Debate located at: Fundamentally Flawed - Episode 13: Sye and Eric Special
Part Deux: Episode 15: Dustin Segers and Sye Ten Bruggencate
Three's the charm?: Fundamentally Flawed Extra: Alex vs Sye
Quatre is the charm then?: Episode 18: Eric Hovind and Dustin Segers Special
I noticed Jim also used a Christopher Hitchens ploy of audio dropping out when he feels that he was being backed into a corner. Anyway, see how guarded, anticipating the responses, Alex and Jim are as they go through to fight against their worldview being exposed...speaking of dogma.
The truth of the debate goes into the realm of hatred, towards God and His followers, when Alex's comment (http://goo.gl/Fo1Nk) was exposed. Its an emotional response, not intellectual, just as the Bible claims.
Alex confirmed one of our mantras that the Christian position is that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. It was great to hear Sye and Eric flesh that out by 'pushing the antithesis'. Truth is refreshing after all.
The debate ends with ducking, with obfuscation, and rescuing devices based on presuppositions.
This debate can be summed up well with this quote, "All argumentation about ultimate issues eventually comes to rest at the level of the disputant’s presuppositions. If a man has come to the conclusion, and is committed to the truth of a certain view, P, when he is challenged as to P, he will offer supporting argumentation for it, Q and R. But of course, as his opponent will be quick to point out, this simply shifts the argument to Q and R. Why accept them? The proponent of P is now called upon to offer S, T, U, and V as arguments for Q and R. And on and on the process goes. The process is complicated by the fact that both the believer and unbeliever will be involved in such chains of argumentation. But all argument chains must come to an end somewhere. One’s conclusions could never be demonstrated if they were dependent upon an infinite regress of argumentative justifications, for under those circumstances the demonstration could never be completed. And an incomplete demonstration demonstrates nothing at all. Eventually all argumentation terminates in some logically primitive starting point, a view or premise held as unquestionable.
Apologetics traces back to such ultimate starting points or presuppositions. In the nature of the case these presuppositions are held to be self-evidencing: they are the ultimate authority in one’s viewpoint, an authority for which no greater authorization can be given. So then, all apologetic argumentation will require such a final foundation, an ultimate and self-validating presupposition or starting point for thought and commitment." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
bit.ly/FundamentallyFlawed
Are you still denying your ability to reason autonomously Dan? Really? If that's the case how can you know that you've even had a revelation, let alone know the source and veracity of the any claimed revelation? How can you know anything when you don't trust the senses you must use to perceive the revelation you claim to have had?
ReplyDeleteAs for the podcast, it's nothing more than Sye desperately trying to go through his script. Meh.
Er...ok, where to start?
ReplyDeleteJim's audio DID drop out - it wasn't a 'ploy' at all, these things happen with Skype.
Anyway, I wrote the following about the show on my blog -
Last night Jim and I went toe to toe with Sye 'TAG!TAG!TAG!TAG!' TenBruggencate and Eric 'Son of Kent' Hovind. We'd hoped to be able to discuss the many many flaws in Eric's inherited Creationism, but the entire hour and a half was railroaded by Sye relentlessly trying to prise the answers he wanted out of us (and failing)
http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3
About 54 minutes in Sye suddenly, out of nowhere, asked me about a comment on another blog where I'd described him as a 'despicable human being' for the relentlessness of his lies. In my mind this was entirely unprofessional, more suited to a reply on this blog, or even in the original comments thread, not something for a public discussion. Weirdly the very fact that he did this, allowing his petty annoyance at a throwaway blog comment, posted in haste and employing hyperbole to spill over, unbidden into the discussion merely reinforced and confirmed my original statement.
To clarify for Sye (as I know he'll be popping along eventually thanks to a Google alert or two) - Sye, I believe you to be a liar or insanely deluded. I believe the very fact that you are teaching others how to spew out the same ridiculous TAG nonsense makes you, as I said before, a despicable human being. You're giving Christians a tool to defend their faith that is so unfit for the purpose that they will be laughed at....and the worst thing is you CAN'T OR WONT SEE how poorly worked out your argument is, which isn't surprising considering how much you've invested in it. You have allowed yourself to become ENTIRELY defined by ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT.....and that argument is so insanely and obviously circular that most will see right through it.
For further clarification I would point out that Sye's insistence that I 'google [his] name' is complete nonsense, I hear about his antics via various Facebook groups, and I've made no secret of my interactions with him (they're all documented here - and there are very few of them).
http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/10/when-fundamentally-flawed-met-sye-and.html
Dan, I do wonder, did you even listen to the same show?? Sye tried relentlessly to force us into his fallacy of the excluded middle and gain absolutely NO traction.
ReplyDeleteAnd at what point did you hear us saying that we'd had a revelation from your god?? Seriously, you're imagining things if you heard that!
Sye's argument is laughably circular, and backed up by a 'personal revelation' that he can neither prove nor defend. I'm amazed that you guys put so much stock in the TAG when it is so clearly nonsensical.
Here's what I wrote about refuting Sye - http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-refute-sye-ten-bruggencates.html
Sye's very professional 'why do you hate me?' merely proved that my initial reading of him was spot on...and Jim nailed it when he said 'You tell lies for money'.
I'm looking forward to talking to Eric again, as he was very pleasant to deal with, but I'll not be discussing anything further with Sye until he gets a new argument.
Have you been following my exchange of posts with Chris Bolt ?
ReplyDeleteI've seen a little of it Paul.
ReplyDeleteDan, do you deny that you are reliant on your senses to experience the world? In fact you're so reliant that, if Sye's version of the TAG is true, you have NO WAY of knowing whether your 'revelation' is true or real.
You've debunked yourself if you agree with Sye! OOOPS!!
Dan, methinks they dost protest too much :-)
ReplyDeleteAlex, do yourself a favour before the next go-round, if there is one, look up the "tu quoque fallacy," then listen to our exchange again.
Cheers
Sye, there won't be a second round, as you've said you won't bring a different argument to the table. What's the point in debating your circular nonsense round and round for ever? Other than feeding your almost pathological desire for publicity...
ReplyDelete↑↑
ReplyDeleteGreat! Thanks Alex, irony meter exploded, yet again.
"Sye, there won't be a second round"
ReplyDeleteI figured as much. I noticed Jim laying the ground-work for the big cop-out on his blog.
"Other than feeding your almost pathological desire for publicity..."
Um, this would make a lot more sense if it was not you who contacted us to have this exchange. Thanks by the way :-)
"Um, this would make a lot more sense if it was not you who contacted us to have this exchange."
ReplyDeleteEr....no.
What actually happened was we invited Eric to appear on Fundamentally Flawed to discuss his Creationism, he seemed a little skittish at the thought, so instead we agreed to appear on his podcast - we had no idea you would be involved until after we'd agreed.
Sye, I am genuinely baffled as to why you're acting so smug about this. You failed to gain any ground with us during the recording, eventually resorting to your sudden 'why do you hate me?' ploy when it was clear things weren't going your way, and Jim has repeatedly handed your arse to you in the comments on his blog, yet you're apparently swanning around, chest puffed out with pride, as if you dealt the 'evil atheists' a deadly blow!
The reason I won't speak to you again (note, I'm not speaking for Jim here) is down to your refusal to discuss anything other than your learned-by-rote TAG nonsense. You refuse to discuss the Bible with people 'who don't hold it authoritative', and you've said yourself that you don't intend to bring any other arguments in your favour to the table. Why would I want to discuss the TAG AGAIN with you? We've already covered that it's circular nonsense that proves nothing, and you've admitted that you won't supply any evidence at all to support your claim of 'revelation'. There is literally nothing left to discuss, and I can only assume you want a rematch because you love the sound of your own voice.
If any readers of this blog want to see just how thoroughly Jim has dismantled Sye, just click here
ReplyDeleteSye:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really mean much when the maliciously false accuser says he thinks his victims are "protesting too much." I shall leave that for neutral third-parties to decide.
Sye has no argument, the Primacy of Existence dictates that he has to be borrowing from the world view of those who accept reality as 'real' to make his point. As there is no need for his god to 'account' for anything, he is instantly scuppered and left sitting at the side of the road trying to reattach the wheels that have just fallen off the TAG bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteSye, I've said it elsewhere but I'll also say it here - time to get a new argument, the TAG is dead.
Alex,
ReplyDeletePrimacy of Existence dictates...
So is Ayn Rand your god? How do you KNOW she is right?
>>Sye, I've said it elsewhere but I'll also say it here - time to get a new argument, the TAG is dead.
And you wonder why I attached that picture?
Where do you get the idea that Ayn Rand is the guy's "god"? Just because one person came up with one good idea does not qualify them for "godhood". And no, I'm not talking about "objectivism" in general, just that "primacy of existence" thing.
ReplyDeleteNow, how do YOU know that YOU'RE right about anything? Face it, in that link circular Sye got nailed.
Do you remember me saying 'I'm no fan of Ayn Rand' in the podcast? No? You should listen again then, because I did.
ReplyDeleteDan, tell me how the Primacy of Existence is wrong? You are only able to have thoughts because you exist - existence comes before conscience....and the Universe would happily continue on without mankind in it (after all, it managed just find for well over 13 billion years without us!)
"I think, therefore I am" got things back to front, it should be 'I am, therefore I think (therefore I'm sentient)'
Anyway, back to the initial question - tell me how existence ISN'T required for consciousness!
I'm guessing Dan can't answer...
ReplyDeletehttp://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/ - Sye tried again, failed just as hard.
ReplyDeletePart Deux, I just added to the post, is epic! I would find it hilarious, if it were not so sad, that you believe Sye and Dustin failed the second go around. That is just... wow!
ReplyDeleteCare to explain just how they did so "well" in your opinion then?
ReplyDeleteAlex:
ReplyDeleteThe expression "I think, therefore I am" is correct. Thought necessarily implies existence (even though the existence comes first.) One can exist without thinking. Several politicians demonstrate this point.
No, what they demonstrate is existing without honour. I know you're making a joke though. In reality, it's "I am therefore I think". If you don't exist, you can't think.
ReplyDeleteSometimes even that Rand person was right.
Yeah, Rand was a nasty, selfish little weirdo, but she was right about the Primacy of Existence.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Dan, tell us all how Sye and Dustin did brilliantly! You see, Dan, I explained a model of reality that is proven every day to work, and that allows us to understand the universe around us - Sye and Dustin merely stuck to their god nonsense, and lying about not having to use MY worldview before they became believers. They didn't seem to get that they HAD to use my model before they became believers, and were using it when they were assessing their Bible's claims!
As I said to that Rhology chap, they borrow from MY world view to get to theirs, and then they build a completely unnecessary edifice of circular logic on top.
Dan, did you hear how fast they tried to get off the topic of miracles? Did you hear how Sye would jump in with some demand for an answer to a question that hadn't been asked whenever they were cornered into something awkward? Did you hear how childish Sye was?
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI should delete all your comments here and just rant against you to show you how it feels to silence the opposition like you two did to Sye.
That being said, its perfectly understandable though as you have NO other option. If Sye KEEPS asking the same question, over and over again, ALL you can do is ignore it and cut him off. Just like you did. You could not actually understand and address that question. Its a game changer and MUST be resisted. Just like you did.
You do not have any other choice, other then repenting. We all understand why you will not do that.
There will be a day that you will remember these moments and will be thanking Sye, and the others, for attempting to warn you of the fate you will indeed face. We hope you will avoid that day and you will be with us drinking lemonade and having great laughs about these times with us, for all of eternity.
I just loved how Dustin gave his Monk like patience with you and attempted to explain each point to you and you both just kept asking questions and refusing to listen although Jim gave a humble "I understand, but I don't like (it) agree" moment. That was promising for a fleeting moment that I thought would develop into an epiphany that we would all be witness to. Even if that was not instant, I hope it is a well watered seed that will grow.
There is no reason to comment further as I feel Sye and Dustin are more of the major league players, and I simply play in the minors here. They covered, through many hours of discussions, everything you NEED to come to Christ with open and humble arms. If you wish not to, that is that free will in action that God gave you.
Maybe some sprinkles on this cup cake would be something that Bahnsen pointed out not to long ago that Sye was gracious enough to allow us all to hear. You probably will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:30 of part 7. It says it all.
Dan, you really are an hilarious div.
ReplyDelete"I should delete all your comments here and just rant against you to show you how it feels to silence the opposition like you two did to Sye."
Awww! Poor ickle Sye!! Got cut off! Dan, I warned him that if he asked the same, pointless question, a question that both Jim and I had answered several times, again, I'd cut him off. He asked it in response to the warning, so I followed through on my threat. He was acting like a child, and the debate improved the instant he was binned.
"That being said, its perfectly understandable though as you have NO other option. If Sye KEEPS asking the same question, over and over again, ALL you can do is ignore it and cut him off. Just like you did. You could not actually understand and address that question. Its a game changer and MUST be resisted. Just like you did."
It's not a 'game changer', you deluded simpleton! 'Sake, Dan, how far up Sye's arse are you? His argument is circular nonsense, it's been debunked many many times via many many lines of reasoning. If it was anywhere near as convincing as you seem to think it is I would have become a believer.
"You do not have any other choice, other then repenting. We all understand why you will not do that."
And why would that be? Go on, enlighten me!
"There will be a day that you will remember these moments and will be thanking Sye, and the others, for attempting to warn you of the fate you will indeed face."
No there wont! The reason? Your god doesn't exist! You're believing Bronze Age myths as fact and making an absolute fool of yourself.
"We hope you will avoid that day and you will be with us drinking lemonade and having great laughs about these times with us, for all of eternity."
An eternity with you and Sye?? I'd rather be in hell.
"I just loved how Dustin gave his Monk like patience with you and attempted to explain each point to you and you both just kept asking questions and refusing to listen although Jim gave a humble "I understand, but I don't like (it) agree" moment."
Jim doesn't find it the least bit convincing! He can understand what Sye, Dustin, and all the other presuppers *think* they're saying, he can see the argument (just as I can), but he doesn't see how it leaps to 'therefore YHWH!'
"That was promising for a fleeting moment that I thought would develop into an epiphany that we would all be witness to. Even if that was not instant, I hope it is a well watered seed that will grow."
I wouldn't hold your breath.
"There is no reason to comment further as I feel Sye and Dustin are more of the major league players, and I simply play in the minors here."
At least you've a moment of clarity there about your position.
"They covered, through many hours of discussions, everything you NEED to come to Christ with open and humble arms."
Horse shit! They've never once even got to the point where they start discussing evidence! Seems to me that (Sye particularly) has nothing beyond his risible word games, and would fall apart completely if he had to present actual evidence.
"If you wish not to, that is that free will in action that God gave you."
That's funny, because both Sye and Dustin seem to subscribe to the idea of the Elect, so free will doesn't come into it at all.
"Maybe some sprinkles on this cup cake would be something that Bahnsen pointed out not to long ago that Sye was gracious enough to allow us all to hear."
Dan, Sye has only ONE argument, and it's a pitifully unconvincing one at that.
"You probably will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:30 of part 7. It says it all."
Why would I want to listen to Sye Ten Bruggencate congratulate himself repeatedly for hours on end? The guy is, lest we forget, a dismal excuse for a human being, just like his little pet, Dan.
About that link Dan gave to that "foreordination and human responsibility" crap, I've listened to it, and commented about it. Read on from that link onwards. Watch how Dan tries to deal with the problems I point out.
ReplyDeleteThanks Reynolds. Now, having read those comments, it seems to me that Dan tried to deal with the problems be....er....mostly ignoring them. Typical Dan, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post, I liked your blog and added your feed.
ReplyDeleteProphecy news watch
Dan, I notice you've ignored this question -
ReplyDelete"tell me how existence ISN'T required for consciousness"
Please answer before we proceed.
"tell me how existence ISN'T required for consciousness"
ReplyDeleteYour question is simply a red-herring to avoid justifying knowledge according to YOUR worldview. Of course the consciousness must exist in order to be conscious, but that does not solve YOUR problem of being unable to justify knowledge.
Sye, so you agree with the Primacy of Existence! Good! We might finally be getting somewhere! I've told you how we gain knowledge, by repeatedly testing the reality around us, the fact that you repeatedly ignore that answer shows just how unable you are to deviate from your script.
ReplyDeleteTo flesh out my point, we can measure the reality we experience, and compare it against the reality perceived by others. Phenomenon A can be tested by Scientist Z and Scientist Y in different places and they'll get the same result. An example - the speed of light: we (as a species) can see that it's the same speed everywhere, and we can even measure its rate hundreds of thousands of years ago. Uniformity appears to hold everywhere we look, no matter who does the looking. Though no-one can ever be TOTALLY confident that they are experiencing 'real' reality (and that includes you, Sye), we can be sure enough that we're able to build a working model of our Universe. In fact, our model of reality works so well that we are able to successfully predict certain things, and then test for them.
ReplyDeleteReality is real enough that it makes no odds if there's something we're currently missing. Basically, starting with the Primacy of Existence, you end up with a world view that works, successfully, all the time, everywhere....without any need for a god.
The funny thing is, the thing YOU can't bring yourself to admit, is that YOU borrowed from MY worldview before you first heard of god or the Bible. And you continued to do so when you read the Bible, AND YOU CONTINUED TO DO SO when you overlaid your entirely unnecessary god onto that reality. You have, over and over, assumed that reality is real, repeatedly 'borrowing' from my 'world view' as you've gone along.
So, Sye, tell me something that YOUR world view can do that mine can't, bearing in mind that mine successfully accounts for knowledge, logic, and morality.
Sye
ReplyDeleteYour question is simply a red-herring to avoid justifying knowledge according to YOUR worldview. Of course the consciousness must exist in order to be conscious, but that does not solve YOUR problem of being unable to justify knowledge.
What the fuck is that word salad supposed to mean? How does the non-xian have any problem in "justifying knowledge"? You have the same methods we do; your senses and your mind.
Oh wait...you keep saying that it's "divine revelation" that lets you know that you can trust your senses right? You must have had this "revelation" in the womb then since one uses their senses the instant one is born!
Do you expect us to believe that you knew about Jesus Christ before you were even born???
Show us just how that's possible, then you can go on about how it's us atheists who don't have a rational for trusting our senses and for "reasoning".
"You have the same methods we do"
ReplyDeleteTu quoque fallacy.
Do you expect us to believe that you knew about Jesus Christ before you were even born?"
Strawman fallacy.
Tu quoque fallacyOh? Then show that you do not use the same methods that we do. Otherwise, you have no reason to claim that non-xians have no basis for reasoning, etc...since by your usage of "tu quoque" you've admitted that you apparently DO use the same methods that we do for judging reality.
ReplyDeleteStrawman fallacy
I was asking a question Sye...if that is NOT how you knew about Jesus, (through this "divine revelation" that you and Dan keep talking about) then kindly tell us how. And remember please, that you've kept claiming that it's "divine revelation" that lets you know that you can trust your senses in the first place! How else, if this "divine revelation" is given to you before you use your senses?
"Then show that you do not use the same methods that we do."
ReplyDeletePlease look up the tu quoque fallacy. I am not at all arguing that Christians do not use our senses and reasoning to come to some truth, but merely pointing out that doing so WITHOUT justification for their validity is viciously circular. The problem is that none on your side is yet willing to concede the viciously circularity (for obvious reasons) and are reduced to crying: "You too!" Which, as I said, is the Tu Quogue fallacy.
"I was asking a question Sye."
And built into that question was a strawman fallacy. I do not expect you to believe that I knew about Jesus Christ before I was born, but that is NOT, nor has it ever been, my argument.
The argument is that Christianity must be true, in order to be able to JUSTIFY one's knowledge claims, not that everyone knows, or affirms anything about the Bible (as Dustin clearly explained on the podcast).
"Tu quoque fallacy." - it would be if it weren't correct. If you and I were trapped on a raft, out at sea, Sye, to point that out would not be a fallacy, it would be a statement of fact.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you brush of legitimate questions as 'logical fallacies' shows how scared you are of actually having to admit that your argument is dead in the water. You're a fucking joke, Sye.
I'm going to repeat my previous request, as Sye seems to want to ignore it.
ReplyDeleteSye, tell me something that YOUR world view can do that mine can't, bearing in mind that mine successfully accounts for knowledge, logic, and morality.
"Tu quoque fallacy." - it would be if it weren't correct.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I suggested that you look up the Tu Quoque fallacy, not just pretend that you know what it means.
”If you and I were trapped on a raft, out at sea, Sye, to point that out would not be a fallacy, it would be a statement of fact.“
It would be a fallacy, if I asked you if you were trapped on a raft, out at sea, and you answered: “I'm not because you are too.” :-)
”The fact that you brush of legitimate questions as 'logical fallacies' shows how scared you are of actually having to admit that your argument is dead in the water.”
The fact that you cannot account for the very concept of “legitimate questions” OR “logical fallacies,” start name-calling, and block discussions, shows that you are grasping at straws.
"bearing in mind that mine successfully accounts for knowledge, logic, and morality."
ReplyDeleteDo you think that if you repeat that often enough you might actually start believing it? :-) As I have said, even if I granted your circular nonsense of "Reality is real," you still have not told us how you can know anything WITHOUT vicious circularity. You see Alex, I am completely open to be proven wrong, and challenge you to show us where you have justified your senses, memory and reasoning, WITHOUT using them. Feel free to cut and paste or to transcribe the part of the audio where you have done this.
(Let me guess, you are going to just repeat that you already have, and throw in some insult :-) I really do hope that you repent and come to know the Truth, but in the meantime, I thank you for continuing to post your nonsense for all to see.
"It would be a fallacy, if I asked you if you were trapped on a raft, out at sea, and you answered: “I'm not because you are too.” :-)"
ReplyDeleteBUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING, YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS FUCK WIT!!!
Your idiotic inability to see just how messed up and dead your 'argument' is speaks volumes about how deluded you are, Sye.
Sye, Do you think that if you repeat your shite often enough we might actually start believing it? As I have said, even if I granted your circular nonsense of "The TAG is proof that god exists because god says it is" you still have not told us how you can know anything WITHOUT appealing to MY worldview. You see Sye, you aren't remotely open to being proven wrong, and challenging me to show us where I have justified my senses, memory and reasoning, WITHOUT admitting that you have to do the exact same thing is merely a smoke screen to hide the weakness of your position. Feel free to avoid answering once again though.
(Let me guess, you are going to just repeat that you already have, and throw in some ad homs and incorrectly applied appeals to logical fallacies. I really do hope that you wake up, and realise that you're talking absolute shit, but in the meantime, I thank you for continuing to post your nonsense for all to see.)
”BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING”
ReplyDeleteThat is EXACTLY what you are saying. I ask you if using your senses, memory and reasoning to justify your senses, memory and reasoning is viciously circular. You claim that your position is NOT viciously circular, so the implied response is “No.” What you DO say however is: “You are doing the exact same thing.” So, let’s put them together:
Me: “Alex, is using your senses, memory and reasoning to justify your senses, memory and reasoning, viciously circular?”
You: “My reasoning is not viciously circular and you are doing the exact same thing.”
Me: “Alex, are you trapped on a raft out at sea?”
You: “I am not trapped on a raft, but you and I are in the same position.”
Where is this analogy wrong? We can do it again if you’d like to have the readers see it first hand:
Alex, is using your senses, memory and reasoning to justify the validity of your senses, memory and reasoning viciously circular?
Your turn.
(And PLEASE look up the tu quoque fallacy before you respond).
Cheers.
Would it be that wrong to giggle at this point?
ReplyDeleteMe: “Alex, is using your senses, memory and reasoning to justify your senses, memory and reasoning, viciously circular?”
ReplyDeleteYou: “My reasoning is not viciously circular and you are doing the exact same thing.”
No, I am stating that my senses can be trusted to give me a working impression of the reality around me (and that this can be corroborated by comparison with others, testing, measuring, etc), you are then claiming they don't....at which point I'm saying that, *if* that's the case, then you suffer the same problem.
HOWEVER, YOU use MY worldview (that one can trust that reality is real) as a foundation for yours. YOU steal from ME, and you bring nothing of any use to the table.
So, miracles - they prevent intelligibility. I love how you're trying to get away from that.
"Alex, is using your senses, memory and reasoning to justify the validity of your senses, memory and reasoning viciously circular?"
Sye, tell me, what do YOU use? You see, this is the point you repeatedly ignore, you HAD to trust that reality was real when you first read the Bible, otherwise how would you know you weren't imagining you were reading it? And then you had to trust your senses when you had you 'revelation' (otherwise how would you know you'd had it?) You have repeatedly borrowed from the MY assumption that reality is real, and you continue to do so.
"Would it be that wrong to giggle at this point?"
Only if you want to show just how far up Sye's rectum you've crawled.
I have a question, why are presuppers such complete pricks?
Sye, if reality can change at any moment due to a miracle then we can never gain any knowledge of our Universe, as anything we measure might change at any moment depending upon the whim of a god. If you're right, and your god exists, then intelligibility is impossible.
ReplyDeleteRefute THAT. PROVE ME WRONG. Do so by citing actual evidence (and no, the Bible does not class as evidence, nor does your 'revelation')
Going back to the intial 'fallacy', I am pointing out to you that YOU are using the same mechanisms to detect the world around you that I am.
ReplyDeleteClaim you're not? Prove it.
Alex, repeating the fallacy does not make it go away :-)
ReplyDelete”this can be corroborated by comparison with others, testing, measuring”
Erm, do you use your senses, memory and reasoning in the corroboration process?
”you are then claiming they don't.”
Where have I ever claimed this? Please cut and paste. It is NOT my claim that our senses are not giving us valid information, just that YOU have exactly ZERO justification for assuming that they do.
”You have repeatedly borrowed from the MY assumption that reality is real”
What is the basis for this assumption? How do you know ANYTHING according to YOUR worldview. You STILL have not answered that question (because you cannot).
”I have a question, why are presuppers such complete pricks?”
You are the only one calling names there Alex.
And if you can't prove that you're NOT using the same mechanisms as I do (mechanisms that have been proved to work time and time again) then you are forced to admit that you DON'T need your god to account for knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSo, refute my claim about miracles, then show me how you're not using MY worldview every second of every day.
"Going back to the intial 'fallacy', I am pointing out to you that YOU are using the same mechanisms to detect the world around you that I am."
ReplyDeleteTu quoque falacy. You REALLY should look that up man. And once again, I have never claimed that I am not using the same mechanisms for detecting things in this world, just that YOU have ZERO justification for assuming that they are valid. (This is where you repeat your Tu Quoque fallacy in case you were wondering :-)
"What is the basis for this assumption? How do you know ANYTHING according to YOUR worldview. You STILL have not answered that question (because you cannot)."
ReplyDeleteI HAVE answered that. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Go back and listen to the recording, go back and read my blog. Continuing to claim that I haven't answered is entirely untrue.
"”I have a question, why are presuppers such complete pricks?”
You are the only one calling names there Alex."
And your point is? I'm calling you a prick, because, in my interactions with you, you have been relentlessly prickish.
Anyway, miracles completely bork intelligibility - even if only ONE ever happened ever, we wouldn't be able to tell if one was about to happen, so intelligibility would be impossible.
Your refutation?
"Tu quoque falacy. You REALLY should look that up man. And once again, I have never claimed that I am not using the same mechanisms for detecting things in this world, just that YOU have ZERO justification for assuming that they are valid"
ReplyDeleteI *really* should look it up? Oh Noes! Sye is telling me what to do!! You're a fraud, and deep down you fucking know it.
"Sye, if reality can change at any moment due to a miracle then we can never gain any knowledge of our Universe"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know? (And it is not my claim that ALL of reality can change at any moment, but still how do YOU know that God CANNOT reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain?) (Resume dodging).
Hang on a second, what the fuck am I doing??? I'm have an online argument with someone who believes in fucking MAGIC!!
ReplyDeleteWow, I walked into that! I'm not sure how I allowed my self to get sucked into a 'debate' with someone who believes in talking snakes and donkeys!
OK, with that in mind, I'm out - I've got better things to do that waste my time talking to a deluded fantacist who will argue round in circles for eternity.
BYE SYE
"You're a fraud..."
ReplyDeleteGood argument there Alex! Project much?
I am not the one blocking comments and saying that I will no longer debate you. The vacuousness of your position is incredibly transparent.
"BYE SYE"
ReplyDeleteHow convenient :-D Now, let's see if Alex remains consistent and stops debating ALL Christians who claim that the Bible is true, or just the ones he cannot answer.
I trust no one needs a hint :-)
Me: "Let me guess, you are going to just repeat that you already have, and throw in some ad homs and incorrectly applied appeals to logical fallacies."
ReplyDeleteAlex: "I HAVE answered that. OVER AND OVER AGAIN."
(I won't repeat the ad homs, but did I nail that or what :-)
Sye TenB said...quoting me:
ReplyDelete"Then show that you do not use the same methods that we do."
Please look up the tu quoque fallacy. I am not at all arguing that Christians do not use our senses and reasoning to come to some truth, but merely pointing out that doing so WITHOUT justification for their validity is viciously circular.
And just what IS your justification? "Divine revelation"?
If so: How did you get this divine revelation without the usage of your senses in the first place Sye?
If you did not, as you claim, receive this "revelation" in the womb (ie. before you had usage of your senses) then how did you get it?
If you got this "divine revelation" from any source that required you to have usage of your senses in the first place (ie. reading the bible) then in the end, you are using your senses to decide what's real or not and your accusation against us falls apart.
You have to show that you somehow got this "justification" that you can trust your senses without having had to use your senses to receive this "justification" in the first place.
If it's NOT "divine revelation" then kindly show just what your "justification" is please. Or are you going to just keep throwing the ball in our court without ever providing any evidence for your views? Other than bare assertions, anyway?
The problem is that none on your side is yet willing to concede the viciously circularity (for obvious reasons) and are reduced to crying: "You too!" Which, as I said, is the Tu Quogue fallacy.
You have yet to show that you are using anything else as a basis for your justificaton.
If it turns out that in the end, you people are using just your senses and your reasoning as justification for your ablility to reason, etc. then you have no reason to claim that atheists have no justification to trust our senses, etc.
If you keep crying "tu quoque" then are you admitting that in the end, that's the case? That xians just use their senses and their own reasoning to justify your beliefs about reality?
"I was asking a question Sye."
And built into that question was a strawman fallacy. I do not expect you to believe that I knew about Jesus Christ before I was born, but that is NOT, nor has it ever been, my argument.
What IS your argument then? You keep going on and on about how we can't justify reasoning, etc. under OUR worldview, but you haven't shown how you CAN justify reasoning, etc. under YOUR worldview!
The argument is that Christianity must be true, in order to be able to JUSTIFY one's knowledge claims, not that everyone knows, or affirms anything about the Bible (as Dustin clearly explained on the podcast).
That argument is stupid on the face of it...people have been justifying knowledge claims without your religion for centuries before your cult came along. Why don't you show us just how that claim of your is true?
Or is it, in the end, just a baseless assertion on your part.
By the way: For true circular reasoning don't you remember your little logical "proof" of god? You know, that whole: "god is the necessary precondition for logic due to the impossibilty of the contrary" shit? It continues: "Logic exists, therefore god exists". Yet you had god (the conclusion) built right into the premise in the first place.
Sye TenB said... quoting Alex:
ReplyDelete"Sye, if reality can change at any moment due to a miracle then we can never gain any knowledge of our Universe"
How do you know?
Easy. If any part of reality can be changed on a whim of some outside being, then how can one trust that such a thing won't ever happen? How can we tell that what we see then is what is "naturally" happening or is the result of some "miracle"?
Ex) the decay rates of radioisotopes
"It appears that Christ already has direct control of the nuclear (and other) forces, and furthermore that He is intimately involved with them. So even if we cannot follow all the links in the chain of causes back past a certain point, we can be confident that Jesus Christ is not only at the end of it, but at every link along the way. The point I am trying to make is that we should avoid the pitfall of insisting on completely naturalistic explanations for accelerated [radioactive] decay. Instead, my approach is to push the science we think we know as far as is reasonable, but remain ready at every point to see that God has intervened, and is intervening."
Of course, ANY mystery or problem can be superficially covered up with miracles. Anyone can yell: "God did it!" Whereas forensic scientists and paleontologists can often use remaining evidence to reasonably explain past unwitnessed events, YECs have no way of testing miracles or verifying the existence of supernatural beings.
Your holy book is filled with just such events happening.
(And it is not my claim that ALL of reality can change at any moment,
So what? Did Alex say that it was? I didn't read all of his replies to you, but even so: If part of reality can change like that, how can we trust any of it?
but still how do YOU know that God CANNOT reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain?) (Resume dodging).
For me, it's not that he or she can't, but: What is the evidence that he or she HAS? (resume dodging)
”You have yet to show that you are using anything else as a basis for your justificaton.”
ReplyDeleteSure I have. My justification for the validity of my senses, memory and reasoning is indeed Divine revelation. If you were intellectually honest, you would be forced to concede that God could reveal some things to us, such that we could be certain of them, either via, or wholly apart from our senses, memory and reasoning. Now, I would be happy to debate our respective justifications, but what is yours?
”That argument is stupid on the face of it...people have been justifying knowledge claims without your religion for centuries before your cult came along.”
Alright then Reynold, how do you justify what you claim to know?
”Easy.”
Sorry, but you just asked a bunch of questions, you have yet to tell us how you can know ANYTHING according to YOUR worldview.
”What is the evidence that he or she HAS?”
The very concept of evidence is evidence that He has, as you could not make sense of it without Him.
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDelete”You have yet to show that you are using anything else as a basis for your justificaton.”
Sure I have. My justification for the validity of my senses, memory and reasoning is indeed Divine revelation.
Care to explain how that works then? When did you get this "divine revelation"? Was it before you started to make use of your senses? If so, then you would have HAD to gotten it in the womb because once you're born, you start USING your senses!
If it was later, then what did you use for "justification" in trusting your senses before you got this "divine revelation"?
If you were intellectually honest, you would be forced to concede that God could reveal some things to us, such that we could be certain of them, either via, or wholly apart from our senses, memory and reasoning. Now, I would be happy to debate our respective justifications, but what is yours?
If YOU were intellectually honest, you'd answer the question I just posed above. You never do when you're asked though.
Once you do that, THEN we can talk about "my justification". You NEVER get around to explaining just how your "justification" works.
How's about you explain just how this "divine revelation" works then? How did you get it? How can you tell it's from YOUR GOD as opposed to brain damage or an evil spirit?
I note that you dodge the fact I previously brought up: That people have been making knowledge claims well before xianity came along. Why is that? You wouldn't be trying to dodge a problem that I brought up with your proposition, would you?
ReplyDeleteOh wait, that's exactly it. Instead of dealing with the point I brought up, you ignore it and try to shift the burden on to me.
”That argument is stupid on the face of it...people have been justifying knowledge claims without your religion for centuries before your cult came along.”
Alright then Reynold, how do you justify what you claim to know?
The same as you do: our senses and our minds, and our experiences interacting with the world around us; only without any pretense of any so-called "divine revelation" which you always refuse to describe or explain. You said that you did not receive this revelation in the womb, so how can you then say that this "divine revelation" is how you can trust your senses? Once you're born, you start using your senses to understand the world around you.
”Easy.”
Sorry, but you just asked a bunch of questions, you have yet to tell us how you can know ANYTHING according to YOUR worldview.
No, that's what YOU do.
You haven't told us how you can know anything with yours: You just say "divine revelation" and then never back it up or explain how it works. I at least try to tell you how we justify knowing things.
”What is the evidence that he or she HAS?”
The very concept of evidence is evidence that He has, as you could not make sense of it without Him.
Are you daft? Yet another baseless assumption. If there was any validity to that statement, then explain how the greeks and every other damned group on the planet is able to make use of evidences without your god-belief. Xians did not come up with the concept of evidence, sorry.
Or to put it another way, which you will dodge: What's to stop a Muslim from saying the same thing about Allah? How would you disprove him?
So all you've done is make assertions while pretending to offer "proof" which is just really more assertions!
I note also that you didn't say anything to my having pointed out your circular argument at the end of my previous post:
By the way: For true circular reasoning don't you remember your little logical "proof" of god? You know, that whole: "god is the necessary precondition for logic due to the impossibilty of the contrary" shit? It continues: "Logic exists, therefore god exists". Yet you had god (the conclusion) built right into the premise in the first place.
Care to explain how that's NOT circular, Sye?
*Yawn.* Quit dodging Reynold. I will be happy to discuss revelation once you tell us how you know anything WITHOUT being viciously circular.
ReplyDeleteChanging my argument to suit your rebuttal is what is known as the "straw man fallacy."
Please try again, and please stop boring me.
AHAHAHAHA!! Slippery Sye tries to avoid answering questions AGAIN!
ReplyDeleteYeah, Sye's a hypocrite that way. That's why most of us who've dealt with him just say "fuck him" and go on to something else. Just do a search for his name there.
ReplyDeleteHe did do something different though: If I remember correctly, the last time I pointed out that an Islamic could make use of his idiotic ramblings and claim "proof" of Allah, Sye said that IF I were to convert to Islam he'd be happy to show how that was not the case.
Yep, I'd actually have to fucking convert to fucking Islam. If I did not, then Sye would say something like he did just now..."I won't waste my time arguing against a view you don't hold" or something like that.
In what way Sye, did I change your argument? And just how is MY worldview the circular one? I pointed out that YOU'RE the one who's putting his conclusion (god) into the premises of your arguments.
ReplyDeleteSye:
ReplyDeleteYour promise is meaningless as we know you won't accept anything. Your tactic is "what's beneath the bottom without being circular?" And it is a dodge because you know full well that your concept of revelation is viciously circular.
If you wish to claim that Reynold has changed your argument to create a strawman (I don't think he has) you will have to discuss your argument without hiding behind "account for reasoning without being circular, first."
Sye is doing his typical 'dodge and run' I see.
ReplyDeleteAt least that "Dusman" guy actually answered when I asked him how he'd disprove a Muslim who's using presupp reasoning...it was complete bullshit, but at least he answered.
ReplyDeleteHow's this; Since you folks seem to think I am dodging your questions, and seem to think that you have been answering mine, I challenge you to a debate where such tactics can be easily exposed. Reynold, Pvblivs, Alex, how about it? One on one this time Alex so you can't hide behind Jim.
ReplyDeleteNow, this is where you all either ignore the challenge, or make some lame excuse for avoiding it. Go.
'hide behind Jim'??
ReplyDeleteFucksake man, I've spoken to you twice, and both times you've proved to be a blustering halfwit who's in love with the sound of his own voice! I have nothing further to 'debate' with you, especially considering that your favourite 'technique' is to claim that all questions answered in a way you don't like haven't been answered at all.
You're a dismal human being Sye, a prick of the highest order.
File that one under: "lame excuse." :-)
ReplyDeleteOK then Sye, tell me what you think would 'win' the argument.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, let's talk. I'll be available in about half an hour. Skype, as before. Just you and me (if anyone else turns up on your side I will terminate the conversation immediately).
ReplyDeleteGround rule - you ask me a question, I will answer it - if you don't like the answer you cannot claim I've not answered, and we'll go on like this until I've answered your questions.
Those are the rules. In?
Right, I'll be on Skype in 5 minutes. I'll be recording, and I'll make the unedited recording available soon after we've finished talking. I will NOT talk for more than half an hour, as I feel anything that can be said should easily be covered in that period.
ReplyDeleteThe audio can be used by yourself, Sye, but NOT commercially. I do not give authorisation for you to use it as part of another work, or to be edited by yourself.
//"Ground rule - you ask me a question, I will answer it - if you don't like the answer you cannot claim I've not answered, and we'll go on like this until I've answered your questions."//
ReplyDeleteIt is not that I don't like your answers, it is that they are non-answers. I realize that you would like a debate where this is not pointed out, but not with me.
Remove this absurd condition, and I'm game.
Link to the audio of the conversation will be up shortly.
ReplyDeleteGreat!
ReplyDeletehttp://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-10-24__alex_vs_sye.mp3
ReplyDeleteListening back, some dodges that Sye pulled that I wish I'd pulled him up on.
ReplyDeleteDon't our arguments here, in public count as a debate?? What the hell are you going to do in a verbal debate? The same shit?
ReplyDeleteAll I see is that Sye is doing the same thing. He's never even bothered to deal with what I said, instead he's blustering. Fuck...just answer me here.
ReplyDeleteWhy does he think that he can't "expose" my "tricks" in bloody PRINT in public but that it can only be done verbally?
Hell, in PRINT is the best way to expose tricks. One has the time to read through the other sides' claims, think about them, and than can go through them one by one by bloody one. You can't do that in a verbal debate, can you?
Sye is dodging again.
"Why does he think that he can't "expose" my "tricks" in bloody PRINT in public but that it can only be done verbally?"
ReplyDeleteToo easy to dodge my questions in print. Easily exposed in a verbal exchange (as is evidenced in the above link). I'd be happy to post the same questions to you though, that I asked Alex in our exchange, and I'll leave it up to the viewers to see if you dodge:
1.Are vicious circular arguments logically invalid?
2. Is it viciously circular to employ your reasoning to justify your reasoning?
3. Are you using your reasoning to justify the validity of your reasoning?
Cheers.
This is so cool:
ReplyDeleteThe proof that pot roast exists is that without pot roast we could not have dinner.
Notice the form is the same here, however instead of presupposing God to justify having knowledge; we are presupposing pot roast in order to justify having dinner. The problem is, it is a meaningless proposition and only an appeal to consequences until we are able to show that the only thing in the fridge is in fact pot roast and then we need not presuppose it anyway.
Sye, you'll notice I answered ALL those questions (apart from number 3, which I don't think you asked), even when you asked them over and over again.
ReplyDeleteReynold, I think that discussions here DO count as debate, unfortunately Sye gets to run away online, whereas in person it's not so easy.
ReplyDelete"whereas in person it's not so easy."
ReplyDeleteAgreed, in person it is not so easy to run away as was evidenced in our latest exchange.
Indeed Alex you answered numbers 1 and 2, and your answer to number 2 was: "No." I am more than pleased to let that stand as is for all to see. You must abandon reason to support your view.
Cheers.
Sye's 'review' of the encounter is (typically) one sided, and lacks a certain accuracy I feel - https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/149772818381822/302336279792141/ - apparently I was 'babbling incoherently', which is news to me.
ReplyDelete"your answer to number 2 was: "No." I am more than pleased to let that stand as is for all to see. You must abandon reason to support your view."
ReplyDeleteAnd I then went on to explain WHY I felt that was the appropriate answer, but you probably didn't notice as I was (according to you) 'babbling incoherently'
"And I then went on to explain WHY"
ReplyDeleteMy point exactly.
I apologise, it must have been hard to glean any meaning at all from my 'non thinking' and babbling incoherence.
ReplyDeleteReally Sye, your crowing on facebook has added a whole new layer of unpleasantness to your online persona
"I apologise, it must have been hard to glean any meaning at all from my 'non thinking' and babbling incoherence."
ReplyDeleteApology accepted.
"Really Sye, your crowing on facebook has added a whole new layer of unpleasantness to your online persona"
Not at all crowing man, just generally saddened by what I witnessed - again.
"Not at all crowing man, just generally saddened by what I witnessed - again"
ReplyDeleteWhat, saddened that you witnessed your ridiculously nonsensical argument failing to gain any ground at all? Let the listeners decide how well it went for you, I've already had quite a bit of feedback about it from those who felt you didn't turn in an exactly *stellar* performance.....
"Let the listeners decide how well it went for you,"
ReplyDeleteAm pleased to do so.
"I've already had quite a bit of feedback about it from those who felt you didn't turn in an exactly *stellar* performance...."
Well, I wouldn't dance around someone that was just hit by a train either. As I said, at this point it's just sad.
Me: "Is it viciously circular to employ your reasoning to justify your reasoning?"
Alex: "No."
Really, what is there to be stellar about after that? It was over man, I just kept letting out the rope. You were the one that tied it round your neck, tossed it over the branch, and went for a swing. That the person playing out the rope is not seen as "stellar" is expected.
Jim has paraphrased the whole thing over at his blog here
ReplyDeleteHilarious (if it were not so sad). Both Alex and Jim have now blocked all of my comments from their blogs :-)
ReplyDeleteSome freethinking there boys :-)
Repent while you still can!
Give some non-circular evidence first
ReplyDeleteSye, I've not blocked you, you can still post...however, as you have literally nothing beyond your circular nonsense I'm marking your comments as spam and deleting them. IF you ever post a comment that isn't to do with the entirely unconvincing and deeply tedious TAG then I'll let it stand. As your BFF Dustin says, I'll not be holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteSye:
ReplyDeleteI've told you before. Everyone has to start off with his reasoning. It is impossible for anyone to "justify" his reasoning, except in a viciously circular fashion. Calling on people to do so is dishonest.
"Everyone has to start off with his reasoning. It is impossible for anyone to "justify" his reasoning, except in a viciously circular fashion."
ReplyDeleteHow can you know what everyone does if the justification for the validity of your reasoning is viciously circular?
I am pleased though, that you are at least willing to say that justifying your reasoning with your reasoning is viciously circular. Odd that your 'friends' are unwilling to admit this. Well, not that odd since we both know why that is the case.
"as you have literally nothing beyond your circular nonsense"
ReplyDeleteSee your 'friend' pvblivs comment re: circularity.
Plundering the Egyptians :-)
"How can you know what everyone does if the justification for the validity of your reasoning is viciously circular?"
ReplyDeleteAnd yet your fan club over at the Sinner Mimistries Facebook page accuse ME of 'babbling incomprehensively'??
Sye, your behaviour here, on my blog, on Jim's blog, and over on Facebook shows you up as a deeply unpleasant man. So, I have a question for you - were you a total douchebag before you got religion, and were you attracted to your particular faith because of its encouragement of douchebagism? Or did you start out OK and become a douchebag because Christianity seems to turn some people into such?
As per YOUR way of 'debating' I will only accept one of the two options given above - though there may be many other options and possible replies. If you do NOT reply confirming ONE of the two available answers given as options I will claim you haven't answered the question. See, Sye, I can mimic your techniques flawlessly.
"And yet your fan club over at the Sinner Mimistries Facebook page accuse ME of 'babbling incomprehensively'"
ReplyDeleteNope, that's what I wrote :-) (And it was 'incoherently,' not 'incomprehensively' but that'll work :-)
It's obvious that it hurts that your 'friends' are now outting your vicious circularity as is evidenced by your name-calling.
You've failed to answer the question. Why are you dodging, Circular Sye?
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that it hurts that your 'friends' are now outting your vicious circularity as is evidenced by your name-calling.
ReplyDeleteOnly people who've bought stock in this particular brand of Koolaid take you seriously. Sye.
Circular Sye, the Christian Apologist and Extreme Douchebag doesn't even run a version of the TAG that's beyond kindergarten level. If he was serious, or had the IQ to do so, he'd have expanded it to Slick levels of ludicrousness, with dozens of subclauses, all fallacious, to ensure that he never EVER had to discuss actual evidence for anything.
ReplyDeleteListen to the discussion from yesterday, and hear Sye fall apart when forced to discuss the Bible. It's a sad spectacle, but very very funny.
Yip, that's what I'm hearing too Alex, how ludicrous I sounded, and how brilliant you were. The "using reasoning to justify reasoning is not viciously circular" bit has them particularly in awe. The "I don't know what truth is, but I know that's not true," is right up there as well. Do you give lectures on this stuff? :-D
ReplyDeleteSye, all the bluster in the world wont hide how weak your argument is.
ReplyDeleteSo you deny that you completely fell apart when I managed to get the conversation to a place you're not too hot on?
Me: Genesis is wrong, here's a verse
Sye: How do you know that?
Me: By reading Judges in the Bible, one clearly contradicts the other
Sye: (verbal stumbling)
"Sye, all the bluster in the world wont hide how weak your argument is."
ReplyDeleteHow ironic :-D
"one clearly contradicts the other"
I am simply amazed that you can't even get your own objection right. Even if you had a valid objection (you don't), it would not be a contradiction it would be an anachronism. Glad I could help :-)
(You do make it difficult to not call you a moron though :-)
Sye, feel free to call me a moron if it makes you feel better about your sorry, lie filled, existence.
ReplyDeleteActually, if one book gives a different date of authorship to the claim another makes for itself, then it IS contradicting it.
You never did answer my question about your douchebaggery, and you never did prove that my statement that you tell lies for money was incorrect. Also (most telling of all) in the several years that you've been peddling your bullshit around the internet, you don't appear to have caused a SINGLE non-believer to say 'Oh, I think you're onto something!', instead I find blog after blog, and messageboard after messageboard, about what a ludicrous fuckamabob you are, and how idiotic your argument is, and how you must be either stupid or incredibly deluded not to realise.
Sye, I have more than had my fill of you. Not only will I no longer be interacting with you in person or on my blog, I will not be acknowledging you anywhere.
Bye bye Circular Sye.
"Sye, feel free to call me a moron"
ReplyDeleteNo need, your posts are doing just fine on their own.
"Actually, if one book gives a different date of authorship to the claim another makes for itself, then it IS contradicting it."
Erm, that wasn't your argument, and it doesn't. (Unless you care to provide the dates of authorship that the books of the Bible give).
"you don't appear to have caused a SINGLE non-believer to say 'Oh, I think you're onto something!'"
Well, conversion is not up to man, but indeed many people have taken note and some have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ after visiting the ministry.
"Sye, I have more than had my fill of you. Not only will I no longer be interacting with you in person or on my blog, I will not be acknowledging you anywhere."
Ya, Paul Baird keeps saying that too, but whenever someone hurts his pride by telling them how badly he looked in his interactions with me, he comes out of the woodwork to try to save face. In fact some guy used your id in a post in this very thread on October 5, at 3:47 (PST) to say: "The reason I won't speak to you again (note, I'm not speaking for Jim here) is down to your refusal to discuss anything other than your learned-by-rote TAG nonsense."
Who could that have been Alex? Perhaps the same guy who on October 20th 3:40 PM (PST)in this very thread said: "OK, with that in mind, I'm out - I've got better things to do that waste my time talking to a deluded fantacist who will argue round in circles for eternity."
You should lock up your computer Alex, so that whoever is borrowing it from you to write those things doesn't make you look like a complete moron.
I'm still waiting for Sye to deal with this:
ReplyDeleteSo you deny that you completely fell apart when I managed to get the conversation to a place you're not too hot on?
Me: Genesis is wrong, here's a verse
Sye: How do you know that?
Me: By reading Judges in the Bible, one clearly contradicts the other
Sye: (verbal stumbling)
Maybe that explains why Sye once said that he won't discuss the bible with anyone who doesn't hold it as authoritative? The bible can actually be tested to an extent.
And I'm still waiting for you to deal with this Reynold, from far earlier:
ReplyDelete1.Are vicious circular arguments logically invalid?
2. Is it viciously circular to employ your reasoning to justify your reasoning?
3. Are you using your reasoning to justify the validity of your reasoning?
I'll repost the note I put with the questions:
I'll leave it up to the viewers to see if you dodge. Could it be more obvious?
1) Yes. As an example there's YOUR reasoning where you say:
ReplyDelete"God is the necessary precondition for logic due to the impossibility of the contrary"
"Logic exists, therefore god exists".
Yet you had god (the conclusion) built right into the premise in the first place.
Care to explain how that's NOT circular, Sye?
2) No
3) If by "reasoning" you mean the laws of logic, observation and testing, yes. I don't know if that's what you mean by "reasoning" though.
There's corroborative evidence from each of our independent senses. (What are the chances that all of our senses would act to deceive each person in the same way)
Sye: How can you use "divine revelation" as a justification for your reasoning and justification for how you can trust your senses? Either you got this "revelation" in the womb, something you implied was not true, OR else you have to have been using your senses before you GOT this "divine revelation" in the first place.
Also Sye, how would you logically defeat a Muslim who used the same kind of arguments that you used above?
I suspect the reason why Sye won't discuss the bible with those who don't hold it as "authoritative" is because the bible CAN be tested and it'll make a mess of his theology.
"2) No."
ReplyDelete'nuff said.
You might want to debate that with pvblivs and get back to me ;-)
Oh by the way, since, according to you, it is not viciously circular to use my reasoning to justify my reasoning, God exists, because I reason that He exists, and I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid. QED
Sye:
ReplyDeleteI have reasoned that your particular god does not exist. As my reasoning is valid, he does not exist. Now, admittedly this leaves out a lot of details in the argument that would be needed for most people. However, it is perfectly suited to you as you demonstrated; and those details would probably confuse you anyway.
Sye TenB,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, so I would like to ask something related to your little circular reasoning trick question there. Though I do realize the question is a bit old in the tooth, and probably cliche, I have never found a 'reasonable' answer to it, and was hoping you might be able to enlighten me:
Can God create an object so massive that he can't move it?
BoB,
ReplyDelete>>Can God create an object so massive that he can't move it?
I will help by answering with something Sye said awhile back. Here is what he said to someone else while discussing the term 'omnipotent':
..."You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.
God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course)."
Moving on. Now answer one question of his, to you.
Tell us one thing you know, and how do you know it?
"Can God create an object so massive that he can't move it?"
ReplyDeleteNo, God cannot do the logically impossible. If however, your definition of omnipotence requires God to be able to do the logically impossible, allow me to demonstrate the absurdity of such a position as then yes, such a being could create an object so massive that it couldn't lift it.
Of course, your next objection will be: "Ha, then there's something that this being cannot do, it can't lift that object." To which I would answer: "No, a being which can do the logically impossible can lift a rock it can't lift," and the absurdity of your position is exposed.
Cheers.
Thank you for the answer, but for the record I haven't actually stated a position. Yet.
ReplyDeleteI'm not here to attempt to "disprove God", if that's what your thinking, so to claim the "absurdity of my position" without even knowing it is a little absurd, don't you think? Not to mention a bit presumptuous. As I said, "I'm curious".
Besides, your further presumption of what my "next objection" would be is about as far as a simpleton might express the conundrum.
Anyway, back to the point. This certainly isn't the satisfactory answer that I was looking for, because why would God create logic in such a way as to make a 'logical impossibility' for Himself? Since God created logic (right?) then you are basically telling me that God has set a Self-imposed limitation on His capabilities. Logical or not, it is still a limitation.
And No, I don't mean the stupid rock. Look *deeper*...
*Object*, "rock", same thing thing here, sorry!
ReplyDelete"Thank you for the answer, but for the record I haven't actually stated a position. Yet."
ReplyDeleteWell calling my position a "little circular reasoning trick question" kinda gives you away :-)
"why would God create logic in such a way as to make a 'logical impossibility' for Himself?"
Oh, I see your problem; Indeed God did not create logic. Logic is a reflection of the way God thinks. God is not subject to logic per se, God is logical by nature.
"
ReplyDelete..."You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God."
Logically possible - could your god create another god of equal power, Dan?
"Logically possible - could your god create another god of equal power, Dan?"
ReplyDeleteAllow me :-) Since God cannot change (Malachi 3:6) and since God cannot be both God and "notGod" at the same time and in the same way (logical impossibility), no, God could not create any being which would deny His omnipotence.
{for the record, i am not connected to any of the above discussions, and have actually only just read most of what was prior to your question at October 25, 2011 5:17 PM}
ReplyDeleteSo, your question isn't circular? I thought it was your point for it to be so.
"God is not subject to logic per se, God is logical by nature."
Oh, I see your problem; your telling me that God is not subject to His very own nature. So then he *could* feasibly do something which goes against logic because He is not subject to it. Do you yet see the dilemma here, and why I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer yet?
And just so I'm absolutely clear, can you give me some verses where I can find your statements about God and logic? I have not come across that in either my KJV nor my NAB, and would be great to bookmark!
Thanks!
Dan, I notice you haven't answered my question, so I'll ask it again.
ReplyDeleteAs it is not logically impossible for him to do so, could your god make another god of equal power?
Sye TenB said... quoting me
ReplyDelete"2) No."
'nuff said.
Actually, it wasn't enough said. You focused on what you wanted to and ignored everything else, which clarifies my position on WHAT reasoning IS and you also ignored the problems I posed to you!
Remember my answer to your third question:
3) If by "reasoning" you mean the laws of logic, observation and testing, yes. I don't know if that's what you mean by "reasoning" though.
You never answered what you mean by reasoning.
You see, "reasoning" is a process...it is NOT one single thing. It is composed of several things which can be used to check against each other.
Anyway, I went on about "reasoning":
There's corroborative evidence from each of our independent senses. (What are the chances that all of our senses would act to deceive each person in the same way)
Let me try to explain again: By "reasoning" I use past experiences, my senses, observations, etc to arrive at conclusions. In other words, there are checks and balances built in. Not perfect, but it's the best we have.
"Reasoning" is a process. God is allegedly a person, in your view. We're asking for evidence for this person of yours.
Unlike any mental process, this person is supposed to exist independently of us...so where is he?
Oh by the way, since, according to you, it is not viciously circular to use my reasoning to justify my reasoning, God exists, because I reason that He exists, and I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid. QED
So, you did the same thing that everyone else does...you assumed that your reasoning is valid.
But guess what? I had previously showed that the particulars of your reasoning WAS viciously circular. You ignored that, as usual. I show it again at the end of this post.
You see, unlike you who apparently builds circularity into his reasoning in the first place, I try to avoid it...hence what I said about reasoning including the rules of logic, input from senses, experiences, etc.
Sye, if one uses, as the basis for one's reasoning circular arguments like you do, THEN it would be circular to use reasoning to justify one's reasoning.
As I said before, reasoning is NOT one item, one conclusion or one premise. It is a process that takes several things into account.
Your reasoning apparently does not do that.
But, ignoring all of that, just because something may (or may not) be logically valid does NOT mean that the conclusions are accurate! If a premise is faulty, then even though the statement is logical, the conclusion can still be wrong.
By the way, you never dealt with the problems I gave.
For example:
Muslim version of Sye:
Oh by the way, since, according to you, it is not viciously circular to use my reasoning to justify my reasoning, Allah exists, because I reason that He exists, and I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid. QED
You also never dealt with the fact that I pointed out that your reasoning as you have previously stated was viciously circular.
"God is the necessary precondition for logic due to the impossibility of the contrary"
"Logic exists, therefore god exists".
Yet you had god (the conclusion) built right into the premise in the first place.
Care to explain how that's NOT circular, Sye?
I forgot to ask: Just how is it that it's impossible for your god to not be the precondition for logic? There is very little logic in the bible...ex) trinity.
ReplyDelete"Oh, I see your problem; your telling me that God is not subject to His very own nature."
ReplyDeleteHmm, either you don't know what "per se" means, or you are being intentionally obtuse. Judging by your earlier misrepresentation of my question, I suspect the latter.
"Actually, it wasn't enough said. You focused on what you wanted to and ignored everything else, which clarifies my position on WHAT reasoning IS and you also ignored the problems I posed to you!"
ReplyDeleteErm, how could you answer "No" to the second question if you did not know what reasoning was?
Look, even pvblivs sees the vicious circularity of your view. Why don't you try and straighten it out with him, then come back. If you can't see that it is viciously circular to employ your reasoning in justifying your reasoning, then there is not much sense in continuing.
Cheers.
I DO know what reasoning was, I explained what it is...I am NOT certain that YOU know what it is.
ReplyDeleteI explain how reasoning is made up of several different things that can be used for checks and balances, at least to an extent. I showed you, more than once now, how in your reasoning for god's existence, you used just that one proposition which I showed WAS circular reasoning.
And publius had nothing to do with this...this is you and me.
Again, you ignore damn everything I say that shoots down your view. Big surprise.
So in other words; if reasoning is made up of several things, it can help prevent circular reasoning. You disregard that.
ReplyDeleteJust as you ignore the fact that your singular proposition that you use for your justification of god-belief is circular since god belief is built right into the premise.
How many times have I pointed this out to you?
"Again, you ignore damn everything I say that shoots down your view."
ReplyDeleteLook man, as I said, unless and until you can see the vicious circularity in employing your reasoning to justify your reasoning, there is no sense in continuing. It is my position that your view is viciously circular, and you therefore cannot justify any knowledge claim you make, and they therefore need not be addressed.
Sure, you may disagree, but please tell me one thing that you know according to your worldview, and how you are able to know it (WITHOUT being viciously circular).
Oh come now Sye, is that any way to treat a fellow Catholic? Let alone act towards newcomers?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I think you may be confusing me with someone else who has been perhaps a little less than hospitable to you?
You said I "misrepresented" your question; well I didn't intend to, and sincerely apologize for any offense. I actually asked for clarification in my last comment, but you gave none so now I'm really confused. Is it Not supposed to be "circular" or is it Not supposed to be "tricky", or both? Because you're giving it back to the atheists(?) every time you ding them for being circular, so I just thought you were using it to make a point about circularity. An honest mistake. I really don't know what point your trying to make with it because its not very abundantly clear. At least not to an outsider. If you would prefer not to have visitors then just say so and I'll leave you all apparent good friends to your little chest-beating session here, because you sure haven't treated me very well over some simple misunderstandings.
Speaking of: "per se", like nearly ALL words in the English language, has several definitions. If your so good with words and language as you seem to imply, then you should have known about any of those definitions and been able to accommodate another person's possible interpretation by way of one other than what you intended. But instead, you simply insult me over it. How nice.
On the other hand, perhaps this drawn out discussion here isn't really a bunch of pals hanging out and having a little friendly sparring match. Perhaps there is a real duel going on, and if so (i apologize for getting into the middle of it) then it likely wasn't a good time to come round, being so edgy as you seem to be.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter. So, would it be OK to get that clarification to your question now, or should I come back later? Or never?
Oh, and regardless, would you *please* explain to me how your definition of "per se" caused such consternation over the quandary I posed?
Thanks!
Sye, if reality can change at any moment due to a miracle then we can never gain any knowledge of our Universe, as anything we measure might change at any moment depending upon the whim of a god. If you're right, and your god exists, then intelligibility is impossible.
ReplyDeleteI beg to disagree, Alex. You have to keep in mind that "miracles" play a similar role in the fundamentalist viewpoint as "we can never be absolutely sure of our senses and/or reasoning" does in the atheist: they both add up to there being no absolute certainty in our worlds. But both Christian and atheist will say that there's enough uniformity to work with nonetheless. The difference is that there is ample good evidence for human error, and there is no good evidence for miracles.
Sye's error here, and rho's, is their assumed primacy of the Word over the World. In other words, they claim that unless one has perfect logical certainty all the way down, to be delivered in some verbal formula (say, by some book), then one has nothing at all. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me, as you and others here have also said, that existence comes first, and existence can only be ascertained through the senses. Words, and logic, can't exist if there's no world for them to exist in, as far as I can see.
cheers from foggy Vienna, zilch
"In other words, they claim that unless one has perfect logical certainty all the way down..."
ReplyDeleteAh, no, that's not the claim. By the way Zilch, what do you know and how are you able to know it according to your worldview?
”Oh come now Sye, is that any way to treat a fellow Catholic? Let alone act towards newcomers?”
ReplyDeleteI’m not a Capital “C” catholic, and would argue that Roman Catholicism is not Christian.
”Seriously, I think you may be confusing me with someone else who has been perhaps a little less than hospitable to you?”
Nope, read your first post again. My questions are legitimate questions, not “little circular reasoning tricks.” Also characterizing this as a “little chest-beating session” does not endear you to further interaction.
” you simply insult me over it.”
I simply answered in kind. If you actually had that much difficulty with what appears to be a clear statement and interpreted from it that God “*could* feasibly do something which goes against logic,” then I apologize. God is not subject to logic as logic is not something which is separate from God, just as wetness is not something which is separate from water. Water is wet and God is logical. God cannot do that which is illogical, because it is contrary to His nature and God cannot be “notGod.”
Zilch, the Primacy of Existence always trumps the Primacy of Conscience, as you say. There's no other way for it to be, as something has to exist to be able to think in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I feel miracles are a fatal blow to this particular version of the TAG is entirely down to them borking uniformity. Even if one miracle happens then we cannot be sure that the reality we're experiencing isn't going to be altered again at any moment (or that the results of our experiments aren't the result of miraculous intervention) - the makes intelligibility literally impossible. Yes, we could experience that world, and yes we could do experiments on it, but that experience and those experiments would never be able to give us an accurate model of the universe - just because we'd seen something behave a certain way once we'd have no guarantee that it would behave that way in the future. So not only do miracles wreck uniformity, they also destroy the predictive power of science.
Zilch, as for finding logic in the Bible, you'll struggle - the word doesn't appear even once in the KJV (click to check) (or any other version, as far as I can tell)
ReplyDeleteThe TAG bullshitters have made this all up, based on nothing but faulty readings of a book written by men who thought the world was flat.
"Even if one miracle happens then we cannot be sure that the reality we're experiencing isn't going to be altered again at any moment"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that miracles can't happen?
Dan, I notice you still haven't answered my question, so I'll ask it again.
ReplyDeleteAs it is not logically impossible for him to do so, could your god make another god of equal power?
Sye,
ReplyDeleteSince I have already twice attempted to clear up whatever initial misunderstanding there was (and apologized over any unintended insult), and since you have repeatedly refused to Help the issue by elaborating what the *actual* intent of your 3 questions are (no, they are Not clear, else I would not have misunderstood them), then Yes, it was you who began the barrage of insults.
But I will concede that I got a little dirty towards you as well. That was simply a moment of exasperation. Will you allow me a 2nd chance by expressing all of the places, prior to my previous post, where you feel I have insulted you (et al) so I can attempt to clear up those misunderstandings? I genuinely meant No offense.
Oh, your *All* Catholics. Period. Some of you may deny it, but the rest simply don't know it yet. And... there is no argument against the Church that can't be knocked down by Faith and a Proper reading of the Bible.
And honestly, I really don't see how someone can claim that Christ is their Saviour, AND acknowledge His Supreme Authority, and yet dispute the legitimacy of the Papacy! Really? So, are you saying that the very Son of God did NOT have the foresight to know who Peter would choose to carry on the responsibility that he had been granted? Or that the Holy Spirit couldn't guide any of those successors on the Right path? Are you saying that God's very own Wisdom and Authority failed somewhere along the line?
Further, your argument of Logic is weak (no offense), as you offer No Scripture to verify your claim, as I had asked for. This so-called "logic" would deny that water by itself could be turned into wine, which we all know happened, thus negating your claim that God can not perform the "logically impossible". Would you wish to clarify your stance?
And I will apologize for characterizing this thread as a "chest-beating session", because when I read it it really did appear that there were some mortal enemies locked in a duel to the death, hence an analogy to "i'm-better-than-you chest-beating". So sorry, carry on good friends.
”and since you have repeatedly refused to Help the issue by elaborating what the *actual* intent of your 3 questions are (no, they are Not clear, else I would not have misunderstood them)”
ReplyDeleteThat’s debatable. And there is misunderstanding, then there is what you did. Your did not request clarification on my question, you insulted then asked something unrelated. Questions are asked in order to obtain answers. Surely that is clear?!?
”Oh, your *All* Catholics. Period.”
Seems as though misrepresenting what I say is becoming a bit of a hobby for you.
”And... there is no argument against the Church that can't be knocked down by Faith and a Proper reading of the Bible.”
Not interested in debating Roman Catholicism with you. If you want resources go here, or here, or here, or here.
”So, are you saying that the very Son of God did NOT have the foresight to know who Peter would choose to carry on the responsibility that he had been granted? “
Nope, I am saying that you are misinterpreting that text – see resources.
”Further, your argument of Logic is weak (no offense), as you offer No Scripture to verify your claim”
If you want to do a Bible study on logic, we meet every Sunday after our church service and you are more than welcome. If you wish to argue that God is illogical, I would be happy to engage you on it here, as it is in forums like this that I debate with those who deny God’s attributes.
” This so-called "logic" would deny that water by itself could be turned into wine, which we all know happened, thus negating your claim that God can not perform the "logically impossible".
Miracles do not violate any law of logic. If you wish to argue that they do, please present your argument.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou bring "unfair" to a whole 'nother level silly.
>>Zilch, as for finding logic in the Bible, you'll struggle - the word doesn't appear even once in the KJV (click to check) (or any other version, as far as I can tell)
Logic:
mid-14c., "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from c [century].1600.
The word "Dinosaur" is not in the Bible either. (Because it didn't exist until the 1800's) That does not mean it doesn't speak of it. Job 40:15-19
And besides that Exodus 3:14 points to a classic law of logic. God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." Law of identity, in its purest form.
Might want to clean those lenses of yours. Id rather you throw them out entirely and repent.
>>Not interested in debating Roman Catholicism with you. If you want resources go here, or here, or here, or here.
ReplyDeleteor HERE, although the term 'resource' will be used lightly for my posts.
"You bring "unfair" to a whole 'nother level silly."
ReplyDeleteNot able to answer then? I'd have thought it would be very easy! Either your god is powerful enough to make another god of equal power, or his isn't! Are you trying to avoid answering?
">>Zilch, as for finding logic in the Bible, you'll struggle - the word doesn't appear even once in the KJV (click to check) (or any other version, as far as I can tell)
Logic:
mid-14c., "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from c [century].1600."
So? Why are you proving my point? I'd have thought you'd be trying to show that I was wrong! Glad we agree that there's no logic in the Bible...at all (I defy you to even find a discussion of it)
"The word "Dinosaur" is not in the Bible either. (Because it didn't exist until the 1800's) That does not mean it doesn't speak of it. Job 40:15-19"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Brilliant!! Dan, you're an actual idiot! Tell me, dinosaurs are lizards, right? And where did they hatch from? That's right - EGGS. And what do creatures who hatch from eggs NOT have? That's it, a navel!! But according to that passage in Job the creature DOES have a navel, so it's NOT a dinosaur!! Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when someone would cite that verse with a straight face as evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible.
Listen Dan, you ignorant halfwit, dinosaurs died out many many millions of years before mankind appeared on Earth, there are NO human fossils EVER found with dinosaur fossils - the Flinstones was NOT a fucking documentary!
"And besides that Exodus 3:14 points to a classic law of logic. God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." Law of identity, in its purest form."
Oh dear, no wonder you by into the circular TAG if you think that's the kind of 'logic' to be admired!
"Might want to clean those lenses of yours. Id rather you throw them out entirely and repent."
Nah, they're working just fine, after all, they're allowing me to see right through your idiocy, aren't they?
Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteWell yes, your links are... interesting. Tell me what particular Christianity You ascribe to and I can also go retrieve some links that dispute and disparage it. There are always some disgruntled priests out there. But "justforcatholics.org" is rather telling. Did you provide it because you think it is from Catholics? Because it obviously isn't. Even from just a cursory scan. So why include it? Are you trying to 'trick' me? Or is that what you actually believe about Catholicism? No wonder you can't accept it reading such things.
Further, I am NOT arguing that God is illogical!! Where are you getting this stuff?! I'm asking you to strengthen YOUR argument. Which by your evasion it becomes apparent that you can't.
And where did you get that I misrepresented YOU by saying "your *All* Catholics:?! That is Church Doctrine! Which is greater than you, or I, or any living thing. And which you also seem to be claiming does not apply to you, so then how did it apply to you? Plus, I have no recourse but to make it a "hobby" as you are offering Nothing to help clear anything up! Despite my repeated questions for such.
"That’s debatable... Your did not request clarification on my question... Questions are asked in order to obtain answers. Surely that is clear?!?"
You mean like I have been pretty much from the beginning? Fine. I present, as evidence of my claim that -I have repeatedly asked for clarification-, these quotes from myself.
- "...to claim the "absurdity of my position" without even knowing it is a little absurd, don't you think?"
- "So, your question isn't circular?"
- "can you give me some verses where I can find your statements about God and logic?"
- "...you may be confusing me with someone else who has been perhaps a little less than hospitable to you?"
And the doosey:
- "I actually asked for clarification in my last comment, but you gave none so now I'm really confused."
But wait, yet again:
- "So, would it be OK to get that clarification to your question now, or should I come back later?"
- "since you have repeatedly refused to Help the issue by elaborating what the *actual* intent of your 3 questions are"
And continuing:
- "would you *please* explain to me how your definition of "per se" caused such consternation over the quandary I posed?"
- "by expressing all of the places ... where you feel I have insulted you (et al) so I can attempt to clear up those misunderstandings?"
- "Would you wish to clarify your stance?" [on weak logic]
I would also like to offer:
- I genuinely meant No offense.
The question in my first comment was plainly obvious, so these start from my 2nd comment. Would you still claim that my asking for clarification is "debatable"? If so, please provide your counter-evidence.
And please don't ask for me to provide evidence first since you requested it first, because as stated above, those are Not my claims. I can not, will not, provide evidence to support a statement that I dispute.
Continuing...>
<...Continued
ReplyDeleteIs it at all possible to ask a question around here WITHOUT having accusations pulled from where the sun don't shine? And NO, that is not an insult, it means where are you getting these interpretations of insult? Because I can't see them, otherwise I would try even harder to re-explain them in order to fix the misunderstanding!
OH, it just dawned on me: perhaps you don't want these confusions cleared up. Why? Is it more amusing for you to keep kicking a guy who's down? Is my vexation truly that enjoyable to you? My how very "Christian" of you...
Whatever. I have now made it ABUNDANTLY clear that I have been asking for clarification on your 3 questions for quite some time. And that I have Apologized for any offenses. Will you now offer some of that clarification, or are the baby-eating atheists calling it correctly: You Can't?
And just so there is no further confusion:
Sye TenB, since the following is NOT a "circular trick question", then what is the actual intent of the series? And what point are they intended to make?
"1.Are vicious circular arguments logically invalid?
2. Is it viciously circular to employ your reasoning to justify your reasoning?
3. Are you using your reasoning to justify the validity of your reasoning?"
Thank you.
BoB, if they're preaching the TAG then they are usually (and I've yet to find an exception) Calvinists.
ReplyDelete"And where did you get that I misrepresented YOU by saying "your *All* Catholics:?! That is Church Doctrine! Which is greater than you, or I, or any living thing. And which you also seem to be claiming does not apply to you, so then how did it apply to you? Plus, I have no recourse but to make it a "hobby" as you are offering Nothing to help clear anything up! Despite my repeated questions for such."
ReplyDeleteThe hilarious irony is that these Calvinist claim that all atheists actually believe in their version of god but are merely 'denying it in unrighteousness', so seeing them get offended about being told they're all Catholics is most gratifying.
D.A.N.
ReplyDeleteI just read your link. Well, portions of it, I didn't need to get very deep to see the point...
And my point on it:
If your going to criticize something, at least have enough Integrity, Honesty, and Decency to get your accusations correct. The article is Intellectually Bankrupt and Immorally Deceitful. Everything it states about Church Doctrine and Sola Scriptura is pure... well, those things shouldn't be said in polite company.
Do you not respect yourselves enough to even attempt honest critiques? That article is an Atrocity! And NO, I'm NOT offended that you would attack the Church, that happens, I'm used to it, I get over it. No, I'm appalled at the total lack of even the most basic research.
Unless of course you did actually research the Church. But then the implications of that are far, FAR much worse, because most of these points have been covered in public discourse Numerous times, and there should be No excuse in this day for anyone to get them so blatantly wrong. So then the question presents itself: Are you intentionally Lying about the Catholic Church, Her Faith, and/or Her Doctrines?
This, in light of Sye TenB's continued mis-characterizations of me, have given me an incredibly enlightening experience about you guys. Yes, you should change your name.
To something more appropriate. Perhaps:
DEBUNKING EVERYONE, even ourselves, Nation
Whatever,
Good day...
*sigh For your slower understanding benefit I will rephrase my comment:
ReplyDeleteAlex,
>>Zilch, as for finding logic in the Bible, you'll struggle - the word doesn't appear even once in the KJV (click to check) (or any other version, as far as I can tell)
You bring "unfair" to a whole 'nother level silly.
Logic:
mid-14c., "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from c [century].1600.
This is what I was referencing to when I said you bring "unfair"...
And scene. Moving on
>>Either your god is powerful enough to make another god of equal power, or his isn't! Are you trying to avoid answering?
I actually ignored that question as it was silly. I could make you equally powerful and make you admin in my facebook group or this blog but as Sye coined for something else, "It's like an unarmed criminal mocking a policeman for not giving up his gun. The reason for the mockery is obvious, but surely it would be foolish for the cop to hand over his gun?"
>> And what do creatures who hatch from eggs NOT have? That's it, a navel!!
*sigh Silly Atheist. I understand why Sye does not discuss Scripture with unbelievers. Your etymology is seriously lacking as the evidence in your comments shows. "I cannot find the word in the Bible that was not used until the 1600's" Just wow Alex.
The word in question has a different meaning the today's "navel". Back then the Hebrew word:
שָׁרִיר shariyr - [Strong's H8306] means "1. sinew, muscle" or the Firm part of the belly. Not the thingy that you have that collects lint.
Shocker that you use Ad Hom attacks for the rest of your spleen venting.
>>Listen Dan, you ignorant halfwit, dinosaurs died out many many millions of years before mankind appeared on Earth,
And you KNOW this how? Oh, that's right, Sye went over that with you Ad nauseam. You don't know that.
>>Nah, they're working just fine, after all, they're allowing me to see right through your idiocy, aren't they?
Speaking of lenses, as some icing on that cake, [Insert video here]
BoB,
ReplyDeleteI hope you understand that post and the END says the point I wanted to make.
RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Not Sola Scriptura.
ALSO, the most important part was, I said I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church and pray you are one of those choice few. I went on to say, "But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity."
The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the RCC's mass pedophiles, the crusades, etc. to determine the fruit because it is obvious. Have you EVER seen the movie Constantines Sword? If you had, I doubt you would be defending the RCC, as they allowed Hitler to happen in our History. Hitler could not have done it without them. Good fruit? Afraid not.
And I am serious here. I beg you to do the research of the links that Sye provided and pray continually about it. Please do not take our word for it though. Search (Matthew 23:8-12,1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 John 2:27) You follow, and are hanging onto, a false teachings that I pray you will be aware of someday. When you do realize that, let me know so I can celebrate with you. Hopefully, someday we will be all laughing about these times over a glass of lemonade in Heaven, if not before. We are hopeful for you BoB.
”Well yes, your links are... interesting. Tell me what particular Christianity You ascribe to and I can also go retrieve some links that dispute and disparage it.”
ReplyDeleteLook, Bob, you said that I was a Catholic. I am not and I give you links which should help inform you as to why I am not. If I had said that you ascribed to what I believe and you in fact did not ascribe to what I believe, then I would entertain your dispute of said claim. Since I did not, I ain’t intested :-)
”Further, I am NOT arguing that God is illogical!! Where are you getting this stuff?!”
Erm, from here: ”This so-called "logic" would deny that water by itself could be turned into wine, which we all know happened, thus negating your claim that God can not perform the "logically impossible".
”And where did you get that I misrepresented YOU by saying "your *All* Catholics:?!”
Because I did not say ”*All* Catholics.” The only way that I can imagine you getting mixed up here is that you meant to write “YOU’RE” and not “YOUR,” which although quite sad, would confirm some suspicions.
”Fine. I present, as evidence of my claim that -I have repeatedly asked for clarification”
Read your first post again, there was no request for clarification, only a question which I answered. As far clarification in the subsequent posts, I DID clarify. My questions were posed for in order to obtain answers.
”Would you still claim that my asking for clarification is "debatable"?
Well, it is quite a mishmash, but from what I could interpret, I did indeed clarify the intent of my questions – to get answers – should have been obvious.
”Is my vexation truly that enjoyable to you?”
Not at all, but your attitude makes me dubious of the sincerity of your alleged vexation.
”Sye TenB, since the following is NOT a "circular trick question", then what is the actual intent of the series? And what point are they intended to make?”
AGAIN, the actual intent is to get answers. The point is to expose the fact that they do not have a non-viciously circular justification for knowledge.
OMFG!! I am laughing so hard at you right now, Dan! You actually believe that people lived alongside dinosaurs?? AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Unbelievable!! You need to actually look at some credible sources rather than Creationist Bullshit sites!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Dan, answer the question - can your god create another god of equal power?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me you're trying to dodge a question you don't want to have to think about.
"Anyway, Dan, answer the question - can your god create another god of equal power?"
ReplyDeleteYou have your answer. I see that you must ignore it as you cannot deal with it. Let's see what happens if Dan reposts it :-)
Dan, are you going to answer the question or not? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.
ReplyDeleteAs it is not logically impossible, can your god create another got that's as powerful as he is?
Yes or no, Dan?
You look a lot sillier (if that's possible) when you can't delete my comments Alex :-D
ReplyDeleteD.A.N.
ReplyDeleteDid you just try to trump me with Godwin's Law?!
England and France, and America partially, facilitated Nazi Germany's rise to power far more than any other organization. So, who is the more to blame for that: those who supposedly gave Nazis the idea (remembering that an idea can only get you so far) or those who definitively gave Nazis the *ability* to carry out anything they wanted? Which, by the way, far, FAR more Russians were killed by Nazi Germany in WWII than Jews. The Jews were simply a "stepping stone" so the citizens could be 'riled up' for war. The Bolsheviks were the real target of hatred, and most estimates put their losses at over 25,000,000 lives. Let that sink in for a moment.
Now tell me, If the Catholic Church was responsible for Nazis killing Jews, and it was only a drop in the bucket of what they did to the Russians, then you are either thinking pathetically small in your claims of Catholic influence on Nazi hate and murder, or you're a pathetically small thinker for buying into such a ridiculous connection. Even Stalin killed more Jews than (OMG) Hitler, and he didn't have the "Roman" Catholic Church in His country...
Then you expect me to believe anything about the Church from the viewpoint of a disgruntled EX-priest who made a movie that barely brought in Ten Thousand dollars on its limited opening weekend? If this were big news, it would have had a bigger budget, bigger release, bigger everything.
Plus, you won't get the denial you are looking for from me that the Church wasn't dealing with the Nazis: They Were Frigging Prisoners! Oh you mean 'before Nazis came to power'? Pretty much EVERYONE was persecuting and killing Jews in the centuries before the Nazis came onto the scene. Especially Christians, some silly cultural thing about "deicide".
Oh, did you know John Calvin hated Jews just as much as the next Reformist, or do you conveniently brush that history aside?
You guys just keep getting closer and closer to what the baby-eaters claim you are...
Plus D.A.N., you really have no idea what Catholic Doctrine is, other than what your hate-everyone groups tell you, don't you? Have you ever heard of the Catechism? Nowhere in it is said that Church Authority does Not come from Scripture.
ReplyDeleteSo you would use your so called "movie" (et al) to argue about what the book of the Church's actual teachings tells us?
Good luck with that brick wall!
And one more Dan,
ReplyDeleteDon't bother praying for me to *your* false god. The Catholic Church has the only line of leadership that goes, unbroken, all the back to Jesus Christ himself. Denying that would be to claim that God's Power doesn't have the power to choose his own successor that wouldn't end up tainting the line of leadership that HE chose! And you call atheist "reason" ridiculous?
So yes, you are all rebelliously denying the one true God's Authority. Perhaps it is I who should pray for you. But that would be a waste of my time, wouldn't it?
And Paul wasn't in Rome to be a Pope? Is that an actual argument against Catholicism? What exactly about? Of course he wasn't in Rome. It wasn't until Emperor Constantine converted that Christians could even go to Rome without fear for their lives. Is the ridiculous implication here that the Head of the Church Never moved around in those early years?
Sye, I had a rather nice reply for you, but my animal bumped my keyboard and wiped it all out...
ReplyDeleteSince that part of my life is already gone and I don't feel like wasting anymore of it, I'll pleasure you no more with my presence.
Oh, and you'll never get them to stop eating babies with that small, round, 3-question argument you have there. Ya know, the one I was asking clarification for the moment you were offended by how I had brought it up...
Good night
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDelete"Again, you ignore damn everything I say that shoots down your view."
Look man, as I said, unless and until you can see the vicious circularity in employing your reasoning to justify your reasoning, there is no sense in continuing.
I have explained MORE THAN ONCE why it's not "vicously circular". My reasoning is not some monolithic thing like your god is, it's a method that uses input from various sources, my senses, past experiences, the rules of logic, etc)
It is my position that your view is viciously circular,
No, that'd be YOUR little proposition which I highlight AGAIN later on here..
and you therefore cannot justify any knowledge claim you make, and they therefore need not be addressed.
Cowardly and hypocritical dodge on your part. I'm not playing this game Sye...anyone who's read this blog will see your blatant dodging over and over again.
I've explained now, more than once how my reasoning works. My reasoning is a method that uses SEVERAL THINGS, which act to reduce the chances of circularity.
Your method of reasoning as I've repeatedly shown, is ONE proposition which has the conclusion (god) built right into the premise!
Remember?
(bible)God is the necessary precondition for logic, due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Logic exists
Therefore (bible)God exists.
Quit dodging please and kindly answer just how your proposition is NOT circular. I've explain why mine isn't.
Your turn. You never, ever will of course.
Sure, you may disagree, but please tell me one thing that you know according to your worldview, and how you are able to know it (WITHOUT being viciously circular).
I've explained several times how my worldivew works. No more dodging on your part, you coward.
"I've explained now, more than once how my reasoning works. My reasoning is a method that uses SEVERAL THINGS, which act to reduce the chances of circularity."
ReplyDeleteIf you care to explain how you interpret those "several things" without using your reasoning, I'll be glad to continue, but until then, not so much :-)
Those "several things" include the rules of logic, input from each of my fice indendent senses, past experience, etc.
ReplyDeleteHow could ALL of those be CONSISTENTLY WRONG so as to provide me with a completely fake view of reality?
Never mind, I knew that you'd never address what I brought up: How's if someone new asks you the same questions I ask you Sye?
Would you answer them then?
Those "several things" include the rules of logic, input from each of my fice indendent senses, past experience, etc."
ReplyDeleteDidn't ask what they include. I asked how you interpret them WITHOUT using your reasoning.
I'd be happy to address your questions, but I asked you first, and all you have been doing is dodging (as I suspected you would).
Sye,
ReplyDeleteWhat, outside of the Bible, tells you that the Bible is correct?
"What, outside of the Bible, tells you that the Bible is correct?"
ReplyDeleteEverything.
"Everything."
ReplyDeleteHow so?
Sye still refuses to answer, he even refuses to answer when I asked if he'd answer my other questions even if someone else asked him. Then, when someone asks HIM a different question, Sye gives this fucking non-answer.
ReplyDeleteGood luck getting Sye to explain, BoB...he won't.
Reasoning is based on several things, Sye...that's the relevent point you refuse to get.
ReplyDeleteThose things (senses, experience, observation, memory, rules of logic) are all tools that are used WITHIN my reasoning.
To put it this way: Reasoning is using more than one tool to check up on the others to (more likely) arrive at an accurate conclusion about the world around us.
Reasoning is not one thing, it's the usage of many things. Therefore, using "reasoning" is not circular because there are independent checks and balances built into it.
Unlike your proposition which only has your conclusion (god) built into the premise...THAT is true "viciously circular" reasoning.
Quatre is the charm then?: Episode 18: Eric Hovind and Dustin Segers Special
ReplyDeleteAngry Atheists reviled. Praise the Lord.
Oops Angry Atheists revealed ;7p
ReplyDeleteFreudian slip there, Dan?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Alex, Reynold, et al. Sye is not capable of answering questions. All he has is evasion. It is my belief that he does this because he does not really believe his god exists and just doesn't want to admit that, even to himself.
"How so?"
ReplyDeleteThe truth of Scripture is the necessary precondition to make sense of anything.
"Reasoning is based on several things, Sye...that's the relevent point you refuse to get."
ReplyDeletePlease justify any one of those things without using your reasoning. Tape measures are made of many lines, but folding it back on itself to prove that it is giving accurate measurements or using a hammer or a screwdriver (other tools in the toolbox) to tell you that the tape measure is giving accurate measurements would be just as fallacious as what you are doing.
"I have to agree with Alex, Reynold, et al. Sye is not capable of answering questions."
ReplyDeleteI understand that Reynold has taken up the challenge to debate Dustin, what about you Pvblivs, are you willing to put your claims to the test?
P.S. You were mentioned in the podcast that Dustin and Eric did with Alex and Jim.
"Oops Angry Atheists revealed ;7p"
ReplyDeleteHave you listened to the episode, Dan? We kept things away from the TAG as we've already talked about it for over 6 hours...instead we looked at the creationist claims of Eric and Dustin, claims they singularly failed to back up with any evidence.
Hey Dan, still waiting on an answer to that question - can your god create another god of equal power?
ReplyDeleteWell, for once Sye may have actually proven helpful here:
ReplyDeletePlease justify any one of those things without using your reasoning. Tape measures are made of many lines, but folding it back on itself to prove that it is giving accurate measurements or using a hammer or a screwdriver (other tools in the toolbox) to tell you that the tape measure is giving accurate measurements would be just as fallacious as what you are doing.
Well that's not what hammers DO though, eh? Your analogy is flawed. Think of pyranometers, pyrometers, spectrophotometers, thermometers, etc. They all can measure different aspects of the same thing (ie. the sun...the amount of solar radiation it gives, the heat it gives, the wavelengths of light it gives off, that kind of stuff.
Each instrument can tell us something about the one object that we're studying. Add that information together and maybe we've learned something.
Bob:
Told you Sye wouldn't really give you an answer: He just gave another unproven assumption.
The truth of Scripture is the necessary precondition to make sense of anything.
How would you answer a Muslim who said that about the Koran Sye?
How do you deal with biblical mistakes like the claim that the mustard seed is the "least" of all seeds? Actually it's the orchid seed, and yes, they apparently do have some in the Middle East...
How can you ignore all the civilizations in the world who learned stuff about the world without your "scriptures" Ex) Greeks and astronomy for instance?
Sye:
ReplyDeleteMy claim is already put to the test. If you were to stop being evasive, it would be shown to be wrong. So far, my claim is holding up rather well. A debate on my claim is immaterial as it is only subject to the empirical evidence.
"A debate on my claim is immaterial as it is only subject to the empirical evidence."
ReplyDeleteDidn't think so :-)
"Think of pyranometers, pyrometers, spectrophotometers, thermometers, etc. They all can measure different aspects of the same thing"
ReplyDeleteProblem is, you are using one of those things to examine all the other things to see if the original thing is valid. Imagine that the first tool is inaccurate. Imagine that you have an inaccurate tape measure, and you use it to measure many other measuring devices, and come up with the same answer each time. You would conclude that the first tool was accurate based on the information it gives you about all the others, and you'd be wrong. So, once again, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?
Wow Alex and Jim just discussed things with David Smart. I wonder if they knew he was a Presuppositional Apologist BEFORE they booked the conversation. This should be interesting. Even know its late I am listening to it now.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested...Listen in.
So Dan, no Nazi rebuttal? Actual history wins again over propagandist hatred, yay!
ReplyDeleteAnd, Sye, if your "god" is inaccurate, you still conclude that it is accurate. Strictly, the tools confirming each other only shows that they exhibit a consistency. However, your worldview is inconsistent because you claim that reason must be justified without using reason, and yet you use reason (plus your "god") to pretend to justify yours.
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, I am also not interested in debating whether grass is green or whether water freezes when it gets sufficiently cold, and for the same reason. These are all empircally observeable and so not subject to debate. But, you go on being smug about my not wanting to debate what people can see with their own eyes.
”And, Sye, if your "god" is inaccurate, you still conclude that it is accurate.”
ReplyDeleteHe has revealed that HE cannot be inaccurate.
” Strictly, the tools confirming each other only shows that they exhibit a consistency. “
Only if you have a basis for trusting the tool that evaluates the apparent consistency of the other tools, which you do not.
”However, your worldview is inconsistent”
How do you know? You have admitted that your view is viciously circular. Are you saying that it is possible to derive knowledge from vicious circularity? If so, please tell us how.
” Oh, by the way, I am also not interested in debating whether grass is green or whether water freezes when it gets sufficiently cold, and for the same reason. These are all empirically observable and so not subject to debate.”
I had no intention of debating empirical observations, merely your basis for trusting them.
” But, you go on being smug about my not wanting to debate what people can see with their own eyes.”
Well, there are many debates of mine online, and none of them have focused on debating empirical observation, so your straw man smokescreen dodge doesn’t wash.
"[It] has revealed that [it] cannot be inaccurate."
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely the same as using the tape measure to evaluate its own accuracy.
"Only if you have a basis for trusting the tool that evaluates the apparent consistency of the other tools, which you do not."
It seems you are unfamiliar with what consistency is. Consistency only means that they do not contradict each other. A set of wrong beliefs can still be consistent.
"How do you know?"
Already answered in the subsequent sentence that you left out. But don't worry, I understand why you felt you needed to leave it out.
"You have admitted that your view is viciously circular."
I have done nothing of the kind. Circularity ensues only when you pretend to "justify" your premises or your reasoning. I do not do this. My view is not circular. You claim to "justify" your reasoning; and so your position is automaticly visciously circular.
"Are you saying that it is possible to derive knowledge from vicious circularity? If so, please tell us how."
No, that's your schtick.
"I had no intention of debating empirical observations, merely your basis for trusting them."
If you do not trust empirical observations, then we have no common ground and anything you say will read as gibberish to me. If you do trust empirical observations, my basis for doing so as well is moot. The trust in emprical observations constitutes a common premis held by both our views which could then be used to debate other things. But, since you use "and how do you know that?" to empirical observations, you are being either nonsensical or dishonest with me. I believe it is the latter.
”And, Sye, if your "god" is inaccurate, you still conclude that it is accurate.”
ReplyDeleteHe has revealed that HE cannot be inaccurate.
And how is this not circular reasoning? Remember what you told me about how useless (and circular) a tape measure is, when you use it to measure itself?
How is this different?
” Strictly, the tools confirming each other only shows that they exhibit a consistency. “
ReplyDeleteOnly if you have a basis for trusting the tool that evaluates the apparent consistency of the other tools, which you do not.
That seems to apply in your case as well, as I pointed out just above.
Sye TenB said... quoting me:
ReplyDelete"Think of pyranometers, pyrometers, spectrophotometers, thermometers, etc. They all can measure different aspects of the same thing"
Problem is, you are using one of those things to examine all the other things to see if the original thing is valid. Imagine that the first tool is inaccurate. Imagine that you have an inaccurate tape measure, and you use it to measure many other measuring devices, and come up with the same answer each time.
Not how it works. We'd use those other tools to test each other tool and look at the results (probably in a table form) and use that to see which tool, if any, is inaccurate.
(Mind you, those tools I mentioned at the top don't all measure the exact same quality as each other tool does, but never mind that for now. My original point with that was that the different tools allow us to learn about the sun more accurately than just using one tool.)
Each tool (IF they were made to test the same quality of something as you imply in your analogy above) would be used on the same object, and the results compared.
You would conclude that the first tool was accurate based on the information it gives you about all the others, and you'd be wrong.
If one of the tools was actually out of whack, the results given by the other tools would point to some inconsistency in the reading of the first tool.
So, once again, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?
I use more than one "tool" to check things out, which I just explained to you.
You don't. You just state stuff like:
He has revealed that HE cannot be inaccurate. which makes about as much sense as, say, using a measuring tape to measure it's own accuracy. Remember?
”That is precisely the same as using the tape measure to evaluate its own accuracy.”
ReplyDeleteHardly, it is an appeal to something other than my own toolbox. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. No, I do not suppose that you will be intellectually honest.
” I do not do this. My view is not circular.”
Just because you do not justify the validity of your reasoning does not mean that you don't have an implied justification which, by your own admission must be viciously circular.
If you claim to have no justification for the validity of your reasoning, then please tell me what you know and how you know it?
”And how is this not circular reasoning?”
ReplyDeleteWhere have I ever denied the circularity? In fact, if you had listened to the podcasts you would have heard us mention over and over again that ALL ultimate authority claims are necessarily circular, but not all (read only one) can be valid.
Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
"I use more than one "tool" to check things out, which I just explained to you."
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you just give an example of one thing that you know and how you know it using this process? Thanks.
By the way Zilch, what do you know and how are you able to know it according to your worldview?
ReplyDeleteAh me, Sye, is your memory even worse than mine? We've been through this before, and I don't see why I should have to repeat myself.
Alex- yeah, we're on the same wavelength. Of course logic is not treated in the Bible, at least not directly.
Dan- yes, I've known for years now that you'd like for me to repent. Honestly, I believe you want me to repent because you don't want me to burn in Hell- I think you're basically a nice guy who wants to do the right thing. But as you also know, I think your God is a product of wishful thinking and the evolution of socially successful memeplexes. And as you also know (I think your memory is better than Sye's, at least when it comes to people and not ideas), I don't see any evidence for God.
We'll sse, or not see, as the case may be, when we die. Until then, let's try to make the world a better place to live in.
No, Sye, intellectual honesty would force you to admit that you were pulling your god out of your toolbox and then using it to verify its own accuracy.
ReplyDelete"Where have I ever denied the circularity?"
Well, your view is viciously circular. Don't deny it. You do exactly the same things that you criticize in others.
” No, Sye, intellectual honesty would force you to admit that you were pulling your god out of your toolbox and then using it to verify its own accuracy.”
ReplyDeleteStrawman. It makes no sense to change my argument in order to attempt to defeat it. According to my worldview, God is not one of my senses.
”Well, your view is viciously circular.”
How do you know? How do you know anything according to YOUR worldview? How do you account for the laws of logic by which you call circular reasoning fallacious?
”Don't deny it. You do exactly the same things that you criticize in others.”
1. How do you know?
2. Strawman. It makes no sense to change my argument in order to attempt to defeat it. According to my worldview, God is not one of my senses.
Sye:
ReplyDeleteYour god is evidently one of your tools, because you are using it as a measuring device, indeed saying it is how you know you can trust it. Just because you lie and say it isn't one of your tools, the fact does not change. Neither does the fact that your god is not one of your senses change the fact that you are using it as a tool any more than a wrench not being a hammer negates the fact that it is a tool. The only one making a strawman here is you. I identified your god as a tool in your toolbox, not as one of your senses.
"How do you know?"
Ah, the traditional Sye response when he has been caught out. I accept your concession of defeat. I did a blog post on this. Every time you say "how do you know?" it is because you have been caught out. I will not get roped into an infinite regress. I will take that as your concession of defeat every time.
”Your god is evidently one of your tools”
ReplyDeleteStrawman. You are free to disagree with my claim, but to change it in order to argue against it is fallacious. God is not a tool in my toolbox as you folks claim your varied senses to be.
”The only one making a strawman here is you. I identified your god as a tool in your toolbox, not as one of your senses.”
Yes, and that is the strawman. You are equating God as being part of me, as everything in your toolbox is necessarily part of you.
” Ah, the traditional Sye response when he has been caught out.”
No, the traditonal response when the professed atheist cannot justify his knowledge and continues to make knowledge claims.
”Every time you say "how do you know?" it is because you have been caught out. I will not get roped into an infinite regress. I will take that as your concession of defeat every time.”
Of course you will. You must dodge and weave in a vain attempt to hide the fact that your epistemology is vacuous to non-existent.
"your epistemology is vacuous to non-existent."
ReplyDeleteCircular Sye saying this is hilarious