Sye on “proof” – a further consequence
Incidentally, Sye’s definition of “proof” as valid argument with true premises also makes sense of something else.
1. The existence of objective laws of logic necessarily requires the existence of the Christian God
2. Objective laws of logic exist
Therefore, God exists
Now, if we want to show this is not a “proof”, as Sye defines “proof”, we must either show the argument is not valid, or we must show a premise is false.
But we do accept that it’s valid (cos it is), so we have to show that one of the premises are false. If we accept 2 (which, for argument, I do), we have to show 1 is false.
So, on Sye’s definition of “proof”, if we wish to demonstrate he does not have a “proof”, the onus is on us to disprove 1. i.e. by coming up with an alternative, non-Christian account of objective laws of logic!
See? there is a kind of twisted logic to this.
Of course, on a standard understanding of “proof”, to show it’s not a proof, all we have to do is show his argument contains an unargued for and contentious premise, which it obviously does.
Of course, Sye has misunderstood what a proof is (as I am happy to explain further once he defines “presupposition”), but, to be fair to Sye, it’s kind of an understandable misunderstanding.
After all, validity and true premises are things we want to see in a deductive argument, aren’t they? Sye just overlooks that, for the argument to justify and provide rational support to its conclusion, something more is required…
So, on reflection, I can now make more sense of where Sye’s coming from (though I doubt he’ll accept this diagnosis). Previously I had suspected he was just nuts….