January 23, 2009

Defending the Christian Faith

I may have to go to jury duty for a long case so this may be my last post for a while. I will know more Monday.

To allow a continuation of the discussion about worldviews this post is relevant. More accurately though, this post is a ode to Dani' El from discussions I have had with him, also since he is currently reading the book "Always Ready- Directions for Defending the Faith" by the late great Dr. Greg Bahnsen. (my copy is on it's way). I so love this man's mind.

I thought you would find it interesting to be a fly on the wall as he is lecturing to us Christians. Atheists, if you want to be shoved back against the wall gasping for breath just listen to some of this brilliant teaching. Does the evidence of God, or lack of, place atheists in a neutral position? Listen for the answer by Dr. Bahnsen.





UPDATE: Hendrik van der Breggen did an article on Moral relativism and tolerance that would be worth the read. The comment to froggie was brilliant.

983 comments:

  1. The video is boring, lol!

    Hope you're having a good weekend. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The guy in the video doesn't justify his assumption that he can think rationally so everything he says is irrelevant...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, his major mistake is the belief that all word views or beliefs are equal.

    Why should monism be treated the same as something as ridiculous as Scientology?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent Dan.

    Dude, you are going to just love the book.

    Funny, before being saved, or learning about presupp apologetics, I thought the book of proverbs wasn't so interesting.
    But it is just teeming with amazing things.
    The great thing about "Always Ready" is that it is full of biblical support. It's slow going reading it as I am constantly back and forth with the Bible.
    I started off using a highlighter pen but gave up since I felt like I was highlighting every other sentence. :)

    To all atheists who think that Pressup Apologetics was a creation of Van Til, Bahnsen and Sye.
    The truth is, PA is soundly based in scripture, which is why I find it so fascinating and effective.

    Too bad Dr. Bahnsen died so young.
    For sure God blessed the man with an incredible mind.

    Dan. Dr. Bahsen's church is in Placentia CA just a few miles from where I grew up in Anaheim.
    I feel like we missed out in meeting him, but I know we will one day in the Millennial Kingdom of Messiah.
    I also thank God that his lectures are up on YouTube.

    Shalom and keep up the good work Brother!

    Baruch HaShem!
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel:

         I am not concerned with who originated it. The fact is that presup apologetics is a lie. By using it, you declare your god to be a lie. If you can actually demonstrate that it is based on the bible (which I highly doubt; you can only declare it) you would only prove the bible to be false. I already believe the bible false; but that would remove all doubt.
         So, are you admitting that the bible is a lie? Or did you just not think your claim through?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Luk 4:33 And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,

    ~;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just teasing Pvb, Kaitlyn.

    He tends to howl when the truth gets told, or scripture quoted. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll second Kaitlyn: the video is boring. But maybe it gets better when he explains the apple-sorting machine.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The truth is, PA is soundly based in scripture, which is why I find it so fascinating and effective."

    Truer words were never spoken, Dani'El. Presuppers use the presupposition that the bible is the inerrent word of God, just as the bible does. The bible makes no attempt to prove the existence of a God, it presupposes it.

    Bahnsen was a follower of not only Nan Til, but also Rushdooney, both lunatic fringe types.

    Bahnsen was dismissed from the Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi for his extremist views on reconstructionism and theonomy.

    Nobody takes him seriously and it's too bad that he didn't use his intelligence to do something constructive with his life.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The funny thing about the presup argument is that Christians are actually arguing that God is a fraud or a lie. I never understood that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daniel:

         I do not howl at truth being told. I rather prefer truth being told. But the bible is not truth; and you know it. What does get my goat is when liars start quoting the bible to get out of backing up their claims. The favorite line of such liars seems to be "and he answered him nothing." I'm sure that you'll agree (in your heart, if not openly) that anyone who pulls that is insincere in his faith.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kaitlyn,

    The funny thing about the presup argument is that Christians are actually arguing that God is a fraud or a lie.

    Um, what are you talking about?

    Pvblivs,

    I think you are going insane dude. Are you sure you're OK?

    First you say: If you can actually demonstrate that it is based on the bible (which I highly doubt; you can only declare it) you would only prove the bible to be false.

    So basically your asking to back up the claims of presupposition Biblically. Fair and reasonable request. But then you say:

    What does get my goat is when liars start quoting the bible to get out of backing up their claims.

    You are nuts man. Go breathe some fresh air dude.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah Dan,
    I've learned to ignore Pvb.

    Pvb believes that God is an evil spirit that does not exist.
    If you quote scripture, he tends to start hyperventilating and will really let go.

    His apple sorter is not only built on errors, it's shooting sparks and smoking!! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan,
    You are the master of the overstatement. You often say that something is "slam debunked" etc, only to come back and retract.
    You should learn to control your urge to be the winner of every point.
    The doc actually agreed with me on several points.

    You are accustomed to quoting others and rarely make a salient point of your own.

    You hide behind your hermeneutics, etc. like a chicken shit coward.

    You have also deleted at least one of my comments very recently because it cut too close to the bone.

    I consider you a pathetic cultist because you espouse such a broad range of irrational explanations for your irrational belief system.

    Van till, Rushdoony, extreme Calvinism, you will employ any extremest view to support your beliefs. You are totally consistent with the manner of a control freak.

    You are the perfect example of a person who has reached the limit of their emotional ability to progress through your irrational beliefs. You are "stuck" where you are and you grasp at any strw to defend yourself. It is quite pathetic, in my own humble opinion.

    I suggest that you ban me from your pblog because although you demand respect, you have not earned it in any way, shape or form.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Dale

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan:

         "So basically your asking to back up the claims of presupposition Biblically."
         No, basically, I am saying that Daniel is lying when he says the tactic is biblical. As I do not accept the bible as an authority, it would not validate the tactic even if it were biblical. Indeed, I stated that if the tactic were biblical, it would demonstrate the bible to be false. Why? Because the tactic is so dishonest.
         "The favorite line of such liars seems to be 'and he answered him nothing.'" [me]
         "You are nuts man. Go breathe some fresh air dude." [you]
         No, I am quite sane. And before you point out that you actually quoted a different sentence of mine and deliberately left that one out, I would like to point out that that is quote-mining. Although I find it mildly annoying that liars for Jesus will quote the it were evidence, it is quite clear that I was talking about them quoting the biblie as a way of saying "I don't have to give evidence."

    Daniel:

         "I've learned to ignore Pvb."
         Not if you are deliberately trying to tease me, you haven't.
         "[Pvblivs] believes that God is an evil spirit that does not exist."
         This is true in the same sense that I believe that Professor Moriarty is an evil man who does not exist. The description is that of evil. The account (as best I can tell from the available evidence) if fictional. I have substansiated both claims. You, however, have claimed the ability to move mountains (specifically you said that you have faith that can move mountains.) But you used the cop-out in a refusal to back that claim up.
         The fact is that I caught you in a lie. That is why you are advising Dan to ignore me. He may well take you up on that. After all, you both belong to Liars for Jesus, do you not?
         I am open to evidence that will challenge and even alter my beliefs. If you not agree that the biblical god was a fictional, evil character, you would seek to present evidence to change my mind. You have not done so.

         As for Daniel's claim of my hyperventalating because the bible is quoted: I put it to any readers. The bible has been quoted many times without getting a rise out of me. Daniel did successfully get my goat at one point because he was making excuses to avoid backing up his claim. He is well aware that it was the copping out, not the fact that he quoted the bible to do so, that got to me. Still, he will continue to lie.

    ReplyDelete
  16. While I am at it, Dani'El, Dan has used you also to try to justify his flagrant inconsistencies.

    You are a very deluded person and I can prove it. All I have to do is sit back and wait until after June of this year. You are going down.

    Dan has even employed you to justify his lame arguments for his irrational belief system.

    It becomes increasingly absurd when you predict the "end of the world."

    I will probably be banned after my last couple comments but I don't care because it will only prove that one sick individual. You need to get a job, same as Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pvblivs,

    I am open to evidence that will challenge and even alter my beliefs.

    Do you really want my presup speech again?

    I feel your pain though. I wish we could just snap our fingers and God will come running to us like a puppy but that is now how He designed this universe. He gives us what we need and that is that. I would be pissed at the world since I gave up on God, as you have.

    Speaking of puppy, can I get one for you to make things better? Dogs do know how to show love towards his master quite well, and I learned a great deal from my dogs. If we greeted our wives as a dog does (with enthusiasm and honor), then we all would have perfect marriages. If we all greeted God the same way this would be a perfect world...and it will be soon. I am the Alpha dog in my house and God is our Alpha and Omega.

    Hugs, Pvblivs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan:

         No, I don't want you to tell me that I am closed to evidence again. You haven't presented any. Either you have evidence, or you don't. If you don't have evidence, you may well believe that your god is real, but you can't convince people that he is. Sometimes I believe things on hunches. But I can't fault anyone for disgreeing with me in such instances. Neither would it be appropriate to tell them that they would just interpret evidence to fit a presupposition that my hunch was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You know, with regard to Dani'El's claims about the destruction of [certain parts of] California, and of the pending "end of the world," I feel it necessary to point out that this is impossible, given a "plain reading" of the bible.

    Why?

    Well, the prophesied "judgment" against California may be possible, but the apocalypse is not, because Abraham's promise is quite unfulfilled.

    In Genesis 13:16, and again in Genesis 15:5, god tells Abram that his descendants will be extremely numerous -- like the dust of the earth, and the stars in the sky. Given the fact that the total number of Jews to ever have been conceived (much less born) would barely fill a pail of sand if they were the grains thereof, the apocalypse cannot arrive for another few hundred thousand years at the least.

    Unless god's promise to Abram is to go unfulfilled, it'll be quite a while until his descendants number the grains of sand. Wikipedia says that the largest grains of sand have a diameter of 2mm, giving them a volume of ~4 cubic millimeters (assuming all grains of sand are this large). At this size, eight billion grains would only fill about four dump trucks (two-axle dump trucks have an ~9 cubic meter load). Using the Wikipedia World Population figures (to 6,000 BCE), and assuming a) that the figures are accurate, b) that every year the population was entirely replaced by the listed figure, and c) that all humans were descendants of Abraham, the amount of sand, at the 2mm diameter, would fill only 38 dump trucks.

    I think we can all agree that there are more than 40 truck-loads of sand-grains to be found on the planet's surface. If we want to apply Dan's brand of hermeneutics, and claim that the sands of the earth only meant the land visible to Abram at Lot's departure, I'm sure we can still agree that there are more than 40 truck-loads of sand-grains...

    So again, if this promise is to be fulfilled, earth and humanity have a rich future awaiting us... I'd love to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to how much time would need to pass before the apocalypse could reasonably be expected (if one considers such beliefs at all reasonable), but I've been awfully kind to this point -- I assumed favorable grain sizes, and I assumed extremely favorable population estimates; favorable, of course, to the Dans.

    Unless god was talking about Abram's sperm, and that of his descendants, this promise's fulfillment means humanity will likely outlast our sun, even past when it engulfs earth as it becomes a red giant.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  20. Stan- sorry, but you are completely ignoring two facts. The first is that the "dust of the earth" referred to in Genesis was only the dust that the recipient of the speech, Abraham, had adhering to his sandals. This is apparent to anyone applying hermeneutics correctly.

    And about "the stars in the sky"- there are only about seven thousand real stars in the sky, the ones that are visible without instruments of the Devil. So it's quite possible, indeed certain, that there are enough Jews to fulfill God's pledge.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I will argue that presup. as an apologetic and hermeneutic is unbiblical, invalid, and generally unpersuasive as a philosophy, although the apologetic tactic of presup. is very useful.

    Presup. was invented by van Til in order to disengage creationism from science and the Bible from biblical criticism. This way, there was no possibility of science and biblical criticism disproving creationism and the Bible.

    It is a secular philosophy which is presented as biblical teaching and is actually contrary to the Bible's teaching.

    The Bible teaches that mankind is to test the words of prophets for validity by the two-fold test of the prophet which is found in the Law of Moses. This testing of prophets is foreign to presup. philosophy. Presuppers argue that to test prophets is to put oneself in the position of judging the Word of God. However, when God himself commands us to do such a thing, presuppers are actually contradicting God.

    Furthermore, presuppers build up their philosophy from a single verse, Prov. 1:7. That is improper hermeneutics, which requires that major doctrines should have wide and perspicuous use in scripture, which presup. does not.

    Presup. is essentially a closed system which assumes that man has perfect hermeneutics and can discern the perfect Word of God. However, man is essentially imperfect and presup. cannot avoid the hermeneutical problem any more than can non-Christians. Hence, in any claim that relies upon the perfect Word of God, presup. is invalid because it cannot show that its hermeneutics are perfect.

    Persuasiveness requires that we engage those we are attempting to persuade. The willingness to accept intellectual risk is an essential part of honest intellectual dialogue. Presup. disengages from others in order to avoid risk. This is why presup. is unpersuasive and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Froggie said: "Nobody takes him seriously and it's too bad that he didn't use his intelligence to do something constructive with his life."

    As with the above comment, just keep reading this blog to see if any of Bahnsen's detractors offer a refutation of his arguments, rather than slinging mud at the most brilliant man I have ever heard speak.

    Indeed when Bahnsen published "Theonomy in Christian ethics" in 1978, the faculty at RTS had him appear before them, as they thought the subject matter to be potentially divisive. In this meeting, Bahnsen was allowed no reference material, no notes, and no other books. Still, an observer of the proceedings commented: "This was a massacre. I have never seen a group of intelligent, grown men, be caught so off guard. Surely the Gospel was presented today in all its fullness by Greg Bahnsen."

    Bahnsen's opponents would like to think that he is not taken seriously, and relegate his legacy to the sidelines, but that is simply because they cannot defeat his arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Makes me think of the likes of Whateverman saying 47 DAYS AGO that he would comment on the Bahnsen-Stein debate, when he finished listening to it.

    crickets :-D

    (Not even a: "Stein was unprepared")

    ReplyDelete
  24. "As with the above comment, just keep reading this blog to see if any of Bahnsen's detractors offer a refutation of his arguments, rather than slinging mud at the most brilliant man I have ever heard speak."


    Obviously you make your statement because you have bought into his malarkey.
    Of course no one can refute his arguments because they do not "prove" anything from the start. He trades in circular arguments that are irrational at best.
    There are those that delight in those circumlocutions because they can claim to win every argument every time.
    As Tom H has pointed out, "in any claim that relies upon the perfect Word of God, presup. is invalid because it cannot show that its hermeneutics are perfect.

    Persuasiveness requires that we engage those we are attempting to persuade. The willingness to accept intellectual risk is an essential part of honest intellectual dialogue. Presup. disengages from others in order to avoid risk. This is why presup. is unpersuasive and disingenuous."

    Some people will spend their entire lives inventing spurious phylisophical arguments. Pathetic, that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Froggie said: ”Obviously you make your statement because you have bought into his malarkey.”

    Yawn. By what standard of logic are Dr. Bahnsen’s arguments, ‘malarkey,’ ‘irrational,’ or ‘invalid,’ how do you acount for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to Dr. Bahnsen’s arguments?

    For those reading along, don’t hold your breath waiting for a repsonse to that question; your noses, perhaps, but not your breath.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Tom wrote- Furthermore, presuppers build up their philosophy from a single verse, Prov. 1:7. That is improper hermeneutics, which requires that major doctrines should have wide and perspicuous use in scripture, which presup. does not.

    This is not so.
    If you read "Always Ready" by Dr. Bahnsen, or listen to his lectures, scriptures from all over the bible, esp the writings of Paul are foundational to the pressup apologetic.
    And the common ground, the evangelical battlefield that you say is missing from PA is clearly described.
    The great thing I see in the PA is that many Christians take the bait to the demands of unbelievers to assume a neutral stance, that is to deny Christ as the foundation of ALL knowledge.
    To deny Christ in any field, including the field of thought is sinful.

    If you want more scriptural supports for the Pressup Apologetic just ask.
    Or do your own research, read "Always Ready".

    ReplyDelete
  27.      I would like to make an observation here. Knowledge predates "christ." (Note that that is supposedly a descriptive adjective and not a name.) Therefore this "christ" cannot be the source or foundation of all knowledge.

         Sye Tenb has apparently recognized that Froggie is correct (although he will never admit it.) As soon as he saw he could not make a case, he pulled out the "by what standard of logic" nonsense. This is why presup is dishonest. It is certainly true that everyone has presuppositions. However, when I present a case to someone, I do not base it on presuppositions that he does not share. I can only convince someone, if he already agrees with my premises. If he does, I can build up to the conclusion. If he does not, he will only agree that that premise would lead to that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pvblivs said: "I would like to make an observation here. Knowledge predates "christ."

    Um, you observed that knowledge predates one person of the eternal Trinity??? Where did you observe this perchance?

    ReplyDelete
  29. "By what standard of logic are Dr. Bahnsen’s arguments, ‘malarkey,’ ‘irrational,’ or ‘invalid,’..."

    The human standard. Same as you.
    You claim your standard comes from God, yet you have no evidence that some supernatural entity exists.

    Don't break a hip, ol timer.

    Bahnsen's proposition is built on hermeneutic sophism.
    He did have a hell of an imagination!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dale said: "The human standard. Same as you"

    Um, I'm pretty sure that Dr. Bahnsen was human. Why is your 'human standard' right, and his wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  31. For those reading along... Sye can't account for his god.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anyways, I'm surprised to find you're reduced to using blogs to spread your message. What happened to the clearly more efficient (for you) method of revelation?
    LOL
    "404 Prayer Not Found"

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sye asks, "Um, I'm pretty sure that Dr. Bahnsen was human. Why is your 'human standard' right, and his wrong?"

    Yes, and as a human he was subject to prejudices, cultural conditioning and any number of influences.

    In Brahnsen's case he was born and raised in a strict Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (If he had been born into a strict Catholic church he might have been a priest.) He first began reading Cornelius Van Til when in high school, which obviously influenced his later career.

    He was a very sickly kid, another pressure from which people turn to religion for hope.

    While attending Westmont College he began writing for the Chalcedon Foundation of Rousas J. Rushdoony and soon came to admire the latter's strong Calvinistic convictions. He was a Rushdoony clone. Rushdoony is now considered a crackpot in most circles and this is where Brahnsen picked up the manner in which he spins the bible Hermeneutic sophism) to say anything he wants it to, albeit, he does in a very creative manner, but it is all spin.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Bahnsen's opponents would like to think that he is not taken seriously,....."

    No Sye. He is not taken seriously in spite of what his opponents say.

    The average rank and file church goer is absolutely bewildered when presented with his spin and they recognize it as such. He is a novelty at best and a divider at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Froggie,
    When one considers that the "rank and file" of today's apostate church holds that Jesus was not God, Hell does not exist, the virgin birth not true, etc.
    Then it is only logical that Bahnsen and others are rejected by them.

    They have no knowledge of even the basic doctrines of the faith, so of course PA is going to go right over their heads.

    The Presupp apologetic is soundly biblical based and can be explained in layman's terms to the simplest of believers.
    But it is most effective when used to debate intellectuals who are familiar with it's terms.
    It's also why people like you howl so loud. You've got nothing that can come close to challenging it.
    So you go to ad homs.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Still can't account for your god yet, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dani'El,
    "It's also why people like you howl so loud."

    You are exagerating. I am being as frank and factual as I can be.

    "You've got nothing that can come close to challenging it.
    So you go to ad homs."

    Point out among all the points I have made where I made an ad hom. Put up or shut up. You often make the mistake of thinking you are being persecuted when you are merely being challenged.


    It is obvious that Sye has no good refutations of my arguments aother than to say his logic comes from God and my logic is invalid because I say it comes from our evolved brain. Obviously, we both use the same area of our brains to reason with and that has resulted in our sense of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now you're hyperventilating, Froggie.

    I meant ad homs on Bahnsen.

    So the laws of logic only popped into existence when human brains evolved to some point?
    Before that they were not true?

    Sye's got you pegged.
    You peg yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Daniel:

         You mean ad-homs like saying that those who disagree with you are howling or hyperventilating?
         The laws of logic are descriptive in how people use reasoning. So, they popped into existence in the same sense that the rules of grammar popped into existence. When people started to use reasoning, there was a method by which they did so.

    ReplyDelete
  40. pvblivs said: "The laws of logic are descriptive in how people use reasoning."

    Are they descriptive of ALL reasoning, or only valid reasoning, and how do you differentiate the two?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "So the laws of logic only popped into existence when human brains evolved to some point?
    Before that they were not true?"

    You know better, Dani'El.
    Our brains evolved slowly over a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  42. To anyone who might be genuinely interested (not people who will just say "but how do you know that for certain?"):

         The "laws of logic" for a given individual describe how that individual reasons. The "laws of logic" for a community describe (more broadly) how people in the community tend to reason. For laws of logic to be invalid, they would have to be inconsistent. Many people (like Sye) declare such a perspective invalid if it is only inconsistent with his own. He adds his own premises to the premises that he is judging invalid in order to reach the contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pvblivs: how do you know for certain?

    Hehe, just kidding...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Pvblivs said:

    "Sye Tenb has apparently recognized that Froggie is correct (although he will never admit it.) As soon as he saw he could not make a case, he pulled out the "by what standard of logic" nonsense. This is why presup is dishonest."



    Absolutely spot on.....


    Sye is only interested in defeating other people. It is all a big competition for him. He has no actual interest in converting people to the 'truth' otherwise he wouldn't be so condescending and arrogant.

    Sye's lies have been exposed and defeated time and again by several people here and even by kids on youtube. His dishonesty will never let him concede failure though so he has devised a list of non-sensical questions to evade answering anything that exposes his awful logic. Questions that he can't answer himself without simply invoking an innate revelation outside of sensory input and rational thinking.

    Well I have claimed a similar revelation (from the Invisible Pink Hammer) so all of my opinions are equally as valid because they are based on an absolute standard... and my opinion is that Sye is full of shit. Therefore, I can say that it is absolutely true that Sye is full of shit.

    If he had a refutation of my claims he would have informed us of it. But he doesn't, so he doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Circular Sye wrote Makes me think of the likes of Whateverman saying 47 DAYS AGO that he would comment on the Bahnsen-Stein debate, when he finished listening to it.

    crickets :-D


    You're the last person to be pointing out where other people didn't follow-up or answer questions.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Whateverman said: "You're the last person to be pointing out where other people didn't follow-up or answer questions."

    So you admit it :-D

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pvblivs said: ”The "laws of logic" for a given individual describe how that individual reasons. The "laws of logic" for a community describe (more broadly) how people in the community tend to reason. For laws of logic to be invalid, they would have to be inconsistent.”

    Inconsistent with what, the ‘laws of logic’ of the individual or the community? Which community? Could another community come up with laws of logic which would necessarily be valid? Aren’t communities made up of individuals??? How many in the community would need to agree on a law of logic in order for it to be valid??? Please give an example of a law of logic which describes how the individual reasons, and a law of logic which describes how the community tends to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Description.
    Not prescription.

    ReplyDelete
  49. And sye's triple question marks make questions even more questiony.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ATVLC said: "And sye's triple question marks make questions even more questiony."

    Great, that was the intention!!!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Once again Sye descends into the hell of circularity and vague circumlocutions.
    Why am I not surprised!!??

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Great, that was the intention!!!"

    Indeed, the goal of the presuppers is to create obfuscation such that illiterates think they are actually for real.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dale said: "Once again Sye descends into the hell of circularity"

    Naturally I disagree, but why is circularity in reasoning absolutely not allowed to arrive at truth according to YOUR worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dale said: "Once again Sye descends into the hell of circularity"

    Circular Sye said Naturally I disagree, but why is circularity in reasoning absolutely not allowed to arrive at truth according to YOUR worldview?

    Disagreeing implies your understanding of the implication of circular reasoning.

    Question asked and answered.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Whateverman said: "Disagreeing implies your understanding of the implication of circular reasoning."

    Um, duh, I do. I'm only asking why it is absolutely not allowed according to HIS worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Whateverman said: "Disagreeing implies your understanding of the implication of circular reasoning."

    Circular Sye wrote Um, duh, I do. I'm only asking why it is absolutely not allowed according to HIS worldview

    There's no need for an answer, as circular reasoning is known to be unacceptable. You ignoring the fact that it is unacceptable in your world view is what intelligent people refer to as feigning ignorance.

    If your God exists, he sees you being dishonest in His name; start worrying about your own salvation before spending time on ours.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Whateverman said: ”There's no need for an answer, as circular reasoning is known to be unacceptable.”

    It can’t be known to be unacceptable in his worldview, since his worldview cannot account for knowledge. How do YOU know circular reason to be unacceptable, and why is it necessarily unacceptable?

    ”If your God exists, he sees you being dishonest in His name;”

    How do you know what God ‘sees’?

    ” start worrying about your own salvation before spending time on ours.”

    I’m not spending time on your salvation, only exposing the suppression of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  58. How do you account for this god?

    ReplyDelete
  59. "So the laws of logic only popped into existence when human brains evolved to some point?
    Before that they were not true?"

    Froggie- You know better, Dani'El.
    Our brains evolved slowly over a long time.


    So the laws of logic evolved parallel to the brains of men?
    Previous to man's existence they were not true? and only became true when they evolved along with the brain?
    How did natural selection act on the unseen laws of logic?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dani' El said: "How did natural selection act on the unseen laws of logic?"

    Big grin :-) I feel like getting popcorn, and watching this. It's giddifying :-)

    Wonderful brother!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Whateverman said: ”There's no need for an answer, as circular reasoning is known to be unacceptable.”

    Circular Sye feigns ignorance again by posting the following: It can’t be known to be unacceptable in his worldview, since his worldview cannot account for knowledge. How do YOU know circular reason to be unacceptable, and why is it necessarily unacceptable?

    YOU know it to be unacceptable by your own admission. Stop questioning something which you already know the answer for.

    Unless, of course, your "world view" is something you don't have much faith in...

    Your God is watching what you say here. I hope you're ok with that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Whateverman said: ”YOU know it to be unacceptable by your own admission. Stop questioning something which you already know the answer for.”

    What you fail to realise is that justification for the unacceptability is what the very discussion is about. You may not like how I justify things according to my worldview (i.e. the laws of logic, and morality being derived from God), but I have yet to hear how you or your cohorts justify them. Sure, we may agree, for instance, that murder is wrong, but asking why it is wrong is a valid question, when one wordview cannot give such an account. Surely it is not wrong BECAUSE we agree that it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dani'el said "So the laws of logic evolved parallel to the brains of men?..." etc.

    Description.
    Not prescription.

    Sye said "You may not like how I justify things according to my worldview... "

    But you haven't justified them, you've just moved the problem. How do you account for your god?

    ReplyDelete
  64. How did natural selection act on the unseen laws of logic?

    Description. Not prescription.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ATVLC said: ”But you haven't justified them”

    Sure I have, you just don’t happen to like my justification, problem is, you have no foundation from which to argue against it.

    ” you've just moved the problem. How do you account for your god?”

    As I have said many times, God has always existed, and is, in fact, beyond time. Now, if you wish to posit that the laws of logic and morality have always existed, that is up to you, but absent justification from you and your ‘friends’ the debate can’t even begin.

    ReplyDelete
  66. So you can't account for your god, he just always was.

    And you don't know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.

    ReplyDelete
  67. ATVLC said: "So you can't account for your god, he just always was."

    Um, that is the account.

    "And you don't know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive."

    Um, sure I do, descriptions are 'what is,' and prescriptions are 'what ought to be.' Now, how is it possible for you to know what is, or what ought to be, or anything according to your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  68. No account is an account now?

    A description is what is?

    Then what the difference between the description and the thing the description is describing?

    ReplyDelete
  69.      Sye got it wrong. There's a big surprise. (Strictly speaking, he is half right.) Descriptive rules are simply rules inferredd from observation. Prescriptive rules are rules imposed from outside.
         Sye, of course, still does not account for his god. (It is impossible to account for one's premises. They are just presumed.)

    ReplyDelete
  70. ATVLC said: "No account is an account now?"

    We can debate whether or not it is an account, but to simply assume that it is not, is question begging. Now, your account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? (Not holding my breath).

    "A description is what is?
    Then what the difference between the description and the thing the description is describing?"


    Looks like you are the one who does not know the difference, (but since you have not told us how you can know anything according to your worldview, I should not be surprised). Descriptions are representative of the actual thing being described.

    Now, I have endeavoured to answer all of your questions, if you do not reciprocate, I will cease to answer your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Pvblivs said: ”Prescriptive rules are rules imposed from outside.”

    Um, and rules are ‘what ought to be’ (which your worldview cannot account for BTW).

    ”Sye, of course, still does not account for his god.”

    Sure I do, you just don’t happen to like the account.

    ” (It is impossible to account for one's premises. They are just presumed.)”

    Are all premises valid? If not, how do you know which are, and which are not?

    ReplyDelete
  72. We can debate whether or not it is an account
    You didn't give an account, you said God just was.

    Now, your account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? (Not holding my breath).
    These laws are a description of reality and how reality seems to work. Aw, forget it, I'm just going to say things just ARE. That account is good enough for you - when it's about God.

    Looks like you are the one who does not know the difference, (but since you have not told us how you can know anything according to your worldview, I should not be surprised).
    oooh, snarky!

    Descriptions are representative of the actual thing being described.
    Finally! Now can you tell the difference between laws of description and laws of prescription now?

    Now, I have endeavoured to answer all of your questions, if you do not reciprocate, I will cease to answer your posts.
    You've responded but I can't say you've tried to answer anyone's questions. If you cease to answer my posts, I'll know why.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The next four days are going to be over 40 degrees and I have no air conditioning, so I may not be responding to much for a short while.
    I hate summer.

    40 degrees Celsius = 104 degrees Fahrenheit

    ReplyDelete
  74. Circular Sye wrote:
    "Um, and rules are ‘what ought to be’ (which your worldview cannot account for BTW)."

    Everyone's worldview can account for their reasoning. If you can reason and show that you can reason, then you've accounted for your ability to reason. Congratulations!

    It's like asking someone to account for their beating heart; just take a pulse. There it is, accounted for. :P

    Presuppositional apologetics lies somewhere between the fallacy of argument by lack of imagination and the fallacy of God of the gaps.

    And I don't think Sye really wants me pointing out how inconsistent his worldview is starting with a loving God who commits genocide and tortures billions.

    Or I could point out the fact that an all-powerful God who can create the Universe and all the rules in it has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to change a single rule.

    My world view is not the one that's inconsistent.

    ReplyDelete
  75. It's a loving torture.

    And it all your fault. Or Adam and Eve's fault.
    Or maybe you're a Calvinist and then it's kinda God's fault he didn't make you one of the "elect".

    It's pretty disgusting that people will worship a being that sets up a torture chamber and threatens to throw people in it forever. Then hides and tells people it's their fault he's torturing them.

    Well, I better get back to nailing sheets over the windows. I hate summer.

    ReplyDelete
  76. WEM - You're the last person to be pointing out where other people didn't follow-up or answer questions.

    This is exactly why I have given up trying to have a discussion with Sye. He picks and chooses which arguments to respond to. And when you point out his logical inconsistencies, you get a few canned responses.

    1) How do you account for logic in your worldview or some related variation (Is it absolutely wrong and if so why).

    2) God has made a revelation to me in some way in which he can be sure.

    I actually enjoy having discussions with Dan. We may not always agree, but at least he is open to honest and respectful debate.

    Kaitlyn - Everyone's worldview can account for their reasoning. If you can reason and show that you can reason, then you've accounted for your ability to reason. Congratulations!

    Spot on. But Sye will accuse you of circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Bart:

         I used to enjoy discussions with Dan. Now, he thanks Sye for "sharpening his sword" and resorts primarily to using Sye's deception. It's sad, really.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Bart/Pvblivs

    Agreed.

    If this blog carries on like this every discussion will come back to the same presupp nonsense.

    You can always ask somebody to account for something. Then if they answer you can ask them to account for their answer. Then if they answer that you can ask them to account for that answer. And again and again...

    Sye is like a kid who keeps asking 'but why?'. Turn the questions on him and he either ignores you or states his unsupported opinion that God is and always has been.

    Oh really Sye?...

    But why?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Rhiggs wrote If this blog carries on like this every discussion will come back to the same presupp nonsense.

    As I understand it, Sye's been banned from other sites/blogs for this behavior. Even if I'm mistaken about this, he certainly has been behaving as if it's true. You can find several 500+ post threads among Dan's and the old Raytractors' sites; I think there's even one at Tim Schaertel's blog, where Sye made his appearance and spammed until we got tired of him.

    His nickname is Circular Sye for a reason, and it's certainly not due to his unwillingness to use presupp tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Sye spent some time at a PhD Philosopher's blog a while back He cut Sye to pieces.
    I can't remember his name just now but will try to find it.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Dale said: "Sye spent some time at a PhD Philosopher's blog a while back He cut Sye to pieces."

    I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.

    Reynold tried to use some of his arguments, but also failed. I think it was in the "Battle of Wits" thread.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think it was in the "Battle of Wits" thread.

    Subject to be renamed to "Spanking of the Lost" :)

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'm going through the "Battle of Wits" thread. To this observer it looks like Sye got pretty soundly debunked at every turn and at every angle.
    Wow, a lot of stuff happened in this thread...

    ReplyDelete
  84. ATVLC wrote To this observer it looks like Sye got pretty soundly debunked

    At the very least, it shows that using God to justify the utility of logic doesn't prevent one from being completely dishonest.

    Kudos to you if you made it even a third of the way through that thread :)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Phew! That's a lot of reading...
    There's a teenage girl, poems, a guy who PROVED he was a god, and a fair few Sye debunkings, did Sye ever mail his wallet to the guy that he said he would?

    Starting on Steven Law's threads...

    ReplyDelete
  86. Ah there you are Sye
    I'm STILL waiting for the evidence that you can think rationally.

    For those who don't know I am asserting that Presupp is illogical garbage. In order to show this I have used a presupp argument on Sye. Trouble is everytime I do he eventually runs away because, under presupp rules, he can't even show that he can think rationally.

    Why is that Sye?
    two possible answers:
    1) you really do have brain damage & can't think rationally.
    2) Presupp is illogical rubbish but you won't admit it.

    I'll leave you to decide which.

    ReplyDelete
  87. For those not familiar with the demonstration that presupp is garbage it goes like this.

    I prsuppose that those who hold to the presupp argument have been hit by a rock & are, in fact, brain damaged. Because they are brain damaged they are incapable of thinking rationally.

    Now of course these presupps will offer supposed evidence that they can think rationally. But we are using presupp rules so I need merely reply - But how do you know that your reply is rational? After all they would be assuming that they could think rationally to begin with & that is what they have to prove.

    What is the result?
    1) Presupps are made to look like clowns - unable to even show that they can think rationally using presupp rules.
    2)Presupp is exposed as the logical garbage that it is.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @ Sye
    You wrote "I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic."

    2 points.
    1) Logic is not "universal, abstract, invariant"
    & it is composed of rules not laws.
    2) Law accounted for logic in several ways. So that was an outright lie Sye. For shame!

    ReplyDelete
  89. Chris said: "2 points.
    1) Logic is not "universal, abstract, invariant"


    Where does logic not apply, what is it made of, and when has it changed?"

    "2) Law accounted for logic in several ways. So that was an outright lie Sye. For shame!"

    Prove your point. Where did Law account for the laws of logic according to HIS worldview.

    (He did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to committ to a view he knew I would dismantle).

    I realize that Chris will not take back his false accusation, but for those reading along, just watch to see if he posts where Stephen Law gave an account for logic according to HIS worldview, but, as always, don't hold your breath.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You're so predictable, Sye. Why spend your time being dishonest for Jesus, when you could be bringing the gospel to the unsaved?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Whateverman said: "Chris, I think the world would be a better place if we just pretend that Sye doesn't exist"

    You have already shown your capability of doing this with God, so why not extend your delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Sye, if you pretend God doesn't exist, you'll be free to do whatever you want! Your life will be a lot more fun!!! :D

    ReplyDelete
  93. Wow, I just got done reading all of the "Sye" posts and comments on the Stephen Law blog and it has become abundantly clear that when Sye is met with defeat in any argument he makes, he simply switches his argument. It is kind of like thinking you finally have the last peg of Sye's Battleship ready to place on your board and he says - "ha ha my Battleship is somewhere else on the board."

    And the insistence that the Christian God completely accounts for universal and absolute laws of logic because of the impossibility of the contrary because no atheistic world view could possibly account for them was shot down pretty square by Stephan.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Kaitlyn wrote Sye, if you pretend God doesn't exist, you'll be free to do whatever you want! Your life will be a lot more fun!!! :D,

    Listen to the sensei. She is wise beyond her years...




    ps. I'm a deist

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hey, can I get a link to the discussion Sye had with Stephen Law?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Sye, if you pretend God doesn't exist, you'll be free to do whatever you want! Your life will be a lot more fun!!! :D


    Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

    ReplyDelete
  97.      Sye still has not accounted for his god, although he claims to have done so. He has merely invoked his god to make the claim of accounting. Now, he could say that he takes his god as a premise and that it is inappropriate to call for an accounting of premises. And he would be correct. But then he would be admitting his dishonesty. So he will continue to be dishonest and say that "godidit" is an accounting for his god.
         I don't ignore Sye. I don't respond to him directly as he is too dishonest for there to be any point. But I address claims that I think may deceive others so that hopefully they will not be misled.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Never mind. I did a search for Sye on Stephen's blog, and his responses to Sye are the same I've been saying, plus or minus a few quotes from philosophers I've never heard of.

    Since Stephen and myself both studied philosophy and the humanities, I guess we were both able to critique Sye's argument similarly. *shrug*

    ReplyDelete
  99. To those complaining that Sye is ruining a thread with his pressup apologetic, take a look.
    That's the topic at hand. Dan called the tune, so who is being dishonest?

    You may not like the argument, or find it to be a fallacy etc. but to call us liars, or dishonest is just pure BS.

    We clearly believe in what we are arguing, know it to be the truth and in no way are deceiving anyone.

    Besides, for there to be lies, there must be truth, and you deny that there is truth, so who is being dishonest?

    The PA (pressup apol) attacks the base of unbelief, the false presuppositions of the unbeliever and gives no ground to any supposed "neutral ground".
    The demand that we put our axioms aside or be accused of dishonesty is hypocritical. You do not put yours aside, and neither should we.
    In fact it is sinful for the Christian to put Christ aside in anything, including our thought processes.

    This breaks things down to the basic elements of belief or unbelief.
    If you want to use logic to argue against the existence of God, then you are being foolish. For logic came from Him, and could come from no other source.

    And for this reason, the unbelievers refuse to answer the questions, as their own words will defeat them.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Sye, if you pretend God doesn't exist, you'll be free to do whatever you want! Your life will be a lot more fun!!! :D

    Pretend is right.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Whateverman said: "Chris, I think the world would be a better place if we just pretend that Sye doesn't exist"

    Sye said: You have already shown your capability of doing this with God, so why not extend your delusion.

    Ouch!! Dude, are you alright? Can you get up? Just sit there and recover from that one, WEM. Do you need to be driven to the hospital? :)

    ReplyDelete
  102. "Besides, for there to be lies, there must be truth, and you deny that there is truth, so who is being dishonest?"

    For there to be lies, there is a presumed ability to be honest. There is both intellectual honesty and factual honesty.

    I hate to be rude because I think Sye is a nice guy, but I don't think he's entirely intellectually honest. Why do I think this? Because he comes across as wanting to prove his point more than having an honest discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Wem,

    Keep in mind claiming to be a diest still denies the God of the Bible which is God. So you worship a different god which is still breaking the 2nd Commandment since you worship a god to suit yourself. Being a deist means you abandoned God. Ironically you claim He created the universe and then abandoned it. Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Dan rather lamely responded Ouch!! Dude, are you alright? Can you get up? Just sit there and recover from that one, WEM. Do you need to be driven to the hospital?

    Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt be a douche to those who believe differently than you"?

    Or perhaps you've conceded the argument, and have nothing more intelligent to add?

    Your God sees you both being intentionally dishonest in his name.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Daniel:

         "The demand that we put our axioms aside or be accused of dishonesty is hypocritical."
         This is a rather interesting claim, as I see hypocrisy coming from you. You demand that we "account for" our axioms as conclusions rather than premises but insist that restating your axioms "accounts for" your own.
         "If you want to use logic to argue against the existence of God, then you are being foolish. For logic came from Him, and could come from no other source."
         While I have no doubt that you take that as axiomatic, I take it as simply false. Logic, to exist, must be independent of any god. Of course, if we had direct evidence of some god (we don't) we could talk about logic as he uses it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Wem,

    Your God sees you both being intentionally dishonest in his name.

    Please back this claim up with evidence or was it a mere assertion not to be taken seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Kaitlyn, again honesty presupposes truth. And Sye is honestly trying to stay on topic, his opponents are demanding, that is DEMANDING he stray off topic.

    Funny how one's worldview dictates things. I read all the comments, past and present, and see nothing but victory for Sye, yet you see the opposite.

    And that is the problem with unbelief. It blinds the sinner.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "Kaitlyn, again honesty presupposes truth. "

    No, honesty does not assume any kind of truth. If I honestly believed the moon was made of cheese, I would not be lying to tell you that the moon is made of cheese.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Kaitlyn, it implies moral truth, the judgment that dihonesty is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  110. No it doesn't, because lying and being honest are two variables independent of morality.

    Sometimes it's moral to tell a lie, sometimes it's moral to tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Sometimes it's moral to tell a lie, sometimes it's moral to tell the truth.

    Is that the moral truth in your view?
    See, it does assume truth, everything does.

    ReplyDelete
  112. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "Is that the moral truth in your view?
    See, it does assume truth, everything does."

    I am being objective when I say sometimes it's okay to lie and sometimes it's not. Although, when exactly it's okay to lie and when it's okay to tell the truth depends on the person.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Dan rather sadly parroted what he's learned about logic by saying Please back this claim up with evidence or was it a mere assertion not to be taken seriously?

    Are you saying your omnipotent God can't see you being dishonest?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Back on topic, you accuse us of dishonesty, intentional lies.

    That is a moral judgment that implies lying is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Ah Sye, Sye
    Still pretending that you can think rationally.

    Please nurse try & explain these things to Sye [the poor, poor braindamaged man].

    I wrote "1) Logic is not "universal, abstract, invariant."

    You replied "Where does logic not apply, what is it made of, and when has it changed?"

    Since you are making the positive claim you have the burden of proof you poor poor brain damaged man. Prove that logic is universal. & sorry but the impossibility of the contrary is not evidence that logic is universal.

    I then wrote "2) Law accounted for logic in several ways. So that was an outright lie Sye. For shame!"

    & you replied "Prove your point. Where did Law account for the laws of logic according to HIS worldview."

    I wrote that Law accounted for logic. I said nothing about any worldview. That is a half-truth Sye. Just as bad a lie I'm afraid.

    You finally wrote "(He did not want to reveal his own worldview, because he did not want to committ to a view he knew I would dismantle). "

    You poor, poor brain damaged man. You now seem to be implying that you can read minds. I'm thinking of a number between 1 & 1 million. What number is it? Don't know? Then you don't know why Law didn't nail his colours to any mast. That is another lie Sye. I hope your readers have noticed the half-truths & outright lies. Tsk, tsk. Telling lies for God is still lying Sye.

    Now since my accusations have all been proved I would like to draw the reader's attention to another fact. Sye has ignored the argument that he cannot produce evidence that he can think rationally [playing by presupp rules]. My guess is because he cannot do it. Can you Sye? :-)

    Thank you nurse.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I only said Sye was intellectually dishonest. I didn't accuse you of being dishonest, Dani'El.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "That is a moral judgment that implies lying is wrong."

    When did I say lying is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dan called the tune, so who is being dishonest?

    Come on, Dani'El, surely you recognize your error here. Just because Sye is on-topic doesn't mean he is being honest. We accuse him of dishonesty not because he is hijacking the thread (in this case -- certainly he has attempted, and succeeded, at doing precisely that in other threads), but because he utilizes circular logic, and refuses to admit a) that there is anything wrong with circular logic ("Naturally I disagree, but why is circular logic wrong..."), b) that his "presupposition" is a conclusion reached by way of reason, which is his, and everyone's, actual presupposition, and c) that if his tactic were valid, it would likewise validate any internally consistent religion or creed which asserted a similar magical revelation ("in such a way that we can know for certain..."). In fact, since Christianity can easily be seen as internally inconsistent, any validity proffered onto his tactic is unhelpful to his ultimate cause.

    You may not like the argument, or find it to be a fallacy etc. but to call us liars, or dishonest is just pure BS.

    While it is true that we do not like the argument, and that we find it a fallacy, the reason we call Sye and his followers liars and/or dishonest is because the fallacies they employ have been exposed, yet they unabashedly trot out the same tripe. The dishonesty stems not from offering the argument, but from continuing to do so after it has been shown fallacious.

    We clearly believe in what we are arguing, know it to be the truth and in no way are deceiving anyone.

    Wrong. You have conflated your beliefs with your arguments. Clearly, you believe there is a god, and that god is the one depicted in the bible. There are various additional nuances, but suffice it to say you hold your beliefs to be based in fact. Your arguments, on the other hand, are not your beliefs. They support your beliefs, and even seek to validate them, but unless you believe that arguments which rely on informal fallacies are valid, the deceit in question has little to do with what you actually believe.

    Besides, for there to be lies, there must be truth, and you deny that there is truth, so who is being dishonest?

    Well, according to your straw man, no one is dishonest. Evidently, because we find Sye to be dishonest, we do accept that there exists truth -- we just deny that what he claims is true.

    The PA (pressup apol) attacks the base of unbelief...

    Blah, blah, blah.

    The demand that we put our axioms aside or be accused of dishonesty is hypocritical. You do not put yours aside, and neither should we.

    I'm not sure what you're claiming here -- what axioms have you been asked to suspend, and what axioms do you claim we refuse to suspend?

    In fact it is sinful for the Christian to put Christ aside in anything, including our thought processes.

    Look. We all know that you'll refuse to admit the possibility that you could be wrong. Why we still attempt these discussions with you is beyond me -- we are at least willing to admit this possibility. If you want to talk about who is honest and who isn't, well, I'd say an admission that we don't have perfect knowledge is pretty honest, and that a denial of the same is pretty damned dishonest... but that's just me...

    If you want to use logic to argue against the existence of God, then you are being foolish. For logic came from Him, and could come from no other source.

    Congratulations, you have proven your ability to utilize circular reasoning. Concluding that which you accept as a premise does not a valid argument make.

    If you are unable to recognize how Sye's argument has been deconstructed, how it is itself a conclusion drawn from reason (albeit faulty reason), and how if it were valid it would provide validation for every internally consistent religion, then you must have some difficulty reading and comprehending.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  120.      Honesty, in itself, no more implies that dishonesty is wrong than blueness implies redness is wrong. Our objection to dishonesty is what implies that we find dishonesty to be morally wrong. Furhtermore your question (which is you directly asking about a moral truth) does not demonstrate that Kaitlyn necessarily believes in such. Although I do expect that she believes in moral truths.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I am being objective when I say sometimes it's okay to lie and sometimes it's not. Although, when exactly it's okay to lie and when it's okay to tell the truth depends on the person.


    Tell the what?

    ReplyDelete
  122. I wrote that "Logic is not "universal, abstract, [nor] invariant."

    For those of our readers who wish to learn I will explain.

    Is logic invariant? This is just a fancy way of saying that logic has never changed. Is that correct? Nope! Logic has seen many changes. The one who created many of the rules of logic was Aristotle. He wasn't the first one to use logic in a systematic way but he was the one to put it on a firm foundation.

    But since logic many changes have been introduced into logic. For example there were changes to logic introduced by Leibniz, Russell, Kant, Hegel, Frege, among many others.

    ReplyDelete
  123. @ Chris

    Yawn.

    Exerpt from my post @ 9:13 AM Jan 28: I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.
    (added bolding)

    Chris’s accusation @ 3:13 PM Jan 28: ”Law accounted for logic in several ways. So that was an outright lie Sye. For shame!”

    My response @ 4:06 PM Jan 28: Prove your point. Where did Law account for the laws of logic according to HIS worldview?

    Chris wrote @ 5:54 PM Jan 28: ”I wrote that Law accounted for logic. I said nothing about any worldview. That is a half-truth Sye. Just as bad a lie I'm afraid.”

    Problem is Chris, I said that Stephen never once said how his own worldview accounted for logic, and you accused me of lying. Where is the lie?

    Don’t worry though, I doubt anyone is holding their breath waiting for you to support your accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Now to the second part of my post.

    Is logic universal?

    Answer: There is no way to prove this. Why? The term universal may, in this case, be defined as true in all times & in all places.

    Now a problem immediately arises. Prove that the rules of logic apply, right this second, on the most distant planet in the universe from us.

    Even if we were to take a starship to visit said planet it wouldn't prove that the laws of logic apply this second. But there are even bigger problems. We may very well dwell within a multiverse.

    If that's so how do we establish that the rules of logic function the same in different universes?

    Quite frankly, at this moment in our history, we can't. Even if we could visit said dimensions & the distant ends of the universe that still wouldn't prove the point.
    Why? Because a universal logic would be true in all TIMES and in all places. That means we'd have to be able to see what was happening in all those places all through history & into the future as well.

    In other words only God could state a universal. But if logic is universal & it is a creation of the mind of God it would be unchanging. Why? Think about it. We change our ideas when new facts come to light. What new facts could God discover? He knows everything already so his logic is universal. But since our logic changes then we do not possess God's logic.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Chris said: ”But since logic many changes have been introduced into logic. For example there were changes to logic introduced by Leibniz, Russell, Kant, Hegel, Frege, among many others.”

    Did logic change Chris, or only the understanding of logic? If someone comes up with a different variable for the law of gravity will gravity have changed, or just the understanding of gravity?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Dani'El said - For logic came from Him, and could come from no other source.,

    You see Dani'El, that is exactly where you are getting it wrong. That is also where Sye gets in wrong as Stephen Law put it more elegantly than I have.

    Sye's whole shtick is that logic proves the existence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary. This is just plainly incorrect, whether any of you want to accept it or not. Maybe logic just exists as a foundational concept (there has to be an independent foundation for everything). Maybe that is just the way the universe it. Maybe we live in a computer simulations.

    Both of the those are potential atheist worldviews which also "account for" logic. Sye's continued insistence, therefore, that no atheist "worldview" can account for logic is either complete blindness, denial or dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Dan said - Keep in mind claiming to be a diest still denies the God of the Bible which is God. So you worship a different god which is still breaking the 2nd Commandment since you worship a god to suit yourself.

    Since we are on the presupp. topic - but Dan, WEM's worldview under Sye's conditions can account for the laws of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Finally I also claimed that logic was not abstract.
    That implies logic is composed of something. What is it that logic is made of? Human thought.

    As we've already seen logic does change. Only a product of humanity would need to change since we have finite minds & keep discovering new things. Therefore logic comes from us. Therefore it is composed of our thoughts.

    Now don't get me wrong. Logic is objective. It's just not an object. Nor is it a universal. We accept it tentatively. Which is a fancy way of saying true until evidence arises to show otherwise. Which may or may not happen. In the world of quantum mechanics logic doesn't always function as we understand it for example. But at our level it seems to work fine.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Chris said: ” Is logic universal?
    Answer: There is no way to prove this.”


    Funny thing is, to say that ‘There is NO WAY to prove this,” is to assume the very thing you deny – a universal – in this case, knowledge.

    ” In other words only God could state a universal.”

    Scroll up (about 2 inches), you just did, further exposing the inconsistencies of your worldview. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Bart wrote Sye's whole shtick is that logic proves the existence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary.

    Additionally, Bart, the theory of quantum mechanics demonstrates that the "law" of non-contradiction is neither universal nor absolute.

    Sye knows this. He just pretends that he doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Chris said: ” Finally I also claimed that logic was not abstract.”

    Then he said: ” Now don't get me wrong. Logic is objective. It's just not an object.”

    Need I say more? Thanks again Chris.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Whateverman said: ” Additionally, Bart, the theory of quantum mechanics demonstrates that the "law" of non-contradiction is neither universal nor absolute.”

    Yawn, and the very physicists who performed the experiments from which you derive this conclusion disagree with your position.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Bart said: ” Since we are on the presupp. topic - but Dan, WEM's worldview under Sye's conditions can account for the laws of logic.”

    He’ll have to present his case. Don’t hold your breath.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Whateverman said: ” Additionally, Bart, the theory of quantum mechanics demonstrates that the "law" of non-contradiction is neither universal nor absolute.”

    Sye babbled Yawn, and the very physicists who performed the experiments from which you derive this conclusion disagree with your position.

    Despite claiming this several times, you are unable to provide a reference for a single physicist who does.

    It's a fact of physical existence that the particle both DOES go through slit A, and DOES NOT go through slit A.

    ReplyDelete
  135. @ Sye

    You wrote "he [Law] never once said how his own wordlview accounted for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic."

    Ah a misunderstanding. My appologies you poor, poor brain-damaged man. I thought you were making a substantial point when, in fact it was simply irrelevant. Logic was not invented by Law, so his worldview is irrelevant.

    In fact you went further than this & implied you KNEW why Law didn't express an opinion on the origin of logic. That implies that you can read minds. Where is the evidence for this?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Provide references or admit that you're being dishonest for Jesus, Sye.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Chris said: ” My appologies”

    Apology accepted.

    ”I thought you were making a substantial point when, in fact it was simply irrelevant. Logic was not invented by Law, so his worldview is irrelevant.”

    No, it is entirely relevant. I do not waste my time refuting claims that the person I am arguing with does not hold. If Mr Law had committed to a claim, I would have glady addressed it.

    ReplyDelete
  138. @ Sye & our readers.

    You wrote "Did logic change Chris, or only the understanding of logic?"

    Good boy Sye. Unfortunately this is semantics & therefore a meaningless debate.

    You then wrote "If someone comes up with a different variable for the law of gravity will gravity have changed, or just the understanding of gravity?"

    But gravity isn't only a conception of our minds Sye, whereas logic is. And our conceptions change as new information becomes available. You poor, poor brain-damaged man. Unable to tell the difference between a force [gravity] & a conception [logic].

    ReplyDelete
  139. Sye,
    "Yawn, and the very physicists who performed the experiments from which you derive this conclusion disagree with your position."

    Can you name the physicist(s) who performed the experiments and disagrees with Whateverman? Can you name the experiments or name the principal of quantum mechanics Whateverman is referring to?

    I just want to make sure you and Whateverman are on the same page.

    ReplyDelete
  140. @ Sye

    I wrote ”I thought you were making a substantial point when, in fact it was simply irrelevant. Logic was not invented by Law, so his worldview is irrelevant.”

    You replied "No, it is entirely relevant. I do not waste my time refuting claims that the person I am arguing with does not hold."

    So it was relevant to your ego only. Got it. But so we don't waste our time show that you can thinkl rationally. Watch everyone he won't answer, he'll answer another question, or ignore me, or airily dismiss it or claim that he's answered it but he won't answer. Will you Sye? Why is that again?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Kaitlyn wrote Can you name the physicist(s) who performed the experiments and disagrees with Whateverman? Can you name the experiments or name the principal of quantum mechanics Whateverman is referring to?

    I'd even take specific interpretations of the double slit experiment which suggest my understanding is wrong. I can be open-minded about it.

    I suspect, however, that Sye hasn't even looked into it. He's certainly refused to offer evidence otherwise...

    ReplyDelete
  142. Yeah, Whateverman. I was about to point out that the double slit experiment is performed in nearly every high school and some middle schools.

    And what makes Sye's statement even more suspect is the fact that most physicists have no background in formal logic. So why would they comment on the law of non-contradiction in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  143. @ Sye

    You wrote "Chris said: ” Finally I also claimed that logic was not abstract.”

    Then he said: ” Now don't get me wrong. Logic is objective. It's just not an object.”

    Need I say more? Thanks again Chris."

    You're very welcome Sye. Though I can't see how pointing out that something is objective makes it universal. Perhaps if I had suffered the same cranial injury as yourself I'd make that simle mistake too.

    For those who are reading this if something is universal then it is also objective, but the reverse isn't true.

    Example We see lillies as white flowers. That is an objective fact. But that doesn't mean that all creatures see a white flower when they see a lilly. So us seeing a white flower is an objective fact but not true in all times & places & therefore not universal.

    What a simple thing to be mistaken about. You poor, poor brain-damaged man Sye. I hadn't realised your brain damage was so extensive. No wonder you think that a stupid thing like presupp is a valid argument.

    ReplyDelete
  144. @ WEM

    You wrote "I suspect, however, that Sye hasn't even looked into it. He's certainly refused to offer evidence otherwise..."

    It's called pulling something from one's ass. But we must give Sye a break. After all he is brain damaged. He doesn't really understand how silly & illogical his statements are.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Whateverman:

         An alternative interpretation is that it is meaningless to talk about whether the electron goes through slit A or slit B unless it is an observable. But if it is made an observable (say, by shining a light) it does, indeed, go through one and only one slit -- and the interference effects vanish.

    Chris:

         "Watch everyone he won't answer, he'll answer another question, or ignore me, or airily dismiss it or claim that he's answered it but he won't answer. Will you Sye? Why is that again?"
         Presuppers ignore points when they know they are caught in their lies. Similarly, I have no doubt that if Daniel thought he had truth on his side, that he would address my points -- at the very least, to make his case to everyone else. He does not do this. I therefore conclude that he knows his position is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Pvblivs wrote Whateverman:

    An alternative interpretation is that it is meaningless to talk about whether the electron goes through slit A or slit B unless it is an observable. But if it is made an observable (say, by shining a light) it does, indeed, go through one and only one slit -- and the interference effects vanish.


    Yup! Until that light is shined, however, both contradictory statements can also be viewed as simultaneously true and false.

    On the quantum level, the law of non-contradiction fails. It seems to be valuable almost everywhere else I've looked, however...

    ReplyDelete
  147. Pvblivs wrote...
    "An alternative interpretation is that it is meaningless to talk about whether the electron goes through slit A or slit B unless it is an observable. But if it is made an observable (say, by shining a light) it does, indeed, go through one and only one slit -- and the interference effects vanish."

    The problem is that you have two propositions: a photon can go through slot 1 or slot 2. The principal of contradiction makes this clear in that not(P and not P) is true.

    When you shoot a photon or electron at two slits and it goes through both and none, the law of non-contradiction just broke down. The quanta are existing in a state of superposition.

    This fact is especially clear when you force quanta through one slit or the other by observing it.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @ Pvblivs

    You wrote "Presuppers ignore points when they know they are caught in their lies."
    This has certainly been true from my experience. But that only makes it an objective but not universal fact. Doesn't it Sye? :-)

    You went on to write "Similarly, I have no doubt that if Daniel thought he had truth on his side, that he would address my points -- at the very least, to make his case to everyone else. He does not do this. I therefore conclude that he knows his position is a lie."

    A reasonable assumption given the evidence. Remember, however, that Dani'el is a 'prophet'. Perhaps he is waiting on inspiration from God. Let's wait with baited breathe.

    ReplyDelete
  149. If anyone is interested in playing with Quantum Wave Interference, the physics department at CU-Boulder provides various online simulators, including one which simulates the Double-slit experiment.

    To see the quantum effect most easily, select the second tab across the top (after starting the sim), labeled "Single Particles," and add a double-slit on the right. Then, clicking the gun (the professor who runs the PhET program insists on using a ray gun for any quantum effects) will send out a photon (or an electron, a neutron, or a helium atom), which will pass through both slits, interfere with itself, and finally appear as a particle detected on the screen.

    For the geeks amongst us, there are several sims on the main page, which may or may not be found interesting and/or humorous.

    Enjoy!

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  150. Great stuff, Stan. I'd seen another online simulator a few years back, but this one's new to me.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  151. Dan said:

    "Wem,

    Keep in mind claiming to be a [deist] still denies the God of the Bible which is God. So you worship a different god which is still breaking the 2nd Commandment since you worship a god to suit yourself. Being a deist means you abandoned God."

    Dan, how many Gods are there? I only ask because I assumed you believe that there exists only one God. If there's only one God, then when someone recognizes *A* God then they must be recognizing *THE* God, as there's no other God to choose from. To believe otherwise would seem to indicate that you believe in the existence of other gods.

    ReplyDelete
  152. @ Sye

    You wrote "Chris said: ” Is logic universal?
    Answer: There is no way to prove this.”

    Funny thing is, to say that ‘There is NO WAY to prove this,” is to assume the very thing you deny – a universal – in this case, knowledge."

    You poor, poor brain damaged man. I bet you think that statement makes sense don't you?

    To point out the obvious, that no one except God is omniscient & therefore has knowledge of all the universes at all times is hardly the same thing as claiming universal knowledge myself. You poor, poor brain damaged man.

    Boy that brain damage really is extensive Sye. I really must insist, before we go on that you provide evidence that you can think rationally. I don't want to over tax that damaged brain of your's further.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Chris said: ”To point out the obvious, that no one except God is omniscient & therefore has knowledge of all the universes at all times is hardly the same thing as claiming universal knowledge myself.”

    Chris, then how do you know that “There is no way to prove” that logic is universal?”

    ReplyDelete
  154. Now I've answered more than enough of your questions Sye.

    Time for you to provide evidence that you can think rationally. That's all I'm asking for & I will keep on asking this question Sye even if you, ignore me, try to change the topic, claim that you've answered the question, or keep pestering me to answer your questions instead.

    In fact, if you are unable or unwilling to answer my question concerning your rational abilities then we can only conclude that you either won't because you know that presupp is garbage or you really do have brain damage.

    Now as the readers can obviously see, if Sye has brain damage then there is little point in answering any of his questions. After all how would we know he can understand us? We don't know how extensive his brain damage is.

    Of course it might be the case that Sye already knows that the presupp argument is garbage. Of course if that were true then he will change topic, ignore my question, etc. In fact he will do anything EXCEPT answer my question.

    Now as you have seen I have done my best to answer Sye's questions. Even though the answers should have been obvious. Ask yourself why he expects me to answer all his questions but he won't answer mine?

    Thank you for your time loyal readers. I'll leave the moral judgements from now on to your good selves.

    ReplyDelete
  155. @ Sye

    I am perfectly happy to answer your question the very moment you've provided evidence that you can think rationally. As I've said many times before It's pointless explaining what should be obvious until I understand the extent of your brain injury.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Added to last point.

    After all SAye. We're playing by presupp rules now. Or did you forget you poor, poor brain damaged man?

    ReplyDelete
  157. @ Whateverman,

    Not that I expect you to accept the Foundation of Physics Journal but hey.

    Perhaps Wiki is more to your liking: ” Any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a photon passes through destroys the interference pattern, illustrating the complementarity principle; that the light can demonstrate both particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time.”

    (Bolding mine).

    ReplyDelete
  158. In case anyone is wondering we are using the definition of logic found in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

    What I am asking is for Sye to provide evidence of logical thought as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. That's all. Pretty simple hey? Well normally it would be but we are playing by presupp rules remember.
    Where Sye has to give an example of rational thought, then explain why to was rational, then explain why his explanation was rational, & so on, & on. All without presupposing that he can think rationally of course.

    Of course the whole thing is garbage but Sye says that presupp arguments are logically valid. My bet is that Sye will refuse to answer my question by using the old bait & switch. In other words he'll keep badgering me into answering his question first & then he'll respond to that & on & on & somehow he'll never quite get around to answering mine. It's known as manipulation. That's my guess anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Chris said: "I am perfectly happy to answer your question the very moment you've provided evidence that you can think rationally."

    Your very request assumes that I can think rationally in order to understand it. Nice try though :-D

    ReplyDelete
  160. Sye rather unpointedly wrote the light can demonstrate both particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time.

    That's nice but the wave-particle duality is not the issue at hand. Please address the fact that the particle both goes through slit A and does not go through slit A. At the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Chris said: "What I am asking is for Sye to provide evidence of logical thought as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. That's all. Pretty simple hey?"

    Well Chris, I can see why you would deny logical thought, but then arguing anything with you seems rather pointless don't ya figure?

    ReplyDelete
  162. @ Sye

    You wrote "Your very request assumes that I can think rationally in order to understand it. Nice try though :-D"

    You poor, poor brain damaged man. I've already explained this to you at the Raytractors. Did you forget? I'm assuming that the cranial trauma nurse can understand & explain it to you. Brain injury does cause loss of memory doesn't it Sye? :-) :-) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  163. Whateverman said: "Please address the fact that the particle both goes through slit A and does not go through slit A. At the same time."

    It doesn't. It either acts as a particle, or a wave, but not both at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  164. In case you lack understanding of the physics you claim scientists disagree with me about, consult Pvblivs post a bit above this one.

    The electron exhibits wave-like characteristics as long as it is not disturbed (ie. by people trying to tell where it is or how fast it's moving). Once it is disturbed (such as by presuppositionists who detect its position), it exhibits particle-like characteristics.

    Note that the duality is also shown by the speed of the particle/wave. the faster it moves, the more it behaves like a particle; the slower it moves, the more it behaves like a wave.

    None of this speaks to the problem of the "law" of non-contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Chris said: "Did you forget? I'm assuming that the cranial trauma nurse can understand & explain it to you."

    Um, which also assumes that I can rationally understand her explanation. Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
  166. @ Sye & everyone

    You wrote "Well Chris, I can see why you would deny logical thought,..."

    You poor, poor brain damaged man Sye. I've never denied logical thought just your definition of it. Hence the reason I proposed an authoritative definition.

    You then added "but then arguing anything with you seems rather pointless don't ya figure?"

    I agree. I argue using logic with a functional brain while you argue using logical fallacies using a damaged brain. But then I've always said that presupp was garbage. nice to see you implying it Sye.

    Now to the readers did you notice how Sye squirmed out of answering my question? Did you notice how he did everying he could to distract you from noticing his inability to answer my question? Why would he do that? Either he is brain damaged & is unable to respond. Or he is unwilling to respond because he can't & knows it.

    I will leave it up to the readers to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  167. I guess I have to spell it out for you: if we don't make an effort to detect if the electron moved through slit A, it remains as probability wave; it will both move through slit A and *not* move through slit A.

    Once we detect it, the probability wave collapses into a particle, whereupon we are indeed able to see that it does one or the other (not both).

    Before that, however, its behavior refutes the absoluteness/universality of the law of non-contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Whateverman said: "None of this speaks to the problem of the "law" of non-contradiction."

    There isn't one. You simply interpret the experiment according to your presuppositons. There are other interpretations. Like here

    ReplyDelete
  169. Whateverman said: "Before that, however, its behavior refutes the absoluteness/universality of the law of non-contradiction."

    A wave causing an interference pattern does not violate the law of non-contradiction. I think perhaps it's time you start citing sources of the physicists who claim the double-slit experiment does.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Sye, we are not talking about particle/wave duality. We are talking about propositional logic.

    The proposition is that an electron goes through slot A. If we do not observe it go through slot A, then it goes through slot A and it doesn't go through slot A. The principal of contradiction has just been violated.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Chris said: "I will leave it up to the readers to decide."

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Kaitlyn said: "The principal of contradiction has just been violated."

    Cite your sources please.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Since when do I have to cite sources to experiments I have personally run or talk about formal logic which I studied in college?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Kaitlyn said: "Since when do I have to cite sources to experiments I have personally run"

    Since you claim the experiment violates the law of non-contradiction. Besides Kaitlyn, you (and WEM) are forgetting that if you claim that the law of non-contradiciton does not apply universally, you are actually admitting that it does. For you see, if it is your claim that it does not apply universally, than you have exactly zero grounds for applying it to our argument.

    ReplyDelete
  175. "Since you claim the experiment violates the law of non-contradiction."

    That's my conclusion, not my claim.

    Sye, if you want a better demonstration of what I'm talking about, here you go. It even mentions that electrons go through and don't go through the same slit at the same time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

    "Besides Kaitlyn, you (and WEM) are forgetting that if you claim that the law of non-contradiciton does not apply universally"

    I'm not making any such claim. Logic is a language, I don't even understand how one would apply it universally.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Sye, I don't need sources when I can give a proof that the law of non-contradiction was violated.

    The law of non-contradiction is as follows:

    For proposition P:
    not(P and not P) = TRUE.

    Proposition Q: The electron goes through slot A.

    The results say that the electron does go through slot A and doesn't go through slot A, therefore:
    (Q and not Q) = TRUE.

    And...

    not(Q and not Q) = FALSE in violation of the principal of contradiction.

    QED: Propositions made in regards to quantum phenomena can violate the law of non-contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  177. "Propositions made in regards to quantum phenomena cannot violate the law of non-contradiction."

    Exactly, so we agree!

    If the law of non-contradiction does not apply universally, you have exactly zero basis for any argument against that statement.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Circular Sye wrote Kaitlyn, you (and WEM) are forgetting that if you claim that the law of non-contradiciton does not apply universally, you are actually admitting that it does. For you see, if it is your claim that it does not apply universally, than you have exactly zero grounds for applying it to our argument.

    Which would mean that your proof of the existence of God has also fallen.

    And if you wish to maintain God's existence, even if doing so contradicts the law of non contradiction, well, then, you've killed him too.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Wow I go to the store and someone threw up in my inbox. I have catching up to do so let's get to it.

    Bart,

    Since we are on the presupp. topic - but Dan, WEM's worldview under Sye's conditions can account for the laws of logic.

    Not at all. That would be like saying trees and pencils are responsible for logic. Just because people worship false gods that does not account for said logic.

    ReplyDelete
  180. "Which would mean that your proof of the existence of God has not fallen."

    Now, you're talkin!

    ReplyDelete
  181. I write: "Propositions made in regards to quantum phenomena can violate the law of non-contradiction."

    Sye quotes me as saying: "Propositions made in regards to quantum phenomena cannot violate the law of non-contradiction."

    You got to be kidding me.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Kaitlyn said: "You got to be kidding me."

    On what basis do you have a problem with that contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Saying someone said the opposite of what they said isn't a contradiction, it's a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Sye quoted someone?

    ""Which would mean that your proof of the existence of God has not fallen."

    And then offered one of his typically hollow responses:

    Now, you're talkin!


    ...Except no one made the statement he quoted -- at least not on this page. Given the timestamp of this post, and its position in the thread, I suspect he meant to quote Whateverman, but if that were the case, the above is a misquote, as Whateverman's original statement follows:

    Which would mean that your proof of the existence of God has also fallen. (Emphasis mine)

    So I submit to all here, this is direct and incontrovertible evidence of Sye's dishonesty. The only way this misquote could have occurred is if Sye intentionally replaced "also" with "not." To do this such that it appears to be a quote is blatant dishonesty.

    Thanks, Sye. Most of us knew you were dishonest already, but now even your True Christian™ buddies are unable to deny your dishonesty.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  185. Circular Sye demonstrated his lack of faith the Biblical God, and changed my post so that the word "also" read "not":

    Whateverman actually wrote Which would mean that your proof of the existence of God has also fallen.

    You don't have the faith you think you do, Sye. True Christians would have no need to lie for Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Kaitlyn: "Saying someone said the opposite of what they said isn't a contradiction, it's a lie."

    Um, lies are contradictions - they contradict the truth. Now, what is the basis for your objection?

    (And I did not use your name in the statment).

    ReplyDelete
  187. Whateverman said: "You don't have the faith you think you do, Sye. True Christians would have no need to lie for Jesus."

    I also did not use your name in the statement. Just proving a point that although you claim that the law of non-contradiction does not apply universally, you object to a contradiction as though it necessarily applies there.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  188. "Now, what is the basis for your objection?"

    My objection has nothing to do with contradictions or the truth of your statement. You lied and misquoted me.

    Sye, if you want to play philosopher, fine. I gave a formal, logical proof that the law of non-contradiction was violated by quantum physics.

    Either point out the error in my calculations or admit the principal of contradiction didn't hold up.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Uct,

    To believe otherwise would seem to indicate that you believe in the existence of other gods.

    Of course there are other gods. Remember the golden calf that they worshiped until Moses came down to stop it. Some times people worship "self" as their god. The whole reason for the second Commandment was to show that people mistakenly worship other gods.

    There is only one God though. To worship anything else is sinning. Even as deists do by creating a god to suite their beliefs. No where in the Bible does it say that God is an absentee landlord so Wem worships a false god.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Stan the hat wearing feller said: "Thanks, Sye. Most of us knew you were dishonest already, but now even your True Christian™ buddies are unable to deny your dishonesty."

    Not that I expect you to back up your claim, but where did I lie? I simply made a contradictory statement which I attributed to no one in particular. That they both (and you) objected shows the inconsistency of their positions.

    ReplyDelete
  191. That wasn't a contradiction, Sye, that was a lie.

    Your claims were refuted, your proof disabled, and your continued willingness to lie in order to make a point reveals you for a charlatan.

    God needs better advocates...

    ReplyDelete
  192. Chris,

    You poor, poor brain damaged man.

    You poor, poor ad hominem user. I thought fallacies lose a debate...

    ReplyDelete
  193. Kaitlyn said: "My objection has nothing to do with contradictions or the truth of your statement. You lied and misquoted me."

    I made a contradictory statment to yours, and did not attribute it to you. Again, what is your problem with that, if the law of non-contradiction does not apply universally? Your inconsistency is showing.

    ReplyDelete
  194. WEM said: "That wasn't a contradiction, Sye, that was a lie."

    Not that I expect you to back up your claim, but where was the lie? I simply made contradictory statements which I attributed to no one. If the law of non-contradiction does not apply universally, you have zero basis for any objection, that you do object, exposes your inconsistency.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Sye, sye you poor brain damaged man.

    I wrote "Did you forget? I'm assuming that the cranial trauma nurse can understand & explain it to you."

    & you replied "Um, which also assumes that I can rationally understand her explanation."

    Do you think the nurse talks like a five year old to everyone? No! She's just trying to dumb it down for you. Nice try pretending to have a functioning brain Sye but we know you have brain damage. The impossibility of the contrary, remember?

    ReplyDelete
  196. "I made a contradictory statment to yours, and did not attribute it to you. "

    You intentionally mislead both whateverman and myself, that's lying.

    Lying has nothing to do with the principle of contradiction. You simply assert a proposition directly or indirectly that you hold to be false.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Sye, I gave my formal logical proof that the principle of contradiction was violated by propositions made about the quantum events.

    The onus is on YOU now to either concede the point or explain where in the formal proof I made a mistake.

    If you continue to avoid the point, I will assume you see nothing wrong with my proof, and therefore I was right.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Sye, sye, sye
    In all your demands for proof you're fortgetting one little thing.
    You can't think rationally remember? Of course what they say makes no sense to you. You don't have the cognitive ability to understand them.

    Nurse please dumb that down for Sye. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>