Sye – endgame
Well Sye said he has an argument for his premise (1). We have asked him countless times what it is. He won’t say. Indeed, he just gets weirdly evasive. So I think we are justified in concluding he hasn’t got any argument for premise (1).
(1) is, then, a contentious and unargued for premise. But then, while Sye’s argument is deductively valid, it relies on a contentious and unargued for premise, and so fails to establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
Having established that beyond reasonable doubt, we can now do a proper job of examining his endlessly repeated challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic. I’ll do that next.
You’ve got a lot more patience with him that I’d have! ;)He must be right though – there’s so many proofs 😉
Endgame it might be, but we know Sye’s likely response in the end: By who’s standard do you judge I am in checkmate, and how do you account for these rules in YOUR system? Are they absolute? If not why should I pay attention to them? ….and so on. It will do no good to point out that he had been happy to appeal to the rules of chess and play fairly until he got into difficulty, before he tried to apply backspin to all his moves.There are many dis-analogies between the rules of logic and those of chess, but as I said before, the most irritating dis-analogy between playing chess and debating is that with the former, victory is clear and there really is nowhere to hide. With debating, there is infinite wriggle room, even if it fools nobody.
Actually my argument for premise one is that the contrary is impossible.
LOL Sye.And what is your argument that the contrary is impossible? Allow me to guess: you’re going to ask me questions I already answered.*Rolls eyes*Did you miss Stephen’s last few posts or something?
Please tell me why you are still wasting time on this guy?If you say, “I want to show him that he’s wrong”, then you are wasting your time.
Please see my post on “The Need to be Right”:http://antarena.blogspot.com/2008/03/need-to-be-right.html
Sye, am I mistaken or is your “the contrary is impossible” argument simply an expression that you believe your stated premise to be correct since there are in your mind no other (contrary) premises possible?
Sye, please detail the premises and conclusions encapsulated in “the impossibility of the contrary.”
We’re done here, Sye. Now we move on to your claim that atheists cannot account for the laws of logic.