I've put together some links to particular comments from Sye in which he has made inconsistent or just down right silly claims. These should prove useful to expose the absurdity of his worldview and presuppositionalist argument.
1) Sye contradicting himself and lying all in one go
Sye always says that his worldview is proven by the 'impossibility of the contrary'. I challenged him to refute my position that the Invisible Pink Hammer was actually the real omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe and could reveal things to me for certain and he replied:
"Although I do not believe that it would be possible, I have never claimed that it would be impossible, I am simply challenging you to formally debate our respective deities and revelations from same. You are unwilling to(for obvious reasons)." [Bolding mine]
I think the inconsistency between 'impossibility of the contrary' and 'I have never claimed that it would be impossible' is clear for all to see. And by stating the latter, he is simply lying. Indeed, many others have similarly requested that he refute all possible alternative worldviews, and yet he never does - he simply asserts that they are refuted.
2) Sye being a hypocrite
Sye refuses to address claims that his opponent does not actually hold, as they are just 'wasting his time'. Of course, when I proposed the Invisible Pink Hammer worldview, it was to illustrate the problem with his argument - that he cannot refute my position without also refuting his own. In this sense, I was adopting a hypothetical situation which showed the absurdity of his argument. Sye wouldn't play (for obvious reasons). But of course when he can use this type of argumentation to his advantage, Sye will use it, as he does here in a debate with another Christian.
Opponent [talking about the position that Sye does not hold]:
"Since this is an argument that anyone could easily make, you should be able to easily find me someone who has, in fact, made it. Even internet hack atheists don't make this argument."
Sye:
"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."
What a complete hypocrite. For further details on this particular incident, see here.
3) Another example of Sye lying
Over at Dawson's blog, Sye's website got an 'absolute' trouncing (pun intended). You'd think Sye would go through Dawson's criticisms and point out all the errors, but alas it seems that he didn't have the time:
Sye TenB said...
Maybe someday I'll have the time to read all that.
Perhaps a debate is in order sometime. What say?
AUGUST 27, 2010 9:17 PM
When Dawson responded and asked him to reconsider, Sye replied:
"Erm, cause I don't have the time to take right now...I will be away all week, and simply do not have the time to sift through such a long post. It's not like I haven't heard these criticisms before, or that you have not heard the resolutions, so I don't feel a pressing need to answer them. As I said, perhaps when I have the time I will get to this."
So he didn't read the post, or even have time to 'sift through' it, and yet he knows exactly what all the criticisms are?
Another lie.
Sye does try to squirm out of this by claiming that although he stated that he didn't have time to read it - "Erm, I skimmed it. Same ka ka, just more words."
So, he didn't have time to 'sift through' it, but he did have time to 'skim' it...!!?? Right. This smells of something. It smells real bad.
4) Sye admitting that an omnipotent omniscient being could, if it so desired, fool him into thinking he is certain
Sye's whole worldview relies on his claim that God can reveal things to him for certain. The trouble is by admitting the above possibility, he has also admitted that it is possible he is being fooled into simply 'thinking' he is certain. Here are the relevant quotes:
I asked:
”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.“
Sye replied:
"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)." [Bolding mine]
The fact that an omnipotent omniscient being could do this automatically negates any claims to certainty as delivered by said being. Because of this admission, Sye can never know whether certainty is being revealed or not.
5) Sye admitting that his interpretation of the bible is not infallible
Everything Sye knows about God comes directly from scripture. So his claims of certainty are derived directly from bible passages. And yet here he admits that his interpretation of the bible is not infallible:
" Reply by SyeTenB on August 16, 2010 at 4:04pm
...I have never said, nor do I claim that my interpretation is infallible, it is merely my claim that God can make us certain about some things, like the fact that He exists. I have never claimed that my interpretation of Romans 1 is infallible, but your argument against it is making me want to :-)"
Surely to be absolutely certain of anything, your interpretation of it must be infallible. In short, since Sye's interpretation of the bible is not infallible, his whole argument could be wrong, since it comes directly from the bible.
6) Sye admitting that he doesn't know how God reveals certainty
In order to know for certain that certainty is being revealed, Sye must know exactly how this is happening. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to know it with certainty. Here Sye admits that he doesn't know, and even if God told him, he wouldn't understand the explanation:
by SyeTenB » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:40 am
"No, I would not call it an ‘illusory feat.’ I am more of the position that even if God did explain it to me, I would not be able to understand it."
This admission reduces his absolute-100%-logically-certain-proof-style of argumentation to mere faith. He doesn't understand how God reveals certainty, so he has to take it on faith that he does.
7) Sye making inconsistent claims
Sye likes to claim that a non-believer's position is inconsistent with their wordlview. Here is an example of Sye being inconsistent.
Sye said to Paul Baird:
You still don't get it Paul. I do not claim that the argument fails, you do. Problem is without an absolute standard of logic NO ARGUMENT CAN FAIL, and your claim is refuted.
But later he changed his mind to say:
The claim may or may not be true, but your attempt at justifying knowledge of its truth is refuted since you cannot account for truth.
So in one comment he asserts that his opponent's claim is refuted, and in another he says that it might be true. And he expects us to take his position seriously?
Please let me know if I've missed any of Sye's other stupid and/or inconsistent statements and I'll add them to this thread...
36 comments:
I am not happy with you accusing SyeTenB of lying. Maybe from an outside point of view, it sounds like he's lying, but I'm quite sure that Sye himself does not even perceive anything remotely resembling a lie in his discourse.
This reminds me of a scene from the Woody Allen film "Annie Hall" :
[Alvy and Annie are seeing their therapists at the same time on a split screen]
Alvy Singer's Therapist: How often do you sleep together?
Annie Hall's Therapist: Do you have sex often?
Alvy Singer: [lamenting] Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week.
Annie Hall: [annoyed] Constantly. I'd say three times a week.
The facts are the same, the interpretations quite different. Similarly this allows Sye to claim the infallibility of the revealed word of God, while admitting that his interpretation is not infallible.
Also I fully identify with the experience of seeing a long post, skimming, and coming to the conclusion that it's just the same ol' stuff, and dismissing it out of hand. This is never a good thing to do - in ten pages of rehashed argumentation, there may be one new, original idea. But, all the same...
Please don't imagine that I am defending Sye's presuppositionalist hanky- panky. I appreciate your blog, and I would like to see this post become a little more balanced and rooted in human realities. And that's a Christian speaking!!
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that interpretations can be different (or infallible even!), but I have no qualms in calling him a liar. Don't forget, I've been observing his actions for a few years now...
An important distinction is whether he is simply wrong but doesn't realise it, or whether he knows he is wrong (or at least he knows his argument has holes) and carries on regardless. I think it is the latter.
Here's his biggest lie...
He claims that I KNOW that God exists but I suppress the truth. He confidently asserts that he knows this to be a fact (not only for me, but for every single human being on the earth) and yet he cannot, so he is lying. You have even supported the view that, prior to your conversion, you didn't actively suppress the knowledge of God's existence (correct me if I'm wrong). So you disagree with Sye here, and yet Sye would say that he KNOWS that you are lying and that you did suppress this truth.
So, either:
a) You KNEW God existed all along and suppressed it until your conversion. But you have denied this (correct?) so this would mean you are lying.
b) You didn't suppress this and instead acquired the knowledge of God's existence at the time of your conversion. If so, then Sye is lying, because he *KNOWS* that this isn't the case.
So, which is it?
I equally think Sye is lying when he says that his worldview is proven by the 'impossibility of the contrary' as he cannot know this and has never shown it. If he was being honest he would say he *thinks* this, but he claims to *know* it.
Furthermore, I think Sye lies about his revelation, his certainty and his proof. Indeed, to put a twist on it, I think he KNOWS he is lying but has suppressed it! The difference is I'm saying I think this, not that I know it...
With respect to skimming a long post, sure I agree that you can, but don't forget that Sye lives in a world of absolutes and certainties. So we should hold him up to his own standards and point out when his actions are inconsistent with his professed worldview. That is what this blog post intends to do.
Also, purely going on the facts, Sye has lied.....
Quote 1: "Your worldview is refuted by 'the impossibility of the contrary'"
Here he means that anything contrary to his worldview is impossible. So I postulated an Invisible Pink Hammer worldview and, when he couldn't refute it, he said...
Quote 2: "I have never claimed that it would be impossible"
Quote 2 is a lie because he clearly denies what he claimed in Quote 1.
ergo
Sye is a liar.
The alternative explanation is that Sye is unwell.
Personally I do not ascribe any malice to Syes posts - I think he genuinely believes in what he is posting, even when he ties himself in logical knots.
It reminds me alot of the principle of double-think.
Fair enough, but I think you guys give him too much credit. His industry is religion. For me, Sye is just another Ray Comfort, albeit with a different approach.
Incidentally, are either of you going to the Evening with Michael Behe? I've got my ticket...
It is part 4 that Sye should have the most problems with.
To be certain of what anyone and especially an omnipotent being tells you, you must already be certain of what is being told. Otherwise you are relying on trust.
Trust - have confidence or faith in; reliance: certainty based on past experience; the trait of believing in the honesty and reliability of others
That is not certain. No matter how omnipotent a being is, one can never be 100% certain of anything they are told by him unless they are already 100% of it to begin with.
If they investigate it, then they were not 100% certain, because they are trying to confirm what was said. Even if it turns out to be true. That again just proves one can never be 100% certain of something told to them unless they are already 100% certain.
@Beamstalk
Agreed. Sye's argument implies that he too must be omnipotent. How else could he know that his revelation is certain? God could easily fool him if he so desired to...
Plus in point 6 he admits that he doesn't know *how* he knows these things for certain. Of course, if an explanation of the mechanism is not needed, then anyone can simply claim certainty - and they do. They're called crackpots, nutjobs and/or simply LIARS.
He doesn't have to be omnipotent just already know everything about what is being told to him.
If I told you that there is hand sanitizer on my desk, you don't have to be omnipotent to be certain of whether or not there is hand sanitizer on my desk. You just have to know what is on my desk right at this moment.
Of course with what Sye is claiming, yes he has to be omnipotent to be certain.
@Beamstalk
"He doesn't have to be omnipotent just already know everything about what is being told to him."
Yes for a trivial claim, such as hand sanitizer, he would not need to be omnipotent.
"Of course with what Sye is claiming, yes he has to be omnipotent to be certain."
Yep, like claiming to *know for certain* that every human being that has ever or will ever live knows that God exists but suppresses it. Since Sye must refute the primacy of existence, when you follow this 'logical' path, you arrive at the conclusion that one must know (and presumably suppress) this fact prior to even existing.
That means that, if true, you personally (not metaphorically) knew this fact and suppressed it at the beginning of creation 6,000 years ago or whenever. Meh.
Have you put these on the wiki? :P
1. Your question actually was: “Why it would be impossible for the Invisible Pink Hammer to reveal to me that you are a liar, such that I can know it to be certain?” I imagine that you hope that when you post the links that people won’t actually check them.
2. The difference, of course, being that both John and I had posted our actual respective positions, while most of you refuse to.
3. As Richard could understand, I got the gist of Dawson’s post by skimming it. Sifting it is a whole different thing. Dawson is known for his verbal diarrhea, or “argumentum ad verbosium.” All anyone has to do is actually read his reply to understand why I didn’t bother.
4. Since God could reveal some things to us such that we can be certain of them, it is irrelevant to the discussion what else could happen. Plus, you have absolutely zero basis for claiming with certainty what I can or can’t ever know.
5. Um no, God also reveals things directly to us wholly apart from Scripture (AND via Scripture), such that we can know them with certainty.
6. Um no, I don’t have to know how God makes a cow in order to know with certainty that He did either.
7. It was Paul claiming that my argument failed, I simply pointed out that according to HIS worldview, no argument could fail.
It’s not surprising that of all the comments I have seen on my debate with Paul, you are the only one who seems to think he did a good job (as you stated on Dan’s blog).
Sye is unwell and posted
4. Since God could reveal some things to us such that we can be certain of them, it is irrelevant to the discussion what else could happen.
This is pure double-think. You're actually positing that even though an event could have mulltiple causes the only cause that matters is the one that you believe it is.
Your line of argument now has zero credibility - you're reduced to "because I said so."
rhiggs - save that comment of Syes - it's unbelievable.
Sye - please, please, please arrange another debate/rout, unless you're a paper tiger.
This is worth a look at as it repeats several of the lines of arguments that that have been put to Sye in opposition to PA.
It's noteworthy because of who's making the arguments.
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/04/problems-with-presuppositional.html
Has anyone read the book ?
Sye,
Really? Is that all you've got in defence? Are you really gonna make me state the bleedin' obvious all over again?
OK then....
1. If the IPH can do ANYTHING then it refutes your 'impossibility of the contrary' catchphrase, seeing as the IPH is contrary to your worldview. Clearly, you can't refute a number of contrary worldviews and yet you still assert (with no proof) that they are impossible. In the example above, you contradict yourself by claiming that you never said an aspect of a contrary worldview is impossible. Complete inconsistency.
2. That is irrelevant. You still adopted a position that you don't actually hold to make a point in a debate. You have refused to engage others for doing this in the past (even when they have stated their actual position, e.g. 'I don't know' or Stephen Law's examples), which makes you a hypocrite.
3. Ah, skimming vs sifting. I see. But, as Richard stated, skimming can easily miss something, which means you are lying when you say you've heard all of these criticisms before. There is some interesting stuff in there which I've never seen you address anywhere, e.g. the difference between what you claim to know exists and what is simply imaginary. Please link me to where you have addressed this, and also where you have addressed all of Dawson's other points. Also, its strange that you bother to show up here to defend yourself time and again. Do you feel 'a pressing need to answer' my criticisms, but not Dawsons?
4. Since God could fool us into thinking we are certain when we are not, it is irrelevant to the discussion what else could happen. It is painfully obvious to everyone, except you, that this cancels out your claim. Plus, if the certainty of your revelation is also guaranteed through revelation, then not only is that viciously circular, but it verifies the certainty of any other revelation, e.g. Joseph Smith or Rael. Since all of these revelations are incompatible, they can be dismissed as untrue.
5. Where is God's revelation outside of scripture? I hope you're not talking about personal revelations, cos we all know where people who have them end up...! Plus, as in point 4, God could just be fooling you into thinking that your revelations are certain.
6. So you have faith in the existence of cows too then. That's fine. Since you have no clue how it happens, you are still taking it on faith that God exists and that he reveals anything or creates cows.
7. Erm, nice red herring, but that's not the point. You stated that his claim was refuted, when in fact it wasn't. He can still make claims that are correct regardless of whether or not he has a basis to make a claim. The claim exists separately from the claimant. Remember the computer claiming its sunny in LA? You never did respond to that did you?
Paul,
That's an interesting post. Some of the points are quite relevant to Mr TenB and have been made before by myself and many others. I'll post the criticisms here and link to the post.
1. Presuppositionalist Apologetics (PA) is an assertion not an argument.
2. PA begs the question.
3. PA is defensive in nature and offers no positive reasons to believe.
4. PA is based on a false analogy.
5. PA could be used to "prove" any religion.
6. PA would mean that the unbeliever is not able to know anything.
7. PA is wrong to assume that one cannot "step outside of their worldview" to examine other worldviews.
8. PA produces arrogance.
9. PA diminishes the importance of reason.
10. PA confuses faith with certainty.
Paul said: ”This is pure double-think.”
It’s not, but would that be absolutely fallacious Paul?
”You're actually positing that even though an event could have mulltiple causes the only cause that matters is the one that you believe it is.”
Um no, there can only be ONE cause, that YOU think there may be other causes is entirely irrelevant.
”Sye - please, please, please arrange another debate/rout, unless you're a paper tiger.”
Justin read an e-mail of mine on his last show and mentioned revisiting the topic. When have you contacted him about this? Didn’t think so ;-)
Rhiggs said: "Really? Is that all you've got in defence? Are you really gonna make me state the bleedin' obvious all over again?”
Ha, cute. It looks like you are taking Paul’s position of being philosophically certain, that I can’t have philosophical certainty :-) Can't wait till he trots that one out on air.
1. The IPH does not exist, so it does not matter what you think it can do. IF you wish to debate on the existence of your deity, I’d be happy to.
2. Show me where I once refused to debate another position when the person actually gave his own position.
3. Na, I’ve seen and addressed those arguments, even the one you cite. Ask Paul, he’s been scouring the internet for my posts, he might have a link for you.
4. Um no, God could not fool us. SINCE however, God CAN reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, it does not matter what you think God or anything else could do.
5. In nature for one.
6. Nope, I know for certain that they exist, just don’t know how God made them.
7. Um, his claim that my logic was in error cannot be justified according to his worldview, therefore HE was refuted.
Rhiggs said: “1. Presuppositionalist Apologetics (PA) is an assertion not an argument.”
Erm THAT is an assertion, not an argument.
2. PA begs the question.”
By what absolute standard of reasoning would that be fallacious, and how do you account for that standard?
”3. PA is defensive in nature and offers no positive reasons to believe.”
I beg to differ.
”4. PA is based on a false analogy.”
By what absolute standard of reasoning would that be fallacious, and how do you account for that standard?
”5. PA could be used to "prove" any religion.”
The floor is yours.
”6. PA would mean that the unbeliever is not able to know anything.”
Um no, that is not the claim, merely that the unbeliever cannot justify anything they claim to know.
”7. PA is wrong to assume that one cannot "step outside of their worldview" to examine other worldviews.”
And what worldview are you presupposing when you make that claim?
”8. PA produces arrogance.”
Being right may come off that way, but hinking one is right **ahem** also does ;-)
”9. PA diminishes the importance of reason.”
Um no, PA states that God is the necessary precondition for reason, not that it is not important.
”10. PA confuses faith with certainty.”
Um, are you certain? IF so, how are you certain of this?
Rhiggs said: “1. Presuppositionalist Apologetics (PA) is an assertion not an argument..........
Erm, wrong thread Sye. Try posting those responses here instead. You know, to the author of them....
rhigga said: "Erm, wrong thread Sye. Try posting those responses here instead."
Erm, you posted 'em here, I responded here.
1. The IPH does not exist, so it does not matter what you think it can do.
Prove that the IPH does not exist. You claim it is impossible.
2. Show me where I once refused to debate another position when the person actually gave his own position.
I'll go one better and provide an example right now. My position is that 'I don't know'. Now, prove the IPH doesn't exist.
3. Na, I’ve seen and addressed those arguments, even the one you cite. Ask Paul, he’s been scouring the internet for my posts, he might have a link for you.
I'm asking you to provide a link since you claim to have addressed all of Dawson's arguments before. It should be an easy enough request to fulfil, yet you want me to go and ask someone else who may or may not have the link? Are you serious?
4. Um no, God could not fool us. SINCE however, God CAN reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, it does not matter what you think God or anything else could do.
Prove that God, an omnipotent being, could not fool you.
5. In nature for one.
Where in nature? What specifically is the revelation?
6. Nope, I know for certain that they exist, just don’t know how God made them.
So you take it on faith that he did make them, just like you take it on faith that he reveals certainty and doesn't fool you. And anyway, please prove how you know cows exist for certain. You still haven't even provided the proof of how you know you exist for certain
7. Um, his claim that my logic was in error cannot be justified according to his worldview, therefore HE was refuted.
Ignoring the fact that you have never proved that it cannot be justified in his worldview, this is another red herring. You said his CLAIM was refuted, when it wasn't (go back and read it again). Even if he has no basis for making the claim, his claim might still be correct. The claim is separate to the claimant. You realised this so later you changed your position to say that "the claim may or may not be true". You are wrong sometimes Sye, aren't you? :-D
Sye,
Erm, you posted 'em here, I responded here.
Wow, you are so childish. I clearly posted the title of each of his criticisms and linked to the actual post. If you took 2 seconds to actually think, rather than spew out the usual crap, you might have realised that.
So if I post Dawson's criticisms here (or anyone else's), will you respond to them too? Is that how it works? If so, I'll let Dawson know...
"So if I post Dawson's criticisms here (or anyone else's), will you respond to them too?"
If he can reduce his criticisms to ten equally short posts, I will definitely consider it. (But then you could not longer deny miracles) :-)
Interesting post here on absolute truth and how it doesn't exist. Scroll to about the seventh-last comment Sye, the author will give a $10,000 donation to the charity of your choice if you can demonstrate that absolute truth exists.
"fatfist 3 months ago
I'm feelin' lucky today.
From now on, ANYBODY who can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists", or even that simple "truth exists"......I will PayPal them $10,000 to donate to their favorite charity to feed some hungry or homeless children.
This is for a good cause. It's summertime, people are on vacation, and they are forgetting the starving children of this world. I need to do my part and donate.
Please people, answer the question above and help out the kids.
Allan Bogle....here's your chance!"
Oh and a quick tip Sye. If you wish to address the comments of the author, don't post your response here. Cheers :-D
Sye wrote:
Um no, there can only be ONE cause, that YOU think there may be other causes is entirely irrelevant.
No it's not irrelevant Sye. It's very pertinent. You are ASSERTING that there can be only one cause. I have shown (as have others) that there can be other causes. You are positing ASSERTION as PROOF.
”Sye - please, please, please arrange another debate/rout, unless you're a paper tiger.”
Justin read an e-mail of mine on his last show and mentioned revisiting the topic. When have you contacted him about this? Didn’t think so ;-)
Justin is well aware of my position on a further debate Sye, I contacted him in August.
Sye wrote:
Ha, cute. It looks like you are taking Paul’s position of being philosophically certain, that I can’t have philosophical certainty :-) Can't wait till he trots that one out on air.
Ok, for the slow learners....
You posit there is certainty because event A only has cause B
I posit no there isn't because event A can have causes B, C, D and E. Therefore you cannot claim certainty because the cause remains uncertain.
Now can I claim certainty in my claim ? Yes.
The ground state for any proposition is uncertainty, and we can be certain about that (please argue about that on air Sye - I'd like to hear you on that), and in the absence of anything to change that state of uncertainty then it remains uncertain.
So, you need a better line of argument.
One to add to the list http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2010/02/refuting-presuppositionalism.html
Presuppositionalist arguments are often difficult to refute on the spot if you’ve never heard them before. Chances are you haven’t heard them before, because Presuppositionalism represents a minority view that has only recently made a splash on the scene of Christian apologetics. I suspect that Christians are now using these arguments precisely because of their obscurity: the rarity and complexity of these arguments are such that many atheists won’t be able to respond to these arguments immediately, whereas more traditional arguments like the first cause argument and the argument from design are arguments that practically every atheist can immediately tear down (because atheists have heard these arguments used so much). However, once presuppositionalist arguments are carefully examined, they can quickly be shown to be fallacious and invalid. So my advice to fellow atheists and agnostics who frequently argue with Christians is this: be familiar with these arguments and be prepared to expose the errors in them whenever you hear them. Chances are that sooner or later you will come across someone in person or on the internet who uses these arguments. Please take my advice and arm yourself in advance.
Also - http://hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth (I haven't read it all and don't know if it's a Poe or not)
Paul said: "The ground state for any proposition is uncertainty, and we can be certain about that"
Priceless.
"please argue about that on air Sye - I'd like to hear you on that"
Be careful what you wish for :-)
Sye wrote:
Paul said: "The ground state for any proposition is uncertainty, and we can be certain about that"
Priceless.
So Sye - do tell - what is the ground state for any proposition - is it certain or uncertain ?
This is a post of Syes to Stephen Laws blog http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/sye-show-continues.html
Sye TenB said...
Stephen asked: ”What is your JUSTIFICATION for saying YOU were not hit on the head by a rock? How do YOU KNOW you were not? What is YOUR argument, and how do YOU know it is valid?”
Simple, God has revealed, such that I can be certain of it, that I can use my senses and reasoning to gain certain knowledge. I have used my senses and reasoning to determine that I was not hit on the head by a rock, and that my brain is not addled. Again, you may not agree with my claim, or presuppose that it is not valid, but my simple question is, what is YOUR justification for using logic? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, how do you know that they will be valid, and how do you know that your reasoning is valid, according to YOUR worldview?
This is not a trick. We simply offer our respective claims for the justification of logic, and reasoning, and how we can arrive at certainty, and compare them. So far, for obvious reasons, you are unwilling to give us your claim.
November 30, 2009 7:37 PM
Which begs the question (again) - how can Sye be certain that the revelation was from the Christian God and no other source ?
The only answer Sye has is that all possible alternatives are irrelevant, not improbable or impossible.
That'll be one for our upcoming debate.
You'll need a much better answer then.
Sye wrote:
Justin read an e-mail of mine on his last show and mentioned revisiting the topic. When have you contacted him about this? Didn’t think so ;-)
For a moment I thought we might have a second debate in the offing and then I listened to the podcast.
I can't see it happening on Premier Christian Radio for whatever reason, which just leaves us, snas any other avenue, with forums exchanges - which you're losing.
"which you're losing."
Well, if nothing else, you are comical :-)
I still hope to do this on Justin's show. If he does not want you to be on there with me, perhaps he is just protecting you from further embarrassment, as the way our original debate was edited seems to indicate.
"If he does not want you to be on there with me, perhaps he is just protecting you from further embarrassment, as the way our original debate was edited seems to indicate."
Strange. You'd think Justin would want to give much more airtime to what is supposedly the best apologetic approach and, in doing so, provide the world with 'proof that god exists'.
Sounds to me like you didn't even convince him.
"Strange. You'd think Justin would want to give much more airtime to what is supposedly the best apologetic approach"
You'd think, but if you listened to his response to my e-mail you might gather why he has not - yet.
Care to paraphrase?
Sye comically wrote:
I still hope to do this on Justin's show. If he does not want you to be on there with me, perhaps he is just protecting you from further embarrassment, as the way our original debate was edited seems to indicate.
Still fighting old battles Sye.
As the forum posts have consistantly shown it is your line of argument that is subject to embarrassment.
But keep going back to that debate - it's all that you have left :-)
Post a Comment