Sye – a breakthrough!
Hi Sye
So here’s your last response to me (the references are to this page of Sye’s “proof”, and the page behind yellow link):
ME ”Sye – where in the above passage is the argument that *only* a Christian world view can logically support rationality?”
YOU “By the impossibility of the contrary.”
ME ”In short: the conclusion of your argument: “without Him you couldn’t prove anything” is presupposed by the entire argument.”
YOU Just as your conclusion that God does not exist is presupposed in any argument you have against His existence.
ME ”So my charge still stands – your argument fails as a proof.
You need to supplement it with an argument that *only* a Christian world view can allow for rationality.”
YOU I have, ‘by the impossiblity of the contrary.’
Now yes, you use the phrase “the impossibility of the contrary”. But look at the context, which I quoted, and now quote again:
“The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.
In logic, this type of proof is called ‘transcendental logic,’ or ‘the impossibility of the contrary,’ where God is the basis for any rational thought. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality.”
First off, simply to say “by the impossibility of the contrary” is not yet to give an argument for the impossibility of the contrary; it’s to draw a conclusion by presupposing that the contrary is impossible. There’s no argument in the above passages that the contrary is impossible. Yet this is where you say the argument is.
However, you are referring to an argument, interestingly, and calling it “impossibility of the contrary”. And it appears to be the entire argument running up to that point. But that entire argument actually relies on the premise that the contrary is impossible.
You actually CONCEDE this as you say: “Just as your conclusion that God does not exist is presupposed in any argument you have against His existence”.
I note the “Just as” [my italics]. You are doing a “tu quoque” here [“You’re doing it too!”], thereby acknowledging that my accusation is actually correct.
So we finally AGREE, then, that your entire argument, as presented on your website, simply presupposes that the laws of logic cannot exist without God.
Hoorah!
You know what this means, don’t you…? It ain’t a proof.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You know that’s not going to slow Sye down? He’ll just eventually go to another site and start over with the same arguments. Though I know that it’s necessary to expose this kind of thinking…too bad we wouldn’t be able to convince him to link to your blog from his site. If he’s so certain that his arguments are better, he shouldn’t have any problem in letting other people know that, eh?
We’ve always already been aware Sye uses tu quoque and hypocrisy, and asserts without proof that his proof is ‘impossibility of the contrary’. (Though he never bothered to give a cogent reason why Vishnu could not be the Creator. “He didn’t reveal himself!” YES he did Sye. Hindu Gods even come to earth in mortal form. For example, Vishnu came down as Krishna, like God came down as Jesus. It’s high-school level Humanities. (And it’s fairly obvious Xianity borrows from other religions))But thanks, Stephen, for this article. I don’t think I coulda exposed Sye better. You even quoted Sye! Straight outta the horse’s mouth.I’m also amazed you remained very calm despite Sye’s pure tortured ‘logic’. I had to avoid this blog for a while because every time I see another ridiculous comment from Sye, I have the urge to correct him on every point, even though I know he’ll just ignore me. It was extremely frustrating and time-consuming.=====================Either way, I have to agree with Reynold. Sye will just move on to another site to annoy more people. And he’s not going to remember this blog as a ‘miss’.Psychologists have demonstrated that people remember the ‘hits’ more clearly and forget all the misses. That’s how cold reading works, how prayer works…And how Sye works.==================Thank you so much, Stephen!~Nutcasenightmare
It should also be pointed out that Sye has conceded Well, it looks like you are in a disagreement with some of your professed athesit friends herethus fatally undermining his premise that there is any such thing as an atheist worldview.Myself and others have also noted that his views on logic are lifted wholesale from platonic idealism, which makes his position akin to the burglar who complains his car has been stolen.Not a good day for presuppositional apologetics, but a good day for humanity.
Hoorah Stephen!
Stephen Law said: ”I note the “Just as” [my italics]. You are doing a “tu quoque” here [“You’re doing it too!”], thereby acknowledging that my accusation is actually correct.”Nope, just acknowledging that all arguments have presuppositions, the question is whose worldview can support those presuppostions. I submit, that your worldview cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments, whereas mine can, and does.”You know what this means, don’t you…? It ain’t a proof.”And again I ask, but what standard of logic is this not a proof, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my proof?Cheers,Sye
Sye,”I submit, that your worldview cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments, whereas mine can, and does.”You’ve made the assertion many times that only your worldview accounts for logic, but we’re still waiting for your sound logical argument to justify this. Do you have one or not? If so, please do tell, as we’re all very eager to hear it…If you can provide such an argument, then you will be doing better than Greg Bahnsen, who also oft made this assertion, but left it tantalisingly unjustified by any sound logical argumentsmap.
the question is whose worldview can support those presuppostionsWhat you are doing is not “supporting” logic, you are adding one more step (or more) and presuppose that there is a god, and that only such presupposed god can support logic. Your “support” is a presupposition.
Sye, you say I: “cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments.”Aha! This is the move I nailed here:http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/07/syes-argument.htmlFact is Sye, you’re screwed. I think you know it, too.Here’s the relevant bit pasted in:”We both agree that a valid argument containing a contentious and unargued-for premise does not establish the truth of its conclusion. Now, even if, as an atheist, I am not justified in believing this, you (by your own lights) are justified in believing it, so, given your original argument does indeed contain a contentious and unargued-for premise, you are justified in supposing your argument fails to establish the truth of its conclusion.You need to address this specific point Sye.”Saying “All arguments have presuppositions” won’t help you, even if true, because your argument is supposed to be not just a valid argument but a “proof” – i.e. it is supposed to establish for the benefit of your audience, beyond reasonable doubt, the truth of your conclusion. And to do that, you must not simply presuppose what you are supposed to be establishing. If you do, well that’s just not a proof, is it? By anyone’s standards! Even God’s, I take it!Or do you call that a “proof”?Like I say, Sye – you are now very clearly screwed. The question is, how are you going to respond? With dignity, or not?
Stephen said:“Or do you call that a “proof”?”Um, all proofs have presuppositions as well, one of which being the validity of the very concept of proof. A presupposition which your worldview simply cannot account for.Cheers,Sye
apologies for deleting and redraftng a couple of times there….
Without dignity, then…OK, I’ll come back later.
Sye,”Um, all proofs have presuppositions as well, one of which being the validity of the very concept of proof. A presupposition which your worldview simply cannot account for.”Please provide the sound logical argument that proves that your worldview does. Or, don’t you have one?
Sye – just read back slowly what you just typed…”A presupposition which your worldview simply cannot account for.”Then read what I wrote. How can the penny not be dropping? It must be dropping!
Sye,I [Andy] submit, that your worldview cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments; As you have yet to prove that Absolute laws actually exist. You have yet to give an example of one and show how it is not systemic.Oh wait, that’s right, you said they exist in the absolute mind of God.So your argument is1.) God exists, and nothing more. =======You also say:”All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid.”But yet you also said:”The three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. (Britannica online Encyclopedia)”Of course this list does not contain the necessity for circularity. So should #4 be the law of logic that states the need for circularity? But then it should also state that it applies only when talking about Christianity. So is the law of circularity absolute too? If so, prove it please. If it’s absolute, then should it not apply to everything?
Just clarify for me Sye. You are saying your “proof” does indeed just presuppose that there can be no laws of logic without the Christian God.Yes or no?
Stephen Law said: “Just clarify for me Sye. You are saying your “proof” does indeed just presuppose that there can be no laws of logic without the Christian God.”Yes or no?”No, remove the word ‘just’ and my answer is ‘yes.’Cheers,Sye
And what is a “proof”, Sye?
Also Sye – just explain a bit more. Your argument has this form:(1) The laws of logic require the existence of the Christian God(2) The laws of logic existsTherefore: the Christian God exists.I objected that you presupposed (1), that you supplied no supporting argument for it.You said, wrong, you did supply an argument for (1) – “the impossibility of the contrary” in the “continue” section.I pointed out the argument is not there.You then say, I’m right. No, the argument presupposes (1).So you have moved from you saying (1) is supported by an argument, to saying (1) is not supported by an argument.But now you are saying that (1) is not supported by argument doesn’t matter, right?Are you aware that you are changing position like this?
Sye, what most confuses me here is why you don’t just accept this and move on. After all you do think you have arguments that establishes a Christian God is required to either justify a belief in logic or explain its existence, don’t you? It seems to me the all Stephen is establishing here is that you might need to re-jig the website so that what is actually presented is a proof, something which you also seem to have acknowledged in other places.
Stephen Law said: So you have moved from you saying (1) is supported by an argument, to saying (1) is not supported by an argument.”Nope, it’s both presupposed AND supported by the impossibility of the contrary argument.Cheers,Sye
ah it’s presupposed, and not presupposed. Excellent. A contradiction.So what is a “proof”?I have a new post for you btw.
“Nope, it’s both presupposed AND supported by the impossibility of the contrary argument.”You have yet to offer any sound logical argument to demonstrate that only your worldview accounts for logic. Don’t be shy, spell it out Sye!
Stephen Law said,”…ah it’s presupposed, and not presupposed. Excellent. A contradiction.”Well, isn’t this the whole point? Sye accepts a contradiction as axiomatic, and once you do that, anything can logically follow from his premise and retain internal validity. All the better for him that his contradiction is ontological, thus shielding him from having to admit his fundamentally flawed beginnings.
James, (NO)Sye has already stated quite clearly that he feels the law of non-contradiction to be “absolute” [in the mind of God].But: if what you say is true,then he’s contradicting his belief in the belief of non-contradiction.Recall he also says this:”All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid.”It may perhaps be the case that he now will state: “All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of contradiction.”He may as well state that all ultimate authority claims Necessarily brake all the laws of logic.And who am I to “borrow from the Christian world view” to refute that.
He may as well state that all ultimate authority claims Necessarily brake all the laws of logic.Oh no, he already said that god cannot be god and no god at the same time. “It is part of his nature.”So, which of all of his contradictions will he stand for?
Andrew,Sye’s acceptance of the contradiction is, as you have noted, not at all conscious. It’s merely a “first principle.” For God to be as he conceives Him, as you and others have noted, He contains a multitudes of contradictions; for Sye’s claim of the law of non-contradiction to also pertain, God must exist outside and independent of the laws of logic. But, Sye also claims that the laws of logic are part of God’s makeup.Therefore, he accepts a contradiction as axiomatic, no matter how he claims otherwise.
Stephen Law said:” ah it’s presupposed, and not presupposed.”No, it’s presupposed, and argued for.”Excellent. A contradiction.”Why are contradictions not allowed in your worldview?”So what is a “proof”?A proof is a valid argument from true premises to arrive at a conclusion.Cheers,Sye
Sye,you said:”Why are contradictions not allowed in your worldview?”This question is irelevant, because we know form your statement of the laws of logic that you believe that contradictions are not allowed.Stephen in this case can be afforded the luxury of simply stating what you say to be the case. He’s simply pointing out your violation of your own laws of logic.
Sye,you also said:”A proof is a valid argument from true premises to arrive at a conclusion.”If your “true premises” are presupposed, then why do you need to argue for them? And furthermore, your argument is that the contrary is impossible, which isn’t an argument at all as it begs the question.So I’ll state what I already have:You often accuse us of “begging the question”. Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you’d certainly agree that “begging the question” refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say “NOT A PROOF”, because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we’re, again, begging the question.However, you state vary succinctly that:”All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid.”So you’re admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it’s NECESSARY. So really you’re saying that it’s NECESSARILY the case that you don’t have a proof because you’re violating one of your absolute and thus violating the nature of God. (oh boy, violating God)The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I’ve said above it’s clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (which you believe to be absolute as well). I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.(and violating God’s nature yet again, sheesh)So you only have a proof if you can violate God’s nature.
Stephen Law said:” ah it’s presupposed, and not presupposed.”SYE No, it’s presupposed, and argued for.STEPHEN ”Excellent. A contradiction.”SYE Why are contradictions not allowed in your worldview?The point, Sye, is that they are not allowed on yours.
Stephen Law said:”ah it’s presupposed, and not presupposed.”I said: No, it’s presupposed, and argued for.STEPHEN ”Excellent. A contradiction.”Hmmm, interesting tactic. However, Stephen, please give me ONE proof absent of presuppositions.Cheers,Sye
Sye,see my post just above there. Your breaking the laws of your own logic my friend.
And Sye,what do you mean by presuppose? I’d like to answer this question, but I’d like to understand clearly what you mean by it first. Since you clearly don’t know what “proof” means either, it’s tough to answer to without your definition
Oh man. I’ve dealt with presuppositionalists for years, and it is always this agonizing to make them see that they are engaging in one long, viciously circular argument. And, when we get him/them to realize (or admit) it, they say, “Ah, but it is a virtue of our apologetic that it is self-reinforcing”That is to say, vicious circularity = an argumentative virtue. Sye, a series of assertions do not an argument make.
“However, Stephen, please give me ONE proof absent of presuppositions.”…Oh, no you don’t!cf. “The Burden of Proof Fallacy.”http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)Your skills of worming out of things won’t go that far!The onus is still on you, Sye.
M said: “Sye, a series of assertions do not an argument make.”Um, nice assertion.By the way M, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?Cheers,Sye