This post is an open invitation to scmike to continue the conversation started over at Ray Comfort's blog. Of course, scmike has already been shown up for his dishonesty at several sites, including over at Ryk's. But that won't stop him. You see, scmike is a presuppositionalist and believes that God is the only possible source of logic. He has never proven this and simply repeats the same semantic dance again and again and again (see here for an example of a similar failed approach by Sye TenB). It's an easy method of argumentation but it lacks any substance and generally goes on for weeks as the presupper will refuse to answer certain questions.
For example, these:
1) Are your senses infallible?
2) If you answer no to the above, please explain how you discriminate between the times when your senses are reliable and when they are not?
3) How do you distinguish between an actual revelation and an imaginary revelation?
He will probably ignore this, but if he shows up, he will refuse to answer my questions.
Oh and scmike, Sye left with his tail between his legs but, for the record, here are the questions Sye refused to answer so feel free to address them too (apologies for the Gish Gallop but these have all been previously asked individually with no answer):
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.
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?
14. Please provide an example of an absolute truth which is not a systemic truth.
15. 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?
16. Explain why the qualifiers absolute, universal, and immutable apply to a discussion of logic.
17. 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.