10 August, 2009

Open Invitation to Scmike

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.

Just watch....


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.

126 comments:

rhiggs said...

Oh and best of all scmike, since this topic is already about you and your presupper nonsense technically you won't be trolling...

Bonus!

:D

rhiggs said...

Scmike declined the chance to continue the discussion.

"Actually, we can't 'continue' anything Rhiggs since we've never gotten started, as you have yet again refused to disclose your foundational position regarding knowledge."

This is not surprising as his worldview is internally inconsistent and he knows it.

Pity.

The offer stands scmike, if you have the stones...

Noble said...

Hi rhiggs,

I was thinking I might hijack this thread to continue my discussion with scmike/Sye without the RayCo filter. What say you?

get_education said...

Obviously scmike does not have the stones. He knows all he has are tricks, so he rather avoids coming to a place where he will be even more obvious, and where there is no moderation so we can call his bullshit, well, bullshit.

What about him not recognizing the very basis of his tricks? (the question asking him showing that logic does not obtain).

G.E.

rhiggs said...

Noble,

You are welcome to use this thread. No problem at all.

I doubt whether scmike or Sye will agree though. Particularly Sye, as he has had his ass handed to him on a plate here before...

Also, scmike is too stubborn. Since he already declined he would consider it a failure to back down and come over here.

rhiggs said...

GE,

Agreed.

You have him by the short and curlies over at Ray's. Keep it up if you have the patience. It's fun to watch!!

BTW I am currently writing a new post on all this and some of the flawed tactics scmike and Sye use. Will post it soon.

freddies_dead said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
freddies_dead said...

And this time with the link done correctly:

Anyone interested in further deconstructing the presuppositionalist argument check out Incinerating Presuppositionalism

rhiggs said...

Thanks Freddie,

I have a link to Dawson's blog in my sidebar under 'Good Blogs Yo!'

His articles are good, but be prepared for a lonnng read...!!

Noble said...

Sye TenB said:

Noble said: ”Since my worldview only includes things which I am aware of it makes perfect sense.

Well, since you cannot be aware of universals, then your worldview cannot include logic, and there is no point in having a logical discussion.

Why can I not be aware of universals?

Earlier you said that the laws of logic were universal, and invariant? How is it possible for the human brain to construct a universal, invariant entity?

The universe consists of things that I am aware of and things that I am not aware of. All of the things that I am aware of comply with the laws of logic therefore it is useful to assume that things that I am unaware of also comply with the laws of logic.

If the laws of logic are contained in your brain, won’t they change when your brain dies?

No, because my brain is alive now and it can conceive of the laws of logic continuing to be in effect after my brain dies.

How does what exists in your brain apply to anything outside of your brain? How is what is in your brain in any way law-like?

I've already stated that the laws of logic are my brain's way of understanding the world. They don't affect anything outside my brain.

Could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were human minds to ‘construct’ the laws of non-contradiction?

No because human minds exist now and can conceive of the necessity the law of non-contradiction even before human minds existed.

What bearing do your past encounters have on the future?

It is useful to assume that if things have always occurred in the same way under the same conditions they will continue to do so. If I hold a stone up and let go of it 1000 times and each time it falls to the ground, on what basis should I believe it will not do the same on the 1001st time?

What is the source of God's nature?

God Himself.

Can God change His nature?

No.

So, how is it that an omnipotent being cannot change His own nature, which He created? If God is ruled by His nature, why not just remove God from the equation and be left with just nature?

Sye TenB said...

Hey Noble,

I don't think that Rhiggs' blog deserves the traffic, but your argument is in a world of hurt, so I will be glad to make a few posts here.

Let's break it right down and take it one point at a time. You appear to claim that you can be aware of universals, perhaps you can tell me how it is possible for you to be aware that anything is universally applicable, or universally true?

rhiggs said...

Hi Sye,

Good to see you again, I guess :D


"I don't think that Rhiggs' blog deserves the traffic"

LOL. That's funny. Especially coming from someone who instigated a 212 comment thread here without answering any of the questions asked of him. That's the problem with you presuppers - your semantic dance creates unnecessary volumes of traffic because you continually avoid the truth, meaning others have to continually expose your non-sensical worldview comment after comment after comment.

Just stop denying the truth and the traffic will die down.

rhiggs said...

Noble,

Good luck with your discussion. You will notice that Sye dodges any question or point you make that troubles him.

Don't accept this dishonest tactic.

For example, in his very first comment here he has ignored your questions and made the following statement:

"Let's break it right down and take it one point at a time. You appear to claim that you can be aware of universals, perhaps you can tell me how it is possible for you to be aware that anything is universally applicable, or universally true?"

What he is slyly trying to do here is deflect the attention from him and place it back on you. He is trying to put you on the defensive so that he never has to prove his own ridiculous non-sensical subjective worldview.

Again, don't accept this dishonest tactic.

You asked a legitimate question about God's nature. Are you satisfied that he has answered it? If not, then ask again until he makes an honest attempt. Do not get drawn into his semantic dance as he is a true master of deflection and bullshit.

Once he realizes you aren't going to play his little semantic game he will lose interest and leave, claiming that he is glad that there is a permenant record of this discussion for all to see, in a vain attempt to convince you that he 'won' the debate. For that is all that matters to Sye - winning. He has no interest in converting you or saving you from hell.

In short, he is a douchebag.

Noble said...

Sye TenB said:

Hey Noble,

I don't think that Rhiggs' blog deserves the traffic, but your argument is in a world of hurt, so I will be glad to make a few posts here.


That's mighty generous of you, Sye. You are truly a prince among men, despite what mean ol' Rhiggs says about you.

You appear to claim that you can be aware of universals, perhaps you can tell me how it is possible for you to be aware that anything is universally applicable, or universally true?

I think my position on that is pretty clear. Maybe you should read my last comment again.

Would you care to answer my question about God's nature now or are you going to weasel out and say my worldview doesn't allow for logic and reason so you don't have to?

Sye TenB said...

Noble said: "I think my position on that is pretty clear."

Sorry, I thought you wanted me here for a discussion.

Later,

Sye

Noble said...

Sye TenB said:
Sorry, I thought you wanted me here for a discussion.

Later,

Sye


Wow, that was quick. It's OK if you can't answer my question about God's nature, Sye. You can just admit that your belief in God is based entirely on faith and is unprovable. I can respect that position a lot more than rhetorical tricks.

Sye TenB said...

Look, I was more than happy to discuss our differences one point at a time, but it would seem that you are either incapable or unwilling to do that. I have never shied away from any questions, and would be more than happy to answer yours, but it is a two way street. Answer my question, and post the one which you want me to answer, and I will be happy to do so.

Sye TenB said...

Tell you what, I'll even go first:

Noble said: ”So, how is it that an omnipotent being cannot change His own nature, which He created?”

You are asking an absurd question, which basically boils down to: “In order for God to be God, He must be able to not be God, then He is God. God did not create His own nature, God is what He is.

” If God is ruled by His nature, why not just remove God from the equation and be left with just nature?”

God is not ruled by nature, He is consistent with HIS nature. Removing God from the equation would also necessarily remove His nature.

get_education said...

Rhiggs,

BTW I am currently writing a new post on all this and some of the flawed tactics scmike and Sye use. Will post it soon.

Well, just because you asked I went back. I guess he will give us much more material for describing his tactics. But he might have given us a lot already in his answers to others over there. I did not have time to check.

Now let us contemplate Sye demonstrating. Sye is better at disguising the rhetoric than mikei though.

Hi Sye! (Hi Mikei too!)

G.E.

Sye TenB said...

Hey GE,

Just curious, being in the scientific field and all, do you take the position that 'anything can happen,' or do you take the position 'only certain things can happen?' Which one and why?

Cheers,

Sye

get_education said...

Hey Sye,

I do not think I have the time to have a proper exchange with you these days. But enjoy your chat with Noble and the others. (I know you will.)

Cheers,
G.E.

Sye TenB said...

GEsaid: "I do not think I have the time to have a proper exchange with you these days."

No problem, I just thought it might help get to the bottom of the 'randomness vs. order' discussion you were having with Mike. You can go back to calling me a liar now :-)

Cheers,

Sye

get_education said...

Sye,

No problem, I just thought it might help get to the bottom of the 'randomness vs. order' discussion you were having with Mike. You can go back to calling me a liar now :-)

I suspected so much. Yet, again, not much time.

I am not in the mood to call you a liar right now. :-)

G.E.

rhiggs said...

Sye said:

"I have never shied away from any questions..."

LOL!!

Noble said...

Hi Sye,

I've got a cold and my internet is out at home and I've got friends visiting from out of town for the next two weeks, so forgive me if I'm a little slow to answer. Also I took Benadryl last night and that always leaves me a bit foggy in the morning so I hope this makes some sense =)

You are asking an absurd question, which basically boils down to: “In order for God to be God, He must be able to not be God, then He is God.

That assumes there is only one way of being God. Why should we assume that?

God did not create His own nature, God is what He is.

You said before that God is the source of His own nature. I don't care to quibble over the semantic difference between being the source of something and the creator of something so let's stick with source. If God is ultimately the source of laws like logic (by being the source of His own nature which is the source of logic), He should be able to change them. If He cannot change them, they exist apart from Him.

God is not ruled by nature, He is consistent with HIS nature.

Semantics again. He is consistent with His nature, therefore He can't deviate from it. How is this different from being ruled by it?

Removing God from the equation would also necessarily remove His nature.

Which is why I called it just nature and not God's nature. Obviously it can no longer be God's nature if you remove God. The question still stands. Why is God necessary to enforce laws like logic?

To address another point about laws in general, I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of those laws. I see them not as laws that are enforced the way human laws are (although it is often convenient to use terms like enforce or obey metaphorically when discussing them), but rather as constructs of minds in an effort to understand our world.

To your question about being aware of universals, I thought I made this clear before. The universe consists of things I am aware of and things I am unaware of. Since all of the things in the universe that I am aware of follow the laws of logic, it is useful to assume that the things that I am unaware of also follow the laws of logic. Therefore the laws of logic are, for all practical purposes, universal. Also, the things that I am unaware of presumably do not affect me, or at least it is not possible for me to know of their effect on me, therefore they are effectively not part of my universe.

Really, I don't feel like this is my best work, but I am feeling a little light-headed. I've read it over several times now and I feel like I've missed some important points, but this kind of stuff can make my head spin even under the best of circumstances.

As things stand now, it's possible that I won't be able to reply again until tomorrow, possibly even Tuesday.

If you get bored you could start answering all the questions Rhiggs posted at the top of this thread =)

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "LOL"

I did not shy away from those questions, I gave conditions for my asnwering them, which were not met. Meet the conditions, and I will be pleased to answer them.

Sye TenB said...

Noble said: ”That assumes there is only one way of being God. Why should we assume that?”

Perhaps we should wait for the Benadryl to wear off first. When discussing omnipotence there are only two options, 1, that such a being should be able to do the logically impossible (which leads to absurdity – see above), and 2, that such a being should not be able to do the logically impossible (which is my position), if you wish to add another option, that’s up to you.

”If God is ultimately the source of laws like logic (by being the source of His own nature which is the source of logic), He should be able to change them.“

Huh? What is your proof of this??? God is the source of logic in that it is descriptive of His nature, just like ‘wetness’ is descriptive of the nature of water. Surely you are not suggesting that in order for water to be water it should be able to not be wet???

”If He cannot change them, they exist apart from Him.”

Please prove that a the inability for a characteristic to change, means that that characteristic exists apart from that thing.

”Semantics again. He is consistent with His nature, therefore He can't deviate from it. How is this different from being ruled by it?”

You said ”nature” not ”His nature” BIG difference.

”The question still stands. Why is God necessary to enforce laws like logic?”

I said nothing about enforcing laws. God is the necessary precondition to the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, by the impossibility of the contrary.

”To address another point about laws in general, I see them... ... as constructs of minds in an effort to understand our world.”

Which is why I asked the question about universals! How can the human mind construct a universal, let alone be aware of one?

”To your question about being aware of universals, I thought I made this clear before. The universe consists of things I am aware of and things I am unaware of. Since all of the things in the universe that I am aware of follow the laws of logic, it is useful to assume that the things that I am unaware of also follow the laws of logic. Therefore the laws of logic are, for all practical purposes, universal.”

I’ll chalk this up to the Benadryl as well. You are saying that since all the things you are aware of follow the laws of logic, therefore for all practical purposes the laws of logic are universal??? How about this, the only birds that Nanook of the North has ever seen are penguins so he says: ” The universe consists of birds I am aware of and birds I am unaware of. Since all of the birds in the universe that I am aware of cannot fly, it is useful to assume that the birds that I am unaware of also cannot fly. Therefore all birds, for all practical purposes, cannot fly.”

How do you like your argument for universals now?

” Also, the things that I am unaware of presumably do not affect me, or at least it is not possible for me to know of their effect on me, therefore they are effectively not part of my universe.”

Nanook says: “Also, the birds that I am unaware of presumably do not affect me, or at least it is not possible for me to know their effect on me, therefore they are effectively not part of my universe.”

I will chalk this exchange up to the Benadryl, and give you a fresh chance to explain how you can be aware of ANYTHING that is universally true, or which has a universal effect. Your drug induced answer is arguing for laws of logic which are true “as far as you know,” not laws of logic which are universally true.

Cheers,

Sye

Noble said...

Sye said:

Perhaps we should wait for the Benadryl to wear off first. When discussing omnipotence there are only two options, 1, that such a being should be able to do the logically impossible (which leads to absurdity – see above), and 2, that such a being should not be able to do the logically impossible (which is my position), if you wish to add another option, that’s up to you.

Again, the only way you can hold God to any logical standard is if that standard comes from something other than God. As long as you claim that God is the source of logic, God can presumably change the laws of logic such that what was logically impossible is now logically possible.

And you haven't answered the question. You stated that asking God to change His nature was like asking God to not be God. But why do you assume there is only one way to be God?

If God is ultimately the source of laws like logic (by being the source of His own nature which is the source of logic), He should be able to change them.

Huh? What is your proof of this??? God is the source of logic in that it is descriptive of His nature, just like ‘wetness’ is descriptive of the nature of water. Surely you are not suggesting that in order for water to be water it should be able to not be wet???

Are you claiming that water is omnipotent? Or are you claiming God is analogous to a non-sentient chemical compound?

If He cannot change them, they exist apart from Him.

Please prove that a the inability for a characteristic to change, means that that characteristic exists apart from that thing.

Not for the characteristic to change itself, but the omnipotent source of that characteristic to change it. You do like to twist the words, don't you?

You seem to like analogies. If I told you that I control everything President Obama does, you would rightfully be skeptical. You might say I could prove it by getting him to include in his next speech the words, "I'd like to give a shout out to Sye TenB and all his presup homies, yo!" If I instead said that it went against my nature to have him say that but that I had gotten him to say "yes we can" many times, would you believe that I controlled him?

Semantics again. He is consistent with His nature, therefore He can't deviate from it. How is this different from being ruled by it?”

You said ”nature” not ”His nature” BIG difference.

This is what I said: "So, how is it that an omnipotent being cannot change His own nature, which He created? If God is ruled by His nature, why not just remove God from the equation and be left with just nature?"

Now, the only place I didn't put "His" in front of "nature" is in the case where God is removed in which case it is obviously not His nature anymore. I know you're not dumb so you must be avoiding the real question.

[Nanook analogy]

The Benadryl has worn off and I'm feeling much better, thanks. I really should stay away from that stuff but I didn't have any Claritin and my nose was running like a faucet. My "intelligently designed" sinuses are still giving me a bit of trouble but I am definitely on the mend.

So, putting aside the fact that penguins don't live in the northern hemisphere, I still stand by my "drug induced" statements about universal knowledge even in the face of your devastating Nanook analogy. Why? Because Nanook is absolutely right. How is Nanook affected by the existence of toucans? His universe does not contain toucans. I challenge you to tell me any practical difference that the existence of toucans has on Nanook's life. What is the difference (to Nanook) between a universe where toucans exist and he is never aware of them and a universe where no toucans exist? What is the difference (to me) between a universe where there exists something to which laws of logic do not apply yet I am not aware of that thing and it never affects me, and a universe in which there is nothing to which the laws of logic do not apply?

rhiggs said...

Sye said:

"I did not shy away from those questions, I gave conditions for my asnwering them, which were not met. Meet the conditions, and I will be pleased to answer them." (Spelling mistake in original)

Ahh, you are using the same playground tactics as scmike because you know that some, if not all, of my questions expose the absurdity of your position.

I'll play your childish game too. How about this? I'll meet your conditions after you answer my questions. ;D

It's funny to see both of your and scmike's arguments become so pathetic at the same time.

In fact if you look at question 10 it addresses this childish game you are now playing:

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?

This is essentially what you are trying to do now too. Your 'conditions' are supposed to expose the fact that I have no basis for evaluating your answers, a claim which has no merit as you base it on your subjective inconsistent worldview. You are trying to deflect the attention back onto me in a vain attempt to avoid addressing the circular lies that seem to have taken over your very existence.

You hilariously still seem to think you have proven that God is the source of logic. Your proof is a load of nonsense, as is your claim that non-believers know God but suppress it. Not to mention the fact that your senses and reasoning are fallible (as evidenced again by your spelling) and so you have no reliable avenue to certainty.

Still, if nothing else, your worldview does provide light entertainment every so often...

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: "How about this? I'll meet your conditions after you answer my questions. ;D"


1. Very simple, I made a general claim with respect to the impossibilityof the contrary, but I did not address his SPECIFIC worldview.

2. I have never said that there are people who are certain of the truth, but who are in fact wrong, as that would be impossible.

3. It looks like you do not understand presuppositions. One does not come to the conclusions about presuppositions, they are the basis on which conclusions are formed.

4. God exists. By His revelation

5. God’s revelation.

6. It is question begging to assume that God could not reveal some things to us such that we can be certain that they are valid, and that the revelations are from Him, therefore this question is invalid.

7. I did not use anything to make this determination, as it is NOT a determination, it is a PRESUPPOSITION.

8. I did not come to this conclusion, God has revealed it to us.

9. This has nothing to do with the reliability or perceived reliability of my senses, it is my position that God can and does reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them, no matter our perceptions.

10. Cause they [ahem] keep harping on them, and sometimes I choose to expose the fallacy of their position.

11. Your statement is question begging, and therefore your question is invalid. It is your claim that God must be able to contradict His own nature in order to be omnipotent, not mine.

12. I do not offer refutations of claims by people who claim individual revelations with nothing to back up that claim, especially when everything they say prior to, and after their claim, contradicts their claim revealing that they are only putting up a smoke screen. Besides ‘invisible,’ and ‘pink’ are contradictory characteristics, refuting the existence of such an entity.

13. I have never said that I have been guaranteed that my senses are reliable. It is my claim that God can and does reveal some things to us such that we can be certain of them, no matter the reliability of our senses.

14. God is an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, omnibenevolent, personal spirit.

15. God exists.

16. The very posing of the question exposes a precommitment to my rationality, else it would be absurd to pose it.

17. Because those are undeniable characteristics of logic.

18. It is my position that God can and does reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain to be true and reliable. It would take intellectual dishonesty to deny this possibility, and question begging to assume its impossibility.

There ya go rhiggs, commence your song and dance.

Sye TenB said...

Noble said: ”This is what I said: "So, how is it that an omnipotent being cannot change His own nature, which He created?”

Again, God did not create His own nature. God is what He is, until you get that through your skull, your questions are pointless. God’s nature is a description of who He is, NOT something that was created.

”Now, the only place I didn't put "His" in front of "nature" is in the case where God is removed in which case it is obviously not His nature anymore. I know you're not dumb so you must be avoiding the real question.”

Look up the logical fallacy of ‘equivocation,’ cause THAT is what you are doing when you confuse the term ‘nature’ with the descriptive term ‘his nature.’

”His universe does not contain toucans.”

Rats, I was hoping it was the Benadryl. You are arguing for relative logic, NOT universal logic. You made the claim that the laws of logic are UNIVERSAL, not universal TO YOU, cause that ain’t universal, that’s RELATIVE!!!
If you wish to retract your claim, and now claim that logic is RELATIVE, you may do so, otherwise please prove how you can know ANYTHING to be universally true, or applicable.

Sye TenB said...

Actually rhiggs the challenge was this: "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."

Well, I answered your questions anyways, so, now hold up your end of the bargain and account for the laws of logic acording to your worldview.

rhiggs said...

No semantic dance from me Sye. You are the only dancing queen here...

Nevertheless, I thank you for finally answering my questions. Of course, your answers are far from what could be remotely called satisfactory:

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.

Very simple, I made a general claim with respect to the impossibilityof the contrary, but I did not address his SPECIFIC worldview.

The phrase 'impossibility of the contrary' necessarily excludes any worldview that does not agree with yours. This means that your statement is still contradictory as you have claimed that all contrary worldviews are impossible and then denied that you have claimed a particular one is impossible. LOL


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?

I have never said that there are people who are certain of the truth, but who are in fact wrong, as that would be impossible.

Hmmm, are you sure? I seem to remember you and Stan talking about this. Let me dig up some past discussions and get back to you. You better be sure!


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?

It looks like you do not understand presuppositions. One does not come to the conclusions about presuppositions, they are the basis on which conclusions are formed.

Eh, the conclusion that one does not come to conclusions about presuppositions, is itself a conclusion about presuppositions. It looks like you do not understand conclusions.


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.

God exists. By His revelation

That's a belief, not a truth. And it is a belief based on a subjective revelation. Nothing absolute about that.


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.)

God’s revelation.

Riiiight! Did you use reason to come to the conclusion that God's revelation is evidence that you can reason reliably? Fail.


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.

It is question begging to assume that God could not reveal some things to us such that we can be certain that they are valid, and that the revelations are from Him, therefore this question is invalid.

And the question you claim is being begged also leads onto the following question:

Can an omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, reveal something to a fallible human such that the person believes it to be certain, even though it isn't. If not, why not?

rhiggs said...

Sye,

Well, I answered your questions anyways, so, now hold up your end of the bargain and account for the laws of logic acording to your worldview.

They don't need to be accounted for. Account for your God...

rhiggs said...

7) What absolute standard did you use as your foundation to determine that God is an absolute standard?

I did not use anything to make this determination, as it is NOT a determination, it is a PRESUPPOSITION.

In other words, you made it up. Also, absolute standards do not need any rationale to become absolute standards. Great!


8) How did you come to the conclusion that God has an unchanging character?

I did not come to this conclusion, God has revealed it to us.

So you actually came to the conclusion that God has an unchanging character following God's revelation. How did you come to the conclusion that God's revelation doesn't change?


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?

This has nothing to do with the reliability or perceived reliability of my senses, it is my position that God can and does reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them, no matter our perceptions.

Again, can an omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, reveal something to a fallible human such that the person believes it to be certain, even though it isn't. If not, why not?


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?

Cause they [ahem] keep harping on them, and sometimes I choose to expose the fallacy of their position.

Great. Anytime you want to start then...


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?

Your statement is question begging, and therefore your question is invalid. It is your claim that God must be able to contradict His own nature in order to be omnipotent, not mine.

No, just that he should be able to do anything that is logically possible (your words). Lying and murder are logically possible. Your position implies that humans, since they can lie and murder, are more powerful than God.


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.

I do not offer refutations of claims by people who claim individual revelations with nothing to back up that claim, especially when everything they say prior to, and after their claim, contradicts their claim revealing that they are only putting up a smoke screen. Besides ‘invisible,’ and ‘pink’ are contradictory characteristics, refuting the existence of such an entity.

So you cannot refute the claim then. That's ok, just confirming...

rhiggs said...

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?

I have never said that I have been guaranteed that my senses are reliable. It is my claim that God can and does reveal some things to us such that we can be certain of them, no matter the reliability of our senses.

Oh really. Check your response to me here

"I know what I know based on God’s revealtion. I know that my reasoning is trustworthy based on God’s revelation, and I proceed on the expectation that past events will resemble future events based on God’s revelation.

December 15, 2008 7:57 AM
"

Consistency isn't one of your strengths, is it? Unless you want to quibble over the difference between reliable and trustworthy, which I'm sure you do...

Your fallible senses and reasoning necessarily mean that your claims to certainty are nonsense.


14) Hey Sye, using your own logic, provide a positive ontology for God. If you cant, why should we trust your logic?

God is an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, omnibenevolent, personal spirit.

This was Vagon's question so I'll let Vagon respond.


15) Please provide an example of an absolute truth which is not a systemic truth.

God exists

Sorry, that's a belief. Not a 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?

God exists.

No then. And you also don't seem to understand basic questions.


17) Explain why the qualifiers absolute, universal, and immutable apply to a discussion of logic.

Because those are undeniable characteristics of logic.

This was Ryk's question so I'll let him respond. (I deny it though)


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.

It is my position that God can and does reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain to be true and reliable. It would take intellectual dishonesty to deny this possibility, and question begging to assume its impossibility.

Didn't fancy answering that question directly did you? I don't blame you. That is because it would take intellectual dishonesty to deny this possibility, and question begging to assume its impossibility.

It cancels out your position and you know it. LOL! Whether you admit it or not your position is equally as question begging and can thus be dismissed as invalid.

Don't worry though. I can understand why you refuse to consider this...

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "They don't need to be accounted for."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Knew it :-D

rhiggs said...

Sye,

Your witty yet intellectually devastating critique has convinced me.

Glory Gee To Beesus!!

rhiggs said...

Correction on Q 16: I incorrectly posted Sye's 'answer' for question 15 here. Not to worry. At least occasional errors do not refute my position, like they do for Sye!

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?

The very posing of the question exposes a precommitment to my rationality, else it would be absurd to pose it.

No. It asks a question which you cannot answer without attempting to use rationality. You have made a valiant effort, but your inability to refute the presupposition means that your brain injury is obviously true. Perhaps you didn't understand the question, which would be consistent with your brain injury. In fact, from your answers to all the questions, this is looking increasingly likely...

If you disagree, perhaps you could explain, with your limited brain power, how the following condition of yours is necessary for me to formulate questions or evaluate answers?

"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."

Do you account for how your computer works before you turn it on and use it to spout presupp nonsense?

No.

Do you account for how an aircraft works before you get on it?

No.

An account of logic is not needed in order to use it. Hence my answer:

"They don't need to be accounted for."

You obviously have no refutation of this, hence your childish reply. As I have shown, it was an absurd condition in the first place.

If you are instead asking where did the laws of logic come from, then that is a different question, which I can answer. However, that has no bearing on whether I can or cannot use logic to formulate questions and evaluate answers. Your brain injury, on the other hand, directly affects this, so I should really be dictating the conditions here, not you...

Chris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris said...

Sye, sye, sye

Why do you give out such poorly thought out answers and bald-faced lies in answer to my questions? Is it the old brain injury playing up again?

I asked 15. please provide an example of an absolute truth which is not a systemic truth.

You replied "God exists"

God exists is an assertion NOT a truth But even if it were such it would still be a systemic truth since it requires a mind to recognise God as God.

So no answer here.

I then asked "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?"

You answered "The very posing of the question exposes a precommitment to my rationality, else it would be absurd to pose it.

Now you know this is an out and out lie Sye. Your kindly nurse from the cranial trauma ward dumbs it down for you.

I've given you the same answer to this same reply oh a few times on a variety of different blogs now. Do you have trouble remebering things like this that have been repeated so many times before or does the old brain injury cause you to compulsively lie?

Chris said...

Ya see sye

If you can demand that we account for the systemic rules of logic then you have to first account for your ability to reason despite your brain injury. You must do that first or how would you be able to understand our answer?

What I suggest to everyone is that we help Sye out. Let's all just copy Sye's style of argument. That may well help Sye to realise just how very brain damaged he really is.

Chris said...

@ Everyone except Sye

When I asked for an example of an absolute truth wich is not a systemic truth Sye replied "God exists."

So Sye is using the asserted existence of God to prove that absolute truth which in turn proves that God exists.

But, I can hear you ask, how can the asserted existence of God be used to prove absolute truth when, according to presupp bullshit, you need absolute truth to prove God?

The sad thing is that Sye actually thinks this argument makes sense. The poor, poor brain damaged man.

Noble said...

Sye TenB said:

Again, God did not create His own nature. God is what He is, until you get that through your skull, your questions are pointless. God’s nature is a description of who He is, NOT something that was created.

Again, you didn't answer the real question: why do you assume that there is only one way of being God? If you had some standard of logic that came from a source other than God I could see your point about God not being able to do the logically impossible, but it just doesn't make sense in your worldview.

Look up the logical fallacy of ‘equivocation,’ cause THAT is what you are doing when you confuse the term ‘nature’ with the descriptive term ‘his nature.’

I suspected you might accuse me of equivocation; I can even understand how you could think I am equivocating. My meaning, however, is that the things that you see as aspects of God's nature could instead be merely aspects of nature (or aspects of reality, if you prefer) itself. I apologize for not being clear about that, although I think you could have figured it out. I and others have noted that you have a tendency to misunderstand (or misrepresent) what people say.

If you wish to retract your claim, and now claim that logic is RELATIVE, you may do so, otherwise please prove how you can know ANYTHING to be universally true, or applicable.

No, I believe logic is universal, not relative. This is because I have never encountered a case where logic doesn't apply. Remember, I'm not the one claiming to have a source of universal knowledge. I only believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the laws of logic are universal. This is how I am able to function in and understand the world.

Sye TenB said...

Well, lets get to the bottom of your claim to universal logic, before we continue.

Noble said: ”No, I believe logic is universal, not relative. This is because I have never encountered a case where logic doesn't apply. “

Nor as Nanook encountered any other birds!!! You are talking about RELATIVE logic, NOT universal logic!!! What is the basis for assuming that logic applies outside of your scope of reference, or that it will not change???

”Remember, I'm not the one claiming to have a source of universal knowledge. “

EXACTLY so your claim that logic is universal is entirely without merit!

”I only believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the laws of logic are universal.”

Beyond reasonable doubt??? What is the reason for believing that logic applies outside of your scope of reference in the first place?

” This is how I am able to function in and understand the world.”

No kidding, now please tell me what your basis is for assuming that logic is universal? “Logic applies as far as I know” is a claim to RELATIVE logic, since it is relative to what you know, NOT universal logic.

Please give this more thought before you reply again.

Noble said...

Sye, you forgot to answer my question:

Why do you assume there is only one way of being God?

Chris said...

@ Sye
Well, lets get to examples of you being brain damaged before we continue.

Noble said: ”No, I believe logic is universal, not relative. This is because I have never encountered a case where logic doesn't apply. “

Sye replied "Nor as Nanook encountered any other birds!!! You are talking about RELATIVE logic, NOT universal logic!!!"

Poor, poor brain damaged man. That would make logic tentative not relative. Please ask the nurse to look up a dictionary and dumb it down for you.

Noble continued ”Remember, I'm not the one claiming to have a source of universal knowledge. “

Sye responded "EXACTLY so your claim that logic is universal is entirely without merit!"

Poor, poor brain damaged man. Logic is NOT knowledge -unless it's knowledge about philosophy. It is a way to vet conceptions of reality & thus can lead to knowledge.

Noble continued ”I only believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the laws of logic are universal.”

Sye responded "Beyond reasonable doubt??? What is the reason for believing that logic applies outside of your scope of reference in the first place?"

You poor, poor brain damaged man. Humans who do not have damaged brains allow reality to affect their conceptions. You do not do this [for example reality for you is that you're brain damaged & unable to reason & yet you ignore reality & cling to your poor brain damaged ideas].

Noble wrote ”This is how I am able to function in and understand the world.”

Sye responded "No kidding, now please tell me what your basis is for assuming that logic is universal? “Logic applies as far as I know” is a claim to RELATIVE logic, since it is relative to what you know, NOT universal logic."

Have you forgotten already you poor brain damaged man? That would make noble's claim to logic tentative NOT relative.

Sye Please tell your nurse to dumb things down a bit more before allowing you to respond. You obviously haven't given your replies, such as they are, much thought at all.

Sye TenB said...

Noble, I didn't forget, you have indicated an adherence to relative logic, so I figure we should get to the bottom of that before we delve into issues of a universal nature.

(And I do not merely assume it, I know it for a fact, by God's revelation).

Chris said...

@ Noble

You wrote "Sye, you forgot to answer my question:

Why do you assume there is only one way of being God?"

I'm afraid that his poor memory seems to be one more symptom of Sye's brain damage. Not to mention his inane compulsion to spam boards with these odd ideas such as presupp bullshit.

Chris said...

Sye wrote "(And I do not merely assume it, I know it for a fact, by God's revelation)."

No sye you know no such thing. Your 'revelations' are just delusions from a damaged brain. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Sye TenB said...

@Chris, do I really have to post the definitions of 'relative' and 'tentative' for you?

Chris said...

@ Noble

What I'm attempting to do is merely to demonstrate the unanserableness of Sye's question.

He presupposes God's existence then declares that God invented logic so God must exist. I've proven by exactly the same method that sye is brain damaged but he continues to refuse to admit it.

For example Sye maintains that he is not brain damaged but either cannot or will not prove that he can think rationally.

Thuse, by presupp bullshit I have proven that sye is brain damaged.

The poor, poor man. It's a tragedy really.

Chris said...

Tentative in the sense in which I am using it "–adjective of the nature of or made or done as a trial, experiment, or attempt; experimental: a tentative report on her findings."

In other words allowing reality to potentially alter our ideas.

”No, I believe logic is universal, not relative. This is because I have never encountered a case where logic doesn't apply. “

In other words Noble is allowing reality to potentially alter his ideas. Ergo tentative.

Please don't do this to yourself Sye. You know your brain can't cope with logic.

Sye TenB said...

Chris said: "For example Sye maintains that he is not brain damaged"

Where have I maintained this? I am merely pointing out the fallacy of your posing questions to someone who you claim is brain-damaged.

What you fail to see, is that your scenario does not equate with presuppositionalism. I do not maintain that you cannot think rationally, I merely maintain that you cannot account for rational thought according to your worldview.

Sye TenB said...

Chris said: "In other words Noble is allowing reality to potentially alter his ideas. Ergo tentative."

So, not universal then? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (You're still wrong though)

Chris said...

@ Everyone except Sye

You may well be asking what about the definition for 'relative knowledge'? well here it is:

Relative knowledge is [to quote the oxford dictionary of philosophy] thepermanently tempting doctrine that in some areas at least, truth is relative to the standpoint of the judging subject."

Does Noble's statement agree with that definition? Let's see.

Noble wrote "I believe logic is universal, not relative. This is because I have never encountered a case where logic doesn't apply."

In other words he is allowing reality to potentially alter his ideas. Doesn't sound relative to the observer at all does it?

Ah but we have reckoned without the brain damage which Sye suffered. Let's see what wackiness he gets up to next.

Sye TenB said...

"Doesn't sound relative to the observer at all does it?"

Are you really that stupid Chris? If he allows reality to potentially alter HIS idea about what logic is, then it is STILL relative to HIM.

(No wonder you did not address that to me :-D )

Noble said...

Again, Sye, I believe in universal logic. I don't have telepathic communication with a magic man in the sky so I am stuck with mere belief.

I'm going to the beach with my wife now. Catch you later.

Sye TenB said...

Noble said: "Again, Sye, I believe in universal logic."

Again Noble, what is the basis for that belief?

Chris said...

I stated "For example Sye maintains that he is not brain damaged"

Sye replied "Where have I maintained this?"

So you admit that you're brain damaged now?

Sye continued blatheringly "I am merely pointing out the fallacy of your posing questions to someone who you claim is brain-damaged."

Sye did you forget already? I am presupposing that your nurse is dumbing my replies down for you. But I've already told you this many, many times before.

Sye continued by blathering "What you fail to see, is that your scenario does not equate with presuppositionalism."

Sye, sye, sye I've already dealt with this non-answer on other blogs. Have you forgotten this as well? Boy that brain damage is worse than I thought.

I am using an analogy. To quote the oxford dictionary of philosophy again "an argument in which one thing is similar to another."

In other words they don't have to be the same Sye. Only share characteristics. Do they? Let's see.

Presupp bullshit
Premise 1: You assert that God created logic.

Premise two: The evidence for this is everyone's inability to show any basis for logic.

Conclusion: Therefore God created logic.

My presupp bullshit
Premise 1: I assert that are brain damaged.

Premise two: The evidence for this is your inability to show any reasoning ability.

Conclusion: Therefore you are brain damaged.

Noble said...

@Chris,

No problem. Please continue. I am enjoying it.

Chris said...

Sye wrote "So, not universal then? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (You're still wrong though)>

If something is tentatively held one cannot say it is NOT universal because that would mean we have found exceptions. So, to quote you - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 9You're still wrong though).

Sye TenB said...

Erm no, I assert that God is the necessarly precondition for logic by the impossibility of the contrary.

Logic exists (which we BOTH - I assume - agree to).

Therefore God exists

Chris said...

Did syesie wiesie forget again that we are discussing knowledge.

Relative knwoledge is knowledge which is realtive to the idividual - an opinion if you will. It need refer to NOTHING outside the individual.

Tentative knowledge is knowledge which directs itself toward reality - a source which is outside of ourselves & therefore NOT tentative.

Boy that brain damage has really affected you hasn't it.

Chris said...

Sye blthered "Again Noble, what is the basis for that belief?"

Did you forget AGAIN?

We shouldn't give you any answers until such time as you can show that you can reason.

Sye TenB said...

Chris said: "If something is tentatively held one cannot say it is NOT universal because that would mean we have found exceptions."

Have you been into Noble's Benadryl? If logic is tentatively held by an individual then it is both tentative AND relative.

Chris said...

Sye blathered "Erm no, I assert that God is the necessarly precondition for logic by the impossibility of the contrary.

Logic exists (which we BOTH - I assume - agree to).

Therefore God exists"

Poor sye his reading comprehension is gone.

Sye TenB said...

"Did syesie wiesie forget again that we are discussing knowledge."

Scroll up Chrissie Wissie :-D

Chris said...

Sye blathered "Have you been into Noble's Benadryl? If logic is tentatively held by an individual then it is both tentative AND relative".

Have you forgotten again?

I'll repeat my answer & nurse please dumb it down a HUGE amount for simple sye this time. Ok?

Relative knwoledge is knowledge which is realtive to the individual - an opinion if you will. It need refer to NOTHING outside the individual.

Tentative knowledge is knowledge which directs itself toward reality - a source which is outside of ourselves & therefore NOT relative.

Sye TenB said...

"Tentative knowledge is knowledge which directs itself toward reality - a source which is outside of ourselves & therefore NOT relative."

Is it absolute then?

Chris said...

I did syesie weisie. We are discussing the knowledge of logic.

Sye TenB said...

"I did syesie weisie. We are discussing the knowledge of logic."

Scroll higher.

Chris said...

I wrote "Tentative knowledge is knowledge which directs itself toward reality - a source which is outside of ourselves & therefore NOT relative."

Sye responded "Is it absolute then?"

Sye I know how difficult it is for someone who's brain damaged to remember things but we have dealt with this many, many times before.

Knowledge can be
1)relative or
2) objective and tentative or
3) absolute

Mine's the second one.

Sye TenB said...

"2) objective and tentative"

Example please.

Chris said...

I wrote ""I did syesie weisie. We are discussing the knowledge of logic."

You responded "Scroll higher".

The trouble is sysie weisie that is what we were & are discussing when I joined in. So I don't need to look higher.

You see the thing is sye people without damaged brains can let a discussion flow where it will. We are not beset by compulsions - such as your strange compulsion to spam boards with presupp bs.

Sye TenB said...

"The trouble is sysie weisie that is what we were & are discussing when I joined in."

Erm, when you joined in the discussion that Noble and I were having higher up.

Chris said...

Sye asked for exqamples of tentative knowledge. Fair enough.

I come up a tree & after careful inspection declare it to be the tallest tree in the forest.

Q: will it always be the tallest tree?

A:No. Therefore my statement is not absolute.

Q: Is this tree only the tallest to me?
A: No. Therefore my statement is not relative.

My statement is tentative [new trees may grow which are taller] but objective [my statement relies on several verifiable facts which are independent of myself and my opinions.

Chris said...

I answered "The trouble is sysie weisie that is what we were & are discussing when I joined in."

& Sye responded "Erm, when you joined in the discussion that Noble and I were having higher up."

Irrelevant for the matter at hand. But I've noticed something strange. Your poor damaged brain seems to fixate on non-essentials & then reboots by the same tired old line. Allow me to reboot you sye. Please provide evidence of an ability to reason in order for me to answer your questions. :-) There ya go.

Sye TenB said...

"I come up a tree & after careful inspection declare it to be the tallest tree in the forest."

Q. Do you know it to be the tallest tree, or do you only perceive it to be the tallest tree?How do you know that the senses and reasoning with which you determined that it was the tallest tree are reliable?

"Q: will it always be the tallest tree?
A: No"


Q: Is it absolutely true that the tree will always be the tallest tree at that time?
A: Yes
If you could justify the validity of your senses and reasoning, your statement would be absolute, NOT tentative.

Sye TenB said...

"Please provide evidence of an ability to reason in order for me to answer your questions"

I could not care less if you answered my questions.

Chris said...

I wrote "I come up a tree & after careful inspection declare it to be the tallest tree in the forest."

Q. Do you know it to be the tallest tree, or do you only perceive it to be the tallest tree?How do you know that the senses and reasoning with which you determined that it was the tallest tree are reliable?

"Q: will it always be the tallest tree?
A: No"

Sye blathered "Q: Is it absolutely true that the tree will always be the tallest tree at that time?
A: Yes"

Very good sye. But that does NOTHING to show that tentative, objective knowledge does not exist. My statement stands.

You then responded "If you could justify the validity of your senses and reasoning, your statement would be absolute, NOT tentative".

Poor, poor sye. I can justify my reasoning. In the instance through objective measurement. Doesn't make my statement absolute or reduce it to relative. So another non-answer from the brain-damaged one.

Chris said...

Sye concluded by writing "I could not care less if you answered my questions."

I'm told that many brain damaged patients are this way. Rude, opinionated, forgetful. Classic symptoms. Ah well sye if you're not interested in conversing with me I'll be going and leave you to your OCD.

Now go to the nurse & report your bad manners. If you're lucky they may not revoke your privileges.

Sye TenB said...

"Very good sye. But that does NOTHING to show that tentative, objective knowledge does not exist."

Without justifying your senses and reasoning, you haven't even given us 'knowledge' let alone the absurd claim of 'tentative knowledge.' Your claim that you can justify your reasoning 'through objective measurement' is absurdly circular, as you necessarily employ the very thing you are trying to justify.

Knowledge by definition is certain, and absolute, else one could know things which are false, which, no doubt, will be the next absurd thing you posit.

Noble said...

"Again Noble, what is the basis for that belief?"

Again, Sye, observation of my surroundings. I don't have a pathological authoritarian disorder that requires me to get permission to think.

Sye TenB said...

"Again, Sye, observation of my surroundings"

Again Noble, how can you observe a universal??? Or... on what basis do you assume that your observations apply universally?

Noble said...

"Again Noble, how can you observe a universal??? Or... on what basis do you assume that your observations apply universally?"

I'm beginning to thing your are brain damaged. You explicitly didn't deny it. I'm also beginning to lose interest in this conversation. I'll check back later and see how you and Chris are getting on.

Sye TenB said...

"I'm also beginning to lose interest in this conversation."

I'm waaaaaay ahead of you man :-D I'll check back to see if you ever answer my question.

rhiggs said...

Sye said to Chris:

"Without justifying your senses and reasoning, you haven't even given us 'knowledge' let alone the absurd claim of 'tentative knowledge.' Your claim that you can justify your reasoning 'through objective measurement' is absurdly circular, as you necessarily employ the very thing you are trying to justify."


And since Sye's senses and reasoning are fallible, which he cannot deny, he has no basis for asserting anything as this would be inconsistent with his worldview which needs certainty.

Any claim of his that an omniscient omnipotent being can reveal things for certain are flawed for two reasons:

1) An omniscient omnipotent being could, if it so desired, convince a fallible dufus (read: Sye) that something is certain, even though it isn't.

2) It doesn't matter if the revelation-giver is omniscient. What it boils down to is the fact that Sye himself is not omniscient. This means that he cannot know for certain that his revelation is real or fake (absent absolute knowledge he cannot know this). The revelation could just be from some being capable of fooling him.


It would take intellectual dishonesty to deny these possibilities, and question begging to assume their impossibility.

rhiggs said...

For my take on the concept of universal logic see here:

Presuppositionalist Nonsense Part I

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "This means that he cannot know for certain that his revelation is real or fake"

Prove this please. Please prove that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain. Then perhaps you couold tell us how you know for certain that such a being could not do this.

(Not holding my breath).

Cheers,

Sye

rhiggs said...

Right back at you...

Please prove that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal some things to you, such that you believe that you know them for certain, but they are actually not certain. Then perhaps you could tell us how you know for certain that such a being could not do this.

(Not holding my breath).

Cheers,

Rhiggs

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "Please prove that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal some things to you, such that you believe that you know them for certain, but they are actually not certain."

I don't need to, since you have already admitted that an omniscient. omnipotent being could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain!

Thanks again!

rhiggs said...

I have said I don't deny that an omniscient omnipotent being could reveal something to you in such a way that YOU know it is certain. Sure, no problem.

(Prediction: Sye will quotemine the above sentence and claim that I have agreed with him, ignoring everything below)

Problem is Sye, Scientologists are certain that L Ron Hubbard's writings are the truth. That still doesn't make it so.

You may be certain of what you know. But that doesn't mean you are right. You would have to be omniscient yourself to know that.

It's still a possibility that an omniscient omnipotent being fooled you into thinking you are certain. If that's the case then it does not refute your claim to certainty, it just refutes the alleged 'certainty' itself.

What this means is that you can no longer claim that any revelation you have is actually the truth. You just think it is.

This, of course, reduces your whole position to mere faith, but then again that's all Geebus wants. Just enjoy your faith and heaven and all that great stuff that's coming to you and leave rational thought to people who don't believe in a bronze age myth which includes talking snakes, magic apples and three-in-one God-man-ghost entities (law of non-contradiction, eh?)

As for my claim that an omniscient omnipotent being fooled you into thinking you are certain. You have yet to confirm or deny that this is a possibility. You really want to deny it is possible but you know you can't because this would be denying what an omnipotent being can do, a position you yourself claim is absurd. So, you avoid giving any opinion on it because either way you will refute your own argument about certainty.

That is obvious to anyone reading this so, seeing as you refuse to address it, I'm happy enough to leave it at that.

All the best,

Rhiggs

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: ”I have said I don't deny that an omniscient omnipotent being could reveal something to you in such a way that YOU know it is certain. Sure, no problem.”

Please give an example of something which is known to be certain, which is in fact not true.

”Problem is Sye, Scientologists are certain that L Ron Hubbard's writings are the truth. That still doesn't make it so.”

Then they only BELIEVE it, they do not KNOW it. Again, please give an example of something which is KNOWN for certain to be true, which is in fact not true.

”You may be certain of what you know. But that doesn't mean you are right. You would have to be omniscient yourself to know that.”

Erm, and how do you know THAT???

”It's still a possibility that an omniscient omnipotent being fooled you into thinking you are certain. If that's the case then it does not refute your claim to certainty, it just refutes the alleged 'certainty' itself.”

Irrelevant, as you have admitted that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain to be true.

”What this means is that you can no longer claim that any revelation you have is actually the truth. You just think it is.”

YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT AN OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT BEING COULD REVEAL SOME THINGS TO US SUCH THAT WE CAN KNOW THEM FOR CERTAIN TO BE TRUE, NOT MERELY INCORRECTLY BELIEVE THEM TO BE TRUE!!! (Do the caps help?)
:-D

”As for my claim that an omniscient omnipotent being fooled you into thinking you are certain. You have yet to confirm or deny that this is a possibility. You really want to deny it is possible but you know you can't because this would be denying what an omnipotent being can do, a position you yourself claim is absurd. “

Not at all, I do not address it because it is IRRELEVANT. OF COURSE an omnipotent omniscient being could do this, and He could also reveal in such a way that we can be certain that HE has not! (Quote mine away).

”That is obvious to anyone reading this so, seeing as you refuse to address it, I'm happy enough to leave it at that.”

Again, I did not address it because it was irrelevant. If an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them, it is irrelevant, what else He could do. After reading your posts, no one should wonder why the Bible calls those who deny God’s existence “fools.”

rhiggs said...

YAY!!!

Sye has eventually admitted that an omniscient omnipotent being COULD fool him into thinking he knows something for certain.

Case closed.

rhiggs said...

But to address it in full so as not to be accused of quote-mining:

Sye said:

"Not at all, I do not address it because it is IRRELEVANT. OF COURSE an omnipotent omniscient being could do this, and He could also reveal in such a way that we can be certain that HE has not! (Quote mine away)."

So if an omniscient omnipotent being could fool you into believing something to be certain, when it isn't...

How would you know the difference between this trickery happening and the time when it is actually revealing something for certain?

In both cases, there would be no difference in your belief that you are certain.

Fail :D

rhiggs said...

Actually Sye, don't bother answering that last question.

I'll save you the embarrassment.

Since your position has now been relegated to mere religious faith, I'm not really interested anymore.

I do wish you all the best with your religion though. Enjoy heaven and all that...!

Sye TenB said...

rhigss said: "In both cases, there would be no difference in your belief that you are certain."

Who is talking about belief? We are talking about KNOWLEDGE. One cannot know that which is false. If God reveals something to us, such that we KNOW it for certain to be true, (a possibility which you have admitted), then it necessarily IS true. Perhaps that is just too simple for you to grasp.

Not that I expect an answer, but we have been looking at my claim to knowledge for a while now, how is it possible for YOU to KNOW anything to be true?

rhiggs said...

Sye,

You ain't deflecting the attention on me just because your worldview is crashing down.


"If God reveals something to us, such that we KNOW it for certain to be true, (a possibility which you have admitted), then it necessarily IS true."

Incorrect. As you have admitted, he could simply be tricking you to just think that you KNOW it for certain to be true.

You wouldn't know the difference, so you have no avenue to certainty. All you have is faith.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in worldviews that are based on blind faith.

Just go and enjoy your life and your religion!

Sye TenB said...

Yawn, has it come to this?

rhiggs, is it possible for an omniscient, omnipotent being to reveal to us that He is not tricking us, such that we can know for certain that this is true?

(And I was right not to expect an answer ;-)

rhiggs said...

Yawn is right. We agree on something at least! ;D

BTW you can leave whenever you want. As I said, I'm not interested in worldviews based on blind faith.


"rhiggs, is it possible for an omniscient, omnipotent being to reveal to us that He is not tricking us, such that we can know for certain that this is true?"

*Sigh*

Perhaps, but it is equally as possible for an omniscient, omnipotent being, if it so desired, to reveal to us that He is not tricking us, such that we can think we know for certain that this is true...even though it is NOT true and he is still tricking us!

Again, you wouldn't know the difference since you are not omniscient.

You cannot deny this possibility!

LOL!!!

Do you really want me to keep embarrassing you like this?

No amount of bullshit will get you out of this one Sye. What you don't seem to realize is that my claim (which you have accepted) cancels out your claim, so all your claims to certainty that you base on your revelation are bogus.

All you have is faith.

Why is that so hard for you to accept?

All you have is faith.

Go and enjoy your religion.

....

:D

Noble said...

The funny thing is, if this omnipotent entity is tricking you, of course it's going to "reveal" to you it's not a trick. What else it is it going to do? Reveal this absolute, universal truth but also tell you it's a trick?

LOL

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: As I said, I'm not interested in worldviews based on blind faith.”

What is your worldview based on?

”Perhaps”

What would make it not possible?

”but it is equally as possible for an omniscient, omnipotent being, if it so desired, to reveal to us that He is not tricking us, such that we can think we know for certain that this is true...even though it is NOT true and he is still tricking us!”

Well, since we are not talking about what anyone THINKS they know, but what they ACTUALLY KNOW, your point is once again irrelevant.

”All you have is faith.”

Erm no, I have R E V E L A T I O N. If you ever got your head out of that shady place, you might see that you are actually describing your own worldview.

Noble said...

"Well, since we are not talking about what anyone THINKS they know, but what they ACTUALLY KNOW, your point is once again irrelevant."

How do you tell the difference between what you think you know and what you actually know? Oh, right, omniscient entity reveals to you that you really know it instead of revealing that that you only think you know it. Priceless!

Sye TenB said...

Ah Noble, you are back, good: "How can you observe a universal??? Or... on what basis do you assume that your observations apply universally?"

Cheers,

Sye

Noble said...

I'm not going to do you the favor of changing the subject now Sye. Anyway, now that you've admitted you may be under the influence of a malevolent trickster entity I'm not sure what kind of conversation we can have.

I have already addressed your question in previous comments and I am bored of going around in circles with you.

Sye TenB said...

Noble said: "I have already addressed your question in previous comments and I am bored of going around in circles with you."

If you are happy letting the record of your answers to those questions stand as is, so am I :-D

Cheers

rhiggs said...

Sye,

How many times will I have to explain this to you?

It doesn't matter that you claim you ACTUALLY KNOW anything.

An omniscient omnipotent being could simply trick you into thinking you ACTUALLY KNOW something, when you ACTUALLY don't.

You have admitted this possibility already. I understand that you regret saying it and are now trying to squirm out of it, but it's too late.

You claims to certainty are gone.

As you have admitted, your R E V E L A T I O N could have been a trick, and you wouldn't even know it.

All you are left with is faith.

Now go and enjoy your life. I hear in some cases religious faith can be very fulfilling.

:D

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: ”It doesn't matter that you claim you ACTUALLY KNOW anything.”

I agree, and we were never talking about CLAIMS to actual knowledge, we were talking about ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, and YOU admitted that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know they are true, not merely claim that they are true.

Now how was it again that YOU could know ANYTHING to be true? Oh wait, you haven’t told us. :-D

rhiggs said...

"I agree, and we were never talking about CLAIMS to actual knowledge, we were talking about ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, and YOU admitted that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know they are true, not merely claim that they are true."

Still squirming then. You just can't accept your faith, can you? Do you not like faith?

If you are fooled into thinking something is true, which you have admitted might be the case, you will necessarily KNOW it is true, even though it isn't. Thus my admission that YOU will KNOW it to be true isn't an issue.

However, your hang up about the word 'know' aren't doing anything for you. As I said, Scientologists KNOW things to be true, as do Muslims and Mormans. They are all equally as adamant that they KNOW things as you are that you KNOW things.

The problem is they are all only claims, including yours. And your claim has now been refuted by the fact that you could have simply been tricked into thinking that you KNOW things to be true, when they are not.

Unless you yourself are omniscient you cannot know whether your revelation was actually true or just a trick. Since you are not omniscient, you cannot be certain and hence your claim that your revelation is true is bogus.



"Now how was it again that YOU could know ANYTHING to be true? Oh wait, you haven’t told us. :-D"

LOL! Nice try at deflection. All you need to know about my worldview is that it doesn't require revelations from omniscient omnipotent beings that can trick me, thus invalidating said revelations.

For someone who was yawning at this conversation nearly 3 hours ago, you are really doing well, but I think you should get some rest. Perhaps after some sleep you will realize what a world of shit you have got yourself into by admitting what you did earlier. Don't feel too bad though. We all knew it already and have been asking you about it for months now. It was just a case of waiting for you to admit it

Now that you have your claims to certainty are gone.

All you have now is faith.

Get over it.

:D

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: ” If you are fooled into thinking something is true, which you have admitted might be the case, you will necessarily KNOW it is true, even though it isn't.”

Will you, or will you only wrongly believe it to be true? Knowledge, by definition is true. One cannot know that which is false, one can only believe it.

” As I said, Scientologists KNOW things to be true, as do Muslims and Mormans.”

Do they, or do they only wrongly believe things to be true? Knowledge by definition is true. One cannot know that which is false, one can only believe it.

” They are all equally as adamant that they KNOW things as you are that you KNOW things.”

Does that mean that they really know things, or only that they believe them? Knowledge, by definition is true. One cannot know that which is false, one can only believe it.

” The problem is they are all only claims,”

EXACTLY – FINALLY, and we were not talking about claims, but about actual knowledge. Remember, you admitted that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us such that we could know them to be true, NOT merely claim that they are true.

” including yours.”

How do you know? How do you know ANYTHING according to your worldview? (Since you refuse to answer, allow me to guess: you know things through your senses and reasoning, which you have blind faith are valid? – thought so :-) (I was gonna say that you validate your senses and reasoning with your senses and reasoning, but I thought I’d skip that step for brevity’s sake :-).

rhiggs said...

Sye Sye Sye,

Not yawning anymore?

All your waffle makes no difference. An omnipotent being can make you think you KNOW something even though you don't. It can even plant false knowledge in your head.

You admitted this yourself.

That is possibly what happened to you, so you have no claim to certainty.

End of story.


"(Since you refuse to answer, allow me to guess: you know things through your senses and reasoning, which you have blind faith are valid? – thought so :-) (I was gonna say that you validate your senses and reasoning with your senses and reasoning, but I thought I’d skip that step for brevity’s sake :-)."

Nice conversation you're having with yourself there. That's a sign of madness isn't it? Perhaps Chris is on to something with that brain damage angle!

You can speculate all you want about my answers to your questions, but I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone with a worldview based on blind religious faith.

Now, I'm off to bed. I suggest you accept your faith-based worldview and move on. But of course I doubt you will, and I'll have to explain it all again to you tomorrow...

Sheesh.

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: ” All your waffle makes no difference. An omnipotent being can make you think you KNOW something even though you don't.”

And since we are talking about ACTUAL knowledge, not PERCEIVED knowledge, your point is moot.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB said...

"You can speculate all you want about my answers to your questions, but I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone with a worldview based on blind religious faith."

How ironic :-D

Sye TenB said...

"10. Occasionally, when a tough question arises, instead of answering you respond with a phrase like "you have no basis for that question/claim"."

How ironic indeed :-D

Noble said...

Sye, you have yet to explain how you can tell the difference between thinking you know something is absolutely, universally true and actually knowing something is absolutely, universally true.

Poor Sye. I hope you can learn to think.

rhiggs said...

*Sigh*

I can see my prediction last night held true. Pity you are so hostile to the fact that you have a strong faith. Geebus won't be happy...


Sye said: "And since we are talking about ACTUAL knowledge, not PERCEIVED knowledge, your point is moot."

Nope. You are just too thick-skulled to realize it. A scientologist would tell you that you only BELIEVE what you think is certain, and that they alone have ACTUAL knowledge. Your claim that you have ACTUAL knowledge is just as shaky as theirs. Your fall back position of an omniscient omnipotent being revealing truth has been cancelled out by your admission that said being could simply be tricking you.

Your squirming over the definition of KNOWLEDGE is just making your fall from grace all the more pathetic. It doesn't matter what semantics and definitions you come up with because an omnipotent being could just fool you into thinking that anything is ACTUALLY certain.

You have nothing but faith.

Go and enjoy your life and stop embarrassing yourself.


Sye said: "How ironic :-D" x2

The bigger irony, which seems to be lost on you faith boy, is that you are now chastising me for using your own bullshit tactics

:D

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: ”Nope. You are just too thick-skulled to realize it. A scientologist would tell you that you only BELIEVE what you think is certain, and that they alone have ACTUAL knowledge.”

Which is TOTALLY irrelevant, as you have admitted that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain to be true.

” Your claim that you have ACTUAL knowledge is just as shaky as theirs.”

How do you know? How do you know that God has NOT revealed some things such that I can know them for certain?

” Your fall back position of an omniscient omnipotent being revealing truth has been cancelled out by your admission that said being could simply be tricking you.”

Not at all, since YOU HAVE ADMITTED, that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can know for certain that they are true.

”Your squirming over the definition of KNOWLEDGE is just making your fall from grace all the more pathetic.”

I’m not at all squirming, it is you that keeps going back and forth between unjustified belief, and actual knowledge.

” It doesn't matter what semantics and definitions you come up with because an omnipotent being could just fool you into thinking that anything is ACTUALLY certain.”

And He could (and has) revealed, such that we can know it for certain, that this is not the case.

”You have nothing but faith.”

How do you know? How can you know ANYTHING according to your worldview? ~ Crickets

”Go and enjoy your life and stop embarrassing yourself.”

What makes you think that THIS is not enjoyable? (It is far too easy though :-)

”The bigger irony, which seems to be lost on you faith boy, is that you are now chastising me for using your own bullshit tactics”

I’m not at all chastising you, just merely pointing out that you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing – and admitting that what you are doing is BS tactics no less :-D Priceless!

rhiggs said...

I can understand why you want it to be irrelevant, but it's not.

Funnily enough, what is irrelevant here is my worldview (quotemine?), because I am simply applying what you have said to your own position.

An omniscient omnipotent being could plant information in your brain which you fully think is ACTUAL CERTAIN TRUE FREAKIN KNOWLEDGE, even though it isn't.

Nothing you say or no amount of deflection can change that fact.

It would be absurd for you to deny what an omniscient omnipotent being could or could not do.

Our claims actually cancel each other out dufus! So neither can be used. So your claims to certainty are fruitless.

End of story.

Sye TenB said...

Rhiggs said: ”I can understand why you want it to be irrelevant, but it's not.”

Erm, “Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” :-D

”An omniscient omnipotent being could plant information in your brain which you fully think is ACTUAL CERTAIN TRUE FREAKIN KNOWLEDGE, even though it isn't.”

Which is entirely irrelevant, because we are not talking about what people think is true, but what people KNOW is true, and YOU HAVE ADMITTED that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us SUCH THAT WE CAN KNOW THEM FOR CERTAIN TO BE TRUE!

”Nothing you say or no amount of deflection can change that fact.”

Again, since we are not talking about perceived knowledge, it is IRRELEVANT.

”It would be absurd for you to deny what an omniscient omnipotent being could or could not do.”

Really? Are you trying to tell me that you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal to us what He could or could not do? How do you now this? How do you know ANYTHING for that matter? Oh, sorry, I forgot you were using your BS tactics to avoid that question :-D

”Our claims actually cancel each other out dufus! So neither can be used. So your claims to certainty are fruitless.”

How do you know?

”End of story.”

I only wish :-)

rhiggs said...

"Really? Are you trying to tell me that you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not reveal to us what He could or could not do?"

LOL!!

Are you trying to tell me that you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not trick you?

All you have is faith Sye.

Get over it.

:D

Sye TenB said...

”Are you trying to tell me that you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not trick you?”

No, not that one could not, that God has not.

”All you have is faith Sye.”

Erm. How do you know? How do you know ANYTHING? Oh wait–the B.S. tactics – nevermind :-D

rhiggs said...

"No, not that one could not, that God has not."

So if an omniscient omnipotent being can trick you...(and it can, you have just admitted so)

Then it is possible that an omniscient omnipotent being has tricked you into thinking that said being is God and that it is revealing truth, when in fact it isn't.

LOL! Priceless!

:D

Sye TenB said...

rhiggs said: "Then it is possible that an omniscient omnipotent being has tricked you into thinking that said being is God and that it is revealing truth, when in fact it isn't."

Unless of course God has revealed, in such a way that we can know for certain, that this is not the case, which He has, and you have admitted that such revelation is possible.

Fish in a barrel man, fish in a barrel. :-D

rhiggs said...

"Unless of course God has revealed, in such a way that we can know for certain, that this is not the case, which He has, and you have admitted that such revelation is possible."

And that could all be part of the trick, which you have admitted is a possibility...

You wouldn't know any different.