Sye needs to respond to these two points
Hello Sye – you do need to respond, surely, to the two points I made in Sye’s argument and Sye’s proof, just below.
These are two key criticisms. You did say that your website offered a “proof” of God’s existence (a “proof” in the sense of establishing as true that God does indeed exist), but unless you can deal with these two points, surely you cannot in good conscience continue to maintain that.
Of course, you can acknowledge this, yet still believe in God, and still suppose your belief is rationally founded, and indeed try to come up with a new, improved proof. So it’s not the end of the world so far as your Christian belief system is concerned.
My guess is you are now aware that your claim that your website offers a “proof” is not, or is probably not, true.
While I know you want to save people’s souls by converting them to Christianity, surely you don’t want to turn them into believers using what you now know to be a bogus proof? Surely that’s not what God would want either, is it? People “saved” by a bit of dodgy logic?
So, given your heart is in the right place, I am guessing you will now acknowledge this, and we can move on to discuss other issues, such as how your original argument might be fixed up…
Of course, you’ll have to redo your website, which is a bummer. But still, you’d rather be right, wouldn’t you? Remember your own motto: “He who hates correction is stupid”!
Oh God, Stephen, you ARE a glutton for punishment!Hope you’re feeling better now, and that there’s no lasting damage from your mishap with the law of gravity in action.
Stephen, I really must disagree with you here. Sye does not “have” to respond to anything. His world view – that everything is nothing without God [however undefined and meaningless], and that he has a personal key to God’s mind – enables him to shrug off all criticisms such as “surely you cannot in good conscience continue to maintain [whatever it is he happens to be maintaining at the moment]”.Because Sye believes he knows it all, he will not “try to come up with a new, improved proof”. He knows [because God tells him] that the proof he has already proffered is adequate.Your feeling that Sye is “aware that, actually, your claim that your website offers a ‘proof’ is not, or is probably not, true” is almost certainly incorrect. Our Sye is not a conscious or deliberate liar. He just knows best.How do you “know” that Sye “want[s] to save people’s souls by converting them to Christianity”? What Sye wants is to make everyone else concede to his warped thinking, and to be cock of the walk.And how do you know that God would not want people to be “’saved’ by a bit of dodgy logic”? As a non-believer in God I do not attempt to read that non-existent entity’s mind, and I don’t think you should, either. So, even if Sye’s heart is in the “right place” – wherever the “right place” is – you know, as well as I do, that he won’t acknowledge his errors, or redo his website, even though it IS a bummer. And there’s surely no need to console him that “it’s not the end of the world so far as your Christian belief system is concerned”. I wish it were!Of course, I realise that you wrote all this in ironic mode, but our transatlantic cousins rarely do irony.Hope your recovery proceeds apace.
Just be thankful that Sye isn’t this guy: http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v2n4/ant_v2n4_issue1.html
Hello Stephen,Glad that your shouldres are improving. Thanks for your responses.You said: ”Hello Sye – you do need to respond, surely, to the two points I made in Sye’s argument and Sye’s proof, just below.”Glad to do so. I was quites busy responding to other posters, and also out with guests from overseas, but things are slowing down in both areas, so I have a bit more time.As far as my proof goes, proof has exactly nothing to do with persuasion. I believe that I have offered a logically valid argument, with true premises, and that it does not offer room for reasonable doubt. I believe that any doubt for my proof is, in fact, unreasonable. Proof requires logic, knowledge and truth, none of which can be accounted for outside of God, but the key is that logic, knowledge and truth can be, and IS accounted for WITH God. Interestingly one of the frequent posters offers a simillar argument to one of my questions, but receives no opposition to his position. I ask Paul C. how he is certain of the validity of the laws of logic, or anything for that matter, and he answers:” You can be certain of their validity as long as they appear to work.”I ask: “ How can you be certain of their validity if they only appear to work?”He answers: ”On what other basis would one judge their validity?”And when asked again Paul responds similarly: “As I said before, how else would one judge if something was working unless it appeared to be working? I look forward to hearing your alternative suggestion.”The difference with Paul’s argument, and my own, is that I demonstrate how the foundation of proof, i.e. universal, abstract, invariants make sense according to my worldview, whereas Paul does not demonstrate how appearance of working’ IS a way to judge validity.He is basically stating that his position is true by the impossibility of the contrary, but he does not at all demonstrate how his position is even possible, whereas I demonstrate how my position is possible. If Paul believes that his argument is valid, then surely he, at least, should have not problem with mine.I maintain that “The impossibility of the contrary” is a valid argument, but first the possibility of the argument must be demonstrated, as I have done. Of course, on the website I do this after I offer the proof, and in that regard, perhaps you are right in suggesting that I move things around.”While I know you want to save people’s souls by converting them to Christianity”That is a misunderstanding of my position. I cannot save even one soul, or convert anyone. In fact, if I could convert someone, no doubt, it would be a false conversion. No one is converted by intellectual argumentation. Conversion takes place when one’s eyes are opened to the truth that they are suppressing, such that they accept it, and live according to it. I can present the truth, but I cannot make anyone accept it. I am here out of duty, and yes, concern, but, as I said, I cannot convert anyone.”surely you don’t want to turn them into believers using what you now know to be a bogus proof? Surely that’s not what God would want either, is it? People “saved” by a bit of dodgy logic?”Well, I do not believe that the logic is dodgy, and I have yet to hear how you can determine what is or is not ‘dodgy logic’ or, why ‘dodgy logic is not allowed,’ but we can get to that in your “Logic and God II” post.Cheers,Sye
Wow! Sye has actually answered a question! His answer is still the same old three-letter G-word, though, which doesn’t actually explain anything.Nevertheless, he earns a rare brownie point.
And when asked again Paul responds similarly: “As I said before, how else would one judge if something was working unless it appeared to be working? I look forward to hearing your alternative suggestion.”It is worth pointing out that you have no alternative suggestion. The only way that you know something is working is if it appears to be working – which puts you in exactly the same position as everybody else in the world, regardless of religious beliefs.The difference with Paul’s argument, and my own, is that I demonstrate how the foundation of proof, i.e. universal, abstract, invariants make sense according to my worldview, whereas Paul does not demonstrate how appearance of working’ IS a way to judge validity.First, I do not subscribe to your definition of logic as “universal, abstract, invariants”; and if my position is more accurate, this neuters your argument.Second, if you would like a demonstration of how the appearance of working is a way to judge validity, I suggest that you look at your own behaviour on a day-to-day basis. You will find that you use this approach in nearly every area of your life, and hopefully this demonstration will be sufficient.
Sye writes:Interestingly one of the frequent posters offers a simillar argument to one of my questions, but receives no opposition to his position. I ask Paul C. how he is certain of the validity of the laws of logic, or anything for that matter…Such a question says more about your ignorance of logic then anything else. 1st Order logic and predicate logic PROVEN using mathematical proofs. You can prove each and every connective and show that they apply to ALL (i.e., infinite sets) rules applied to them. Given your use of “proof” and your unfounded belief that your premises are true (and not vacuous because of circularity) further back up the notion that you do not know what you are talking about.
Wholeflaffer said: “Such a question says more about your ignorance of logic then anything else.”Then I suppose you feel the same way about Paul for answering it as he did right?Cheers,Sye
Paul c said: It is worth pointing out that you have no alternative suggestion. The only way that you know something is working is if it appears to be working – which puts you in exactly the same position as everybody else in the world, regardless of religious beliefs.If I may venture a possible clarification here, Paul, I take it that your method for discovering “what appears to be working” (i.e., what is actually true about the world) is one of experimentation, of trial and error, and then the drawing of logical conclusions about the results?From there, I assume, you accept the truth of those conclusions on a contingent basis. You accept that you might be wrong about your conclusions, that you might just be committing the pragmatic fallacy, and would change your position given new evidence, or a reasonable reinterpretation of the evidence you already have.And that’s all anyone with the willingness and ability to learn, and a shred of humility, can be expected to do in honestly furthering their understanding of the world around them (and themselves, life, the universe, and everything, etc.).Personally, I think this whole business was nailed when the Cosmic Wombat hit the stage.If this is as good as presuppositionalist apologetics gets, it’s extremely uninteresting (who needs well reasoned arguments when assertion and contradiction will do?).Let’s hear more about crashing mountain bikes or philosophy or something. 8-)P.S. to SL: Wishing you a full and speedy recovery.