10 August, 2010

Pedantic yes, important no, but gonna post it anyway...

I posted this over at SMRT - I just wanted to put it on the record here too.

Sye, in his many dealings with people [at SMRT], has always refused to refute the notion that an Invisible Pink Hammer, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc could easily be inserted into his proof instead of Sye's particular god. These examples are all equally as plausible to be the source of everything as all that is needed to make a presupp argument is some sort of transcendent being that can have always existed and that notions of absoulteness can be derived from. His rationale for not engaging in these is essentially that he does not waste his time dealing with positions that his opponent doesn't actually hold. He also did this with Stephen Law's accounts for logic - he refused to address them because Law would not commit himself to any of them.

Well I've caught Sye doing the exact same thing here.

In his back and forth with an evidentialist Christian called John Fraser (very entertaining by the way - presuppositionalist vs evidentialist), they are discussing whether undeniable proof of the resurrection of Christ would convince a non-believer. Fraser says it would (or should) and Sye says it wouldn't because a non-believer can always say that "Perhaps someday there will be a naturalistic explanation as to why a body which was dead for 3 days came back to life" and that this position would be impossible to refute using evidence. Fraser doesn't like this explanation and claims that no skeptic would ever argue such a ridiculous point. He claims that Sye is being disingenuous because he is arguing for the possibility of a point that nobody has ever made...

Sye's response:
"I’ll make it then John, and you refute me. Here goes: “Perhaps someday there will be a naturalistic explanation as to why a body which was dead for 3 days came back to life.” There ya go John, refute me."

See that?

Sye has adopted a position that he doesn't actually hold which cannot be refuted in order to show the absurdity of his opponents argument. This is exactly the type of argumentation that he wouldn't tolerate us doing in order to show the absurdity of his own position - precisely because it does show the absurdity of his position.

Hypocritical and inconsistent to say the least. Oh and I'm not posting this to prompt a response Sye. I already know you'll just ask why hypocrisy and inconsistency are wrong according to my worldview, blah blah blah, thus evading the whole point. I just wanted to put this inconsistent behaviour of yours on the record. :D

Edit: Below is the response from Sye and my reply

Sye said:
"You cannot imagine the colossal restraint I am showing in not telling you just how stupid your 'point' really is. (Oops, I guess I failed :) I must constantly remind myself, that "there, but by the grace of God, go I."

The fact is that I have stated my own view on numerous occasions, while Stephen Law has never articulated his. If Stephen Law, or any of you, tell me how you justify logic according to your actual views, I will be more than pleased to discuss views that you do not hold...."

*Notice how he did not address my point that he engaged in hypocritical and inconsistent argumentation - instead he just called it stupid. Very convincing*

The absurdity and stubbornness of your position is highlighted by the fact that you refuse to enter a discussion on potential accounts for logic until someone first offers a definitive account for their own use of logic. By contrast, you are happy to discuss rocks with IntellectualNinja [a separate conversation Sye is having with another person on the same thread] prior to a definitive account for logic being offered. It's clear that you simply can't refute Stephen Law's proposed accounts for logic and so have to engineer specific criteria for that particular discussion...

Sye said: "....Until then, as I said, I ain't wastin' me time."

Agreed. You're just wastin' ours...and everyone else's that you encounter...I see you even have an atheist championing your apologetic method over at Premier as it's so spectacularly bad at convincing anyone. The way it's going, I won't be surprised to see a few deconversions before you're done. :D

I will update with any further responses and replies


rhiggs said...

The response from Sye and my reply have been added. Any further posts will be added as and when they occur over at SMRT

rhiggs said...

Very interesting (but long) posts from a Christian called John Fraser here and here. He is making some good points against Sye's nonsensical worldview - mainly pointing out how Sye is a solipsist and a phony

rhiggs said...

And another!

I completley disagree with John Fraser when he starts talking about the evidence for the Bible being true and so on, but he is certainly putting the smack down on Sye's position. :D

Paul Baird said...

My blog is over at http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/

rhiggs said...

Thanks Paul. I'll scoot over there later and have a read...

Whateverman said...

I'm often torn between despising Sye's dishonesty and wanting to thank him for the hours of frustration & entertainment he;s given me.

Your point about Sye arguing a position he does not hold personally was spot-on...

rhiggs said...


Yeah I agree that although Sye can be infuriating, debating with him can actually be fun. I put it down to his smugness - he HATES being wrong.

Example: A guy called Todd compared Jesus to a poker hand on that Premier Unbelievable forum and Sye complained saying that it was only the third best type of poker hand. Well, it was actually the second best so I pointed that out. But even on a topic so minor, Sye wouldn't concede defeat. He said:

"Well even with the way you look at it, comparing Jesus to the second best hand in poker is woeful"

See? He can't accept that he is wrong - EVER.

I replied:

"You mean the right way Sye - not 'the way I look at it'. Even on such a minor subject, Sye HATES to admit he is wrong LOL!"