANNOT think rationally, but merely that they have exactly zero justification for the foundations of rationaly thought."
Sorry Sye but the definition of an analogical argument is :
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in A CERTAIN RESPECT, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
Does my argument have some similarities to TAG? Oh yes it does!
1. TAG presupposes such a thing. Just like I'm presupposing your inability to use rational thought.
2. TAG uses circular thinking to justiufy itself just like my presupposition uses circular reasoning to justify itself.
That makes my analogy valid.
Sorry Sye the liar but you goofed again. Another argument shot to hell. Like another try?
Sye then wrote "How about you provide an example of a system where truth is not true?"
So you're asking me to provide you with an example where a propositional truth isn't a propositional truth? Sorry I don't speak gibberish. If a proposition is defined as true then it is true by definition.
How does that stop a proposition from remaining a systemic truth?
I don't think even Sye knows what the hell he's talking about anymore.
Wow Tenster not only are you a chicken shit dodging questions again you are a logical dunce to go with it. Haven;t ever heard of an axiom huh. Self evidenced? Impossibility of the contrary? Well you should look them up, might just educate you a little. All of your crap about borrowing from worldviews and establishing rationality are just silly props for your silly premise. Only if you define logic and thought as some transcendent magical nonsense does your position seem even slightly less retarded, and you have presented know evidence why those definitions are valid. Also even if they were valid that would at worst show that there are laws of nature that we have not yet fully described. We already know that, why would a few more prove that there is a magical superman floating around somewhere?
As I said and you so obviously failed to acknowledge is that logic and perception are self evident. Logic exists any attempt to refute it would require logic therefore demonstrating that logic exists. Perception exists, any attempt to prove otherwise would need to be perceived thereby proving perception exists. No magical beings are referenced in either example. Of course I am sure you know this but since it blows your whole premise out of the water you lie about it. Understandable, just about anyone who wants to defend a fairy tale is going to have to do a lot of lying, I haven't met an honest presupicon yet.
As to truth changing, you say that as if it is a problem. As has been pointed out truth only applies to a proposition, and it is established through observation, refutation and argumentation. Obviously if additional information is observed or a refutation is made then the truth regarding the proposition will change. Duh!
Oh wait I forgot you think truth and logic are magical rituals that only your invisible superman can make happen.
I am beginning to think Chris brain damaged metaphor is based on reality, of course if you want to refute him go ahead. Nah you wouldn't do that. We are up to seventeen questions that you are scared shitless of, I am going to add another.
If you posit that you have received a revelation from an omnipotent and omniscient being, on what basis do you establish that this being is omniscient, it would be every bit as likely that this being is simply slightly more knowledgeable than you(a pretty easy thing to be) and is just making things up to jerk you around.
So the question is, If you suppose that you have received a revelation from a higher power, on what basis do you assume that your perceptions and reasoning are accurate or valid and not deceptions perpetrated by this higher power.
Once again duckster, rather than answer a question you just slime around and claim other people are ducking yours and ignore what is asked of you. That may play well with Christians and other simpletons but here it is pretty transparent. So why not try and answer the questions?, maybe present this proof you claim exists, I am not holding my breath, so far I have predicted you with perfect accuracy and my next prediction is...more ducking and another round of the how do you know? dance.
Chris said: "So you're asking me to provide you with an example where a propositional truth isn't a propositional truth? Sorry I don't speak gibberish."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA And Bing-o was his name-o :-D
When I pointed out that Sye's answer was merely gibberish wrote "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA And Bing-o was his name-o".
Just for a second Sye do you honestly believe that laughing at your own gibberish is the mark of a sane human?
Please get help Sye.
Wow by the time I had finished typing my last post little sissy syester had already posted another round of ducking, dodging and dancing around.
Aren't they so cute when they squirm, telling lies misrepresenting arguments, answering questions with questions, desperation and stupidity are just adorable.
It is funny that he calls Chris a puppy, considering how scared Tenbster is you would think the puppy was a rabid mastiff.
Sye said "Which would indicate your precommitment to the wrongness of 'dishonesty, and double standards,' yet another thing which you have no absolute standard to evaluate, further exposing your inconsistency."
I don't need an absolute standard to know what I consider to be dishonest. Someone like you who needs absolute standards is simply question begging. What absolute standard did you use as your foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
"Again, I am not saying that atheists cannot know things, or cannot think rationally..."
So answer the list of questions...
"...I am merely saying that they are suppressing their only possible justification for their ability to do so."
Two things:
-Please account for your position that justification is needed.
-You have failed to prove why your way is the only way. You have just said it is. Care to offer a formal proof instead of the silly semantic dance on your website?
Yawn, ok Ryk, let's take this one step at a time. Let's take the law of non-contradiction. Please tell me how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation.
Cheers,
Sye
@ Ryk
:-D I LOLed.
Sye wrote "Please tell me how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation".
It can be obtained by deduction Sye. There is induction abduction & deduction. It's the last one.
Rhiggs said: ”I don't need an absolute standard to know what I consider to be dishonest.”
Again BINGO!!!! If it is only something YOU CONSIDER to be dishonest, then it is not dishonest now is it? All you are doing is expressing a personally opinion, and frankly, why should anyone care what you think?
”-Please account for your position that justification is needed.”
Well, if you want to go the route that it is not: God exists.
Thanks for playing ;-)
Sure syester
I will add your question to the list. Just as soon as you answer the...what is it now eighteen questions that you are trying to duck by asking this one I will get right on it. It is trivially easy to explain but hey you first.
Oh & Sye.
As I believe I've already pointed out the principle of non-contradiction has limitations & therefore CANNOT be absolute.
Think really hard Sye...paradoxes. That's right.
Chris said: "It can be obtained by deduction Sye. There is induction abduction & deduction. It's the last one."
Erm, the laws of logic can be obtained using logical deduction Chris???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The laughs just keeep on coming!
Wow answering questions with questions, using a typed out fake nervous laugh, this kid can DAAANCE.
Chris said: "As I believe I've already pointed out the principle of non-contradiction has limitations & therefore CANNOT be absolute."
So, what you are saying is that the law of non-contradiction, has not limits and is therefore absolute??? THAT is what I have been saying all along Einsten! ;-)
Yawn, ok Ryk, let's take this one step at a time. Let's take the law of non-contradiction. Please tell me how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation.
Cheers,
Sye
Rhigg wrote ”I don't need an absolute standard to know what I consider to be dishonest.”
And Sye replied "Again BINGO!!!! If it is only something YOU CONSIDER to be dishonest, then it is not dishonest now is it?"
Umm Sye. There is a little something called OBJECTIVE TRUTH. It's tentative but NOT dependent upon people's opinions. That sort of mucks up your argument doesn't it?
But hey I've only pointed this out to you a dozen times or so. Why would you remember?
You're just using the same arguments over, and over and over again.
And now the famous that is what I meant all along dodge ooooh look at the graceful spins and twists, Sybelina sure can dance.
Chris said: "There is a little something called OBJECTIVE TRUTH. It's tentative but NOT dependent upon people's opinions."
Alright Chris, please tell me something which you know to be objectively true, and how you know this? Then please give an example of an OBJECTIVE truth which is tentative.
Wow Syebelina repeated his question rather than answer any of the eighteen questions he is using it to dodge. As I said chicken shit, it is on the list once you are done answering all the ones that you are crapping your pants trying to hide from I will get right on it. In the mean time if you are really so ignorant Chris just explained it to you,
Yawn, ok Ryk, let's take this one step at a time. Let's take the law of non-contradiction. Please tell me how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation.
Cheers,
Sye
And he still asks questions instead of answering them, dance coward dance.
Sye wrote "So, what you are saying is that the law of non-contradiction, has not limits and is therefore absolute?"
Congratulations Sye. You've proved once again that the principle of non-contradiction cannot be absolute because it has limitations. I don't see how this establishes the principle of NON-contradiction as an absolute truth though. You just shot yourself in the foot. Can't you see it?
Allow me to explain.
P1. G if & only if p or not p.
P2. p & not p
C. Therefore not G.
Well done Sye. You've single handedly destroyed your own argument & thought all the while you were arguing against mine.
Wow he repeats it a third time. He has proven my earlier claim that he uses the argument from annoyance, he has also demonstrated that he is scared shitless to answer any questions that have been presented to him.
So essentially he fails to make his case and refuses to answer questions, and people actually believe his crap, wow theists are stupid.
Chris said: "Congratulations Sye. You've proved once again that the principle of non-contradiction cannot be absolute because it has limitations."
So, what you are saying is that the principle of non-contradiction is absolute because it has no limitations? THAT is what I have been saying all along Einstein! :-)
And another round of the this is what I have been saying all along dodge, Sybelina is dancing on the pole.
Ryk said: "Wow he repeats it a third time. He has proven my earlier claim that he uses the argument from annoyance, he has also demonstrated that he is scared shitless to answer any questions that have been presented to him."
That's rich :-D He admits to ducking my question for the third time, (many more actually), then claims that I am scared to answer questions :-D
I am trying to establish YOUR foundation for logic, and therefore your foundtion for any questions you may pose. You are not providing it, so any questions you may pose are moot.
Again Ryk, let's take this one step at a time. Let's take the law of non-contradiction. Please tell me how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation.
Cheers,
Sye
Syester
Still waiting for those eighteen questions you are so scared of, so change your diapers and answer one, of course since I know you are scared I expect more dancing.
To all readers except Sye
Allow me to explain what must have seemed gibberish.
G [absolute truth] exists if & only if p or not p is true [principle of non-contradiction]
p & not p exist [paradoxes]
Therefore abolute truth does not exist.
Actually I would argue that absolute truth does exist but humans are to limited to ever discover them or recognise the discovery if we had.
What Sye is forgetting is that paradoxes are both true & false at the same time.
Therefore he basically keeps on repeating true & false. See so absolute truth must exist. Does it make any sense to you? me neither. :-).
Sye's not to blame though. His obsession forces him to repeat the same garbage over & over again. He probably doesn't even remember that he's already done it before.
@ Sye.
Once again get help. Normal people do not behave like you do.
Sye said "Rhiggs said: ”I don't need an absolute standard to know what I consider to be dishonest.”
Again BINGO!!!! If it is only something YOU CONSIDER to be dishonest, then it is not dishonest now is it? All you are doing is expressing a personally opinion, and frankly, why should anyone care what you think?
”-Please account for your position that justification is needed.”
Well, if you want to go the route that it is not: God exists.
Thanks for playing ;-)"
Why do you just pick and choose what points to repsond to?
If you actually read what I wrote you would see that my opinion of dishonesty is not the issue. You are the one who needs an absolute standard, thus begging the question:
What absolute standard did you use as your foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
Also, I asked for your account of why justification is needed, not what you would say if it wasn't. You are simply dodging the question.
Your inability to read questions and respond to them casts doubt on your ability to think rationally.
Also, you never addressed my earlier points:
----------------------
Sye said "So, if logic only applies to conciousness, is it your position that the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before their were minds to formulate the law of non-contradiction?"
I honestly don't know. But as Ryk pointed out, discussing what could have happened prior to 'minds' existing is irrelevant, since our position is that logic only applies to consciousness.
Now read your question again with my emphasis:
"So, if logic only applies to conciousness, is it your position that the universe could have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before their were minds to formulate the law of non-contradiction?"
You will notice that you used the wrong spelling of the highlighted word, 'their' instead of 'there'. How do you you account for this failure of your senses and reasoning, given that you have apparently been assured of their reliability? Are your senses and reasoning only reliable some of the time?
"In order to know if ANYTHING is true, one must know EVERYTHING, or have revelation from a being that does"
But unless YOU are omniscient you CANNOT know for certain that your revelation IS true. If it is your position that an omniscient omnipotent being can reveal things in such a way that you know them to be certain, you yourself would HAVE to be omniscient to know THIS for certain.
Anyway, is it possible for a omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, to tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true? If not, why not?
Answering a question to avoid answering the eighteen you are dodging is simply part of your tricks. So far I have answered all of your questions while you have so far ducked eighteen. It is after all your turn since we asked all eighteen first. I will get to yours as soon as you are done answering ours. Wouldn't want to change the subject and let your cowardly ass weasel out of them you know.
Again, I will be happy to answer any questions, once the person who poses them justifies the laws of logic they use for deriving the questions, and for interpreting my answers.
For example, Ryk, you say that the law of non-contradiction can be derived through argumentation, observation, and refutation, again, please tell me how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation.
Cheers,
Sye
Rhiggs said: "But unless YOU are omniscient you CANNOT know for certain that your revelation IS true."
Please prove that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
Cheers,
Sye
So basically you are once again saying that you are a scared bitch who won't answer the questions. Well shoot Syebelina we already knew that.
Later ladies! :-)
Heading out now, I'll check back later to see if there is anything here, worthy of a response.
(I won't be holding my breath).
Cheers,
Sye
And he runs like the scared little bitch he is. All eighteen questions go unanswered Syebeline is full of fail. Wins all around.
Sye,
Please prove that an omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, could not tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true?
Same boat Sye...
Same boat...
Sye wrote "Again, I will be happy to answer any questions, once the person who poses them justifies the laws of logic they use for deriving the questions, and for interpreting my answers".
Aren't you forgetting something Sye? First you'd have to show that YOU can use logic. After all it's rather pointless us giving our explanations if you can't understand us.
Why you might even reply Bwhahahah bingo like some demented loony. Whoops you already did. :-)
That wasn't nearly as fun as I expected. Dude is even more ignorant and incompetent than the other presuppicons.
At least the others are brave enough to occasionally answer a question. They usually are wrong but I give them points for trying, this dude was a joke.
Sye said to Chris: "So, what you are saying is that the law of non-contradiction, has not limits and is therefore absolute??? THAT is what I have been saying all along Einsten! ;-)"
It's spelt Einstein, Einstein!!!!!
LOL
Now, how do you you account for this failure of your senses and reasoning, given that you have apparently been assured of their reliability? Are your senses and reasoning only reliable some of the time?
@Ryk
"At least the others are brave enough to occasionally answer a question. They usually are wrong but I give them points for trying, this dude was a joke."
Yeah, I take back what I said 100%...
He hasn't attempted to answer anything...
Rhiggs isn't it fair to say that scmike is less transparent when he is dodging questions? I mean he does dodge them it is part of the presuppo game but isn't this sye dude just a dad to obvious about running and evading. At least scmike puts up a good front before his case collapses.
Whoops that would be tad obvious. Gasp my typing skills are not infallible that must mean there is an invisible superman somewhere.
Thanks for letting me know about this little party Rhiggs. I did have a good time all things considered.
Glad to meet you Chris.
@ Rhiggs & Ryk
Since Sye is avboiding your questions & merely giving out replies over & over wouldn't such behaviour be defined as trolling?
That being so shouldn't his posts be deleted?
For myself I think Sye truely does fit the pattern of an obsessive-compulsive. What other problems he has only a good psychiatrist could work out.
@ Ryk
Thank you. Nice to meet you too.
Gentlemen as my grandfather always said "you should never have a battle of wits with an unarmed man." Therefore I think we should leave Sye to his own devices.
Bye all.
Ryk,
Yeah scmike would at least attempt to answer most questions without hiding behind the 'you can't evaluate the answers' crap...
Chris,
I wouldn't consider Sye a troll on this occasion since the original article was about him. I have seen him troll on other sites though, where he brings up this presupp crap to intentionally derail a thread.
Thanks for your input though. It's amusing to see him try and refute your position, and fail...
BTW since he refuses to answer our questions until we account for logic according to his standards, we can equally refuse to answer his crap unless he first accounts for his God (apparently logic reflects the thinking of God) in such a way that meets our satisfaction...
It won't make for very interesting viewing, but at least we would be treating him the same way he treats us...
I agree he is trollish but was not trolling here. I wouldn't want to see his comments deleted. They are such a monument to futility and irrationality that they should be preserved.
If it ever does occur to Rhiggs to delete them I will be glad to take possesion of them and post them on my blog under the title..
Insane pressupicon goes down in flames.
@Ryk
"If it ever does occur to Rhiggs to delete them I will be glad to take possesion of them and post them on my blog under the title..
Insane pressupicon goes down in flames."
LOL
I like it...
I've amended the title of this thread to reflect it...
And don't worry, there is no way I'm deleting any of Sye's comments. They are a permanent record of his logical fallacies, false qualifiers, double standards and circular reasoning. It is plain to see that Sye is evading answering quesitons here and being intellectually dishonest.
Perfect, just perfect.
"shouldn't his posts be deleted?"
Priceless!!! It is alleged that my arguments go down in flames, and one of you is arguing to hide the evidence.
Very telling indeed :-D
Thanks for letting them stand Rhiggs, and thanks for your time boys.
Cheers,
Sye
No problemo Syebellina, your failure is immortalized. I don't think Chris had any interest in "hiding evidence" especially since you didn't present any, I think he just wanted to clean up an ugly stain, but Rhiggs has decided (correctly in my opinion) to let your silliness sit in all it's senseless glory.
Anyway since you have checked back there are still those eighteen questions you can't answer, any time ypu want to try knock yourself out.
OK prophecy time Syebelina will either answer with a question, type his nervous laugh, or make some comment to try to change the subject.
Hey Ryk, you seem very confident with your position, would you be interested in doing a live podcast with me on "The Narrow Mind" internet radio show? I can't say for certain that Gene and Johnathan (the hosts) would go for it, but, if you are willing, perhaps I can persuade them.
You are claiming that I am avoiding questions, and I am saying the same about you, at least in such a format, we can see who is really doing the evasion.
Cheers,
Sye
@syester
I don't know I will look into it. Not really my cup of tea but I will give it some thought. If it is to be a debate there would obviously have to be ground rules, no how do you know? dance. Refusing to answer or answering a question with a question would be an automatic concession, defined periods of response and rebuttal that sort of thing.
If it is simply an interview format I am not at all interested. Very much the sort of thing I hold in contempt.
However such a format is not needed to see who is ducking questions. You have been asked eighteen questions that you refuse to answer, whereas I have answered all of yours except one, which Chris answered. Since you were asked all eighteen questions prior to asking yours, I will gladly answer yours when you have finished with the ones you are dodging, or even just repeat back the answer Chris gave you which is excellent. It is clear however that you do not intend to answer them ever and will simply keep answering questions with questions until the end of time.
It is a clear and obvious trick and not at all compelling.
Oh by the way, inviting me on to a radio show is admittedly not what I expected but it is still answering a question with a question. I am still waiting for your answers to some of those eighteen questions.
@Ryk,
It would be pretty simple. I give my justification for logic, and the uniformity of nature, you give yours, and we debate the various claims, but I am open to your input on the format.
You see, I do not see any point in having a logical discussion unless, and until we each give the justification for logic and uniformity acording to our respective worldviews. You can talk about evasion till the cows come home, but I submit that you have not justified logic or uniformity according to your worldview, and I would be glad to expose such on the webcast.
I think it would be highly educational for both sides, and would serve to clear up our respective accusations.
Cheers,
Sye
The Terrible Eighteen questions.
13 from Rhiggs
1. Explain how these two contradictory quotes of yours are compatible: "Impossibility of the contrary" with respect to your worldview and "I have never claimed that it would be impossible" with respect to a contrary worldview. (Links to these quotes can be provided)
2. You consistently claim that your version of the truth is certain, but seeing as you have agreed in the past that there are people who are certain of truth but are in fact wrong, how can you know that you are not one of these people?
3. If you discount the validity of personal revelations as a source of truth (the contrary being that any hallucination can be considered as truth), how is it that you were able to arrive at the conclusion that presupposing God's existence is the foundation of rationality, since you wouldn't have been able to judge it to be the correct position without already having accepted it?
4. Give an example of an absolute truth, i.e. a truth that does not require a system in order to exist. When you provide your example, please include how you came to the conclusion that it was a valid example.
5. What is the evidence that your ability to reason is valid? (Note that the evidence must demonstrate your ability to reason but cannot use reason itself as this would presuppose the very thing you are trying to provide evidence for.)
6. Provide evidence that your revelation was not from Satan posing as God, or that it wasn't from a computer programmer or that it wasn't just a hallucination. All of these scenarios are possible.
7. What absolute standard did you use as your foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?
8. How did you come to the conclusion that God has an unchanging character?
9. How do you know your senses or your extrasensory perception were reliable prior to and at the time of your revelation? If you claim your revelation wasn't sensory or extrasensory but that it was 'innate', how do you justify the assumption that your innate perception is reliable?
10. Occasionally, when a tough question arises, instead of answering you respond with a phrase like "you have no basis for that question/claim". If a person has no basis for one claim then he/she also must have no basis for any claim. So why do you answer any questions from anyone with a different worldview, since they never have a basis for their question?
11. As you have told us, God cannot murder or lie. This means that God is not all powerful or 'omnipotent', since it is conceivable to imagine a God-like deity that could also murder and lie. So, since God is not omnipotent, how can you be sure that he was able to reveal truth with absolute certainty to you?
12. Consider this claim: an all-knowing entity (e.g. the Invisible Pink Hammer) reveals knowledge to me in such a way that I know it to be certain? Part of this reveation is that your Christian God does not exist. I do not know how this happens, but it is innate and does not require senses or rational thinking. Through these revelations I have found the Truth and have also been told that you are a liar and that your religion is false. Please offer a refutation of this claim. If you cannot, you must concede that this claim is equally as likely to be true as your own, regardless of whether anyone actually believes it.
13. Have your senses and reasoning ever let you down? Have you ever misread something or made a mistake (including during childhood)? I imagine even you would admit that it occasionally happens. How do you explain these examples of your senses and reasoning failing you, when you have been gauranteed that they are reliable? Are they only reliable some of the time?
P.S. The last atheist that tried this on the webcast did not fair so well (One atheist commented: "It was like watching a lion cub get mauled by a pack of hyenas,") but you seem much brighter than he was, so perhaps you can repair some of the damgage he did to your cause :-)
The eighteen continued
One from Vagon
14. Hey Sye, using your own logic, provide a positive ontology for God. If you cant, why should we trust your logic?
Two from Chris.
15. Now please provide an example of an absolute truth which is not a systemic truth.
16. Seeing that we presuppose that you [Sye] have had a sudden blow to your head which has resulted in brain injury can you provide evidence that you can think rationally?
And two from me
17. Explain why the qualifiers absolute, universal, and immutable apply to a discussion of logic.
18. How do you attribute any revelation to an omnipotent omniscient being, when any revelation could come from a source that is neither Omniscient or Omnipotent but simply capable of fooling you.
Yes yes, I know the questions you are referring to Ryk, and I told you that I would not answer them until those who posed them accounted for the logic necessary to formulate them and the logic necessary to interpret the answers.
In trying to get you to justify logic and uniformity you evaded numerous questions, which I will be glad to compile if you like.
Point being, these back and forth accusations are not getting the debate anywhere. Lets take it to the airwaves! It will be fun, honest. :-D
Of course I meant: "The last atheist that did this on the webcast did not FARE so well" :-D
You can still download it for free at www.tnma.blogspot.com it was show #945.
It was not a tight debate format, but as I said, we can discuss the format.
I have no doubt Ryk would do well in a debate against Sye but I would not recommend going on the show he proposed as the two hosts will reserve the right to jump in with their own opinions and questions, thus making it a 3 on 1 debate.
Josh was somewhat underprepared, but I think Sye and the two hosts managed to evade answering a lot of his points by continually jumping in and bombarding him with new questions. The end result was that Josh was on the defensive for most of the debate. If Josh had stood his ground and demanded answers for his own questions he might have done ok...
In terms of Sye's insistence that we account for the laws of logic blah blah blah before he answers our questions...
...well we have answered it already. Logic is axiomatic and applies only to consciousness. This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. If Sye disagrees he should give an example of logic existing outside of consciousness and/or he should offer a refutation without using logic.
Of course, we have no evidence that Sye can think rationally and trust his senses. His spelling mistakes have shown that his senses and reasoning are not reliable all the time, so this casts doubt on his position which relies on absolutes and certainty.
In fact, because of this, it is possible that when he wrote his last 10-20 comments he was suffering from both unreliable senses and fallacious reasoning, thus we cannot be sure that has stated his position correctly. Of course, he could clear this up by proving the reliability of his reasoning without using reason.
Just been reading the Euthyphro dilemma on Wiki. It's very interesting...
Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?
Sye, I'm pretty sure you consider goodness to be a part of God's character and so on...
But that simply implies that what you consider to be good is actually just a reflection of the arbritary character of your God.
It is conceivable that another God could exist with a different character resulting in a different moral code. I know you don't believe there is one, but the very fact that another universe could have one, and thus a different moral code, makes your concept of morality just as arbritary as anyone elses...
In fact, Fred Phelps believes in the same God as you and lives by a very different moral code. I'm sure he knows that he is right just as much as you do.
Excuse my spelling in the last post...
Arbritary = Arbitrary
Of course, spelling errors are not inconsistent with my worldview, unlike Sye's...
Rhiggs said: ’I have no doubt Ryk would do well in a debate against Sye but I would not recommend going on the show he proposed as the two hosts will reserve the right to jump in with their own opinions and questions, thus making it a 3 on 1 debate.”
Let’s make it perfectly clear that Josh agreed to, nay requested the format of the discussion, and that I am willing to discuss a different format with Ryk.
”Josh was somewhat underprepared,”
Josh advocated eugenics, are you saying that more preparation would have made his argument right?
”If Josh had stood his ground and demanded answers for his own questions he might have done ok...”
… defending eugenics and the killing of the mentally challenged. Riiiiight.
”In terms of Sye's insistence that we account for the laws of logic blah blah blah before he answers our questions...
...well we have answered it already. Logic is axiomatic and applies only to consciousness. This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary.”
Which reduces your position to the absurdity that the universe could have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there was human conciousness to derive the law of non-contradiction. From that point you either come to the position that the universe can STILL be and not be at the same time and in the same way, and therefore you may or may not exist, OR the position that the existence of consciousness changed the nature of the universe!
Furthermore, if you are suggesting that logic is valid because it is axiomatic, then you would be implying that ALL logical laws are axiomatic, and therefore equally valid. Zen koans and the Hindu ‘both/and’ form of logic would necessarily have to be valid as they are axiomatic to those respective faiths. Not only that, I could create my own law of logic, claim it to be axiomatic, and IT would necessarily have to be valid.
Even with ALL that aside, you still have not told us how an axiom which posits universal, abstract, invariant entities comports with ANY atheistic worldview! As I have said many times, it is one thing to claim logical axioms, but it is quite another to justify how they comport with your worldview.
The Christian claims that God is universal, not made of matter, and does not change. Universal, immaterial, unchanging entities at least make sense in my worldview, but I have yet to hear how they make sense in any of yours. Ryk has repeatedly said that logical laws can be derived by ‘argumentation, observation, and refutation,’ but has yet to tell us how it is possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation.
There is definitely an impass. We disagree with each other's support for logic. I open the challenge to any of you who have posted on the blog, Rhiggs, Chris, Ryk, Vagon, let’s hash this out on air, and see who can support their position.
Cheers,
Sye
You didn't provide evidence for the existence of logic outside of consciousness. All you did was provide a thought experiment about the universe which necessarily needs consciousness to even imagine. Try again if you like. Maybe you'll eventually see why your examples don't fly...
Anyway, who is to say the universe couldn't exist and not exist at the same time? If it could, then it would necessarily have to exist, which it does. The fact that it might also not exist is beyond our understanding to comprehend, since it would violate logic, which we use to reason. That is not to say that the universe couldn't do this, just that we wouldn't be able to understand it.
Take an apple on a table. The apple exists, right? But in the empty space beside it, the same apple does not exist. In some sense, the apple both exists and does not exist, although it's a bit of a wierd thing for us to appreciate, since it defies logic.
So who am I to say the universe can or cannot exist at the same time. More to the point, who are you to say it's an absurd position, when you believe in an invisible God that is not made of matter who is his own son, not to mention talking snakes and magic apples?
Rhiggs said: "Anyway, who is to say the universe couldn't exist and not exist at the same time?"
So, you may not even exist. Brilliant. I'd ask how it is possible for you to know anything, if you can't even know if you exist, but I'll just let your absurd statement stand for itself, and gladly rest my case.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye if you have no interest in answering the questions put forward to you then it is clear that you can not answer them regardless of the format.
I do not feel interested in "taking it to the airwaves" If airwaves is the appropriate term for an internet podcast.
If you refuse or are unable to communicate in a simple written statement I have no idea how listening to the dodges audibly would make it more clear. Besides I have a bit of a potty mouth when confronted with abject stupidity, I don't think pastor Gene would appreciate the interesting terms I would use for him if he tried to join the discussion.
So I appreciate the invitation but it is not my sort of thing and I have no reason to believe it would be productive.
Besides it is fairly obvious this just another dodge to avoid answering the questions you have been presented with.
As to which questions I haven't answered please do compile a list. To my knowledge there is just the one that I didn't answer because you were using it to try to change the subject away from the ones you were afraid to answer.
You did ask "Even with ALL that aside, you still have not told us how an axiom which posits universal, abstract, invariant entities comports with ANY atheistic worldview!"
It would be silly for me to posit such an axiom since I do not claim such entities exist, in fact I claim they do not. So since the existence of such things is your hypothesis not mine please present your argumentation showing the existence of these things, in fact that is one of the questions you are dodging. The fact that made up entities are consistent with a worldview based on made up entities is no particular revelation.
Also your claim that you could make up any axiom and demand that it be true. Yes you can do that, in fact as far as I can tell it is all you have been doing, however your premise failed to survive argumentation and refutation. If you can put forth something irrefutable that would be different, and if you put forth something that is actually axiomatic then it could not be refuted without invoking the existence of what you are attempting to refute. Such as perception for example. Perception is axiomatic because any attempt to refute it would need to be perceived thereby proving perception exists. If any axiom you present is similarly self evident then yes it would survive argumentation.
The fact that you don't understand these simple things is why you are unable to answer the questions presented to you.
But if I both exist and don't exist, then I necessarily exist, which I do...
You can't refute this. Why? Because you can't even comprehend it.
You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment...
Your belief in an invisible God that is not made of matter who is his own son, not to mention talking snakes and magic apples, is just as absurd. The thing is, I was just contemplating things in a thought experiment. You actually believe your absurd things...LOL
@Ryk,
Expect Sye to now accuse you of 'declining his offer of a debate (for obvious reasons)'. He will spout this nonsense whilst ignoring the fact that he has continually declined to answer our questions...
I can't be bothered reading the comments, has Sye answered the questions yet? I am very interested in the replies.
Likewise your asking me to provide argumentation for the law of non contradiction is also a bit silly since it is also your theory not mine. It is not possible to prove the law of non contradiction through formal logic because doing so must presuppose at some point the law of non contradiction and as we know such presupposition is circular and begs the question.
I would say the best proof of the law of non contradiction belongs to Alī Sīnā Balkhi who said "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."
Not formal logic but quite convincing, however as I said the law of non contradiction being proven is your premise not mine so why should I provide argumentation for it. Since it can not be conclusively proven without presupposition I don't state that it is proven. The fact that it is not proven via formal logic makes it no less useful.
@Glen20
Short answer: No
Long answer: He never will
Actually Rhiggs I expect that but I hold out hope. It would be both illogical and rude to extend an invitation and the criticize someone for refusing. While I do not expect either logic or courtesy, I will assume the best until proven otherwise.
Rhiggs. as I said this whole debate thing seems to be a smokescreen to avoid answering the questions at all. It is fairly clear that the "I won't answer until you confirm the basis for your logic" bullshit just makes us laugh, so he is trying another tactic.
This is however not the reason I don't care to participate, my reasons are much simpler, I see no advantage to an audio format other than involving extra people and allowing for a greater range of dodges and evasions. Anything that can not be settled in print would be even less clear verbally.
Also as I stated before it really isn't my sort of thing, if it were I would have podcasts on my own blog.
Ryk said:
”Sye if you have no interest in answering the questions put forward to you then it is clear that you can not answer them regardless of the format.”
Oh, I have lots of interest in answering them, some of them are very good. My point is that I will not answer them until those who ask the questions account for the logic necessary to formulate them, or the logic necessary to evaluate my answers. Rhiggs doesn’t even know if he exists, so what point would it be to answer his questions?
”I do not feel interested in "taking it to the airwaves" If airwaves is the appropriate term for an internet podcast.”
Well, unless you get audio into your head by bone conduction, I’d say it’s appropriate.
”If you refuse or are unable to communicate in a simple written statement I have no idea how listening to the dodges audibly would make it more clear. “
The format would make it more difficult to dodge questions, and the person who is REALLY dodging the questions could be better exposed for doing so.
”Besides I have a bit of a potty mouth when confronted with abject stupidity, I don't think pastor Gene would appreciate the interesting terms I would use for him if he tried to join the discussion.”
We could record it and bleep your ad-homs.
’So I appreciate the invitation but it is not my sort of thing and I have no reason to believe it would be productive.”
No problem, I’m not that comfortable with the format either, I just offered it because I believe that it would be productive in exposing your evasion. Perhaps one of your cohorts would not be as frightened by that prospect.
”As to which questions I haven't answered please do compile a list.”
Well, I’m up to 35 questions, and I think I’ll stop there. I’ll put them in a later post.
I asked: "Even with ALL that aside, you still have not told us how an axiom which posits universal, abstract, invariant entities comports with ANY atheistic worldview!"
You answered: ”It would be silly for me to posit such an axiom since I do not claim such entities exist, in fact I claim they do not.”
Yet in your post at 5:44 PM on June 27th you say: ”Since logical axioms can not be refuted they are true.”
So, if they are true, where are they not true, or are they universally true? So, if they are not immaterial, where are they? So, if they are not invariant, how can they be true? Please give an example of a logical truth that has changed? (I'll add those to the 35 later).
”Perception is axiomatic because any attempt to refute it would need to be perceived thereby proving perception exists.”
But how do you know that your perceptions and the reasoning you use to interpret them are valid? Surely you are not suggesting that ALL perceptions and reasoning about them is valid???
Anyhow, I doubt that you will answer those questions, or any of the following 35, but here’ goes :-D
1. How you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview, and on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold.
2. According to what standard of logic do you make logical determinations, how do you account for that standard, and why does it necessarily apply?
3. If the law of excluded middle is not absolute, then why should it matter that you feel it is violated?
4. Does truth exist, and how is it possible for you to know if anything is true?
5. How do you know that the law of excluded middle is true?
6. Is the law of excluded middle true everywhere?
7. Is the law of excluded middle true at all times?
8. How do you know that the ‘remaining laws of logic’ are true?
9. Are the ‘remaining laws of logic’ true everywhere?
10. Are the ‘remaining laws of logic’ true at all times?
11. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the’remaining laws of logic’ WILL hold 5 seconds from now?
12. How do you know that ’true and false are all that is relevant?’
13. Is it true everywhere that ‘true and false are all that is relevant?’
14. Is it true at all times that ‘true and false are all that is relevant?’
15. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the statement ‘true and false are all that is relevant’ WILL be true 5 seconds from now?
16. By what standard of logic is the argument on my website fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
17. What do you know to be true, and how do you know it to be true?
18. Please give an example of how ‘argumentation and refutation’ lead one to ‘that which is true?’
19. How do you know that logical axioms cannot be refuted?
20. How do you know that logic is irrefutable?
21. How do you know that your reasoning about logic is sound?
22. You say that you know that logic is true by the impossibility of the contary, how do you know that the contrary is impossible?
23. How do you know that you are (were) typing on a keyboard?
24. With regards to my question: “Could the universe have both existed, and not existed, at the same time and in the same way before there were humans in it, you finally answered:”No it could not.” Why not?
25. What in quantum physics has been deemed a “possible exception to the law of identity.”
26. Why does ”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness” have no bearing on a discussion of logic?”
27. How do you know that ”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness” has no bearing on a discussion of logic?”
28. Can new evidence ALWAYS change truth?
29. If new evidence is presented, then the truth can change that new evidence can change truth, such that it is true that no new evidence can ever change truth, or is that one of those truths that can’t change?
30. How do you know that your perceptions are valid?
31. How do you know that the reasoning with which you interpret your perceptions are valid?
32. What is your basis for assuming that the universe IS orderly?
33. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the universe will be ordlerly 5 seconds from now?
34. If the laws of logic can change, how is it possible for you to substantiate knowing anything with them???
35. How is it possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation?
I combined some of them, so there are actually more than 35, but I was generous.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said "Rhiggs doesn’t even know if he exists, so what point would it be to answer his questions?"
You still don't understand, do you? If, in the hypothetical scenario, I both existed and didn't at the same time, I would STILL EXIST as that is one of the two states I would be in. Your comment shows your lack of understanding of this, thus showing that logic only applies to consciousness. Thanks!
You have become a lot more dishonest than I remember you being on Dan's blog. It's a pity, but the dishonesty is shining through here, so please feel free to continue to shame yourself...
Dan's blog? Isn't that where Sye wouldn't debate a teenage girl and laughed at her when she didn't want to talk about child molestation?
Then promised to mail his wallet to someone, then backed out because he wouldn't give him his home phone number even though the guy had said that he was homeless and used a P.O. Box?
I know, I know, according to what standard do I know blah blah blah and why does it necessarily apply?
Sye said: "TAG does not ask the atheist to provide evidence that they can think rationally, nor does TAG assume that the atheist CANNOT think rationally."
Then why not answer the questions?
As I said syester, you first. Since answering a question with a queastion demonstrates your cowardice then answering eighteen questions with thirty five is just a hair under twice as cowardly. Set all the terms and excuses as to why you won't answer it doing so is just a transparent dodge for the fact that you can't. So I will be happy to answer your questions once you demonstrate that they are not a smokescreen in order to evade answering the ones presented to you. I have in fact answered a number of them already and I may incidentally answer more but I am absolutely confident that you will not. I predict once again more excuses and dancing.
As I said I have accounted nicely for how I arrive at the truth you have so far failed to do so aside from making unsubstantiated assertions about revelations from magical creatures.
Good bit about the bone conduction though, funny that, I laughed.
Ryk said: ”As I said syester, you first. Since answering a question with a queastion demonstrates your cowardice then answering eighteen questions with thirty five is just a hair under twice as cowardly.”
Erm, you asked for the list: ”As to which questions I haven't answered please do compile a list.”
Look, all I’m asking is for those who ask questions to justify the laws of logic they use in formulating them, and in interpreting the answers. Again, borrowing the foundations of logic from MY worldview, to argue against MY worldview, hardly makes sense. Rhiggs doesn’t know if he exists, and you believe that truth could change. How you get knowledge, and logical laws from those perspectives is beyond me.
”As I said I have accounted nicely for how I arrive at the truth”
All you have said is that you account for truth via argumentation and refutation, but have not told us one truth you have arrived at using argumentation, and refutation, how you arrived at that truth using argumentation and refutation, and how you know it to be true. Besides, and again, you believe that truth can change, so any truth you arrive at, isn’t really truth at all. Perhaps you could just tell us ONE truth that has changed, how you knew it was true then, and how you know it is true (but different) now?
”Good bit about the bone conduction though, funny that, I laughed.”
As much as a tool as you appear to be, I imagine we’d have a good laugh in person. :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Because you replied to my question (no 14.) I will continue with it.
Sye, you have shown that logic is defended by retortion and without the need for God.
So seeing as you have justified logic seperately from God, please show (using this logic) a positive ontology for your god or concede that it doesn't exist.
Funny I thought you were the tool, nice choice of words actually, mine was considerably more scatological.
As to the questions it is very simple if you won't answer them it is because you can't. Since you are not compelled to play your must verify logic game then it is also your choice to play it.
I know it is a dodge, you know it is a dodge, everyone reading this knows it is a dodge so saying it gains you nothing but scorn. So either answer the questions or admit you can not by default.
Look Ryk, it's like this: Imagine that we were going to race cars for pink slips. I show you the ownership to my car, and you just sit there revving your engine saying "Let's race!." Problem is, I happen to know that your car is stolen, so even if I win the race, I get nothing.
You claim that you have valid ownership for your car, and I am simply asking you to show it before we race, but all you are doing is saying that I'm afraid to race.
If you can't see the foolishness of racing for pink slips, when one of the racers refuses to show the ownership for his car, then I understand why you get upset when I don't answer your questions, without you accounting for logic.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye attempts to dodge.
Also, put me down as someone who doesn't think Sye can answer the questions.
Oh no, not you too Jill??? Maybe I SHOULD answer them then :-D
Hey, give it a go! :-)
Erm, pardon me, but I was mocking your impact on my decision. ;-)
Wow! I mean that much to you!
:-)
Just adding my name to the list of people who don't think you can answer the questions. You're a one-trick pony.
Sye, any luck with creating that positive ontology?
I don’t believe in luck. God is an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, omnibenevolent, personal spirit.
Those are incoherent negative terms. Come on give me some positive terms?
How about what is God made out of?
Ha! I guess you don't expect it when someone actually offers you a positive ontology, and you just reply with your rote answer :-D
Heh that was irony wasn't it?
No seriously, about the only thing that could pass there as positive is the eternal bit and thats a stretch. Got anything better?
And you people wonder why I don't answer your questions :-D
Haha no my friend, I'm well aware of why you don't - willful ignorance and cognitive disonance.
But hey any time you wanna use that logic you pretend to have, feel free to refute me.
Someone asks for a positive ontology, and when he gets one, denies that the characteristics are in fact positive, without ANY supporting argument. :-D
(Don't worry, that's EXACTLY what I expected).
Cheers,
Sye
We are not racing cars we are waiting for you to substantiate your bogus ideology.
Oh sorry Sye, you should have just asked. :)
Well you've given me quite a few terms to deal with. Lets start with omnibenevolent.
What do you define as good?
Well Syester since it looks like you are pretending to answer Vagons question even if you are doing so dishonestly and half heartedly I will throw you a bone and answer the first question on your list. Get a little quid pro quo going.
Your question.
1. How you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview, and on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold.
I do not claim that such things exist, they are your premise not mine therefore I can only account for them where they are relevant. Universal does not apply because logic applies only to propositions which are a function of consciousness. Logic and the laws of logic can only apply to propositions and are irrelevant to anything else making universal a false qualifier.
In order to qualify the term abstract I would have to know what you mean by it in this context, it is, if taken literally either trivial or irrelevant so I will await clarification before answering.
As to invariant again I am not sure of the relevance, if you mean are axioms valid then that is a reasonable question. Since I do not wish to open up any vagueness that often results from my conversational style of argumentation I will present a more formal argument with which I believe you are familiar.
The laws of logic are epistemologically valid axiomatically (Note: this is not a circular proof, for I am using the laws of logic to prove the *axiomatic nature of the laws of logic*).
Proof. Let X be a proof against the axiomatic, foundational nature of the laws of logic. But all proofs presuppose these laws in their truth-evaluation (even if they do not use all such axiomatic components) since all proofs reach a true or false conclusion based on truth-table evaluation, which operates upon such laws. Therefore, any proof against these laws uses these laws implicitly, proving their axiomatic nature epistemologically QED.
Corollary 1. The Laws of Logic apply to the future epistemologically.
Proof. The definition does not contain particular statements of time-dependence, making them tenseless and applicable epistemologically at any particular past- or future- time state. QED.
Please note that a use of the Laws of Logic is not circular in this case, for, one must not confuse (as similar to above) *the* laws of logic with an *account* for the laws of logic.
Sye said again "Rhiggs doesn’t even know if he exists"
So I will repeat my answer again, which he has not offered a refutation to. (He just *thinks* it's absurd, despite the fact that he believes in an invisible God that is not made of matter who is his own son, not to mention talking snakes and magic apples)
You still don't understand, do you? If, in the hypothetical scenario, I both existed and didn't at the same time, I would STILL EXIST as that is one of the two states I would be in. [So you saying 'I don't know if I exist or not' is just a lie.] Your comment shows your lack of understanding of this, thus showing that logic only applies to consciousness. Thanks!
And by the way, to borrow from Sye's analogy, it is actually he who has not shown us valid ownership of his car. In fact, he has turned up to the race without a car at all, and when we ask 'where is your car?', he informs us that it is right in front of us but our presuppositions mean we are denying the existence of the invisible car. When we go to ask him further questions, he strangely still insists that we first show him proof that we own our car, oblivious to the fact that his car only exists in his own mind...
In short, he has as much, if not more, splainin to do than any of us. Like for example the fact that all logic and morality in Sye's worldview are completely arbitrary, since they are just reflection of the arbitrary character of his God. Why is goodness, according to Sye's God, necessarily good? Another God could have a different character, leading to a different type of goodness.
Also, everyone knows that Sye refuses to answer our questions due to our apparent lack of justification for the logic we will use to evaluate his answers. However, notice that he still asks us to present our account, thus directly implying that we can use logic sufficently to evaluate his questions. And the fact that he engages us (or anyone who doesn't share his worldview) in conversation at all shows his inconsistency. What's funny (read: sad) is that he is oblivious to this and is looking like more of a prat with each comment...
Sye said about Vagon: "Someone asks for a positive ontology, and when he gets one, denies that the characteristics are in fact positive, without ANY supporting argument. :-D"
LOL
Well since you offered the characteristics without ANY supporting argument, they can be denied without ANY supporting argument, Einsten (sic)
BTW you still haven't accounted for spelling mistakes and how they are inconsistent with your worldview. Are your senses and reasoning only reliable some of the time?
Well, according to the "Pyschology of Flame, #474:
Don't criticise typos or spelling mistakes - the rule is you lose by default. Everyone makes them - some more than others - and it really is a pathetic jibe.
:-D
Vroooooom, Vroooooom :-D
Yes but everybody don't suscribe to a worldview where they receive revelation that their senses and reasoning are 100% reliable.
Are your senses and reasoning 100% reliable? If so, why the typos?
And again Sye ignores the whole point of my two posts and simply latches onto one sentence about his spelling mistakes without even understanding why I mentioned it...
I have been lenient thus far but you are now verging on trollish behaviour.
*holds up yellow card*
C'mon Rhiggs show some mercy, after all if he acknowledges your actual point he has to admit that everything he has said is false. He has shown nowhere near the sort of character and honesty that would indicate he would do that.
Gots to account for peoples limitations after all. If he had ever shown any intellectual honesty or higher reasoning ability I would also be expecting him to come clean, but he is a pressupo and has a script to follow.
"Yes but everybody don't suscribe to a worldview where they receive revelation that their senses and reasoning are 100% reliable."
No they doesn't ;-) but have I EVER made that claim?
(And I'm the troll :-)
Haven't you? OK.
Are your senses and reasoning 100% reliable?
So Syester
If you have not had a revelation that your senses and reasoning are 100% reliable how do you account for the validity of your reasoning. If your senses and reason have only been established as occasionally or partially reliable then your revelation could be in error. Since you have demonstrated that your senses are not 100% reliable then you are unable to be certain of anything including the revelation you claim to have had. You reason that your god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc. However since you can not account for your reasoning being accurate then it is to be assumed that your deity could be none of those things and therefore incapable of accounting for truth, therefore truth must be accounted for apart from your revelation. Only if your personal reasoning is flawless can you account for your revelation being flawless.
In order for you to present your revelation you have to presuppose the laws of logic, this makes your revelation merely a conclusion reached using these presupposed laws. Since you must presuppose the laws of logic then there is no compelling reason to also presuppose an omniscient entity making your revelation irrelevant.
Saying that since a person's senses are not %100 reliable at one time, then they are never %100 reliable, is a hasty generalization, and logically fallacious.
It is my claim that God reveals some things to us either via our senses, or wholly apart from our senses, such that we can be certain of them, and it would take sheer intellectual dishonesty to deny such a possibility.
I'd be happy to get into the what's and hows, but, and again, I'd first like to know how it is possible for any of YOU to know ANYTHING for certain? If you can't then you cannot know for certain that my claim is not valid, and you have zero foundation for claiming that it is not.
Not that I expect any answers from you all, but how is it possible for any of you to know ANYTHING for certain?
Sye said: "Saying that since a person's senses are not %100 reliable at one time, then they are never %100 reliable, is a hasty generalization, and logically fallacious."
So you admit they are not 100% reliable all of the time. Then you have no claim to certainty, mush less the justification for asking me to provide an account for ANYTHING. If your senses are not 100% reliable all of the time, it is patently absurd to use terms like absolute and certainty.
Also you are being hypocritical. If you say I am being logically fallacious, then it is equally logically fallacious for you to claim that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold in one particular example, that it never holds. This is what you imply when you reverse someones sentence, like you did to Chris. Similarly when I postulated that the universe could have existed and not existed in the past, you extrapolated to say that I could exist and not exist, implying that it must automatically apply to everything. You were making the same logical fallacy as you now accuse me of.
So, by your own words, you continually 'make hasty generalizations and your logic is fallacious', not to mention you have less than perfect senses and reasoning...
Sye said: "It is my claim that God reveals some things to us either via our senses, or wholly apart from our senses, such that we can be certain of them, and it would take sheer intellectual dishonesty to deny such a possibility."
It would equally as intellectually dishonest to say that an omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, could not tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true.
This cancels out your claim to certainty with regards your revelation. If you disgree, explain why...
Rhiggs said: ”If your senses are not 100% reliable all of the time, it is patently absurd to use terms like absolute and certainty.”
Erm, are you certain? Again, saying that since a person's senses are not %100 reliable at one time, then they are never reliable, is a hasty generalization, and logically fallacious. If you don’t understand the fallacy you are commiting there, than there is no point in continuing.
”Also you are being hypocritical. If you say I am being logically fallacious, then it is equally logically fallacious for you to claim that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold in one particular example, that it never holds. This is what you imply when you reverse someones sentence, like you did to Chris.”
Um no, I saw that you made the same mistake at wearesmrt. My point was that if the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily hold, then I am free to make contradictions. If Chris believes that the law of non-contradiciton necessarily holds with respect to my statement, then arguing that it does not hold elsewhere is logically fallacious, which is EXACTLY what YOU are doing. You are saying that if a person cannot be certain at one point, they cannot be certain at any point, but that simply does not follow.
” Similarly when I postulated that the universe could have existed and not existed in the past, you extrapolated to say that I could exist and not exist, implying that it must automatically apply to everything. You were making the same logical fallacy as you now accuse me of.”
It would appear that I have been giving you too much credit. If you say that the jar of beans does not exist, then it is perfectly valid to say that no bean within the jar of beans that does not exist, exists. Unless of course you are saying that you exist apart from the universe, which, seeing your most recent points, would not surprise me.
I’ll save you further embarassment by simply once again asking, how is it possible for YOU to know ANYTHING for certain? (And again, I do not expect you to answer).
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said: "Erm, are you certain? Again, saying that since a person's senses are not %100 reliable at one time, then they are never reliable, is a hasty generalization, and logically fallacious. If you don’t understand the fallacy you are commiting there, than there is no point in continuing."
I can see why you don't want to continue down this line of conversation. How do you know when your senses and reasoning are reliable as opposed to the times when they are not?
Sye said: "Um no, I saw that you made the same mistake at wearesmrt."
Fine. If I've made a mistake here, fair enough. But it still doesn't invalidate my point that something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time. As I explained earlier, and you could not refute, if something both exists and doesn't exist, then as one part of that dichotomy, it must necessarily exist. Our meagre human brains cannot comprehend illogical situations like this, but it does not mean they are impossible, just that we can't understand them if they are.
You keep saying that if something doesn't exist then...blah blah blah. But the scenario is that something BOTH exists and does not exist. It's impossible to comprehend, as you continue to demonstrate, because logic applies only to consciousness.
How about this. Is the below statement true or false?
"This statement is true"
"I’ll save you further embarassment by simply once again asking, how is it possible for YOU to know ANYTHING for certain?"
I know I am conscious. Even if the whole world is a simulation in my brain, I am still conscious within that simulation.
I have answered your question, even though you have never even attempted to answer mine.
Now how is it possible for YOU to know ANYTHING for certain?
C'mon Syebaby even you aren't that dense. If your senses and reasoning aren't 100% accurate say they are only 99.9% accurate then you can not know if your revelation is not one of those one in a thousand times you are in error. In order for you to justify that it is accurate and not in error you must presuppose the laws of logic and as I said if you presuppose the laws of logic then there is no need to presuppose an omnipotent entity.
You also claim that it would be possible for an omnipotent entity to make a revelation in a way that you knew was accurate, however then you are multiplying the presupposition of the laws of logic. First you must presuppose logic in order to know if the revelation was made in such a way that it is not in error or if it is in fact in error. You have to presuppose the laws of logic to account for the existence or possible existence of omnipotent entities, and you have to presuppose the laws of logic to f=determine if the entity making the revelation is in fact omnipotent.
Also the existence of an omnipotent being can not be defended with logic. An omnipotent being can be refuted by using the old chestnut, can it create a rock that it can not lift. Whether you answer yes or no you are left with a being that is not omnipotent. Therefore the best you can hope for is a sort of limited omnipotence which is capable of anything that is not a logical impossibility. At which point you must demonstrate that making a revelation to a mortal in a way that mortal would know is accurate is not a logical impossibility. In order to do that you must presuppose the laws of logic and again if we presuppose the laws of logic then there is no need to presuppose an omnipotent entity in the first place.
Sye,
When you get the opportunity, please give me your definition for "good".
I'll tackle omniscient after omnibenevolent. Then omnipotent and then the term spirit. I don't really have a problem with eternal or personal as characteristics, you can keep them.
@Jill D
Not another one of you, I admit your account makes more sense than Syes because at least robots and web pages have been shown to exist but really, you are no better than he is.
"...you are no better than he is."
I was going to answer "Are you certain?" but that would be taking it too far...
Some points needed clarification.
So here is:
THE ACCOUNT OF LOGIC.
Superbot is a awesome invisible robot. He is one but three in one, but wholly one.
Logicibot, part of Superbot, creates the laws of logic. Laws which stem from his very nature. In fact, logic is derived from the mind of Superbot, who has always existed, and is -beyond- time. Trippy.
He creates a "revelation beam" that beams revelations on the "certainty wavelength" into his followers. These revelations are both on this webpage and beamed to his followers, everyone, so the revelation beam can be received with our senses and completely apart from out senses. Because they are beamed on the certainty wavelength we can be certain of them. It would take intellectual dishonesty to deny such a possibility. Please note. You ALREADY believe in this account of the Superbot. And you know it.
Superbot is the foundation for all reasoning. One does not 'reason' to Superbot, for that would make one's reasoning independent of Superbot, or of a higher authority than Superbot. Accepting Superbot is not a matter of reasoning, but a matter of submission to what you already know, and are suppressing.
Think about it, Logic assumes the existence of Superbot.
Or put another way the awesome invisible robot Superbot is the necessary precondition to reasoning, reasoning exists, therefore Superbot exists.
Some definitions of Superbot's attributes:
Awesome: If you saw Superbot, you would be all like "Dude, I am so full of AWE, right now!"
Invisible: You can't see Superbot.
If you want to discuss Superbot with me, let's go, since every human believes in Him. If you want to discuss YHWH, Odin and Allah, well, no-one really believes in them, let's not waste my time.
@rhiggs
”it still doesn't invalidate my point that something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time.”
So, you could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and therefore your consciousness could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and the law of non-contradcition, which you say only applies to consciousness, is violated, destroying your position.
QED
Thanks for hosting this exchange Rhiggs.
Ryk said: ”C'mon Syebaby even you aren't that dense. If your senses and reasoning aren't 100% accurate say they are only 99.9% accurate then you can not know if your revelation is not one of those one in a thousand times you are in error.”
You also are commiting the logical error of hasty generalization. If one’s senses are not perfectly reliable at one point, it does not follow that they are never perfectly reliable, especially not if God uses them to reveal something to us, such that we can be certain of it.
”In order for you to justify that it is accurate and not in error you must presuppose the laws of logic and as I said if you presuppose the laws of logic then there is no need to presuppose an omnipotent entity.”
Apart from God, YOU have no way of differentiating between universal invariants, and changing particulars.
”First you must presuppose logic in order to know if the revelation was made in such a way that it is not in error or if it is in fact in error.”
See, this is where we get back to my question. You say what one “must” do, but how do you know this? I realize that you do not like when I ask you such a question, but if you make a knowledge claim, then complaining, or mocking when I ask you to back it up only serves to show that you can’t. Yes, the laws of logic are also presupposed, but it is only within the Christian worldview that such presuppositions can be made sense of.
”You have to presuppose the laws of logic to account for the existence or possible existence of omnipotent entities, and you have to presuppose the laws of logic to determine if the entity making the revelation is in fact omnipotent.”
Which begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain.
”Also the existence of an omnipotent being can not be defended with logic. An omnipotent being can be refuted by using the old chestnut, can it create a rock that it can not lift. Whether you answer yes or no you are left with a being that is not omnipotent.”
Omnipotence does not mean ‘having the ability to not be omnipotent.’ Logical contradictions are a weakness not a power.
Well, it has become exceedingly clear that none of you are interested in telling me how it is possible for you to know anything for certain, so I’ll leave you to your meanderings. I suggest repentance.
Thanks for your time,
Sye
Jill D said:
”Logicibot, part of Superbot, creates the laws of logic. Laws which stem from his very nature. In fact, logic is derived from the mind of Superbot, who has always existed, and is -beyond- time. Trippy.”
Well, one thing is certain Jill, you deny atheism. THAT is where many of these arguments go once people realize that they cannot account for logic outside of God. Believe it or not, I heard of a professed atheist who was so defeated in his arguments that he even went as far as to posit his big toe as his deity :-D
Later folks,
Sye
Sye said: "So, you could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and therefore your consciousness could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and the law of non-contradcition, which you say only applies to consciousness, is violated, destroying your position."
Eh, no.
Logic applies to consciousness. When I say that, what I mean is that logic is the mechanism consciousness uses to make sense of information. In the event that something did actually both exist and not exist, this would be beyond the scope of consciousness to understand, due to the limited scope of logic.
I can demonstrate this if you answer all of my questions instead of cherry-picking...
Now, is the below statement true or false?
"This statement is true"
Sye said to Ryk: "Well, it has become exceedingly clear that none of you are interested in telling me how it is possible for you to know anything for certain, so I’ll leave you to your meanderings."
You have some nerve Sye. You really are a dishonest piece of shit. I clearly answered your question for what I know to be certain above and you ignored it. It's painfully obvious to everyone that you the one who is being evasive here...
Also, you were engaging me in a discussion on the reliabilty of your senses. But when I asked either of these two questions you ignored me:
How do you know when your senses and reasoning are reliable as opposed to the times when they are not?
or
It would be equally as intellectually dishonest to say that an omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, could not tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true.
This cancels out your claim to certainty with regards your revelation. If you disgree, explain why...
Your failure to even address these highlights both your dishonesty and the fallacious nature of your worldview.
"Thanks for hosting this exchange Rhiggs."
No problem. Thanks for going down in flames...again...
With a parting villainous monologue Syebaby runs away again. Once more his evil plans are foiled. His premise decimated his logical fallacies lying bleeding on the electronic street he staggers away to crawl back under his rock to await another chance to spew his idiotic nonsense on an unsuspecting world. Wherever he goes he must now look back over his shoulder knowing the SuperSMRTS will be there to oppose his villainy.
Let this be a warning to all of you pressupicons, apologists and postmodernists, the world is under our protection, and wherever drivel and stupidity rears its ugly head we will find it. Wherever lies and nonsense are trotted out as logic we will stamp it out, wherever fantasies and myths are portrayed as facts we will be there to expose it.
SUPERSMRTS UNITE!
Woo-hoo!!!
*Fires pistols in the air*
"Oh, great. You killed the invisible swordsman!"
Oops!
Rhiggs said: ”You have some nerve Sye. You really are a dishonest piece of shit. I clearly answered your question for what I know to be certain above and you ignored it.”
Oh brother. I ignored it so as not to embarrass you. Your claim was that you know (for certain) that you are conscious, but earlier in that very post you said that ”something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time,” which would necessarily include you, and your consciousness, so it could also be certain at the same time, and in the same way that you are not conscious! So, are you certain that you are conscious, that you are not conscious or both???
To top it all off I said: “how is it possible for you to know anything for certain,” NOT merely “what do you know to be certain," a question which you clearly did not answer.
You are free to go on ‘firing your pistols,’ but thank you so much for letting this record stand.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. I have, and will pray for you.
Sye said: "Oh brother. I ignored it so as not to embarrass you. Your claim was that you know (for certain) that you are conscious, but earlier in that very post you said that ”something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time,” which would necessarily include you, and your consciousness, so it could also be certain at the same time, and in the same way that you are not conscious! So, are you certain that you are conscious, that you are not conscious or both???"
LOL
What you clearly don't realize Sye is by continuing to say that, you are simply showing that you can't comprehend the scenario I was positing, which proves that consciousness is unable to understand anything which breaks the laws of logic. All this means is that logic is utilized by consciousness. It has no bearing on whether the scenario is actually possible or not.
Please continue to prove my point if you wish...
Of course you still didn't address any of my other points (for obvious reasons)
"To top it all off I said: “how is it possible for you to know anything for certain,” NOT merely “what do you know to be certain," a question which you clearly did not answer."
OK. Clear up my confusion. Tell me what you know for certain and how it is possible for you to know it for certain.
"You are free to go on ‘firing your pistols,’ but thank you so much for letting this record stand."
You are more then welcome. The fact that you seem to think you have 'won' is worth the entrance fee alone...
I like how he agreed with me that omnipotence does not include logical contradictions. Since making a statement in such a way that a fallible mortal would know it to be true is a logical contradiction, that pretty much shoots his whole revelation out of the water.
Of course he could try to demonstrate that such a thing isn't a logical contradiction, but to do that he would have to presuppose the laws of logic in order to evaluate his revelation.
Again since he is presupposing the laws of logic already, then presupposing an omnipotent magical creature becomes irrelevant.
Of course in such a situation what is actually being presupposed is an orderly universe. The "laws of logic" as Syebaby goes on about are man made concepts to describe how consciousness processes what is imparted to it by perception. Since this requires consciousness and only applies to propositions it can not be universal and invariant and whatever other transcendent properties he would like to stick on it. What he is really trying to get at with all of his fumbling is an orderly universe. If the universe were not orderly and did not operate in consistent fashion then logic, science and reason would not be reliable. He uses this to presuppose a magical sky fairy that makes the universe orderly. However that is needlessly multiplying entities, since it can be explained equally as well by presupposing an orderly universe without adding the problem of explaining the existence of omnipotent entities. His presupposition also creates a paradox because the existence of an omnipotent entity makes the universe by nature disorderly, because anything is potentially subject to its whims. Since a disorderly universe can not support logical thought, presupposing an omnipotent being as the arbiter of an orderly universe is a paradox. However the presupposition of an orderly universe creates no such difficulty.
That leaves only the last question of "then what makes the universe orderly."
To answer that we have to look beyond the what in the question (which is prejudicial) and look to the possibilities. If we assume as a starting point(and there is no evidence or argument that would indicate we should not) that it is equally likely that the universe be orderly or disorderly. We then have only to evaluate which one, since logical thought exists it must be that the universe is orderly, since it is orderly and since the proof of its orderly nature is tenseless and open ended then it is also true that it has always been and will always be orderly. Of course since these statements are made using logic they are like all other propositions subject to refutation, if it is possible to refute the existence of logic or the existence of an orderly universe, I would be glad to hear it.
Of course as always logic is self evidenced therefore any proof against it may not employ logic. As the proper function of logic presupposes an orderly universe, any proof against an orderly universe must demonstrate that logic will function in a disorderly universe. In which case we are once again left with no reason to presuppose a deity, because then it would be shown that logic could function whether the universe were orderly or not, making deities irrelevant.
Post a Comment