tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post3580466396000524354..comments2024-03-12T09:18:33.410+00:00Comments on Four Dollars, Almost Five: PZ slates Sye TenB's website (or Insane Presuppicon Goes Down In Flames)rhiggshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comBlogger216125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-36362549234804503172014-10-11T14:32:35.369+01:002014-10-11T14:32:35.369+01:00Hi there... I just wanna explain my company, Pelat...Hi there... I just wanna explain my company, <a href="http://www.pelatihan-sdm.net/" rel="nofollow">Pelatihan SDM</a>. Pelatihan SDM is a <a href="http://pelatihan-sdm.net/" rel="nofollow">lembaga pelatihan sdm</a> or network marketing and training information or training an employee that has worked with many consulting firms and training institutions.<br /><a href="http://idcardmurah.com/pesan-id-card" rel="nofollow">membuat id card</a>,Metamorfosishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15837363371693875406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-29286760881461353352013-05-02T12:41:26.250+01:002013-05-02T12:41:26.250+01:00Hi Sye,
I believe in God and the revelations in t...Hi Sye,<br /><br />I believe in God and the revelations in the bible. I have a world view that logic comes from God. Can you answer the 18 questions FOR ME seeing as I meet the criteria to logically understand your responses?Rob Cowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12205787346902591286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-15175192023998917932009-08-17T21:30:01.821+01:002009-08-17T21:30:01.821+01:00YAY!!!
Now why didn't you just answer them th...YAY!!!<br /><br />Now why didn't you just answer them the first time I asked ;)<br /><br />Oh and to answer your original question...<br /><br />"<i>Be happy to answer your questions, but first I need to know if you believe in absolute laws of logic by which you will evaluate my answers.</i>"<br /><br />I don't know for sure but I am leaning on the side of no. This, of course, doesn't mean that the laws of logic are useless, just that they may not always hold in every possible situation.<br /><br />I will respond to your answers on the more <a href="http://fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-invitation-to-scmike.html" rel="nofollow">recent thread</a>.rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-61648474355808792112009-08-17T19:50:07.247+01:002009-08-17T19:50:07.247+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-49082285480576947052009-07-05T00:29:05.391+01:002009-07-05T00:29:05.391+01:00Flute's rule:
Last person to post in a presupp...Flute's rule:<br />Last person to post in a presupp thread wins.<br />-----<br />I just finished reading this:<br />http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/search/label/Sye%20TenB<br /><br />Now I gotta read this thread to see if Sye ever answers the questions I know already he'll dodge...Flutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636653543618773903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-20560272918196463442009-07-03T18:12:10.105+01:002009-07-03T18:12:10.105+01:00Once people have stopped waiting and moved on, he ...Once people have stopped waiting and moved on, he will come back post a monologue, do a little victory dance and ask why we aren't responding to him.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-16476505789479080032009-07-03T11:37:06.611+01:002009-07-03T11:37:06.611+01:00-tumbleweed rolls by--tumbleweed rolls by-rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-7439329801553575942009-07-03T08:30:03.519+01:002009-07-03T08:30:03.519+01:00-Crow caws in the background--Crow caws in the background-Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-92104034155867510862009-07-03T05:10:06.001+01:002009-07-03T05:10:06.001+01:00-crickets sound--crickets sound-Jill Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709781291030655732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-57568382373530974462009-07-02T00:59:32.516+01:002009-07-02T00:59:32.516+01:00Well, now that I've given the account, Sye can...Well, now that I've given the account, Sye can answer the questions.Jill Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709781291030655732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-13638503251878131032009-07-02T00:17:38.662+01:002009-07-02T00:17:38.662+01:00I disagree. Superbot is a awesome robot not a deit...<i>I disagree. Superbot is a awesome robot not a deity</i>.<br /><br />Any sufficiently advanced technology Jill.Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-47180482640455649102009-07-02T00:16:40.709+01:002009-07-02T00:16:40.709+01:00Good thing I'm patient.
*Twiddles thumbs*Good thing I'm patient.<br /><br />*Twiddles thumbs*Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-59273403933250011162009-07-01T20:31:04.852+01:002009-07-01T20:31:04.852+01:00Well, one thing is certain Jill, you deny atheism....<i>Well, one thing is certain Jill, you deny atheism. THAT is where many of these arguments go once people realize that they cannot account for logic outside of God</i>.<br /><br />I disagree. Superbot is a awesome robot not a deity.Jill Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709781291030655732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-74868082119821090092009-07-01T19:20:50.979+01:002009-07-01T19:20:50.979+01:00they know it, they just suppress the truth ;-)they know it, they just suppress the truth ;-)freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-36905074063949085332009-07-01T18:49:25.924+01:002009-07-01T18:49:25.924+01:00F_D said: "It's no surprise Sye cannot se...F_D said: "<i>It's no surprise Sye cannot see your argument rhiggs - his worldview is inherently subjective yet he insists on arguing that it is not.</i>"<br /><br />Yep. You've hit the nail on the head there...<br /><br />As I said over at Ryk's blog, even if morality and logic did have divine origins, it would still be arbitrary. Those who claim goodness is a reflection of God's character are simply defining what is 'good' based on the arbitrary character of their God. A different God could have a different character, thus resulting in a different definition of 'goodness'. So the problem for the divine moralist comes back to proving that their particular God is the only one, which of course they cannot do. They are moral relativists too, they just don't know it...rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-76244120409691959852009-07-01T16:30:06.212+01:002009-07-01T16:30:06.212+01:00It's no surprise Sye cannot see your argument ...It's no surprise Sye cannot see your argument rhiggs - his worldview is inherently subjective yet he insists on arguing that it is not.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-42575188024519641612009-07-01T16:24:39.844+01:002009-07-01T16:24:39.844+01:00I like how he agreed with me that omnipotence does...I like how he agreed with me that omnipotence does not include logical contradictions. Since making a statement in such a way that a fallible mortal would know it to be true is a logical contradiction, that pretty much shoots his whole revelation out of the water.<br /><br />Of course he could try to demonstrate that such a thing isn't a logical contradiction, but to do that he would have to presuppose the laws of logic in order to evaluate his revelation. <br /><br />Again since he is presupposing the laws of logic already, then presupposing an omnipotent magical creature becomes irrelevant.<br /><br />Of course in such a situation what is actually being presupposed is an orderly universe. The "laws of logic" as Syebaby goes on about are man made concepts to describe how consciousness processes what is imparted to it by perception. Since this requires consciousness and only applies to propositions it can not be universal and invariant and whatever other transcendent properties he would like to stick on it. What he is really trying to get at with all of his fumbling is an orderly universe. If the universe were not orderly and did not operate in consistent fashion then logic, science and reason would not be reliable. He uses this to presuppose a magical sky fairy that makes the universe orderly. However that is needlessly multiplying entities, since it can be explained equally as well by presupposing an orderly universe without adding the problem of explaining the existence of omnipotent entities. His presupposition also creates a paradox because the existence of an omnipotent entity makes the universe by nature disorderly, because anything is potentially subject to its whims. Since a disorderly universe can not support logical thought, presupposing an omnipotent being as the arbiter of an orderly universe is a paradox. However the presupposition of an orderly universe creates no such difficulty.<br /><br />That leaves only the last question of "then what makes the universe orderly."<br /><br />To answer that we have to look beyond the what in the question (which is prejudicial) and look to the possibilities. If we assume as a starting point(and there is no evidence or argument that would indicate we should not) that it is equally likely that the universe be orderly or disorderly. We then have only to evaluate which one, since logical thought exists it must be that the universe is orderly, since it is orderly and since the proof of its orderly nature is tenseless and open ended then it is also true that it has always been and will always be orderly. Of course since these statements are made using logic they are like all other propositions subject to refutation, if it is possible to refute the existence of logic or the existence of an orderly universe, I would be glad to hear it. <br /><br />Of course as always logic is self evidenced therefore any proof against it may not employ logic. As the proper function of logic presupposes an orderly universe, any proof against an orderly universe must demonstrate that logic will function in a disorderly universe. In which case we are once again left with no reason to presuppose a deity, because then it would be shown that logic could function whether the universe were orderly or not, making deities irrelevant.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-46938515143340537442009-07-01T16:23:28.573+01:002009-07-01T16:23:28.573+01:00Sye said: "Oh brother. I ignored it so as not...Sye said: "<i>Oh brother. I ignored it so as not to embarrass you. Your claim was that you know (for certain) that you are conscious, but earlier in that very post you said that ”something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time,” which would necessarily include you, and your consciousness, so it could also be certain at the same time, and in the same way that you are not conscious! So, are you certain that you are conscious, that you are not conscious or both???</i>"<br /><br />LOL<br /><br />What you clearly don't realize Sye is by continuing to say that, you are simply showing that you can't comprehend the scenario I was positing, which proves that consciousness is unable to understand anything which breaks the laws of logic. All this means is that logic is utilized by consciousness. It has <b>no</b> bearing on whether the scenario is <i>actually</i> possible or not.<br /><br />Please continue to prove my point if you wish...<br /><br />Of course you still didn't address any of my other points (for obvious reasons)<br /><br /><br />"<i>To top it all off I said: “how is it possible for you to know anything for certain,” NOT merely “what do you know to be certain," a question which you clearly did not answer.</i>"<br /><br />OK. Clear up my confusion. Tell me what you know for certain and how it is possible for you to know it for certain.<br /><br /><br />"<i>You are free to go on ‘firing your pistols,’ but thank you so much for letting this record stand.</i>"<br /><br />You are more then welcome. The fact that you seem to think you have 'won' is worth the entrance fee alone...rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-47681454888960470592009-07-01T16:12:04.973+01:002009-07-01T16:12:04.973+01:00Rhiggs said: ”You have some nerve Sye. You really ...Rhiggs said: <i>”You have some nerve Sye. You really are a dishonest piece of shit. I clearly answered your question for what I know to be certain above and you ignored it.”</i><br /><br />Oh brother. I ignored it so as not to embarrass you. Your claim was that you know (for certain) that you are conscious, but earlier in that very post you said that <i>”something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time,”</i> which would necessarily include you, and your consciousness, so it could also be certain at the same time, and in the same way that you are not conscious! So, are you certain that you are conscious, that you are not conscious or both???<br /><br />To top it all off I said:<b> “how is it possible for you to know anything for certain,”</b> NOT merely “<b>what</b> do you know to be certain," a question which you clearly did not answer.<br /><br />You are free to go on ‘firing your pistols,’ but thank you so much for letting this record stand.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Sye<br /><br /><br />P.S. I have, and will pray for you.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-85322779240464245772009-07-01T16:03:15.498+01:002009-07-01T16:03:15.498+01:00Woo-hoo!!!
*Fires pistols in the air*
"Oh, ...Woo-hoo!!!<br /><br />*Fires pistols in the air*<br /><br />"<i>Oh, great. You killed the invisible swordsman!</i>"<br /><br />Oops!rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-71152205493207940532009-07-01T15:52:12.861+01:002009-07-01T15:52:12.861+01:00With a parting villainous monologue Syebaby runs a...With a parting villainous monologue Syebaby runs away again. Once more his evil plans are foiled. His premise decimated his logical fallacies lying bleeding on the electronic street he staggers away to crawl back under his rock to await another chance to spew his idiotic nonsense on an unsuspecting world. Wherever he goes he must now look back over his shoulder knowing the SuperSMRTS will be there to oppose his villainy.<br /><br />Let this be a warning to all of you pressupicons, apologists and postmodernists, the world is under our protection, and wherever drivel and stupidity rears its ugly head we will find it. Wherever lies and nonsense are trotted out as logic we will stamp it out, wherever fantasies and myths are portrayed as facts we will be there to expose it.<br /><br />SUPERSMRTS UNITE!Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-10242527315267577312009-07-01T15:41:00.319+01:002009-07-01T15:41:00.319+01:00Sye said: "So, you could both exist and not e...Sye said: "<i>So, you could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and therefore your consciousness could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and the law of non-contradcition, which you say only applies to consciousness, is violated, destroying your position.</i>"<br /><br />Eh, no.<br /><br />Logic applies to consciousness. When I say that, what I mean is that logic is the mechanism consciousness uses to make sense of information. In the event that something did actually both exist and not exist, this would be beyond the scope of consciousness to understand, due to the limited scope of logic.<br /><br />I can demonstrate this if you answer all of my questions instead of cherry-picking...<br /><br />Now, is the below statement true or false?<br /><br />"This statement is true"<br /><br /><br />Sye said to Ryk: "<i>Well, it has become exceedingly clear that none of you are interested in telling me how it is possible for you to know anything for certain, so I’ll leave you to your meanderings.</i>"<br /><br />You have some nerve Sye. You really are a dishonest piece of shit. I <i>clearly</i> answered your question for what I know to be certain above and you ignored it. It's painfully obvious to everyone that <i>you</i> the one who is being evasive here...<br /><br /><br />Also, you were engaging me in a discussion on the reliabilty of your senses. But when I asked either of these two questions you ignored me:<br /><br /><b>How do you know when your senses and reasoning are reliable as opposed to the times when they are not?</b><br /><br />or<br /><br /><b>It would be <i>equally</i> as intellectually dishonest to say that an omniscient omnipotent being, if it so desired, <i>could not</i> tell a fallible human something in such a way that the human believes it to be certain, although it is actually not true.<br /><br />This cancels out your claim to certainty with regards your revelation. If you disgree, explain why...</b><br /><br />Your failure to even address these highlights both your dishonesty and the fallacious nature of your worldview.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Thanks for hosting this exchange Rhiggs.</i>"<br /><br />No problem. Thanks for going down in flames...again...rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-81491430355712149332009-07-01T15:19:35.373+01:002009-07-01T15:19:35.373+01:00Jill D said:
”Logicibot, part of Superbot, creat...Jill D said: <br /><br /><i>”Logicibot, part of Superbot, creates the laws of logic. Laws which stem from his very nature. In fact, logic is derived from the mind of Superbot, who has always existed, and is -beyond- time. Trippy.”</i><br /><br />Well, one thing is certain Jill, you deny atheism. THAT is where many of these arguments go once people realize that they cannot account for logic outside of God. Believe it or not, I heard of a professed atheist who was so defeated in his arguments that he even went as far as to posit his big toe as his deity :-D <br /><br />Later folks,<br /><br />SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-18311085212721558752009-07-01T15:18:31.281+01:002009-07-01T15:18:31.281+01:00Ryk said: ”C'mon Syebaby even you aren't t...Ryk said: <i>”C'mon Syebaby even you aren't that dense. If your senses and reasoning aren't 100% accurate say they are only 99.9% accurate then you can not know if your revelation is not one of those one in a thousand times you are in error.”</i><br /><br />You also are commiting the logical error of hasty generalization. If one’s senses are not perfectly reliable at one point, it does not follow that they are never perfectly reliable, especially not if God uses them to reveal something to us, such that we can be certain of it.<br /><br /><i>”In order for you to justify that it is accurate and not in error you must presuppose the laws of logic and as I said if you presuppose the laws of logic then there is no need to presuppose an omnipotent entity.”</i><br /><br />Apart from God, YOU have no way of differentiating between universal invariants, and changing particulars.<br /><br /><i>”First you must presuppose logic in order to know if the revelation was made in such a way that it is not in error or if it is in fact in error.”</i><br /><br />See, this is where we get back to my question. You say what one “must” do, but how do you know this? I realize that you do not like when I ask you such a question, but if you make a knowledge claim, then complaining, or mocking when I ask you to back it up only serves to show that you can’t. Yes, the laws of logic are also presupposed, but it is only within the Christian worldview that such presuppositions can be made sense of.<br /><br /><i>”You have to presuppose the laws of logic to account for the existence or possible existence of omnipotent entities, and you have to presuppose the laws of logic to determine if the entity making the revelation is in fact omnipotent.”</i><br /><br />Which begs the question that God could not reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain.<br /><br /><i>”Also the existence of an omnipotent being can not be defended with logic. An omnipotent being can be refuted by using the old chestnut, can it create a rock that it can not lift. Whether you answer yes or no you are left with a being that is not omnipotent.”</i><br /><br />Omnipotence does not mean ‘having the ability to not be omnipotent.’ Logical contradictions are a weakness not a power. <br /><br />Well, it has become exceedingly clear that none of you are interested in telling me how it is possible for you to know anything for certain, so I’ll leave you to your meanderings. I suggest repentance.<br /><br />Thanks for your time,<br /><br />SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753436815554769132.post-40266573617716759782009-07-01T15:16:40.261+01:002009-07-01T15:16:40.261+01:00@rhiggs
”it still doesn't invalidate my point...@rhiggs<br /><br /><i>”it still doesn't invalidate my point that something could potentially exist and not exist at the same time.”</i><br /><br />So, you could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and therefore your consciousness could both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way, and the law of non-contradcition, which you say only applies to consciousness, is violated, destroying your position.<br /><br />QED<br /><br />Thanks for hosting this exchange Rhiggs.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.com