{"id":817,"date":"2008-07-31T17:32:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-31T17:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2008\/07\/31\/sye-latest-installment\/"},"modified":"2008-07-31T17:32:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-31T17:32:00","slug":"sye-latest-installment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2008\/07\/31\/sye-latest-installment\/","title":{"rendered":"Sye &#8211; latest installment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Hi Sye<\/p>\n<p>Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. This post deals with your response to my post <a href=\"http:\/\/stephenlaw.blogspot.com\/2008\/07\/syes-argument.html\">Sye&#8217;s argument<\/a> below.<\/p>\n<p>Gosh this is getting all very complicated, what with others challenging you on the objectivity of logic, etc. But let&#8217;s not lose sight of the original debate. It was about the &#8220;proof&#8221; you offer on your website for the existence of God.<\/p>\n<p>OK, so to summarize:<\/p>\n<p>My contention is that the argument on your website is not a \u201cproof\u2019 \u2013 certainly it does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You insist it is a \u201cproof\u201d and now add that it does establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<p>We have both previously set out the argument like so:<\/p>\n<p>1. The existence of the laws of logic necessarily requires the existence of the Christian God<br \/>2. The laws of logic exist<br \/>Therefore: the Christian God exists<\/p>\n<p>I point out that for an argument to provide such a proof, it must be more than just deductively valid. It must not, for example, contain any contentious and unargued-for premises.<\/p>\n<p>Now the first premise is contentious and unargued-for. So this argument fails as a \u201cproof\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Now of course I pointed out that you might supply supporting argument for (1). But no such argument is actually supplied in your presentation of your &#8220;proof&#8221;. You simply assert:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-style: italic\">&#8220;Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Thus, as it stands, your argument fails as a proof.<\/p>\n<p>True, you want, it seems, to now try to salvage your original \u201cproof\u201d by saying (1) is established \u201cby the impossibility of the contrary\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>But that is not something you even attempted to establish in your original \u201cproof\u201d \u2013 the one I am criticizing. You merely asserted (1) without any supporting argument.<\/p>\n<p>So, it obviously fails as a proof. Right?<\/p>\n<p>[incidentally, I notice you are saying that <span style=\"font-style: italic\">not only<\/span> is the argument deductively valid, its premise is also <span style=\"font-style: italic\">true<\/span>. But of course even this is not enough to establish the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You can\u2019t just <span style=\"font-style: italic\">assert<\/span> the first premise is true. Nor is it enough that it happen, as a matter of fact, to be true. Given the first premise is highly contentious, you need to <span style=\"font-style: italic\">demonstrate<\/span> to your audience, beyond reasonable doubt, that it\u2019s true. And that, in your website\u2019s presentation of the \u201cproof\u201d you fail to do. You simply assert (1.)].<\/p>\n<p>I will deal with your response to <a href=\"http:\/\/stephenlaw.blogspot.com\/2008\/07\/logic-and-god-ii.html\">God and Logic (II)<\/a> in a separate post. But, so far as I can see, the issue of whether or not your original argument, as presented on your website, proves beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, has now been resolved. It doesn&#8217;t.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hi Sye Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. This post deals with your response to my post Sye&#8217;s argument below. Gosh this is getting all very complicated, what with others challenging you on the objectivity of logic, etc. But let&#8217;s not lose sight of the original debate. It was about the &#8220;proof&#8221; you offer on [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sinner-ministries-proof-of-the-existence-of-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}