Sye – a breakthrough!
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.
You know what this means, don’t you…? It ain’t a proof.