Sye TenB said...
JG said: ”Do you know anything about the scientific method? We would not have a theory of evolution by natural selection if there were not EVIDENCE.”
What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?
”God is who God is no matter how people try to envision him or project him and he is certainly not a man in the sky who makes people pop out of the dirt.”
How do you know anything about God?
Cheers,
Sye
I had to email him because I wouldn't break ranks by replying on Ray's blog.
Dear Sye,
I know that you claim to be an engineer on Ray Comfort's site, this is a continual source of hilarity to me given the poor caliber of your arguments and your abysmal understanding of science.
Today you said,
"What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"
My fiance, who is an actual registered Professional Engineer(P.Eng) in Canada would like me to point out that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering - which is applied science.
Of course, if you were a real University educated P.Eng, you'd know that already.
Have a nice night using circular logic to confuse people who are even stupider than you are.
Love,
Two atheists with real educations.
It terrifies me that somewhere this man may actually be in charge of something important.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I can't wait for the response.....
ReplyDelete"How do you know your husband is an engineer?"
or
"According to your worldview, how do you know I use circular logic"
or better yet,
"I'm sorry, I have a really small penis, live with my mother and I am unemployed, but I don't even know how I know I have a small penis."
Hey
ReplyDeleteI get under the Christian's skins so much, check out my latest blog post and you'll see why.
Ha ha ha.
But, he'll most likely reply with
"If you don't believe in God, how can you send an email?"
Man, R.S., I think that if anyone makes up a logo graphic for this site, the tagline should totally be "Watch Hell's Kitchen!"
ReplyDeleteThe first time you said that, I laughed a little harder in my heart.
And they think Homer Simpson is a caricature...
ReplyDeleteall the while there's a lobotomized Homer actually working - hopefully supervising an unconnected branch of drain pipes.
How do you know anything about God?
ReplyDeleteI think Maragon, that you forgot to say:
It is impossible to know anything about something that does not exist.
I a just saying.
But this asshole is worse that it seems.
Anyway, I share your worry about whether he is in charge of anything important.
G.E.
We're actually emailing back and forth now.
ReplyDeleteIt's terrifying.
Did you know that atheists can't assume the uniformity of nature, upon which the foundations of science rest?
Clearly the fact that nature has been uniform since recorded history has been kept cannot possibly allow us to assume that the likelihood of it continuing to be uniform is more then good.
Only god can make nature uniform guys.
Atheists are so stupid.
hey Shags!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Terry is my best inspiration.
I usually just repeat what he says with my heathen twist!
He's probably reading this...Terry, I already wrote a response, copy and paste! :P
Ranting 'Nazi' Lunatic
Hows your german!? LOL
you are a bad student, you need to get paddled by the principal!
Learn to respect others, Atheist. You will burn in hell with Adolph!
Nazis were the scum of the earth, and I will treat you like a normal person once you remove the picture of the pig nazi!
Attention soldier! About face! Forward March! Eyes right! Ready, front! Ready, halt! Parade Rest! Attention! Present Arms to Jesus!
Evilution is so senseless [And I'm so original!]
The foundation of evolution says that all of creation was the result of a 'big bang'. No evidence to support it.
Evolutionists say there was no 'Divine Power' involved, and all life came from a rock and 'ooze'. No evidence, just a theory about it all.
Yes, it is ridiculous, and evolutionists have not found the missing "Link" either. No hard evidence! That's why Richard Dawkins can't get a Evidence Book together as he promised.
God spoke everything into existence in the first book of the Bible. I challeng to read the Bible!
Genesis 1:1-11
Praying for ya'!
I was carpooling with a couple of gangsters. I was talking about Jesus, everyone loved me. We we doing drive bys, and the leader told me to sit on the passengers seat. While I was shooting atheists, I said, "Won't it be wonderful when we drive to hell and shoot satan and his demons?" He agreed!
Turn away from the lies! John 3:16
Watch Hells Best Kept Secrets on my blogs and website!
Raycomfortfood.blogspot.com
HBKS1.blogspot
Christianitytoday.com
wayofthemaster.com
livingwaters.com
Praying for ya! Ciao! ;)
-Terry Burton
See, I'm nice.
felix said...
ReplyDeleteAnd they think Homer Simpson is a caricature...
all the while there's a lobotomized Homer actually working - hopefully supervising an unconnected branch of drain pipes.
Ha ha ha
Well, since she doesn't want to seem to keep you up to date, here is a portion form our last e-mail :-)
ReplyDeleteI said: "You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method."
She said: "That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is."
I said: "Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing."
And SHE is the one accusing ME of circularity. HI-larious.
Cheers,
Sye
maragon:
ReplyDeleteYou're actually exchanging personal emails with Sye Ten B? Is it like working in a hospital for the criminally insane? I think you're tougher than I am, and I was a Marine.
Hey Sye!
ReplyDeleteAccording to your world view, how do you justify that?
Cheers,
Ranting
PS. Watch Hells Kitchen on fox. Prayin' for ya, Christian! Ciao! ;)
Maragon,
ReplyDeleteOnly god can make nature uniform guys.
Yeah, Sye's main problem with this argument is that there is no such thing as god. Let alone his god.
G.E.
HA! She's from Kitchener, that's like an hour from my place, we could even do this in person! :-D
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Sye
And SHE is the one accusing ME of circularity. HI-larious.
ReplyDeleteSye, even if she is guilty of it, that doesn't make you any less guilty of it.
You give me headaches.
Oh, Sye, sweetie, I thought you'd want me to keep your embarrassing psycho babble just between the two of us.
ReplyDeleteBut if you'd like to play this way, I'll be glad to post it all on my blog.
"I said: "You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method."
She said: "That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is."
I said: "Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing."
I just fired off this reply to what he's posted here:
If you can't understand why the validity of the scientific method rests on the fact that the scientific method actually works(all while claiming to be an engineer) then you're right, there isn't anything else to discuss. What else could possibly validate the scientific method other than the fact that it works?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"And besides all that, looking to a deity(lets pretend one exists) to keep nature constant holds no logic or predictable power whatsoever. What if the deity decided to change the laws of nature tomorrow? On what basis are you assuming it won't?"
ReplyDeleteI win.
Maragon said: "If you can't understand why the validity of the scientific method rests on the fact that the scientific method actually works(all while claiming to be an engineer) then you're right, there isn't anything else to discuss."
ReplyDelete1. You are assuming the validity of your reasoning (which you have zero foundation for) in concluding that it HAS worked.
2. You are assuming that you know the proper function of science in order to determine that it HAS worked.
3. You have zero basis for assuming that it DOES work.
"What else could possibly validate the scientific method other than the fact that it works?"
Not what 'else' but what does - The absolute promises of God.
Cheers,
Sye
Maragon, don't look now but Lance Christian Johnson said: "Sye, even if she is guilty of it, that doesn't make you any less guilty of it."
ReplyDeleteMethinks your friends see your circularity :-D
Oh, and LCJ, how do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
Cheers,
Sye
"Not what 'else' but what does - The absolute promises of God."
ReplyDelete1. You are assuming the validity of your reasoning (which you have zero foundation for) in concluding that there is a god.
2. You are claiming absolute knowledge in asserting that there is a god.
3. You have zero basis for assuming that there is one.
See? Works both ways.
The email exchange in its entirety is posted on my blog for all to see.
"Maragon, don't look now but Lance Christian Johnson said: "Sye, even if she is guilty of it, that doesn't make you any less guilty of it."
ReplyDeleteMethinks your friends see your circularity :-D
Oh, and LCJ, how do you know that your ability to reason is valid?"
Because you didn't bother to show him my response and you took my answer out of context?
Congrats, babycakes, you can quotemine!
I'm sure that when the entire exchange is read that they won't see any circular logic but your own.
Oh, and LCJ, how do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
ReplyDeleteBecause it tells me that you're a douche, and that seems to be consistent with the evidence.
I'm not going to play your stupid little game, Sye.
Maragon said: "See? Works both ways."
ReplyDeleteFantastic! You admit that you have zero foundation for the validity of your reasoning.
Now, perhaps you could demonstrate how it would be impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain.
"The email exchange in its entirety is posted on my blog for all to see."
Thank you :-D
Sye
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming that you know the proper function of science in order to determine that it HAS worked.
Sye, you're on a computer communicating with people from all over the planet (well - mostly North America anyway). What more evidence do you need that the scientific method works?
Please, I implore you, stop being a douche. Think of the children.
LCJ said: "I'm not going to play your stupid little game, Sye."
ReplyDeleteI know why :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Oh, and Sye, I'll trust Maragon over you any day. She doesn't give me headaches.
ReplyDeleteHow do I know that she doesn't give me headaches?
How do I know that I'm typing this?
How do I know that my head isn't made of cheese?
How do I know that peanuts aren't blueberries?
How do I know that this is stupid - 'cause it is, dammit!
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeleteI know why :-D
How do you know you know?
LCJ said: "What more evidence do you need that the scientific method works?"
ReplyDeleteWell, not that I grant you the validity of your reasoning in determining that it HAS worked, but, on what basis do you assume that it DOES work? Surely you can see the problem with saying it DOES work because it HAS worked, no???
Cheers,
Sye
"Fantastic! You admit that you have zero foundation for the validity of your reasoning."
ReplyDeleteNo, I most certainly did not admit that. I simply pointed out that I, like you, can make up my own baseless criteria to prove my point.
"Now, perhaps you could demonstrate how it would be impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain."
Now perhaps you can demonstrate to me how it would be possible for you to know for sure that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists.
And if you're going to be stupid enough to claim absolute knowledge, then I want you to tell me what I'm wearing right now, hot stuff.
"Now, perhaps you could demonstrate how it would be impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain."
ReplyDeleteBecause of our fallible reasoning, it would be impossible for us to be certain that we were certain, even if we were. We would have to be either perfect or inerrant processors to have certainty in certainty.
No Sye,
ReplyDeleteYou cannot even make that question. You have not established anything. Thus, it is still quite the opposite, you first have to demonstrate that there is a god, then you have to demonstrate each of those properties you attribute to such god, and so on, and so forth. We do not need to demonstrate anything if we have not even been convinced by your godish absurd circularity.
Also, I know that you change meanings and take things out of context. So, you lose given your track record.
So far you have not demonstrated anything.
G.E.
"Surely you can see the problem with saying it DOES work because it HAS worked, no???"
ReplyDeleteTrying to arbitrarily separate past knowledge and future knowledge is nonsensical. You've given me no reason to not continue to assume the uniformity of nature based on the fact that nature has always been uniform - you've just decided that I should.
And besides all that, looking to a deity(lets pretend one exists) to keep nature constant holds no logic or predictable power whatsoever. What if the deity decided to change the laws of nature tomorrow? On what basis are you assuming it won't?
It seems to me that an atheist has far more reason to assume the uniformity of nature, because there appears to be no agent of change, which is not the case with a theist.
LCJ said: "How do you know you know?"
ReplyDeleteBecause I know that my reasoning is a gift from God, and before you ask, I know this because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it. Now, how is it that you know that your reasoning is valid again? Oh wait, you said you weren't playing :-D
Cheers,
Sye
But Maragon, how can you be sure you're wearing what you say you're wearing?;-)
ReplyDeleteJebus, this is fun.
Sye Ten B:
ReplyDeleteHow has he revealed it in such a way that you can be certain of it?
Because I know that my reasoning is a gift from God, and before you ask, I know this because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it.
ReplyDeleteBut how do you know that you can be certain of it?
I'm playing my own, equally annoying and obtuse, game.
Maragon said: ”Trying to arbitrarily separate past knowledge and future knowledge is nonsensical.”
ReplyDeleteTell you what you should do then, look up which numbers won the last lottery, and buy a ticket with those numbers, we can share the winnings!!!
(I hope your posting this stuff at your blog too :-D )
"Because I know that my reasoning is a gift from God, and before you ask, I know this because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it."
ReplyDeleteCan you really not see how STUPID this is?
'No one can know anything for certain except for me. I know for certain that there is a god because he certainly told me that he certainly exists. And although none of you atheists can trust your fallible humans minds, I CAN because my fallible human mind tells me that god told me that I can be certain and that I should be certain to claim certainty.'
Rufus:
ReplyDeleteBut Maragon, how can you be sure you're wearing what you say you're wearing?;-)
How can you be sure that you even wrote that?
"...I know this because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it...."
ReplyDeleteDemonstrate that 'such a way' is the only way to be certain, and that the source is God and not GodA (creator of God) or GodB (Source of GodA).
LCJ said: "But how do you know that you can be certain of it?"
ReplyDeleteHey, you don't have to like my claim to certainty, but Lance, what is yours?
(This is where you make some silly comment to hide the fact that you are ducking my questions :-D )
Cheers,
Sye
Tell you what you should do then, look up which numbers won the last lottery, and buy a ticket with those numbers, we can share the winnings!!!
ReplyDeleteThat's so stupid that my eyes are bleeding.
"Tell you what you should do then, look up which numbers won the last lottery, and buy a ticket with those numbers, we can share the winnings!!!"
ReplyDeleteThat's a ridiculous and improper analogy.
The lottery is based on random chance, and the uniformity of nature assumes uniformity.
Looking at years worth of lotteries would show me that the numbers are completely random and have an equal chance of arising, so using that knowledge I would continue to choose completely random numbers.
Lance:
ReplyDeleteI'm not. In fact, I'm not certain of anything. I'm beginning to think that the only thing that is real and certain is Sye Ten B. That everything springs from Sye's fevered little mind, which would make Sye... God?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
felix said: "Demonstrate that 'such a way' is the only way to be certain, and that the source is God and not GodA (creator of God) or GodB (Source of GodA)."
ReplyDeleteTell you what Felix (and Rufus), you tell me how you can know ANYTHING for certain THEN we can compare claims.
Cheers,
Sye
Hey, you don't have to like my claim to certainty, but Lance, what is yours?
ReplyDeleteI'm not claiming certainty. YOU are. And just because I can't claim absolute certainty, that doesn't magically make yours valid.
(This is where you make some silly comment to hide the fact that you are ducking my questions :-D )
This is where you write something douchey and insert and emoticon.
Circular Sye sez--
ReplyDeleteLCJ said: "How do you know you know?"
Because I know that my reasoning is a gift from God, and before you ask, I know this because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it. Now, how is it that you know that your reasoning is valid again? Oh wait, you said you weren't playing :-D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Sniffs] Our first troll...
"...tell me how you can know ANYTHING for certain THEN we can compare claims."
ReplyDeleteI make no such claims. I could, but that would be stupid.
Yes, our first troll. Sye deserves some kind of an award.
ReplyDeleteSye,
ReplyDeleteNice dodging Sye, now seriously:
How do you know that you can be certain of it?
G.E.
Maragon said: "The lottery is based on random chance, and the uniformity of nature assumes uniformity."
ReplyDeleteAnd how is it that you know the lottery will still be random, and nature will still be uniform tomorrow? How do you account for randomness AND uniformity?
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. (This is where you say: That's just the way it is :-D )
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
ReplyDeleteThe 'troll' thing, it was just a matter of time :-D Good argument though.
Night ladies :-D
GE wrote:
ReplyDeleteNice dodging Sye, now seriously:
How do you know that you can be certain of it?
Ahh yes - indeed! You didn't answer that question, did you, Sye? How can you be certain - and more importantly, how can WE be certain that YOU are certain?
Why don't you just face the truth, Sye - nobody can ever be 100% certain of anything. And there's nothing wrong with that, so we have to use the logic and reasoning that's available. Appealing to supernatural sources doesn't count.
But how do I know...? Ugh - I honestly meant it when I said I wasn't going to play. Hats off to you, Sye, your argument is so bleeding stupid that I'm compelled to argue it.
"And how is it that you know the lottery will still be random, and nature will still be uniform tomorrow? How do you account for randomness AND uniformity?
ReplyDeleteP.S. (This is where you say: That's just the way it is :-D )"
I know that the lottery will still be random and that nature will still be uniform based on the fact that they have been that way in all of recorded history(and don't pull any shit about rigged lotteries, because that's retarded).
How do you know that your god won't make lotteries all the same numbers and reverse the laws of nature tomorrow?
Ps. This is the part where you say, "I just know."
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
The 'troll' thing, it was just a matter of time :-D Good argument though.
Night ladies :-D
Night Bitch.
Actually, it's kind of fun watching people innocently try to reason with Sye.
ReplyDeleteIt's like watching an old Candid Camera clip of somebody stepping in something and then trying to figure out how to get it off their shoe.
It should be remembered when Sye challenges you to defend your confidence in the modern reductionist view of the world that his own claim to knowledge breaks down to 'I know I'm right because God told me.'
When you think about it, that's like defending consensus reality against someone who claims his view of the world has to be right because he read it on golden plates loaned to him by an angel.
You don't have to defend the modern view of the world against people like that. You don't have to defend astronomy against people who believe the world rests on the back of a turtle.
Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow on The Raytractors:
ReplyDeleteWatch how Sye returns!
Be amazed at how he picks up on a refuted attempt!
Be baffled at seeing how he tries to rape the Socratic method again, still without the equipment to do so (wink, wink)!
See how he reaches into the darkest recesses of his skull and comes up emptyhanded!
Feign surprise when he dodges and tangles himself up even more!
captain,
ReplyDeletehi!
I didn't feel defensive at all. A first week philosophy student could have danced the Charleston in the holes of his reasoning. He choked on the limbo stick he put down himself.
Captain Howdy(That wasn't very nice!),
ReplyDeleteMy problem with a guy like Sye is that he attempts to utilize and abuse language in order to fool people into thinking that he's made a point.
His circular arguments(which as you say pan out to, 'I know I know but you can't know you know because I've placed a qualifier on knowledge) combined with a deceptive use of language can confuse, baffle or appear authoritative to people who don't know any better.
Check out this doozie he laid on me earlier;
"First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid."
When you strip it all away, he's basically saying that I can't use my knowledge of the past to predict the future - because he says I can't.
Captain is right, and I should follow my own advice. Sye is a troll. His argument is stupid, but there is no way of showing this to him. No way whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteYou can write it in plain English, as Maragon did. Yet he will just understand it the way he likes it (or the way he dislikes it), as he did with the lotto shit, and with other shit. Remember that these guys train the change of meaning with the contradictions in the bible to truly believe that you can read it literally and still think is is inerrant and all that crap. You have to admit such a thing requires a level of changing meanings that cannot be surpassed. I think this post contains enough evidence of his trollerism mixed with stupidity. Do you see it clearly guys?
G.E.
Obviously we had no trouble cornering him here even without getting personal, so he ran off. On Ray's, he's entertaining his ego by bullying jg (the theist evolutionist), with his regular backers and the safety line of moderation.
ReplyDeleteI think Ray knows perfectly well why he provides the moderation intervals - that allows a convenient clogging of threads with inane distractive posts. He hopes people get bored or lose sight of the issues.
You don't have to defend the modern view of the world against people like that. You don't have to defend astronomy against people who believe the world rests on the back of a turtle.
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That should probably have read ...It's pointless to defend the modern view... rather than the way I wrote it.
Too bad there isn't an edit feature.
Felix, I think you're right.
ReplyDeleteSee, it's not so "Ugh, Atheists are such losers" when you're playing at the big playground now.
Let's face the bitter truth, folks.
ReplyDeleteSye Tenb is a Ray-tard.
Did we lose our "preview" button?
ReplyDeleteHow do we get it back?
GE said"Captain is right, and I should follow my own advice. Sye is a troll. His argument is stupid"
ReplyDeleteBy what standard of logic is my argument 'stupid,' how do you account for that standard of logic, and why does that standard of logic necessarily apply to my argument?
Cheers,
Sye
I temporarily broke it, Sorry. I was playing with some upcoming blogger features (like an In-line comment box) and I figured I'd be early enough that it wouldn't bother anyone while I was experimenting
ReplyDeleteMaragon said: "When you strip it all away, he's basically saying that I can't use my knowledge of the past to predict the future - because he says I can't."
ReplyDeleteSure you can use it, as soon as you tell us which law the universe follows so that random things remain random, and ordered things remain ordered.
Cheers,
Sye
Remember that these guys train the change of meaning with the contradictions in the bible to truly believe that you can read it literally and still think is is inerrant and all that crap. You have to admit such a thing requires a level of changing meanings that cannot be surpassed.
ReplyDeleteG.E.
Captain Howdy said: "When you think about it, that's like defending consensus reality against someone who claims his view of the world has to be right because he read it on golden plates loaned to him by an angel."
ReplyDeleteConsensus reality? :-D So, when enough people think something is true, it's true? Hmmm, isn't that what you are maligning me for? :-D
(And I'd be happy to refute anyone who professes an opposing worldview - golden plates and all).
Cheers,
Sye
Maragon said: "I know that the lottery will still be random and that nature will still be uniform based on the fact that they have been that way in all of recorded history"
ReplyDelete1. How do you know that your reasoing about this is valid?
2. What law does the universe follow to enusre that uniform things remain uniform, and random things remain random? (You just refuted evolution by the way).
"How do you know that your god won't make lotteries all the same numbers and reverse the laws of nature tomorrow?"
I proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past, based on the promises of God.
Cheers,
Sye
LCJ said: "Why don't you just face the truth, Sye - nobody can ever be 100% certain of anything."
ReplyDeleteUm, are you certain that nobody can be certain of anything? Thanks for that though!
"Appealing to supernatural sources doesn't count."
Are you certain that "appealing to supernatural sources doesn't count?" (Thanks X2 :-D )
Cheers,
Sye
@ Felix
ReplyDeleteI said: "Tell me how you can know ANYTHING for certain THEN we can compare claims."
You answered: "I make no such claims. I could, but that would be stupid."
So, you don't know anything - fine, that's what I am trying to show that your worldview leads to. (Yet, you will continue to contradict yourself by making knowledge claims - i.e. "That would be stupid" :-)
Cheers,
Sye
LCJ said: "I'm not claiming certainty. YOU are. And just because I can't claim absolute certainty, that doesn't magically make yours valid."
ReplyDeleteUm, are you certain? HAHAHAHAHA
Thanks man!
Cheers,
Sye
Felix said: "Because of our fallible reasoning, it would be impossible for us to be certain that we were certain,"
ReplyDeleteImpossible eh? Sounds like a claim to certainty to me. Are you certain that 'it would be impossible for us to be certain that we were certain?' For that matter, are you certain that our reasoning is fallible?
"even if we were. We would have to be either perfect or inerrant processors to have certainty in certainty."
Um, are you certain of that??? (You also beg the question by assuming that God COULD NOT reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them).
Cheers,
Sye
@Maragon
ReplyDeleteI said: ”"Fantastic! You admit that you have zero foundation for the validity of your reasoning."
You said: ”No, I most certainly did not admit that. I simply pointed out that I, like you, can make up my own baseless criteria to prove my point.”
Alrighty then, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?
I said: "Now, perhaps you could demonstrate how it would be impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain."
You did not even attempt an answer but said:
”Now perhaps you can demonstrate to me how it would be possible for you to know for sure that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists.”
The only way anyone can know anything, by or through God's revelation.
”And if you're going to be stupid enough to claim absolute knowledge, then I want you to tell me what I'm wearing right now, hot stuff.”
I have never claimed absolute knowledge, only that God reveals some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them. If I’d have to guess though, I’d say big floppy shoes and a round red nose :-)
Cheers,
Sye
This conversation reminds me of Monty Python...
ReplyDeletePRESENTER
Good evening. Tonight 'Spectrum' looks at one of the major problems in the world today - that old vexed question of what is going on. Is there still time to confront it, let alone solve it, or is it too late? What are the figures, what are the facts, what do people mean when they talk about things? Alexander Hardacre of the Economic Affairs Bureau.
Cut to equally intense pundit in front of a graph with three different coloured columns with percentages at the top. He talks with great authority.
HARDACRE
In this graph, this column represents 23% of the population. This column represents 28% of the population, and this column represents 43% of the population.
Cut back to presenter.
PRESENTER
Telling figures indeed, but what do they mean to you, what do they mean to me, what do they mean to the average man in the street? With me now is Professor Tiddles of Leeds University...
Pull out to reveal bearded professor sitting next to presenter.
PRESENTER
... Professor, you've spent many years researching into things, what do you think?
PROFESSOR
I think it's too early to tell.
Cut to presenter, he talks even faster now.
PRESENTER
'Too early to tell' ... too early to say... it means the same thing. The word 'say' is the same as the word 'tell'. They're not spelt the same, but they mean the same. It's an identical situation, we have with 'ship' and 'boat' (holds up signs saying 'ship' and 'boat') but not the same as we have with 'bow' and 'bough' (holds up signs), they're spelt differently, mean different things but sound the same. (he holds up signs saying 'so there') But the real question remains. What is the solution, if any, to this problem? What can we do? What am I saying? Why am I sitting in this chair? Why am I on this programme? And what am I going to say next? Here to answer this is a professional cricketer.
Cut to cricketer.
CRICKETER
I can say nothing at this point.
Cut back to presenter.
PRESENTER
Well, you were wrong... Professor?
Pull out to reveal professor still next to him.
PROFESSOR
Hello.
Cut to close-up of presenter.
PRESENTER
Hello. So... where do we stand? Where do we stand? Where do we sit? Where do we come? Where do we go? What do we do? What do we say? What do we eat? What do we drink? What do we think? What do we do?
Mix to stock film of London-Brighton train journey in two minutes. After a few seconds the train goes into a tunnel. Blackness. Loud crash.
Sye Ten B could play all the parts, simultaneously, of that Python skit.
ReplyDeleteSye, I'm probably getting into a discussion here that will go nowhere, because you seem intent on playing word games that make me wonder how you can even begin to be a productive member of society, but...
ReplyDeleteI have never claimed absolute knowledge, only that God reveals some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them. If I’d have to guess though, I’d say big floppy shoes and a round red nose :-)
You HAVE claimed absolute knowledge. Why, one post before this one, you asked:
Impossible eh? Sounds like a claim to certainty to me. Are you certain that 'it would be impossible for us to be certain that we were certain?' For that matter, are you certain that our reasoning is fallible?
If claiming impossibility is claiming certainty, and certainty is absolute knowledge, then your so-called certainty of God (the revelation of which you have refused to share with us in full - since it should be certain and absolute, I'm a little surprised that it's not self-evident beyond "God says he exists so he does.") is claiming absolute knowledge.
How do you know that what God revealed to you is the truth? Does God's perfection preclude lying? How are you certain about God's revelations? You don't claim absolute knowledge, so you can't claim absolute understanding of what you know.
The Shaggy said: ”If claiming impossibility is claiming certainty, and certainty is absolute knowledge”
ReplyDeleteWell, we can stop right there. You are confusing ‘certain’ knowledge, with ‘absolute’ knowledge. Being certain about some things does not mean that one needs to be certain about EVERYTHING.
How do you know that what God revealed to you is the truth?
Because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it.
Cheers,
Sye
"Because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it."
ReplyDeleteAnd what is that way? Can you please tell us, in no uncertain terms, what it was that God did to reveal it to you?
And how can you be certain of it?
I'll give you that "certain" knowledge and "absolute" knowledge may not be the same thing, but if certainty is not an absolute in any form, then you're acknowledging that you still don't quite know. You'd be as uncertain as the rest of us, because you don't ABSOLUTELY know.
I would also like to say, Sye, that I am not certain of anything in the way you feel you are. I would like to be as certain as you are, so if you could please share what makes you so certain, I bet we could get away from the useless "HOW DO YOU KNOW" charges you throw at everyone and get down to some real dialogue.
ReplyDeleteThe Shaggy said: ”And what is that way? Can you please tell us, in no uncertain terms, what it was that God did to reveal it to you?”
ReplyDeleteI discuss revelation briefly on my site, which you can get at through my profile.
”And how can you be certain of it?”
As I said, because He has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it. And, since you believe that you cannot be certain of anything, you certainly have no grounds on which to judge my claim.
”I'll give you that "certain" knowledge and "absolute" knowledge may not be the same thing, but if certainty is not an absolute in any form, then you're acknowledging that you still don't quite know.”
Um no, I am saying that I know some things for certain, because God, who does know everything, revealed it to us. Just so you know, I think that professed atheists DO, in fact, know many things, just that they cannot account for anything they claim to know, so they end up making the self-contradictory claim that they know that they can’t know anything.
Cheers,
Sye
”And how can you be certain of it?”
ReplyDeleteAs I said, because He has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it.
How can you be certain of THAT? (Without using the circular reasoning this time, please.)
LCJ said: "How can you be certain of THAT?"
ReplyDeleteAs I have stated, the only way anyone can be certain of anything, is by or through divine revelation. Again, you don't have to like my claim to certainty, but offer yours, so we can compare.
(Not holding my breath :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Sye, your site is not a fountain of certainty. Quite the opposite. I spent ten minutes there once and my eyes and ears bled from the circular assumptions.
ReplyDelete"As I said, because He has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it. And, since you believe that you cannot be certain of anything, you certainly have no grounds on which to judge my claim."
I'm pretty sure I could judge your claim.
I can go to your site and see that saying "true" or "false" is an absolute statement after the FIRST selection. There is no room for any sort of spectrum of "certainty." To you (or rather, to us according to you), it is a dichotomy, and so your earlier statement that "certainty" and "absolute" are not the same thing falls flat.
I judge your claims about the absolutes which apparently prove God. "Laws" of logic and math are human compartmentalizations of observable phenomena, and only with logic and math can the "laws" of science be derived. That is the immateriality which you claim. The fact is that the universe isn't made up of laws, we don't find actual numbers occuring in reality (we don't even have a universal measurement of distance, volume, or temperature - all of which are material properties in the universe). A statement of science says "electrons spin around a nucleus of protons and neutrons," but they aren't made up of numbers or a script that says "electrons spin around a nucleus of protons and neutrons." They do so because if they didn't, we wouldn't have atoms and thus we wouldn't be here. There are intrinsic, material properties of matter that function in a way which permits us to exist.
Absolute morality only exists inasmuch as we, humans, find some behaviours collectively abhorrent (in the case of rape, or child molestation, or murder, I am included). If your "morality" truly was absolute, it would be impossible for us to perform these acts. The fact that we can, and people do, implies that perhaps somewhere (since we don't know the entire universe), it may be acceptable to some. Not to us, though, and we have very good reasons against it.
Your claim to be "certain" (do you know for sure that you're certain? Absolutely yes or absolutely no? By your own special revelation of God, it can't fall in the middle) isn't so certain, because you make claims to absolutes which you repeatedly insist you can't or don't do.
Sorry about my small-minded troll, guys.
ReplyDeleteHere Sye, sweetie, why don't you go hereand play with this?
All of the problems with your Presuppositionalism, neatly outlines, for all not-retarded, rational people to see.
"Maragon said: "I know that the lottery will still be random and that nature will still be uniform based on the fact that they have been that way in all of recorded history"
1. How do you know that your reasoing about this is valid?"
Because it was valid yesterday, and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that....and so I can conclude with relative certainty(99.9%) that things which have always been a certain way will continue to be that way.
You're playing 10th grade philosophy, Sye. It's pathetic and sad, but it does belie the quality and quantity of your intellect and reasoning skills.
You're trying to state that no one can ever be COMPLETELY SURE OF ANYTHING, man.
Guess what? You're right. We can't. I could drop a plate a second onto a concrete floor for a million years. And even though every single one breaks, the VERY NEXT PLATE could hover above the floor instead of smashing into pieces. However, intelligent, rational people have a thing we call 'reasonable doubt.' Simply put, it is not reasonable to doubt that the next plate will plate because we can see that the last trillion plates did, in fact, break.
You've given me NO REASON whatsoever to separate my past knowledge from my future predictions(other than, 'you have to so my idiotic mind games work'), and therefore I will continue to rely on what I know to help me predict what will happen next.
"2. What law does the universe follow to enusre that uniform things remain uniform, and random things remain random? (You just refuted evolution by the way)."
If you think I just refuted evolution, then you're stupider than you look in your avatar and sound on your website.
The uniformity of nature a) doesn't conflict with the randomness of the universe b)doesn't mean that things CANNOT be random.
If something is RANDOM BY NATURE then the uniformity of nature would dictate that said thing would always continue to be RANDOM.
Christ, pal, if you can't keep up, fuck off and let the big kids discuss things, k?
""How do you know that your god won't make lotteries all the same numbers and reverse the laws of nature tomorrow?"
I proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past, based on the promises of God."
That's retarded. Like honestly.
You're putting a qualifier on knowledge that you need to claim absolute knowledge to have. And if you possess absolute knowledge, I'm sure you can tell me what I'm wearing right now and what my plans for the day are.
You are doing the exact same thing an atheist is doing, which is using inductive reasoning - but you're trying to pretend that you aren't to make some kind of stunted and silly point.
You are basing your notion of continuity based on 'the promises of god?' Show us these promises, and I'll demolish them for you.
Christians can't justify the use of induction without begging the question.
To demonstrate that the atheist has no basis for assuming the validity of inductive reason, the presuppositionalist asks how we can know that the universe will continue to be uniform. If the answer involves appealing to knowledge of the past then it uses induction to try to validate induction, which is begging the question. The presuppositionalist mistakenly thinks he has a solution to this problem: through revelation, God lets him know that the universe will continue to be uniform.
But how can he be sure that God won't change his mind? The presuppositionalist might cite God's unchanging nature as a guarantee that he won't change his mind.
But what grounds does the Christian have to conclude that god's nature is in fact unchanging?, and that it will continue to be so? Whether he gained knowledge of god's unchanging nature through direct revelation or through scripture, the only way he can say anything about God's nature in the future is to use induction. Appealing to god to solve the problem of induction merely postpones the point at which induction has to be invoked to justify itself–thereby begging the question. Presuppositionalists can't rationally justify their use of induction any more than the rest of us can.
As I have stated, the only way anyone can be certain of anything, is by or through divine revelation.
ReplyDeleteHow are you certain of that? (Annoying, isn't it?)
Again, you don't have to like my claim to certainty, but offer yours, so we can compare.
And again, whether my claim is any good or not has nothing to do with how good yours is.
Let's say that neither one of us knew how airplanes stayed in the air. You insisted that it was because of an invisble winged-horse chariot that towed it. I insisted that it was because the pilot had a magic rock.
Both explanations are bad - correct?
Besides, I've already told you that I can't be 100% certain of anything. Our disagreement comes in the fact that you see that as a weakness.
"As I said, because He has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it. And, since you believe that you cannot be certain of anything, you certainly have no grounds on which to judge my claim."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you all keep feeding the troll? He is obviously insane. He thinks that Jesus talks to him. This is a psychiatric disorder that should be treated. He also thinks that without some divine headchatter, one can't know anything. It is obvious that he 'hears voices' and he relies on them to know what to eat in the morning, when to cross the street, if what he is thinking is correct, etc. Just tell him that you have 'headchatter' too and your 'divine' friend tells you things "in a way that you can also be certain as well"....I mean, my magical head friend tells me that I can be certain of my certainty!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, Andrew, this isn't going to work, because I am receiving a conflicting revelation that I am told must be put in book form. The Raytractors are the chosen people, and ALL of this is for us. Actually, my revelation tells me that only Ray Comfort and his minions will suffer after death. We had better change the name of this blog to "Theist Central" and warn them before its too late!!! Once I have written this book, we can deliver our circular message that is unrefutable. We can only tell them to come to their senses and stop worshipping Yawheh, but rather worship the Raytractor's God, whom revealed herself, and said that the sexism of Ray's God is really irritating...oh yeah, and we shall call her...wait for it...Julie. Yes, she likes to be called either her supreme majesty, or just Julie. Now, all you have to do is believe in her completely, with all your heart...or she will make you read books about evolution for eternity, do laboratory experiments, and think rationally!!!! Ray must be terrrrrriiffffiiiieeeedddd!
ReplyDeleteHow irked would they get if we did rename this blog "Theist Central"?
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering.
Should we??? How impish!
ReplyDeleteThe Ranting Student said: "Again, your claim of certainty is a crock of shit."
ReplyDeleteYou have the right to make that claim but, still, what is yours? If you don't have one, than you how can you know what is, or is not a crock?
Cheers,
Sye
Nah, let's not rename the place. It'd be hilarious to see their reaction, but half of my problem with Ray is his beliggerant attitude towards us, and changing the name of the blog was entirely in support of that.
ReplyDeleteWe should be better than that over here. Though I think we can change it to "Raytheist Central - where none of us can believe Ray Comfort"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Sye, I do have a claim.
ReplyDeleteIt is that your claims are retarded.
Now, go back to reading the bible and praying to Gawd.
Or, return, if you'd like.
Cheers,
Ranting.
"Raytheist Central - where none of us can believe Ray Comfort"
ReplyDeleteI like that.
Oh, I missed that post...
ReplyDeleteyes raytheist central. excellent.
LCJ said: ”And again, whether my claim is any good or not has nothing to do with how good yours is.”
ReplyDeleteNo kidding, but what is yours? If you don't have one, how can you know whether or not your claim has anything to do with my claim???
”Besides, I've already told you that I can't be 100% certain of anything. Our disagreement comes in the fact that you see that as a weakness.”
Um, are you 100% certain that we can’t be 100% certain of anything? If you don’t see your statement as a weakness, sorry, but that’s not my problem.
Cheers,
Sye
The Ranting Student said: "How irked would they get if we did rename this blog "Theist Central"?"
ReplyDeleteI personally think it would be HI-larious! It would just further show how you are tied up with Ray :-)
Cheers,
Sye
The conversation between my fiance and I about Sye's retardedness.
ReplyDeleteme: basically his argument boils down to this:
No one can know anything for sure. I know some things for sure(like that atheists are all wrong) because god told me. I know for sure that god told me because god told me that I do.
Obviously its just silly and retarded.
He's using a ridiculous induction fallacy.
Graham: yep
me: then when you point this out, he just says that god revealed it in a way that he can be sure that god revealed it.
And it just goes on like this.
So, basically, all of the rational world says, "We cant ever be 100% sure of anything, but we utilize inductive reasoning to state that certain things are varying degrees of likely to happen. Such as, I'm 99.9% sure that gravity will work today based on the fact that it's worked every other day."
Sye says, " I know for sure that gravity will work today because god told me so."
me: like, isn't he just utilizing inductive reasoning, like everyone else and then simply attributing this knowledge to his pet deity?
Graham: yes. yes he is
the voices in his head are largely irrelevant
me: and there's absolutely no way that he can prove he's doing anything other than that.
Because we're dealing with something as concrete as the uniformity of nature.
me: in the same way, i could attribute the uniformity of nature to anything i pleased and he wouldn't be able to disprove it, right?
Like, I could say that Lettucey the Magical, Invisible Lettuce who has created all things revealed to me that he is responsible for the uniformity of nature, and that Sye's ideas are all wrong.
Graham: yes
me: So, he's not doing anything more than claiming absolute certainty about something that science says is 99.9% certain and then claiming this certainty is a case for god.
Graham: That's not a case for god, its just fucking convenient.
So, Sye, prove to us conclusively that your deity is feeding you the common knowledge that we all have - or go away.
Your rhetoric has long since ceased to be interesting.
Hey Sye
ReplyDeleteYou're a dumbass! :)
How do I know? YOUR GOD TOLD ME!
Apparently, your pissy little god likes to talk to me. Divine revelation and all that...
since you don't know everything, how can you know it's NOT true.
If you're honest, you'll say you don't know everything...
And, since I'm basing everything of personal revelation like you, who's to say I'm wrong.
I'm right. Ask your God about it.
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDeleteThe Ranting Student said: "How irked would they get if we did rename this blog "Theist Central"?"
I personally think it would be HI-larious! It would just further show how you are tied up with Ray :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Hey chickenshit, this blog is called Raytractors for a reason.
Dumbass.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteWe are both unable to be 100% certain of anything. The difference is, I admit it.
Seriously, Sye, are you really this stupid? Really?
The Ranting Student said: "Hey chickenshit, this blog is called Raytractors for a reason."
ReplyDeleteYou show that you are losing by your ad hominems. Besides, I'm 6'3" 205 lbs. Nothing much scares me :-) How about a cage match, UFC style, manno a whatever it is you are :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Lance Christian Johnson said (again - and I thank him for doing so :-): "We are both unable to be 100% certain of anything."
ReplyDeleteUm, if YOU can't be 100% certain of anything, how can you know what I can or cannot be 100% certain of???
Again - thanks :-)
Cheers,
Sye
"Um, if YOU can't be 100% certain of anything, how can you know what I can or cannot be 100% certain of???"
ReplyDeleteHe's using inductive reasoning to be 99.9% certain that no one has absolute knowledge.
Demonstrate absolute knowledge or concede the point.
Jesus christ, you're thick.
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDeleteThe Ranting Student said: "Hey chickenshit, this blog is called Raytractors for a reason."
You show that you are losing by your ad hominems. Besides, I'm 6'3" 205 lbs. Nothing much scares me :-) How about a cage match, UFC style, manno a whatever it is you are :-)
Cheers,
Sye
You know you are losing by your threats.
Good job being a chicken shit. :)
chickenshit chickenshit chickenshit...
ooh whatcha gonna do?
C'mon Sye, my reasoning is far from perfect, I'm sure you could defend your absolute proof of God's existence from my refutation above, couldn't you? I mean, it's a way that makes you certain, you should be able to make me certain. Seriously, tear it to shreds.
ReplyDeleteC'mon, you can, can't you? Absolutely yes or absolutely no?
Don't feel bad Shaggy, Sye won't answer me either.
ReplyDeleteI WANT Sye to answer me, I enjoy ripping theists like him to shreds.
ReplyDeleteCome on Sye. Come on boy, come on...I like feeding puppies.
Maragon, he's running scared from you since you've nailed him more than once.
ReplyDeleteBut as long as I keep pointing in whose court the ball is on the matter, my pride is intact :-)
I'll never be certain that he's unable to refute me, but I can infer by his wealth of reponses to Ranting Student that he's obviously not gone.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteI lost you over at "JUST MY THOUGHTS", perhaps you realize you were bested.
Maybe since you're here you can answer the question:
You cannot prove that the statement, "is there absolute truth", is not systemic (is not dependent upon a system for resolution). The answer "NO", is again systemic.
It's no different Sye, then trying to proove God. It's simply not possible to do and grasp within the confines of everyday rhetoric. Now is that absolutely true? No, it's systemicaly true in that, with respect to the system a proof has not been offered. Until you offer one you have no basis for refutation.
Again, the moment you make a claim about absolute your doing so relative to the system. A mind must exist to make such a proposition, and an object must also exist. They are mutually dependent upon eachother. And once again, this is not absolutely true, it's systemicaly true.
State for me [us] a truth which is in fact absolute. And after doing that, show me [us], how that truth is not systemic.
sye said,
ReplyDelete"You show that you are losing by your ad hominems. Besides, I'm 6'3" 205 lbs. Nothing much scares me :-) How about a cage match, UFC style, manno a whatever it is you are :-)"
How very Christian ;>
Quick RS, turn the other cheek! If that fails, through some Jesits at him...'the power of christ compells you, the power of christ compells you, the power of christ compells you'!!
sye,
ReplyDeleteyou had me at 'cheers'.
Maragon wrote, to Sye, in reference to what I wrote:
ReplyDeleteHe's using inductive reasoning to be 99.9% certain that no one has absolute knowledge.
Demonstrate absolute knowledge or concede the point.
Maragon does a better job there than I would have, so consider her response to be my response.
Good thing I'm such a liberated man and don't feel uncomfortable around women who know more about this kind of stuff than I do!
You flatter me, Lance.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I'm super intelligent, it's that Sye's arguments were something I saw de-constructed in 10th grade philosophy. =)
Clostridiophile,
Threatening to beat people who disagree with you into submission certainly DOES follow in the footsteps of historical christianity. Man do I feel safe living like an hour away(by his admission) from this guy.
"Threatening to beat people who disagree with you into submission certainly DOES follow in the footsteps of historical christianity. Man do I feel safe living like an hour away(by his admission) from this guy."
ReplyDeleteOh yeah....on second thought, RS, you'd better watch out for the big goon. He might be one of those "Christian soldiers" from Jesus Camp.
It's not that I'm super intelligent, it's that Sye's arguments were something I saw de-constructed in 10th grade philosophy. =)
ReplyDeleteWell, you have the verbiage on this particular issue that I am lacking, so thanks for that.
Clos
ReplyDeleteYou're right! Punchin' for Jesus!
Maybe Sye is in the CWF [Christian Wrestling Federation].
Frightening that the CWF actually exists. I also like that hey have two characters, one called "Jesus Freak," and one called "The Bishop."
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine the chuckling as Jesus Freak is nearly disqualified for choking the Bishop.
Also, did you ever hear that Ted DiBiase (the Millon Dollar Man) had/has a promotion which has wrestling followed by a sermon? I find that to be hilarious.
"Clos
ReplyDeleteYou're right! Punchin' for Jesus!
Maybe Sye is in the CWF [Christian Wrestling Federation]."
Yeah, I say that shit on that HBO special on the evangonuts! They had some christian car shows too. Where will this end, titty bars for Christ?
@ Sye:
ReplyDeleteYou show that you are losing by your ad hominems. Besides, I'm 6'3" 205 lbs. Nothing much scares me :-) How about a cage match, UFC style, manno a whatever it is you are :-)
Wow, I can feel your Christian love radiating off of the screen. And by the way, brainiac, the phrase "mano a mano" is Spanish for "hand to hand"; the gender of the combatants is unrelated.
Irukandji:
ReplyDeleteBut how do you know, according to your worldview, that "mano a mano" is Spanish for hand to hand?
Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk
The Shaggy said: ”Sye, your site is not a fountain of certainty. Quite the opposite.”
ReplyDeleteUm, are you certain?
”I'm pretty sure I could judge your claim.”
By what standard of logic could you judge my claim, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my claim?
"Laws" of logic and math are human compartmentalizations of observable phenomena”
Are they universal?
”They do so because if they didn't, we wouldn't have atoms and thus we wouldn't be here.”
Um, God exists, because if He didn’t we wouldn’t be here. How do you like your argument now?
”There are intrinsic, material properties of matter that function in a way which permits us to exist.”
Are they universal properties of matter?
”Absolute morality only exists inasmuch as we, humans, find some behaviours collectively abhorrent (in the case of rape, or child molestation, or murder, I am included).”
Um no, you are talking about moral preference, not moral absolutes.
”If your "morality" truly was absolute, it would be impossible for us to perform these acts.”
That would be like saying that it would be impossible for there to be an absolute speed limit, if people could still speed. Behaviour has nothing to do with the existence of moral absolutes.
”By your own special revelation of God, it can't fall in the middle) isn't so certain, because you make claims to absolutes which you repeatedly insist you can't or don't do.”
Um, no. It is my claim that YOU cannot account for absolutes.
Cheers,
Sye
@Maragon,
ReplyDeleteI asked: “1. How do you know that your reasoing about this is valid?"
You ‘answerd:’ Because it was valid yesterday…
How do you know that your reasoning was valid in the past, and how do you know that the past is a guide to the future? Saying that the past IS a guide to the future, because the past HAS BEEN a guide to the future is entirely circular.
”You're trying to state that no one can ever be COMPLETELY SURE OF ANYTHING, man.”
Nope, I am saying that without God, no one can account for anything they claim to know.
”Guess what? You're right. We can't.”
Um, are you completely sure that no one can ever be completely sure of anything??? (Thanks for that by the way :-)
”You've given me NO REASON whatsoever to separate my past knowledge from my future predictions(other than, 'you have to so my idiotic mind games work'), and therefore I will continue to rely on what I know to help me predict what will happen next.”
I realize this, you will continue to rely on your visciously circular reasoning that the future WILL be like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past.
”If you think I just refuted evolution, then you're stupider than you look in your avatar and sound on your website.
The uniformity of nature a) doesn't conflict with the randomness of the universe b)doesn't mean that things CANNOT be random.
If something is RANDOM BY NATURE then the uniformity of nature would dictate that said thing would always continue to be RANDOM.”
Um, ya, but the theory of evolution postulates that randomness became non-randomness, hence your refutation.
”You are doing the exact same thing an atheist is doing, which is using inductive reasoning - but you're trying to pretend that you aren't to make some kind of stunted and silly point.”
On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that inductive reasoning IS valid? Perhaps you should read a popular atheist philosopher’s take on induction – David Hume. He reasoned that it is irrational to proceed on the assumption that the future will be like the past, based on the past.
”The presuppositionalist mistakenly thinks he has a solution to this problem: through revelation, God lets him know that the universe will continue to be uniform…
Presuppositionalists can't rationally justify their use of induction any more than the rest of us can.
Ha, nice quote from Bitbutter’s blog “Answering Presuppositionalism.” :-D Problem is, you beg the question by assuming that it would be impossible for God to reveal things to us in such a way that we can be absolutely certain of them.
Cheers,
Sye
The Ranting Student said: "You know you are losing by your threats."
ReplyDeleteThreat?!? What threat, it was a challenge! Who's the chicken now? :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Phil G, said: "How do you know anything about God?"
ReplyDeleteBy His revelation.
"What is the evidence for the validity of the bible?"
The existence of universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic, for one.
"What is the evidence for the validity of your worldview?"
Your ability to reason for one.
Alright, now, how do YOU account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "And once again, this is not absolutely true, it's systemicaly true."
ReplyDeleteAnd once again, why should I subscribe to your system?
Cheers,
Sye
"The Shaggy said: ”Sye, your site is not a fountain of certainty. Quite the opposite.”
ReplyDeleteUm, are you certain?"
As certain as I could be. Are you certain that your site is a fountain of certainty? Absolutely yes or absolutely no? Your website is pretty clear on that making a decision implies stating absolute fact, and you're ignoring it for your own end when it's been brought up here.
You said this to me earlier:
"You are confusing ‘certain’ knowledge, with ‘absolute’ knowledge. Being certain about some things does not mean that one needs to be certain about EVERYTHING."
So there is a spectrum, eh? Funny, your website outright refuses to allow the spectrum. Funny how, when someone makes a statement like "impossible!" you throw "ABSOLUTES!" at them, but when someone says "You are speaking as if God absolutely exists," you say "I'm not speaking in absolutes! Only certainty!"
Tell me how it is different. Your website doesn't allow for certainty, only absolutes. If using absolutes are how you prove God, then you must be pretty damn absolutely certain he exists. Is this true y/n (choose one absolutely)?
Frankly, I shouldn't continue arguing with you until you respond to that. I wrote a whole response to this e-mail, especially the part where you drastically mis-quoted me and edited pretty much every reference to the above issue out of your reply, so I'm pretty certain you have no argument or response.
Dude, you really gotta think. All those circles you spin must make you dizzy.
How do you know that your reasoning was valid in the past, and how do you know that the past is a guide to the future? Saying that the past IS a guide to the future, because the past HAS BEEN a guide to the future is entirely circular.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is entirely stupid Sye.
This is circular:
1. God created logic <- there is not even proof that there is a god, let alone that IT created logic.
2. There is logic <- well, true
3. There is a god <- circular conclusion, comes from a first premise that has not been proven whatsoever.
Now, let us see:
1. Te sun has risen every morning <- true, no disagreement whatsoever.
2. The sun will rise tomorrow <- logical conclusion, not circle.
The problem with circular reasoning is the lack of evidence of your premise.
Now, exercising the same shit you do:
Are you telling us that you know there is a god, because god is telling you that you can be certain in a way that only god can tell you?
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is viciously circular!
You see? You are just a bunch of stupid tricks but you end up with a truly viciously circular argument.
Also, it is obvious that you use other people's frustration with your stupidity to make it look like you won an argument. This is why you use ridiculous tricks, even if you shoot yourself on the foot. Like when Maragon said that past experience was enough to conclude the future you said something on the lines "then buy a lotto ticket with the same numbers as last one and we share the money." You were mocking the concept of uniformity of nature, but it is the same concept you claim to have through revelation. You just count on the frustration so that people will not notice your self-foot-shooting: CONCLUSION: obvious troll.
Now, I wrote too much, which means you will ignore it completely to misquote and ask your stupid question again.
However, paraphrasing a troll named Sye:
Well, I don’t expect someone who thinks that the bible has some kind of authority to understand fallacies and inference, so thanks, but I won’t take my logic lessons from you.
G.E.
Oh my god, he's actually trying to reply.
ReplyDelete"How do you know that your reasoning was valid in the past,"
I know that my reasoning was valid in the past because I came to a logical conclusion and reality supported and reflected said conclusion.
"and how do you know that the past is a guide to the future?"
Why wouldn't it be? On what basis are you attempting to claim that past evidence is not a valid means of prediction?
In order to substantiate your claims you need to present a valid reason for NOT accepting past evidence as an indication of future events. So far you've got 'cause I say so.'
The entire body of scientific knowledge up to this point is based on observing past events(ie experiments) and extrapolating a model used to predict future events. The fact that it is possible to do this is an indicator that past knowledge is indeed a powerful predictor.
Every single secular scientist utilizes inductive reasoning to understand the world around them. They then use this understanding to conduct research and experiments - none of which are invalidated by your senseless, baseless claims. It appears that one does not need 'absolute certainty' to put a man on the moon. Being 99.9% sure that the laws of gravity, motion, and aerodynamics will work the same way they've always worked seems to be enough.
"Saying that the past IS a guide to the future, because the past HAS BEEN a guide to the future is entirely circular."
When you word it that way, everything is circular. You don't understand the difference between a logical conclusion and a circular argument.
If you want to claim that evidence based reasoning is invalid or circular, then how do you know your car works?
Please answer this without using circular logic.
"”You're trying to state that no one can ever be COMPLETELY SURE OF ANYTHING, man.”
Nope, I am saying that without God, no one can account for anything they claim to know."
You just re-worded what I said but added a qualifier; your pet deity.
Your posistion is unprovable, you don't appear to know any more than anyone else does. What special abilities, powers, knowledge do you have with your apparent divine knowledge that us inductive reasoners lack?
Your assertions haven't given you enough clairvoyance to find that pesky rebel base, has they?
"Um, are you completely sure that no one can ever be completely sure of anything???"
I have utilized inductive reasoning to be 99.9% sure that no one has absolute knowledge. Unless you'd like to claim that you have absolute knowledge, then you don't know anything more than I do.
"I realize this, you will continue to rely on your viciously circular reasoning that the future WILL be like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past."
And my inductive reasoning is now telling me that you will continue to claim that evidence based predictions are invalid all while not being able to explain how or why you consider them to be so.
You simply keep claiming that inductive reasoning is flawed, all while having no legitimate reason to say so.
Until you can provide evidence that inductive reasoning doesn't work and that your faith-based god 'laws' yield superior results, then your claims amount to nothing.
"Um, ya, but the theory of evolution postulates that randomness became non-randomness, hence your refutation."
Okay, so I'll add evolution to the pile of things that you don't understand. Evolution has random elements such as random mutations, however, natural selection which allows a mutation to flourish or perish is the antithesis of randomness.
Maybe your education on the matter is similar to your education in engineering; non-existent.
Are you really claiming that useful patterns can emerge from randomness given sufficient time? This is basic statistics, something an engineer would know about.
"On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that inductive reasoning IS valid? Perhaps you should read a popular atheist philosopher’s take on induction – David Hume. He reasoned that it is irrational to proceed on the assumption that the future will be like the past, based on the past."
1) Cite the source, I'll bet you quote mine.
2)Just because the man is an atheist doesn't mean his opinions shape mine.
3) On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that inductive reasoning isn't valid?
"Problem is, you beg the question by assuming that it would be impossible for God to reveal things to us in such a way that we can be absolutely certain of them."
Problem is, Sye, you're begging the question by assuming that it would be POSSIBLE for a god to reveal things to you in such a way that we could be absolutely certain that you aren't just batshit crazy.
And you still haven't explained how or what it is that god is telling you - nor have you given examples as to how your self-proclaimed absolute knowledge is superior to inductive reasoning.
The Shaggy said: ”As certain as I could be.”
ReplyDeleteSo, no :-)
” If using absolutes are how you prove God, then you must be pretty damn absolutely certain he exists. Is this true y/n (choose one absolutely)?”
I am absolutely certain that God exists, but that does not mean that I know EVERYTHING absolutely. Nice try though.
Cheers,
Sye
"I am absolutely certain that God exists..."
ReplyDeleteNow this is a prime example of circular logic.
Sye, are you absolutely certain that god exists because god tells you he does?
Not to mention the fact that you have no way of proving these claims.
Maragon said:
ReplyDelete”Oh my god, he's actually trying to reply.”
Your God eh? Knew it :-D
”I know that my reasoning was valid in the past because I came to a logical conclusion and reality supported and reflected said conclusion.”
So, you reasoned that your reasoning was valid. Don’t see any problem there I suppose? :-)
I said: "and how do you know that the past is a guide to the future?"
You answered: ”Why wouldn't it be?”
Why should it be?
”On what basis are you attempting to claim that past evidence is not a valid means of prediction?”
I’m not, I’m asking you to justify it according to YOUR worldview. You see, you proceed on the assumption that the future will be like the past, but you do so with exactly zero justification.
”The entire body of scientific knowledge up to this point is based on observing past events(ie experiments) and extrapolating a model used to predict future events. The fact that it is possible to do this is an indicator that past knowledge is indeed a powerful predictor.”
What you fail to realize is that doing so assumes the uniformity of nature, which cannot be accounted for outside of God.
”Every single secular scientist utilizes inductive reasoning to understand the world around them.”
That’s right. That’s one reason that those who refuse to acknowledge the only possible justification for uniformity, stand guilty before God.
”It appears that one does not need 'absolute certainty' to put a man on the moon. Being 99.9% sure that the laws of gravity, motion, and aerodynamics will work the same way they've always worked seems to be enough.”
That’s right, but assuming uniformity borrows from MY worldview.
I said: "Saying that the past IS a guide to the future, because the past HAS BEEN a guide to the future is entirely circular."
You said: ”When you word it that way, everything is circular.”
Well, that’s EXACTLY what you are saying!
”You don't understand the difference between a logical conclusion and a circular argument.”
Just out of curiosity, why are circular arguments not allowed according to YOUR worldview?
”If you want to claim that evidence based reasoning is invalid or circular, then how do you know your car works?”
I don’t say that it’s invalid, I, however, can account for its validity, you cannot.
”Your posistion is unprovable”
Prove this please.
”What special abilities, powers, knowledge do you have with your apparent divine knowledge that us inductive reasoners lack?”
Justification for universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic, and justification for the uniformity of nature – the foundation of all reasoning and science.
I have utilized inductive reasoning to be 99.9% sure that no one has absolute knowledge.
And how is it that you know that inductive reasoning is valid again? Oh wait, I forgot, you’ve inductively reasoned the validity of inductive reasoning :-D
”Unless you'd like to claim that you have absolute knowledge, then you don't know anything more than I do.”
Um, how do you know what I can or cannot know?
”You simply keep claiming that inductive reasoning is flawed”
I have never made this claim. I, however, can account for the validity of inductive reasoning, whereas you cannot.
”Evolution has random elements such as random mutations, however, natural selection which allows a mutation to flourish or perish is the antithesis of randomness.”
I get it, ‘ordered randomness’ riiiiiiiiight :-) (You aren’t suggesting that evolution does not posit that random things became ordered are you?)
”1) Cite the source, I'll bet you quote mine.”
That’s large coming from someone whose last post was almost entirely quote mined without citing the source. Besides, he’s one of yours, you look it up.
Cheers,
Sye
GE said:
ReplyDelete”God created logic <- there is not even proof that there is a god, let alone that IT created logic.”
How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? You also obviously believe in the concept of ‘proof’ since you say there isn’t any. Proof requires logic, knowledge and truth, how do you account for ANY of them according to your worldview?
”1. Te sun has risen every morning <- true, no disagreement whatsoever.”
How do you know that your reasoning about this, and your memory, for that matter, are valid?
”2. The sun will rise tomorrow <- logical conclusion, not circle.”
The sun WILL rise, because the sun HAS risen – not circular??? That’s a hoot!!!
Are you telling us that you know there is a god, because god is telling you that you can be certain in a way that only god can tell you?”
I am saying that I (and everyone) knows that God exists, because He has revealed Himself in such a way that we can be certain of His existence.
”That is viciously circular!”
You beg the question by assuming that God COULD NOT reveal some things to us, in such a way that we can be certain of them. Just out of curiosity though, why is circular reasoning not allowed according to YOUR worldview?
”This is why you use ridiculous tricks, even if you shoot yourself on the foot. Like when Maragon said that past experience was enough to conclude the future you said something on the lines "then buy a lotto ticket with the same numbers as last one and we share the money." You were mocking the concept of uniformity of nature, but it is the same concept you claim to have through revelation.”
Um no, I was mocking her statement that ”Trying to arbitrarily separate past knowledge and future knowledge is nonsensical”
Which is EXACTLY what she did when she denied my proposal. I asked her why random things remain random, and ordered things remain ordered, and you probably did not notice, but she did not answer that.
”Well, I don’t expect someone who thinks that the bible has some kind of authority to understand fallacies and inference, so thanks, but I won’t take my logic lessons from you.”
Alright, just tell us how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
Maragon said: ”Now this is a prime example of circular logic.”
ReplyDelete1. How do you know that your reasoning about that is valid?
2. Why is circular logic not allowed according to YOUR worldview?
”Not to mention the fact that you have no way of proving these claims.”
Prove this please.
Cheers,
Sye
"So, you reasoned that your reasoning was valid. Don’t see any problem there I suppose? :-)"
ReplyDeleteI know that my reasoning is valid because reality reflected my conclusion - which is exactly what I said in the last post.
If you can't be bothered to address what I'm saying, kindly shut the fuck up.
"I said: "and how do you know that the past is a guide to the future?"
You answered: ”Why wouldn't it be?”
Why should it be?"
Why shouldn't it be? You're making the illogical claim that we cannot use evidence to make predictions, not me.
"I’m not, I’m asking you to justify it according to YOUR worldview. You see, you proceed on the assumption that the future will be like the past, but you do so with exactly zero justification."
No, I do so based on evidence.
Until you can comprehend the difference between evidence based reasoning and circular logic, stop fucking talking.
"What you fail to realize is that doing so assumes the uniformity of nature, which cannot be accounted for outside of God."
You only think god justifies the uniformity of nature because you utilize circular logic to come to this conclusion.
You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Do so, or drop it.
"That’s right. That’s one reason that those who refuse to acknowledge the only possible justification for uniformity, stand guilty before God."
Prove it.
"That’s right, but assuming uniformity borrows from MY worldview."
Prove that scientists are secretly certain of the uniformity of nature due to secret messages from your god instead of inductive reasoning.
Prove that scientists require the absolute certainty you claim to have.
"Well, that’s EXACTLY what you are saying!"
No, I'm saying that past evidence allows me to make future predictions. As I said, you don't even actually know what a circular argument is. Wikipedia it, because your misunderstanding undermines all of your arguments.
"Just out of curiosity, why are circular arguments not allowed according to YOUR worldview?"
If you knew what a circular argument was, you'd understand.
"I don’t say that it’s invalid, I, however, can account for its validity, you cannot."
You claim you account for this validity - you have not as of yet done so.
"”What special abilities, powers, knowledge do you have with your apparent divine knowledge that us inductive reasoners lack?”
Justification for universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic, and justification for the uniformity of nature – the foundation of all reasoning and science."
Except you haven't justified anything. You've merely asserted.
"And how is it that you know that inductive reasoning is valid again? Oh wait, I forgot, you’ve inductively reasoned the validity of inductive reasoning :-D"
No. I know that inductive reasoning is valid based on the logical outcomes that arise from them. EVIDENCE BASED REASONING.
"Um, how do you know what I can or cannot know? "
How can you know what I know or don't know? Is god telling you all about me right now?
"I have never made this claim. I, however, can account for the validity of inductive reasoning, whereas you cannot."
Then do so, because no one here has seen you do anything of the sort yet.
"I get it, ‘ordered randomness’ riiiiiiiiight :-) (You aren’t suggesting that evolution does not posit that random things became ordered are you?)"
No, you don't get it.
Please go read up on natural selection as a mechanic for the diversification of the species. You're embarrassing yourself.
I'd also love for you to tell me where you got your degree in engineering. You're a fucking embarrassment to professionals.
Maragon said: ”Now this is a prime example of circular logic.”
ReplyDelete1. How do you know that your reasoning about that is valid?"
On what grounds do you claim it isn't?
I've answered this question about 6 times now. You choosing to ignore it doesn't mean I didn't already hand you your saggy, lying ass, Sye, sweetie.
"2. Why is circular logic not allowed according to YOUR worldview?"
Why is circular logic allowed in your worldview?
Because that's the only way you can justify your claims, Sye?
”Not to mention the fact that you have no way of proving these claims.
Prove this please."
Prove that your deity exists, first.
Come on Sye, explain to all of us, without using circular logic how you can be absolutely certain god exists and talks to you.
Maragon said: ”I know that my reasoning is valid because reality reflected my conclusion - which is exactly what I said in the last post.”
ReplyDeleteI know, but did you use your reasoning to determine whether or not ‘reality reflected your conclusion?????” (You use your reasoning to determine the validity of your reasoning – hence the circularity).
”Why shouldn't it be? You're making the illogical claim that we cannot use evidence to make predictions, not me.”
Where have I made this claim? I am simply saying that you cannot account for uniformity, and you are demonstrating that just fine thank you. :-)
”No, I do so based on evidence.”
Alright, what is your evidence that the future will be like the past (this should be good).
Until you can comprehend the difference between evidence based reasoning and circular logic
Um, why is circular logic not allowed according to YOUR worldview again? Oh wait, you never answered that.
”You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Do so, or drop it.”
You are joking right? Do you realise what you are saying??? “You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for inductive reasoning” BRILLIANT!!!
Prove it.
They assume the validity of inductive reasoning, yet have no justification for its validity apart from God (as you have been so kind to help demonstrate).
”Prove that scientists are secretly certain of the uniformity of nature due to secret messages from your god instead of inductive reasoning.”
Well, the contrary is your circular blind faith statement: “I have inductively reasoned that inductive reasoning is valid.”
”No, I'm saying that past evidence allows me to make future predictions.”
Based on past, past evidence allowing you to make past, future predictions :-D YIKES!
I said: "Just out of curiosity, why are circular arguments not allowed according to YOUR worldview?"
You answered: ”If you knew what a circular argument was, you'd understand.”
Oh, I know why they are invalid according to MY worldview, I’m asking why they are invalid according to yours. Good answer though :-D
”You claim you account for this validity - you have not as of yet done so.”
Sure I have, you just don’t happen to like my account.
”Except you haven't justified anything. You've merely asserted.”
If you want the verses, you can find them on my website.
”No. I know that inductive reasoning is valid based on the logical outcomes that arise from them. EVIDENCE BASED REASONING.”
How is it that you know that those outcomes are valid though? Wait, you reason that your reasoning is valid – I think I get it now :-)
I said: ”Um, how do you know what I can or cannot know?”
You answered: ”How can you know what I know or don't know? Is god telling you all about me right now?”
HA! Good answer! You are, once again, merely dodging your ridiculous claim that you cannot know anything for certain, yet claim to know for certain, what I can or cannot know – again – thanks for that.
I said: ”I get it, ‘ordered randomness’ riiiiiiiiight :-) (You aren’t suggesting that evolution does not posit that random things became ordered are you?)"
You ‘answerd:’ ”No, you don't get it.”
Another brilliant answer – thanks.
I said: “ How do you know that your reasoning about that is valid?"
You answered: ”On what grounds do you claim it isn't?”
Never made that claim, just asking you to justify the validity of your reasoning – good answer though.
I asked: ”Why is circular logic not allowed according to YOUR worldview?"
You answered: “Why is circular logic allowed in your worldview?”
Never said it was – good answer though :-)
”Prove that your deity exists, first.”
The proof that God exists is that without Him, you couldn’t prove anything (which you have been so kind as to demonstrate).
Cheers,
Sye
The Shaggy said: ”As certain as I could be.”
ReplyDeleteSo, no :-)
That's not what I said. There you are, throwing absolutes around again. You really can't get it straight.
I am absolutely certain that God exists, but that does not mean that I know EVERYTHING absolutely. Nice try though.
But what you said to me is this:
"You are confusing ‘certain’ knowledge, with ‘absolute’ knowledge. Being certain about some things does not mean that one needs to be certain about EVERYTHING."
Oh, I see here. You were playing word games.
You took my use of the term "absolute" knowledge to mean "knowledge of everything," rather than the pretty-clearly-implied "knowledge of something absolutely." Sneaky, Sye. Word games.
Okay, then let's go over your premises for God's existence, in particular morality.
Define morality. Define absolute morality. Tell me how absolute morality exists. I've already argued with you about it, but here's how I responded to your last post:
”Absolute morality only exists inasmuch as we, humans, find some behaviours collectively abhorrent (in the case of rape, or child molestation, or murder, I am included).”
Um no, you are talking about moral preference, not moral absolutes.
You're right. I retract the use of the word "Absolute" at the beginning of the paragraph. I do not believe in absolute morality, for the reasons listed below.
That would be like saying that it would be impossible for there to be an absolute speed limit, if people could still speed. Behaviour has nothing to do with the existence of moral absolutes.
No, you're getting it wrong. There can be an absolute speed limit. There IS an absolute speed limit (the speed of light). People can still speed (in the sense of breaking a speed limit) because of the SOCIALLY IMPOSED limit on it.
But going so fast isn't a moral issue. People can and do rape children with little remorse, likewise they kill without a second thought.
Military men and women kill as part of their job, and that's morally different than murdering someone for sleeping with your wife.
Here's what you said on your website:
"..absolute moral laws describe how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs"
(Emphasis mine)
Morality is ENTIRELY behavioural. By what standard do you understand morality? By what standard do you understand that you're being immoral? Through action. You do something, you feel bad. You do something that your god doesn't like, you feel shame and bad. You avoid doing things because you think it is immoral.
See how behaviour is the root of morality? I'm not claiming it is absolute, I'm claiming the exact opposite, so I hope you don't start telling me that it is absolute when it isn't.
---
My point is that if something is ABSOLUTE, meaning the end-all to something, there would be no possible way for anything which defies that absolute to occur. If there was something morally absolute, like murder, we would physically not be able to kill another person. That would be absolute.
However, we CAN. And people DO. And many do so without thinking "wow this is immoral." So I ask you to tell me about absolutes in morality, and tell me what morality is.
Bah you know what? I'm out of this. Sye will chalk this up to his "victory" column, and he can have all of that. He fails to see how all of his questioning and circular arguing and semantics and word-games are easily applied to his own silly sense of the universe.
ReplyDeleteI won't win, even when I win. Maragon won't win, even when she wins. Lance won't win, Ranting Student won't win, etc.
So I'm taking my troll-food and going home. What's new in La Raysistance?
ReplyDeleteSye TenB said...
The Ranting Student said: "You know you are losing by your threats."
Threat?!? What threat, it was a challenge! Who's the chicken now? :-D
Cheers,
Sye
You are a chickenshit. It was no challenge, because a challenge comes from someone who's not a chickenshit. And you are. So, sorry, play again.
Sye, you may be a troll... But you're also a chicken shit.
I'm actually enjoying my time with you here. Come on puppy, come on boy...what a nice bitch of a puppy...
PS. You're chickenshit. ;)
cheers,
Ranting
Sye,
ReplyDelete"I know, but did you use your reasoning to determine whether or not ‘reality reflected your conclusion?????” (You use your reasoning to determine the validity of your reasoning – hence the circularity)."
No, I observed reality reflecting my conclusion.
"Where have I made this claim? I am simply saying that you cannot account for uniformity, and you are demonstrating that just fine thank you. :-)"
I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand the difference between the phrases 'inductive reasoning' and 'the uniformity of nature.' They are not, in fact, interchangeable, although you keep trying to use them this way.
You've claimed many times that someone cannot utilize inductive reasoning to conclude the uniformity of nature. Explain why we cannot use evidence to make predictions.
"Alright, what is your evidence that the future will be like the past (this should be good)."
Are you joking? Sye, do you know what a debate is?
I can tell you what it isn't - you asking the same question that's been answered 50 times in different ways all while pretending it was never answered and that you're saying something profound.
Evidence based reasoning speaks to the likelihood that something that has always been constant will continue to be constant.
Your question is essentially(when put into a proper context):
'What is your evidence that gravity will continue to exist like it always has?'
You're begging the fucking question. You know what the answer is. My answer is the same as yours - I just don't pretend that I get divine revelations from an invisible man.
"Um, why is circular logic not allowed according to YOUR worldview again? Oh wait, you never answered that. "
I didn't bother to answer it because you don't even know what circular logic is.
"In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises"
Saying that gravity will still exist tomorrow is based on the thousands of years of evidence we have that gravity is constant. THIS IS NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC. Evidence for gravity can be produced.
Saying that you know god exists because god told you he does IS BEGGING THE QUESTION. You are attempting to prove god's existence with god without ever actually providing any evidence.
”You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Do so, or drop it.”
You are joking right? Do you realize what you are saying??? “You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for inductive reasoning” BRILLIANT!!!"
That's a cute quote mine.
Do you put words in my mouth because you'd sooner put something else in it, sweetie?
You are, once again, stupidly trying to pretend that the uniformity of nature is the SAME THING as inductive reasoning.
Uniformity of Nature:
"The principle of uniformity, or the "The Principle of Uniformity of Nature", postulates that the laws of nature discovered on Earth apply throughout the universe."
Inductive Reasoning:
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.[1] It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:
This ice is cold. (or: All ice I have ever touched was cold.)
This billiard ball moves when struck with a cue. (or: 100/100 billiard balls struck with a cue moved.)
...to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold.
All billiard balls move when struck with a cue."
DO you REALLY not understand that these things are separate? If that's what you're asserting, please say so clearly so I can stop trying to reason with someone incapable of rational discourse.
So, no, I was not saying 'You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for inductive reasoning.' I was saying, 'You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for the uniformity of nature.'
"They assume the validity of inductive reasoning, yet have no justification for its validity apart from God (as you have been so kind to help demonstrate)."
You assert that god is justification for things, but you haven't proven anything.
"Well, the contrary is your circular blind faith statement: “I have inductively reasoned that inductive reasoning is valid.”"
Too bad I never said that.
So, no, I was not saying 'You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for inductive reasoning.' I was saying, 'You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for the uniformity of nature.'
"Based on past, past evidence allowing you to make past, future predictions :-D YIKES!"
QUOTE MINING.
I can make predictions based on evidence. Explain why I cannot do this, or shut up.
"I said: "Just out of curiosity, why are circular arguments not allowed according to YOUR worldview?"
You answered: ”If you knew what a circular argument was, you'd understand.”
Oh, I know why they are invalid according to MY worldview, I’m asking why they are invalid according to yours. Good answer though :-D"
Then tell me why they're invalid, and then explain how you're able to pretend to yourself that saying that god exists because he told you so isn't circular.
"Sure I have, you just don’t happen to like my account."
If you had an account, I'd probably find it fallacious, yes, but you'd have to posit one first.
"If you want the verses, you can find them on my website."
I don't want bible verses. The validity of the bible cannot be proven without utilizing circular reason.
"How is it that you know that those outcomes are valid though? Wait, you reason that your reasoning is valid – I think I get it now :-)"
I know that the outcomes are valid because they conform to reality.
"HA! Good answer! You are, once again, merely dodging your ridiculous claim that you cannot know anything for certain, yet claim to know for certain, what I can or cannot know – again – thanks for that."
The only one who claims to know anything for certain is you. And yet you haven't once proven any absolute knowledge.
Me saying that you don't have absolute knowledge isn't a claim to absolute knowledge. It's based on inductive reasoning.
"I said: ”I get it, ‘ordered randomness’ riiiiiiiiight :-) (You aren’t suggesting that evolution does not posit that random things became ordered are you?)"
You ‘answerd:’ ”No, you don't get it.”
Another brilliant answer – thanks."
You're welcome.
I don't know what you expect me to say. I didn't get a degree in biology to attempt to explain it to people who can't understand the difference between random mutations and natural selection.
"I said: “ How do you know that your reasoning about that is valid?"
You answered: ”On what grounds do you claim it isn't?”
Never made that claim, just asking you to justify the validity of your reasoning – good answer though."
Your claim was implied.
Back it up or concede.
"Never said it was – good answer though :-)"
As shown, you utilize circular reasoning to assert that you have absolute knowledge of the existence of a deity. That's circular logic.
So either your worldview allows for it, or you can't prove your deity exists for certain - which is it?
"The proof that God exists is that without Him, you couldn’t prove anything (which you have been so kind as to demonstrate)."
There's a difference between me not being able to prove anything and you being too stubborn and stupid to understand and concede points that have been invalidated.
Once again, explain how claiming to have absolute knowledge of god because god told you that you had said knowledge ISN'T circular reasoning, as defined above.
The Shaggy wrote:
ReplyDeleteSye will chalk this up to his "victory" column, and he can have all of that.
You know what? Fuck that! We won the debate, with Maragon being the MVP. Sye's arguments have been thoroughly trashed, and instead of acknowledging it like a man, he asks the same questions again as though they haven't already been answered.
Remember "Baghdad Bob?" Saddam Hussein's propaganda guy who kept saying that they were driving the American forces out, even when the American tanks were there in the picture right behind him? That's Sye.
Sye,
ReplyDeletecome on, you have got to be kinding me. This is your answer:
"And once again, why should I subscribe to your system?"
It's obvious I've completely debased your idea of absolutes now.
The point is not, I want you to subscribe to what I'm saying and you know that. The point is removing the footing of your absolute idealism from a logical standpoint, and you've basically surrendered by your comment.
You can't offer up anything to defend your argument? Unfortunately, the Raytractors don't have the benefit of having seen the argument played out, but nonetheless they know your full of shit without it.
I've already posted this here, but I'm going to do it again because it's the arguemtn that Sye can't get around.
ReplyDeleteAn absolute truth is what is true for every possible circumstance. The reason why an absolute truth is what is true for every possible circumstance is because if there is any possible circumstance where this truth isn’t true, then it’s possibly false. If something is possibly false, then what makes it absolutely true.
Truth itself is systemic, in other words it needs a system of proof; to prove, it needs a means of decision, a method of resolution, a way of coming to the conclusion that something is true. So this method must exist before the truth in order to be able to prove that it’s true, and this is why there can be no such things as an absolute truth, all truths are systemic (relative to a system). This is different then relative morals; in relative morals we have what is relative to an individuals perspective or what’s subjective. In truth we always have what’s objective relative to a system of proof, not an individuals perspective. So this is a careful thing to the issue of relative truth. Relative truth is vary often misunderstood, many people talk about why truth isn’t relative. People will talk about what is subjective, which is because they’re so concerned with ethics and human behavior, they’re concerne is they come across that morals are relative, then they come across what is subjective, and they here that truth is relative too and it just flips the over the bend.
Anyway, truth is objective, but truth is not absolute. In other words truth is not eternal, it needs a means of resolution. As to what is true; well it’s only propositions that are true, it’s only statements in language that are true about objects. For an example if I said that my car was red, well, it’s a statement about my car that is true. My car isn’t true, there’s no part of my car that holds the property truth. Again it’s statements about my car that are true, it’s propositions which are true or false, (there’s nothing true or false other then a proposition). Furthermore there’s no proposition without a language, but we first need a mind to make up a language, then you need a language, then you have the word truth and you can grant that meaning, then you have a means of resolution to say what is true or false, but you need a whole system to exists before the truth can exist. Therefore no truth is possibly eternal.
No truth can possibly be eternal, And so therefore there are no absolute truths. Now absolute truths necessarily mandates a God, if you have an absolute truth you must have a God. It was stated for example that the periodic table was an absolute truth, well a periodic table isn’t even true, the periodic table is an object, statements about the periodic table are true or false, but to say that the periodic table is true is like saying my car is true (it’s not even true or false). Another mistake is calling evolution false, but evolution is neither true nor false, evolution is not a proposition. Evolution is consistent or inconsistent with other known data, but it is not itself a proposition that we can call true of false. In any case, it’s only propositions which are true or false and again propositions are language dependent, which is mind dependent and the entire system needs to exist in order for any truth to exist. So to say that any truth is absolute is wrong, and people will ask (like Sye) and say, “is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?” and you can say, “no it’s systemically true as all truths are, there are no absolute truths.” All truths are systemic, they’re relative to a system, don’t be fooled by the lingo to say, well is it an absolute truth to say there are no absolute truths. The answer is no since no absolute truth exist obviously, all truths are systemic, therefore there are no absolute truths. That there are no absolute truths again is a systemic truth itself, it’s not an absolute truth.
Lets consider before there was mind, perhaps before the earth existed, it’s a possible circumstance that there was no minds at all during this time. In this possible circumstance there were no truths at all. Nothing was true at a time when no minds existed, even if everything else existed. After theres mind then we can create statements about that period in time before minds existed, but these statements would be belief statements that all this even ever took place.
So for us to talk about absolute truth is what I consider the most dangerous world view that exists. It’s the hall mark of the suicide bomber, this is not just the hallmark of religion itself, but the real strict fundamentalists that will talk about Gods, truth and absolute truth. The core root of dogma is absolutism, and if atheists are to appose anything they should appose absolute truth and peoples world views first and foremost above beyond all the God talk. As soon as you here and come across this form of absolute ideology then let them know, and particularly when applied to morality (when they talk about absolute moral truth). Morals are subjective and a matter of belief, individual opinion, so on, and the religious try to take this idea of absolute truth directly into morality, which is when they really cross the line into the frightening. When we talk about an absolute truth other wise, lets say its something like gravity, that’s not so much of a concern, you don’t’ see suicide bombers based on such things. However you will when absolute truth is combined with morality.
So look out for absolute truth, it is the singe most identifying characteristic of any religion or world view that should be apposed by atheists, it is scary stuff.
And Maragon,
ReplyDeleteby the way, your final argument was wonderful.
So here then Sye, (AGAIN)
ReplyDeleteGive us an example of somthing that is an absolute truth, and state for us why that absolute truth is not actually a systemic truth.
If you can do the above, then you have your proof. Otherwise, be gone.
The Shaggy said: ”That's not what I said. There you are, throwing absolutes around again. You really can't get it straight.”
ReplyDeleteUm, you said: ”Sye, your site is not a fountain of certainty.”
I asked: “Are you certain.”
You said: “As cerain as I could be”
Well then, if that is not a ‘no,’ please tell us how certain you are, and how you came to that conclusion.
You took my use of the term "absolute" knowledge to mean "knowledge of everything," rather than the pretty-clearly-implied "knowledge of something absolutely."
Being absolutely certain of something, does not mean having absolute knowledge of everything (as you implied).
”You're right. I retract the use of the word "Absolute" at the beginning of the paragraph. I do not believe in absolute morality, for the reasons listed below.”
Nice flip flop.
”No, you're getting it wrong. There can be an absolute speed limit. There IS an absolute speed limit (the speed of light). “
Um, so you are saying that you know for certain that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Please tell us how you know this. (This should be good)(Of course you can always flip flop again).
”People can still speed (in the sense of breaking a speed limit) because of the SOCIALLY IMPOSED limit on it.”
Alright, let me try to make it even easier for you? Is it absolutely true that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4? (I imagine that you will say “Yes.”) Alright, does the absoluteness of that truth become any less absolute, if a 2 year old says that the answer is 5? What people think the right answer is, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of absolutes, just as in morality, how people behave has exactly nothing to do with the existence of absolute moral laws.
Here's what you said on your website:
"..absolute moral laws describe how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.”
Yip, that’s right, but the existence of those laws has exactly nothing to do with behaviour.
”See how behaviour is the root of morality? I'm not claiming it is absolute, I'm claiming the exact opposite, so I hope you don't start telling me that it is absolute when it isn't.”
Um, so how did you answer the question? Is it absolutely morally wrong to molest children for fun?
”My point is that if something is ABSOLUTE, meaning the end-all to something, there would be no possible way for anything which defies that absolute to occur. “
You obviously haven’t looked at any kindergarten math papers.
”If there was something morally absolute, like murder, we would physically not be able to kill another person. That would be absolute.”
Yikes. No wonder you are quitting the debate.
”So I ask you to tell me about absolutes in morality, and tell me what morality is.”
Morality is “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.” (Oxford dictionary). Absolute morality is morality which is right or wrong for all people at all times whether they believe it or not. i.e. Murder is absolutely morally wrong, love is absolutely morally right.
Cheers,
Sye
The Ranting Student said: "You are a chickenshit. It was no challenge, because a challenge comes from someone who's not a chickenshit. And you are."
ReplyDeleteYa, that makes a whole lot of sense. I challenge you to a UFC style cage match, you ignore the challenge, and I'm the chickenshit? :-D
I'm guessing pipsqueak.
Cheers,
Sye
Lance, you're right of course. I just meant to let him have his hollow shell of a victory, becuse no matter how far we push this thing, he will contiue to say "You can't know so why do you try to fight that God exits?"
ReplyDeleteI was speaking out of frustration after responding to him and reading his response to Maragon, which was most of the same as he gave to me, and I realized the futility of both my angle of argument and Sye's brain.
Maragon, I have much admiration for you, I don't have your patience.
Maragon said: ”No, I observed reality reflecting my conclusion.”
ReplyDeleteAnd what, pray tell, did you interpret your observations with, if not your reasoning, your hair brush? :-D
”Explain why we cannot use evidence to make predictions.”
You can, but in so doing you must FIRST assume that nature IS uniform which you have exactly ZERO evidence for. At best, if I granted the reliablity of your reasoning, (which I do not), you could say that nature HAS BEEN uniform, but you have zero evidence which shows that nature WILL BE uniform.
”Evidence based reasoning speaks to the likelihood that something that has always been constant will continue to be constant.”
Please present the evidence that in all likelihood, the future WILL BE like the past.
I asked: ”'What is your evidence that gravity will continue to exist like it always has?”
You answered: ”You're begging the fucking question.”
Huh, I’m asking a question, what does the question assume???
”You know what the answer is.”
Yip
”My answer is the same as yours”
Really??? My answer is that I can proceed on the expectation that gravity will continue to exist like it always has, based on the promises of God. I doubt that that is your answer. Your answer is the circular “Gravity will continue to exist, because gravity has existed in the past.”
”I didn't bother to answer it because you don't even know what circular logic is.
"In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises"
Yes, I know this, my question is, why are logical fallacies not allowed according to your worldview? You see, when you appeal to universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, in order to call some reasoning ‘fallacious’ you borrow the justification for logic from MY worldview. I want to know how you account for the laws of logic according to YOUR worldview, and tell us why fallacies are not allowed according to YOUR worldview.
”Saying that gravity will still exist tomorrow is based on the thousands of years of evidence we have that gravity is constant. THIS IS NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC. Evidence for gravity can be produced.”
Sorry Meagan, but “IT WILL BE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN” is circular logic.
”You are, once again, stupidly trying to pretend that the uniformity of nature is the SAME THING as inductive reasoning.”
uniformity of nature: Presumption that the future will be like the past; assumption that the world exhibits enough regularity to warrant inductive reasoning. Hume pointed out that such uniformity is presupposed by all of our belief in matters of fact, ~ Philosophical dictionary
”Too bad I never said that.”
Alright then, how do you know that inductive reasoning is valid?
”You also have not once shown any reason that inductive reasoning cannot account for the uniformity of nature.'”
Perhaps ye best look at a philosophical dictionary. The uniformity of nature is the very foundation of inductive reasoning. Using inductive reasoning to account for the uniformity of nature is entirely circular. But go ahead, try it :-)
”I don't want bible verses. The validity of the bible cannot be proven without utilizing circular reason.”
Well, the Bible also says that the reasoning of those who deny God is “foolish,” your posts are proof enough that THAT is true.
I said: "How is it that you know that those outcomes are valid though? Wait, you reason that your reasoning is valid – I think I get it now :-)"
You answered: ”I know that the outcomes are valid because they conform to reality.”
Um, did you reason that they conform to reality??? Perhaps you know it by osmosis :-D
The only one who claims to know anything for certain is you.
Um, are you certain? (Thanks for that though).
”There's a difference between me not being able to prove anything and you being too stubborn and stupid to understand and concede points that have been invalidated.”
Hey, I’m fine with you conceding that you can’t prove anything.
”Once again, explain how claiming to have absolute knowledge of god because god told you that you had said knowledge ISN'T circular reasoning, as defined above.”
Perhaps you could explain how you know that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "Sye,
ReplyDeletecome on, you have got to be kinding me. This is your answer:
"And once again, why should I subscribe to your system?"
Yip, that's my answer. You claim that truth is systemic, my question is why should I subscribe to your system? Why not subscribe to a system that says "Truth is penguin?"
You're whole argument boils down to "Truth is systemic," but if it is only systemically true that truth is systemic, then there may be a system that says it is something else entirely.
Again, why should I subscribe to your system?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
Is it absolutely true that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4?
Based on what I've already stated that is not absolutely true, it is systemicaly true. Where was 2+2 before there was mind? (2+2 is a preposition based on logical rules derived from the idea of quantity. Prepositions don't exist in the world, they are dependent upon mind)Further your assertions are dependent on the existance of the objective world, you [your mind and your language] and the objective world are mutualy dependent and all of your assertions are relative to it.
Again, gravity, numbers and logic are all systemic, not absolute. To prove otherwise is to show proof without you. Truth is systematicaly dependent on subject (mind) and the existance of object to make propositions about. Again, (to put it another way), to prove otherwise is to disassociate the two and show one as being true without the presense of the other, which of course you can't do because it is always you stating the truth - and therein lies the system and mutual dependance.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou're subscribing to a system that says proof is God. At least if I subscribe to a system that says proof is a penguin I'm subscribing to something that's real.
Sye,
you lost.
You can, but in so doing you must FIRST assume that nature IS uniform which you have exactly ZERO evidence for.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Sye. Time to take your medicine.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"You're whole argument boils down to "Truth is systemic,"
Your whole argument boils down to truth being absolute. At least in my case I proof of my premise. You have nothing, you have yet to show any proof what-so-ever that anything absolue exists.
Tell us something that is absolutely true, and prove to us that it is in fact not simply systemically true? Is that really that difficult, or can't you do it Sye?
Andrew, you were saying what I was trying to say, only saying it better than I could.
ReplyDeleteI have never felt as sorry for someone as I do for Sye.
ReplyDeleteI just keep knocking him on his ass and he keeps coming back for more. And not only that, he appears to really and truly be ignorant of the fact that he has yet to make one valid point.
"And what, pray tell, did you interpret your observations with, if not your reasoning, your hair brush? :-D "
I interpret my reality with my ability to reason. An ability that you have yet to prove is faulty as it is based on evidence.
Do you not see the difference here? I base my reality on evidence, you base your reality ON VOICES IN YOUR HEAD. That's like Son of Sam crazy, pal.
"You can, but in so doing you must FIRST assume that nature IS uniform which you have exactly ZERO evidence for. At best, if I granted the reliablity of your reasoning, (which I do not), you could say that nature HAS BEEN uniform, but you have zero evidence which shows that nature WILL BE uniform."
I do assume that nature is uniform.You have yet to prove why I cannot assume the uniformity of nature without absolute certainty and ignore the fact that absolute certainty contradicts science. The evidence for the uniformity of nature is all of recorded history. You have yet to prove why evidence cannot be used to predict the future - all you've done is say so a bunch of times.
Trying to pretend that saying nature will be uniform because the evidence says that it will is circular logic really shows how little you understand about logical fallacies(although you sure do love to commit them!) and how weak your arguments are.
CIRCULAR LOGIC:
"In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises."
I am not ASSUMING ANYTHING. I am presenting EVIDENCE in the form of all past knowledge and PREDICTING that nature will continue to be ordered based on said evidence.
Show me the assumption or concede that you have no fucking idea what circular logic is.
"Please present the evidence that in all likelihood, the future WILL BE like the past."
Meagan: Based on the evidence for the continual existence of gravity I conclude that gravity will continue to exist indefinitely.
Sye: Gravity has existed throughout all of recorded history. Based on a voice in my head telling me it will continue to exist, I conclude gravity will continue to exist indefinitely.
Saying that a voice in your fucking head is telling you something is true ISN'T evidence. You are not, and have not presented evidence based reasoning for your view points. God cannot be your cause, evidence and reason for everything - it's indefensible and unprovable.
"Really??? My answer is that I can proceed on the expectation that gravity will continue to exist like it always has, based on the promises of God. I doubt that that is your answer. Your answer is the circular “Gravity will continue to exist, because gravity has existed in the past.”"
No, that's not my answer. I've given you MY answer about 15 times. You just seem incapable of understanding what I'm really saying so you continually change my answer into a strawman.
I posit that based on the thousands of years of evidence that gravity will continue to exist.
This is evidence based reasoning.
And yes, Sye, your answer is the same as mine;
"I can proceed on the expectation that gravity will continue to exist like it always has..."
The difference here is that I end my sentence with "..based on the evidence" and you end yours with "...based on the promises of God."
My worldview is based on evidence, yours is based on faith.
You have FAITH that gravity will continue to behave as it always has - I have evidence.
"Yes, I know this, my question is, why are logical fallacies not allowed according to your worldview? You see, when you appeal to universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, in order to call some reasoning ‘fallacious’ you borrow the justification for logic from MY worldview. I want to know how you account for the laws of logic according to YOUR worldview, and tell us why fallacies are not allowed according to YOUR worldview."
No, hun, you really don't know. Which is why you continue to assert that evidence based conclusions are logical fallacies.
In order for me to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, I have to be assuming the proposition to be proved in my premises.
I am not assuming the uniformity of nature in my premise. I am assuming the uniformity of nature AFTER I EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE for said uniformity.
Your problem is that you're not differentiating between knowledge of an event and the event itself.
"Sorry Meagan, but “IT WILL BE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN” is circular logic."
Sorry Sye, but that's not what I'm saying. Didn't they force you to take an English elective wherever they gave you a degree in engineering?
But it's okay Sye, I know that if you actually admitted that I'm not saying what you keep trying to stuff in my mouth, you would have to admit that you're wrong. You've lied to yourself this long, why stop now - amirite?!
There is evidence to support the fact that gravity has always existed.
Based on this evidence I conclude that gravity will continue to exist.
If I say "I know gravity will exist because I have knowledge that gravity has existed" that's circular, knowledge of something loops back to itself. But saying that "I know gravity will exist because I have evidence for gravity existing", that's not circular because the knowledge is referring to the reality, it's simply a logical statement
you're going from evidence to knowledge, there's no loop.
It's just that, intentionally or not (but probably intentionally) you continually re-word my answer in such a fashion that makes it seem deceptively circular.
Now, what YOU seem to be saying is that "I know gravity will continue to exist because god revealed it to me". This is circular UNLESS you can present evidence that your knowledge is in fact revealed to him by god.
Once again, you're not not understanding the difference between the evidence of an event and the event itself.
"uniformity of nature: Presumption that the future will be like the past; assumption that the world exhibits enough regularity to warrant inductive reasoning. Hume pointed out that such uniformity is presupposed by all of our belief in matters of fact, ~ Philosophical dictionary"
"Perhaps ye best look at a philosophical dictionary. The uniformity of nature is the very foundation of inductive reasoning. Using inductive reasoning to account for the uniformity of nature is entirely circular. But go ahead, try it :-)"
Inductive reasoning is BASED on the uniformity of nature. This does not then mean that they are the SAME FUCKING THING. Jesus, are you capable of basic feats of logic? The Lord of the Rings movies are based on the books - does this mean that the movies and books are the same thing? One could not exist without the other, but they are, in fact different.
And name the philosophical dictionary - like I believe anything you tell me on faith.
"Alright then, how do you know that inductive reasoning is valid?"
I answered this at the top of the last fucking post. You just ask the same questions 50 million different ways and times in hopes that I'll get sick of your nonsense and walk away.
"Well, the Bible also says that the reasoning of those who deny God is “foolish,” your posts are proof enough that THAT is true."
Of course it says that. There's obvious and logical motivation for a book of fairy tales trying to pass itself off as true to call anyone who questions it 'foolish.'
You have yet to prove to me that your bible is a valid source of information without the use of circular logic.
Your premise is that the bible is written by god and therefore is a source of truth. THIS is true circular logic - the assumption of god's existence without prior proof.
"Um, did you reason that they conform to reality??? Perhaps you know it by osmosis :-D"
I interpret my reality with my ability to reason. An ability that you have yet to prove is faulty as it is based on evidence.
Do you not see the difference here? I base my reality on evidence, you base your reality ON VOICES IN YOUR HEAD. That's like Son of Sam crazy, pal.
"Um, are you certain? (Thanks for that though)."
Thanks for what? You keep saying nonsense like this, even though you've yet to prove anything with anything you've thanked me for. All you do is re-phrase the question, jerk off all over your keyboard and tell yourself you're brilliant.
"Hey, I’m fine with you conceding that you can’t prove anything."
I'm sure you would be fine with that - trouble is, hasn't happened yet.
"Perhaps you could explain how you know that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain."
This is true circular logic - the same shit you stroke yourself to when you think I'm utilizing it when I'm really using evidence based reasoning.
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT GOD EXISTS IN YOUR PREMISE.
1)God has revealed things to me in a way that I can know them to be true.
2)These things really ARE true.
3)Therefore God exists.
Let's recap here, kids.
1)Sye doesn't understand the difference between reasoning based on evidence and circular logic. His problem is that he's not differentiating between evidence for an event and the event itself.
2)Sye does not base his worldview on evidence or logic - he bases it on the faith he has in the voices in his head.
3)Sye utilizes circular logic to insist that the bible is valid and that god exists - he assumed their divinity and existence in the premise and uses them to prove themselves.
4)I do not use gravity to prove itself, I use the evidence for gravity to prove its existence. I do not assume gravity exists in my premise.I know gravity will exist because I have evidence for gravity existing.
5)Sye, intentionally or not (but probably intentionally) re-words my answers in such a fashion that makes them seem deceptively circular.
You lose, Sye, everyone sees it except for you. Although I suspect it may be impossible for you to concede - what with the voices in your head assuring you that you're right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"All you do is re-phrase the question, jerk off all over your keyboard and tell yourself you're brilliant."
ReplyDeleteMaragon, you're never going to get him to write anything else; all the keys to do so are pretty much sticky and won't work any more.
you know what, sye does re-use phrases.
ReplyDeletehe's been doing that since the beginning.
he's done here. he's already been proven wrong. and retarded for trying to engage a cage match on the internet.
let's not feed the puppy.
Don’t take this the wrong way…..
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Sye continues to argue successfully with you guys is because you don’t have a foundation/idea of truth through which all your arguments flow. Even though Sye’s is wrong, he has one, and all his arguments fit his premise. Because you don’t have that foundation he continually falls back on his base and says things like, “is that absolutely true?” Furthermore, because you don’t have that he is correct that the burden of proof is on you to establish these things. However, once you do have that idea of truth, then he has to either prove it wrong, or come up with a proof of his own by perhaps sating something that is absolute and showing how it does not follow from your idea of truth.
This is why I presented the systemic notion of truth, which of course he as yet to be able to deal with. I don’t have to make any further side bar arguments on the matter, the buron of proof is now on him.
Now I admit I’m just some dumbass, but the burden of proof is on you to establish a firm idea of truth, whether its systemic, absolute, pragmatic, whatever. You have to have that or you’re swatting at flies.
As I’ve said before, I’m not an atheist. My problem with Sye is not his theism, it’s his absolute world view which I feel is dangerous. Ray also shares this worldview, and it’s a poison to society. The problem is the guy has a big voice, he’s on TV, fox new, CNN, youtube, bloggs, you name it, and a lot of people out there think like he does. It breads, hate discrimination, judgmental attitudes, jihad, suicide bombers, the list goes on. You guys’ whole foundation should be the fight against absolutism, period.
I don't take it the wrong way, I think you're right, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to argue his concept of absolute trut, but couldn' do it anywhere nearly as effectively as you could, simply because you understand the issue better than I.
I also think you're right, the absolutist view that Sye and Ray take ARE dangerous - most of the atheists or others who lurk here wouldn't be so vitriolic to people who are reasonable Christians (heck, you can see more than one who gain Raytractor welcome and support because of their reasonability). It's just that Ray and Sye, folks like them preach their absolutism under the guise of Christ. And the vast majority of public figures who do tend to use Christ as well.
I'm glad you're here. I learn a lot reading your posts.
Andrew, you win.
ReplyDeleteLet's not feed the troll.
Andrew, could you suggest some links on the subject that I could read through to gain a better understanding of the concept of the systemic notion of truth?
ReplyDeleteThanks in advance.
Andrew
ReplyDeleteCan I borrow your brain?
Ps. I found out how to set up a counter on the website, and we can also ban somebody from posting.
Sye's a troll.
The Ranting Student said: "Andrew Can I borrow your brain?"
ReplyDeleteGreat idea! It's never been used :-D
Cheers,
Sye
(P.S. You might want to get a spell checker for it though :-)
Andrew Louis said: "Based on what I've already stated that is not absolutely true, it is systemicaly true. Where was 2+2 before there was mind?"
ReplyDeleteSo, 2 rocks plus 2 rocks did not equal 4 rocks before there were minds??? Riiiiight. Perhaps you could also tell us in what system 2 rocks plus 2 rocks does not equal 4 rocks?
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "Tell us something that is absolutely true."
ReplyDeleteAbsolute truth exists. This is true by the impossiblity (and utter absurdity) of the opposite. You folks think Andrew is brilliant, but you do not realize that his whole premise is: "It is absolutely true, that absolute truth does not exist."
Cheers,
Sye
The Ranting Student said: "Hey, dumbass, I'm in california. A cage match on the internet?"
ReplyDeleteNope, I plan on going to California sometime soon. If you send me your contact information, I'm sure we could set something up.
Cheers,
Sye
The Shaggy said: "I also think you're right, the absolutist view that Sye and Ray take ARE dangerous."
ReplyDeleteUm, is THAT absolutely true? If not, why should anyone believe you?
(Thanks for that though).
Cheers,
Sye
Sye
ReplyDeleteI know you're lying. You're a troll.
Andrew Louis said: "The reason why Sye continues to argue successfully with you guys is because you don’t have a foundation/idea of truth through which all your arguments flow."
ReplyDeleteMaybe he's not so stupid after all :-D Nah!
Cheers,
Sye
Maragon said: "Andrew, could you suggest some links on the subject that I could read through to gain a better understanding of the concept of the systemic notion of truth?"
ReplyDeleteI think he's pulled it rom his diaper, maybe he'll send you that :-D
(Do me a favour though, read up on it, and start arguing like him :-D )
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
ReplyDelete'I'm a big fucking troll and everyone knows it.'
"I think he's pulled it rom his diaper, maybe he'll send you that :-D"
Well a diaper is close to where you get your claims that a voice in your head tells you that you're right; namely your ass.
"(Do me a favour though, read up on it, and start arguing like him :-D )"
Just because I am interested in other people's ideas doesn't mean that I agree with them.
It's called autodidacticism - maybe you should look into it.
Address this or quit wasting my time:
1)Sye doesn't understand the difference between reasoning based on evidence and circular logic. His problem is that he's not differentiating between evidence for an event and the event itself.
2)Sye does not base his worldview on evidence or logic - he bases it on the faith he has in the voices in his head.
3)Sye utilizes circular logic to insist that the bible is valid and that god exists - he assumed their divinity and existence in the premise and uses them to prove themselves.
4)I do not use gravity to prove itself, I use the evidence for gravity to prove its existence. I do not assume gravity exists in my premise.I know gravity will exist because I have evidence for gravity existing.
5)Sye, intentionally or not (but probably intentionally) re-words my answers in such a fashion that makes them seem deceptively circular.
Maragon said: ”I interpret my reality with my ability to reason.”
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY!!! And how did you say that you know that your ability to reason is valid? Well, I have the quote right here:
”I know that my reasoning was valid in the past because I came to a logical conclusion and reality supported and reflected said conclusion.”
So, you know that your reasoning is valid, because reality supports your reasoning, which you interpret with your ability to reason! Brilliant!!!
Not circular at all!!! Riiiiiight.
”Do you not see the difference here? I base my reality on evidence, you base your reality ON VOICES IN YOUR HEAD.”
Nope, never heard voices. What is the evidence that your reasoning is valid?
”I do assume that nature is uniform”
Hmmm, then what’s this?
I am not ASSUMING ANYTHING. I am presenting EVIDENCE in the form of all past knowledge and PREDICTING that nature will continue to be ordered based on said evidence.
And how, pray tell do you know that the future will be like the past? How do you know anything about the future? Again, to say that nature IS uniform, because nature HAS BEEN uniform is entirely circular.
”Meagan: Based on the evidence for the continual existence of gravity I conclude that gravity will continue to exist indefinitely.”
1. How do you know that your reasoning about this is valid?
2. How do you know that the future will be like the past? How do you know ANYTHING about the future? Crystal ball?
”I posit that based on the thousands of years of evidence that gravity will continue to exist.”
All you could ever hope to posit (if I granted you the validity of your reasoning – which I do not), is that gravity HAS existed, not that it WILL exist. To say that gravity WILL exist, because gravity HAS EXISTED is begging the question. I’m not asking about the past, I want to know how you know about the future.
”This is evidence based reasoning.”
What is the evidence that the future WILL BE like the past?
”My worldview is based on evidence, yours is based on faith.”
I guess we can determine that once you give us the evidence that your reasoning is valid, the evidence for the validity of the laws of logic, and the evidence that the future WILL BE like the past (not holding my breath though).
”No, hun, you really don't know. Which is why you continue to assert that evidence based conclusions are logical fallacies.”
Why are logical fallacies not allowed according to YOUR worldview?
I said: "Sorry Meagan, but “IT WILL BE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN” is circular logic."
You answered: ”Sorry Sye, but that's not what I'm saying.”
Um, that is EXACTLY what you are saying: Gravity WILL EXIST, because gravity HAS EXISTED. At least you are finally starting to see that this is fallacious.
You say it again right here!!!
”There is evidence to support the fact that gravity has always existed.
Based on this evidence I conclude that gravity will continue to exist.
Gravity has existed, so gravity will exist!!! Entirely circular!!!
”If I say "I know gravity will exist because I have knowledge that gravity has existed" that's circular, knowledge of something loops back to itself. But saying that "I know gravity will exist because I have evidence for gravity existing", that's not circular because the knowledge is referring to the reality, it's simply a logical statement you're going from evidence to knowledge, there's no loop.”
Sure there is. What is the evidence that gravity WILL exist???
”Inductive reasoning is BASED on the uniformity of nature. This does not then mean that they are the SAME FUCKING THING.”
Just google it, your good at that :-D Here’s another: “principle of the uniformity of nature: A claim that may be offered as a grounding for the INDUCTIVE PRINCIPLE, though it is not always distinguished from the principle itself. (emphasis mine).”
”I interpret my reality with my ability to reason.”
Which you, in turn, interpret with your reality (and round and round we go). No problem there eh? ;-D
”I'm sure you would be fine with that - trouble is, hasn't happened yet.”
Alright, tell me how proof of ANYTHING is possible according to your worldview?
”YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT GOD EXISTS IN YOUR PREMISE.”
And you are assuming that He does not in yours. The difference is, you cannot show that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them.
”You lose, Sye, everyone sees it except for you.”
Claiming victory is a sure sign of defeat :-)
Cheers,
Sye
(I'll address the other comments in a bit, thanks, but first.)
ReplyDeleteSye,
I'll make this simple, you said:
"So, 2 rocks plus 2 rocks did not equal 4 rocks before there were minds??? Riiiiight. Perhaps you could also tell us in what system 2 rocks plus 2 rocks does not equal 4 rocks?"
(in a system where there is no minds to make such propositions)
2 rocks plus 2 rocks equals 4 rocks is a PROPOSITION (you understand this). As I've already stated above, it is only PROPOSITIONS which are true. Rocks are NOT TRUE, there is nothing inherently TRUE about a rock, it carries no TRUTH property, even to say that it is an objecet is a proposition (again, it's the proposition about the rock which is true, nothing more. And that proposition is based, and "relative" to your experience of it). AND ABSOLUTE = NOT RELATIVE, so tell me something that isn't relative to your making a proposition about it.
A rock does not carry any idea of truth with itself. Before there was mind (and bare in mind everyone, I've already stated all this, but Sye didn't get it) before there was mind there were no propositions, rocks were not counting themselves. Today, your proposition, which is based and relative to you and the rocks is based on a system of logic that was developed to deal with the objective world after the fact. There were no truths before you. There was no math before man came up with it.
Your statement, idea, "is there absolute truth", no, "is that absolutely true", is nothing more then a systemic truth because it's a proposition which stands relative to the [objective] system. Propositions cannot be made void of objects and cannot be made void of mind and therefore there is no absolute truth.
Once again, I'm repreating myself:
Truth itself is systemic, in other words it needs a system of proof; to prove, it needs a means of decision, a method of resolution, a way of coming to the conclusion that something is true. So this method must exist before the truth in order to be able to prove that it’s true, and this is why there can be no such things as an absolute truth, all truths are systemic (relative to a system).
Your proof Sye (which is utterly redicilous) is this:
Absolute truth exists. This is true by the impossiblity (and utter absurdity) of the opposite. "It is absolutely true, that absolute truth does not exist."
First off you're misquoting again, it's systemicaly true (see my premise) that absolute truth is not possible. But since you can't prove anything you have to muck with peoples words. That means you really are a jackass.
Secondly, my premise has already established my basis for systemic truth, all you're saying is that I'm wrong without offering a valid proof. My premis is complete, your simply calling on the word absurde? That would be akin to saying, Sye is absurde, therefore he does not exist.
So, once again, state something for us that is absolute, and provide a proof which lays down how it is not systemic. But again, and I'm repraeting myself, you can't.
There is a saying in Buddhism that sort of fits this occasion, "What was your name before you were born?"
Were you true, Sye, before you were born. What does it mean Sye, for something to be TRUE? Does true fly around in the air like your God does?
Andrew Louis said: "First off you're misquoting again, it's systemicaly true (see my premise) that absolute truth is not possible."
ReplyDeleteBut, only in your system. Why should anyone subscribe to your system? Is your system itself true, and if so, how do you know this?
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. You didn't answer my question: Did 2 rocks plus 2 rocks equal 4 rocks before there were minds?
In order for something to be absolute relative to mind, your idea of mind must be trascedental.
ReplyDeleteI think that's your problem Sye. You think you can apply your idea of mind past present and future. Even though in the pasts sense, there were no humans around and no propositions. You missunderstand the idea that only propositions are true, and you look at truth as though it were a THING. But truth is not a THING. It exists only as a proposition about things.
I did answer your question but you've become too dense to see that.
ReplyDeleteYou still have not stated anything that is absolute and why it is not systemic.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteI was complimenting you earlier on your argumentation thinking it would provoke you to be honest and come out with an actual proof. But that didn’t work, so now you’re just a dumbass.
Without further or do:
Whooooooooo lives in a pine-apple under the sea, spongebob squarepants. Obsorbin and yellow and porous is he, spongebob squarepants. If nautical nonsense be something you wish, spongebob squarepant, the drop on the deck and drop like a fish, spongebob squarepants. Ready, spongebob squarepants, spongebob squarepants, spongebob squarepants, spongebooooooob Square paaaaaaaants.
Andrew, you roolz.
ReplyDeleteSye, you droolz.
Maragon, you rawk.
Sye's a cawk.
Raytractors are kickin'.
Sye took a lickin'.
... I've spent far too long at my job today.
In order to continue this infinitely stupid discussion(and rest assured that I will not allow him to win by default) I will pare the massive replies down to several small talking points. That'll make it harder for Sye here to twist my words and jerk off all over logical discourse.
ReplyDelete1. I base my world view on evidence based reasoning.
Example:
There is evidence for the existence of gravity. I can show evidence that will help to prove the existence of gravity. Because of this evidence, I will make an evidence-based prediction that gravity will continue to exist.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT GRAVITY HAS EXISTED SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST. Sye keeps stuffing his circular logic into my mouth so that he can bat down useless strawmen instead of dealing with the actuality here - evidence based reasoning. Every single time Sye incorrectly asserts that I am saying that gravity existed therefore it exists I am going to copy and paste this section in its entirety.
I can prove, every second of every day that gravity exists. I don't need to assume anything. Simply because the continual existence of gravity can be construed as one piece of evidence does not mean that it is the only piece of evidence or that the continual existence is necessary to prove said existence.
Sye objects to evidence based reasoning.
2. Sye bases his world view on faith.
Example:
I know that gravity will continue to exist because god tells me so.
This is a faith based statement. Citing something like a deity as the cause of, evidence for and continuity of something like gravity is nonsensical, irrational, and has no explanatory power whatsoever.
Sye ignores the obvious problems with such an assertion; such as the fact that no one could ever say with 100% certainty that god would not one day decide to change the laws of nature.
Sye is not 'certain' that god will keep nature uniform - to posit this, he would have to claim absolute knowledge to know god's eternal and infinite mind. Sye has FAITH in his notion that god will continue to keep nature uniform.
3. Sye states that one needs to have absolute certainty to know anything or claim anything at all.
Sye conveniently ignores the fact that 'absolute certainty' goes against the very nature and purpose of science.
Science is not a rigid endeavor - it is fluid and allows for change when change is necessary.
To claim absolute certainty about anything is an ignorant posistion.
Example:
Issac Newton developed the laws of gravity and motion. In Sye's world view, he would be absolutely certain that the theories Newton posited would always hold true. However, this is demonstratively false - Einstein's Relativity updates Newtons Laws.
Does Einsteins revision of Newtons Laws of Gravity and Motion invalidate the original work? No. Because in science, nothing is ever absolutely certain, only extremely probable and open to change when change is needed.
Asserting that something needs be 100% certain to be relevant is to discount absolutely all of science.
Sye's posistion here is nonsensical. He is stating that he believes that nature will always be uniform because god has told him that it will. What will he do when we are once again forced to revise our understanding of said uniformity? Why wouldn't his deity inform him that we misunderstand something? What if we find something that is distinctly NOT uniform? Induction based reasoning allows for these eventualities, absolute certainty does not.
4.Sye accuses me(and other non-presupposistionalists) of circular logic because we use evidence based reasoning.
This is the definition of circular logic:
"In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises."
Henceforth, every time Sye accuses me of circular logic, he must refer to this definition and tell me exactly what unproved proposition I am assuming in my premise.
Sye misunderstands and misapplies the concept of circular reasoning.
Example of circular reasoning:
* p implies q
* suppose p
* therefore, q.
"Circular reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (or possibly with more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments and conclusions (a proof or series of proofs), one of the conclusions is presumed by an earlier conclusion. Begging the question can occur within one argument and consequent conclusion. For example, A causes B because A comes before B, therefore B is caused by A."
When I state that I have evidence to prove that gravity exists, and therefore I can predict that gravity WILL exist - I am not begging the question or appealing to circular logic. I have EVIDENCE. The existence of gravity is not the only proof of gravity, and this is where Sye gets confused. I do NOT need to cite past gravity as a proof for current gravity - I can continually test gravity in a controlled scientific setting.
5. Sye employs circular logic and 'begs the question' in his proofs for god and the validity of his bible.
Example:
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT GOD EXISTS IN YOUR PREMISE.
1)God has revealed things to me in a way that I can know them to be true.
2)These things really ARE true.
3)Therefore God exists.
Sye is attempting to use something that he has attributed to god as a proof for god.
The first statement assumes that there is a god who has revealed the uniformity of nature to Sye. The second statement notes that the uniformity of nature is a true principle. The third statement attributes said uniformity to the presupposed god.
Put another way:
1)God has revealed to me in a way that I can be sure of that he created bacon.
2)THERE REALLY *IS* BACON!!!!!!!
3)Therefore God exists.(and makes awesome bacon)
Sye merely takes something that anyone can see is true - in this case the existence of bacon(or the uniformity of nature), attributes this obvious thing to a deity without reason for doing so(or evidence to prove it to be true), and then expects all of us to ALSO believe in his deity BECAUSE HE says the deity says that he(the deity) made something that we already know exists.
Unfortunately for Sye, logic doesn't work this way. The only thing the existence of bacon proves definitively is that bacon exists.
Sye's arguments incorrectly assume from the beginning what he hopes to prove - the existence of a deity.
6. Sye incorrectly assumes that nature needs a reason to be uniform.
Sye assumes that without a god, nature could not be uniform. However, since this is the only universe that we have knowledge of, this is an unfounded assumption.
Sye cannot prove that a lack of a deity would result in a chaotic universe.
7.The entire premise of Sye's argument hinges upon a false dichotomy.
"The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."
He asserts that no one can really be certain of anything unless the have a belief in his pet deity.
Look at his replies to people, and you'll see him say ridiculous shit like, "are you absolutely certain that you're certain?" He bases his claim that no one other than someone who ascribes to his belief system can be certain of anything on the fact that inductive reasoning implies only 99.9% certainty in regards to things like gravity.
So, Sye's critique is that an honest person needs to say, "No, I'm not 100% certain that gravity will still exist tomorrow when I wake up, anything's possible I guess - but I'm like 99.9% that it will."
Sye's fallacy is one of absolutes.
One must be absolutely certain or not certain at all. And this world view of course does not allow for degrees of certainty - something that most rational people would agree exists.
Example:
Sye cannot be absolutely sure that his wife will come home from work.
Something terrible(and no, I'm not wishing something terrible WILL happen to your hypothetical wife) could happen. She could decide to leave him, she could be hit by a car, she could be raptured off the face of the earth - the possibilities are endless.
However, lucky for Sye and his hypothetical wife, it is extremely unlikely that she will NOT make it home.
In fact, Sye could be said to feel 99.9% certain that his wife will return home tonight. But as a rational person, he has to allow for the .1% possibility.
How can Sye be 99.9% certain that his wife will return home tonight? Well, there's either two alternatives here. Sye will tell us that he knows his wife will return home tonight because god told him so. Or, more likely, Sye is using his evidence based reasoning capabilities to predict future events. His wife has come home every night for the last 20 years - stands to reason that she'll come home tonight, doesn't it?
Sye, of course, rejects this basic principle of reasoning as circular. He will tell you that past events cannot be considered evidence of future ones. Therefore, in order to keep with his twisted logic, Sye will have to tell us that he literally has no idea of whether or not his wife will come home tonight - because according to him("How do you know that your reasoning was valid in the past, and how do you know that the past is a guide to the future? Saying that the past IS a guide to the future, because the past HAS BEEN a guide to the future is entirely circular.") past events cannot be evidence for future ones.
So which is it Sye? Do you have absolute knowledge that your wife will come home tonight - or are you only 99.9% certain?
I will not answer any further posts from Sye until he addressed every single one of these points.
Maragon said: ”1. I base my world view on evidence based reasoning.
ReplyDeleteExample:
There is evidence for the existence of gravity. I can show evidence that will help to prove the existence of gravity. Because of this evidence, I will make an evidence-based prediction that gravity will continue to exist.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT GRAVITY HAS EXISTED SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST.
Sure you are. You may have evidence that gravity has existed, but what is the evidence that it will continue to exist? EL ZIPPO. All you are saying is that you have evidence that gravity HAS existed, and are saying that based on the evidence that gravity HAS existed, it WILL CONTINUE to exist. If you can’t see the circularity there, I can’t help you.
”Every single time Sye incorrectly asserts that I am saying that gravity existed therefore it exists I am going to copy and paste this section in its entirety.”
Please, please, pretty please, PLEASE KEEP POSTING THIS SECTION!!!!
”Sye objects to evidence based reasoning.”
Not at all, just want to know what your evidence that gravity WILL exist even 5 seconds from now.
2. Sye bases his world view on faith.
Example: I know that gravity will continue to exist because god tells me so.
Yip, God has revealed in His word that the world will remain constant “as long as the earth endures.”
”This is a faith based statement.”
You are begging the question by assuming that God could not reveal the truth of this to us, in such a way that we can be certain of it.
”Sye ignores the obvious problems with such an assertion; such as the fact that no one could ever say with 100% certainty that god would not one day decide to change the laws of nature.”
Um, are you 100% certain that ”no one could ever say with 100% certainty that god would not one day decide to change the laws of nature?” (Thanks for keeping doing that by the way!
3. Sye states that one needs to have absolute certainty to know anything or claim anything at all.
Nope, just to know anything. People can claim whatever they want without knowing anything.
”Sye conveniently ignores the fact that 'absolute certainty' goes against the very nature and purpose of science.”
Um, are you absolutely certain??? (I should be paying you for this :-)
”Science is not a rigid endeavor - it is fluid and allows for change when change is necessary.”
Are you absolutely certain about that?
”To claim absolute certainty about anything is an ignorant posistion.”
And yes, yet again…drumroll…are you absolutely certain about that? If you are, you are being ignorant by your standard, if you’re not, you’re refuted.
Example:
Issac Newton developed the laws of gravity and motion.
Are you certain??? Wow for someone who is not certain about anything, you sure are making a lot of knowledge claims!
In Sye's world view, he would be absolutely certain that the theories Newton posited would always hold true. However, this is demonstratively false - Einstein's Relativity updates Newtons Laws.
Um, are you absolutely certain about that?
”Does Einsteins revision of Newtons Laws of Gravity and Motion invalidate the original work? No. Because in science, nothing is ever absolutely certain, only extremely probable and open to change when change is needed.”
Are you certain about that?
”Asserting that something needs be 100% certain to be relevant is to discount absolutely all of science.”
Are you 100% certain about that. (Seriously, send me your address, I really should pay you for this :-D )
”Sye's posistion here is nonsensical.”
Are you certain about that?
Induction based reasoning allows for these eventualities, absolute certainty does not.”
Are you certain about that? Please, please, PLEASE quit making it sooooooooo easy!
4.Sye accuses me(and other non-presupposistionalists) of circular logic because we use evidence based reasoning.
Henceforth, every time Sye accuses me of circular logic, he must refer to this definition and tell me exactly what unproved proposition I am assuming in my premise.
Saying that the future WILL BE like the past because you have evidence that the future WAS like the past, in the past, is circular reasoning, whether you like it or not. The unproved proposition is: THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST!!!!!!!
”When I state that I have evidence to prove that gravity exists, and therefore I can predict that gravity WILL exist - I am not begging the question or appealing to circular logic. I have EVIDENCE. The existence of gravity is not the only proof of gravity, and this is where Sye gets confused. I do NOT need to cite past gravity as a proof for current gravity - I can continually test gravity in a controlled scientific setting.”
What is your evidence that the future will be like the past?
5. Sye employs circular logic and 'begs the question' in his proofs for god and the validity of his bible.
Example:
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT GOD EXISTS IN YOUR PREMISE.
1)God has revealed things to me in a way that I can know them to be true.
2)These things really ARE true.
3)Therefore God exists.
Um, not quite. God has revealed to us things in such a way that we can know them to be true, a proposition which you have yet to disprove. Don’t forget though, that you are assuming that God does not exist in YOUR premise. Problem is, without God, you cannot account for the very laws of logic you are trying to use against me.
I have repeatedly asked why fallacies are not allowed according to your worldview, and you have repeatedly ignored the question. (Don’t worry, I know why :-)
6. Sye incorrectly assumes that nature needs a reason to be uniform.
Sye assumes that without a god, nature could not be uniform. However, since this is the only universe that we have knowledge of, this is an unfounded assumption.
Your problem is that you believe in both randomness, and uniformity. They both can’t be properties of the universe at the same time, so you need to explain why some things remain uniform, and some things remain random, according to your worldview. “That’s just the way it is,” is not an argument. God exists, that’s just the way it is! (How do you like your argument now?
”7.The entire premise of Sye's argument hinges upon a false dichotomy.
He asserts that no one can really be certain of anything unless the have a belief in his pet deity.
Um, you ADMIT that you can’t be certain of anything!!!
”Example: Sye cannot be absolutely sure that his wife will come home from work.”
No kidding. As I have said many times, being certain about some things, i.e. the existence of God, does not mean that we can be certain about EVERYTHING.
”So which is it Sye? Do you have absolute knowledge that your wife will come home tonight - or are you only 99.9% certain?”
I’m not married. Still, it would be neither.
”I will not answer any further posts from Sye until he addressed every single one of these points.”
Please, don’t stop now, I plan on sending some people over here to read the kinds of things you write. You are doing more for Christianity than you could ever imagine!
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "You missunderstand the idea that only propositions are true, and you look at truth as though it were a THING. But truth is not a THING. It exists only as a proposition about things."
ReplyDeleteUm, is THAT true? Just quit the gobbldygook man, and answer the question, did 2 rocks plus 2 rocks equal 4 rocks, before there were minds around to make it true?
Just out of curiosity, what if there are 2 conflicting 'sytems of truth' concerning the same proposition; Which is 'true,' or are they both necessarily true?
Cheers,
Sye
Um, Sye,
ReplyDeleteyour obviously having trouble reading, so go back again and reread what I wrote. If you want you can even misquote it like you usually do when you're feeling down and out about your argument.
And you said:
Just out of curiosity, what if there are 2 conflicting 'sytems of truth' concerning the same proposition; Which is 'true,' or are they both necessarily true?
(Then you would have to give me 2 such conflicting systems of truth that are propositions. Yours is not a proposition)
For example:
you apply absolute to truth, which is not a proposition. The reason it is not a proposition is because it must be so void of, (on the one hand) object, and void of, (on the other hand) subject. That is it's exclusive by virtue of it needing to be so in every possible circumstance - it's a paradox of sorts, it's self defeating and unprovable. As stated however, it's a systemic idea in that your stating it relative to a system, but it's meaningless. To be any other way you need to offer up your proof, so lets here it.
My applying systemic to truth is a valid proposition because it is not exclusive, it's dependent upon the system. In other words there's always a subject invloved making propositions about objects. Yours again, is fantasy, and certainly not a proposition.
And again, none of this is absolutely true, it's systemicaly true, and I'm following the rules of logic within that system of truth.
QUID PRO QUO, or we're finished:
give me an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "Then you would have to give me 2 such conflicting systems of truth that are propositions."
ReplyDeleteAlright, I propose that absolute truth exists, you propose that absolute truth does not exist, which is true, and how do you know this?
By the way, did 2 rocks plus 2 rocks equal 4 rocks before there were minds to determine that that was true?
Cheers,
Sye
1. "Sure you are. You may have evidence that gravity has existed, but what is the evidence that it will continue to exist? EL ZIPPO. All you are saying is that you have evidence that gravity HAS existed, and are saying that based on the evidence that gravity HAS existed, it WILL CONTINUE to exist. If you can’t see the circularity there, I can’t help you."
ReplyDeleteNo one here sees evidence based reasoning as circular except for you.
There is evidence for the existence of gravity. I can show evidence that will help to prove the existence of gravity. Because of this evidence, I will make an evidence-based prediction that gravity will continue to exist.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT GRAVITY HAS EXISTED SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST.
Simply telling me that I am saying the opposite of what I am actually saying doesn't do anything but make you look like a twit.
"Not at all, just want to know what your evidence that gravity WILL exist even 5 seconds from now."
Continual tests of gravity.
2."Yip, God has revealed in His word that the world will remain constant “as long as the earth endures.”"
Prove it.
If you're going to use the bible, prove that the bible is the inerrant word of a divine being without appealing to the fact that it claims to be.
"You are begging the question by assuming that God could not reveal the truth of this to us, in such a way that we can be certain of it."
You still don't know what begging the question means. Nor do you understand what burden of proof is. YOU are making a fantastical claim - you are claiming that you have knowledge and proof of a divine being who is revealing the natural world to you in an inerrant fashion. The onus is on you to prove this claim, not on me to refute it.
"Um, are you 100% certain that ”no one could ever say with 100% certainty that god would not one day decide to change the laws of nature?” (Thanks for keeping doing that by the way!)"
I don't need to be 100% certain - because normal, logical, intelligent people know that no one can truly be 100% certain of anything.
And instead of playing useless, retarded word games, go ahead and ANSWER this concern;
Sye ignores the obvious problems with such an assertion; such as the fact that no one could ever say with 100% certainty that god would not one day decide to change the laws of nature.
Sye is not 'certain' that god will keep nature uniform - to posit this, he would have to claim absolute knowledge to know god's eternal and infinite mind. Sye has FAITH in his notion that god will continue to keep nature uniform.
Explain to me where, how and why you claim to have 100% certainty that god will continue to keep things the way that they always have been. Then explain to me how you know this without absolute knowledge of the infinite mind of god.
3. You dodged the whole third section.
The third section explains and demonstrates that one does not need to be 'absolutely certain' for something to be relevant and useful.
Instead of answering these points, you whipped it out and jacked off all over logic by asking me whether I was "absolutely certain" about 15 times - when I was explaining why one did NOT need to be 'absolutely certain.'
Prove to me that I need to be absolutely certain in order to make a relevant and useful claim - then refute the Newton/Einstein example.
Or concede the point - the choice is yours.
4. "Saying that the future WILL BE like the past because you have evidence that the future WAS like the past, in the past, is circular reasoning, whether you like it or not. The unproved proposition is: THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST!!!!!!!"
Adding extra exclamation points doesn't make your points anymore intelligent or relevant.
Once again, you are putting word in my mouth.
I do NOT NEED the past to provide evidence for gravity. Gravity is continually being tested and I am continually observing it.
A> A pencil drops to the floor.
B>This is evidence of gravity.
C>Based on this evidence, gravity exists.
Point out the unproved proposition in my example.
"What is your evidence that the future will be like the past?"
What is your evidence that god will continue to make the future behave like the past? And don't dodge the question.
"Um, not quite. God has revealed to us things in such a way that we can know them to be true, a proposition which you have yet to disprove. Don’t forget though, that you are assuming that God does not exist in YOUR premise."
Um, yes, quite.
A>God reveals things in a way that I can know them to be true.
B>Turns out those things are true.
C>Therefore god exists.
That is circular logic. You are trying to prove god by assuming god.
I don't have to disprove your assertion that god tells you things - the onus is on the person making the fantastical claim; you.
Prove to me that god is telling you things that are absolutely true.
I am not assuming that god doesn't exist in my premise. However, god does not get included in my proof because there's no NEED for a god to explain my proof.
"Problem is, without God, you cannot account for the very laws of logic you are trying to use against me."
Prove it.
"I have repeatedly asked why fallacies are not allowed according to your worldview, and you have repeatedly ignored the question."
Because it's a stupid fucking question.
Fallacies shouldn't be allowed in anyone's world view.
6. "Your problem is that you believe in both randomness, and uniformity. They both can’t be properties of the universe at the same time, so you need to explain why some things remain uniform, and some things remain random, according to your worldview. “That’s just the way it is,” is not an argument. God exists, that’s just the way it is! (How do you like your argument now?"
I don't 'believe' in anything. I see evidence of both randomness and uniformity.
You are assuming that they both cannot be properties of the universe - prove to me that they can't.
If something is random by nature, then the uniformity of nature would posit that said thing would continue to be random. It's not a difficult concept.
7."Um, you ADMIT that you can’t be certain of anything!!!"
And you have not proven that I need to be 100% certain to have a valid point - you skipped over section 3, like a nonsensical bitch, remember?
"No kidding. As I have said many times, being certain about some things, i.e. the existence of God, does not mean that we can be certain about EVERYTHING."
So essentially you're just randomly assigning qualifiers to what you believe we can or can't be certain about.
Explain to me why you say that HAVE TO BE 100% certain about some things, but that you can be 99.9% sure about others.
Then explain how you decide what you need to be 100% certain about.
"I’m not married. Still, it would be neither."
Wow, I'm shocked - a crazy, ugly fundie like you? Still single?
If it's neither -"absolute knowledge that your wife will come home tonight - or are you only 99.9% certain?" - then explain what it is.
"Please, don’t stop now, I plan on sending some people over here to read the kinds of things you write. You are doing more for Christianity than you could ever imagine!"
Obvious troll is obvious.
And you're doing less for christianity than you like to believe. A quick google search of your name brings up hundreds of links - all people who have read your arguments or conversed with you and dismissed you as a crackpot fundie idiot. Even christians think you're batty.
Just the first few I clicked on:
http://www.cvatheists.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=561&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=130
http://blog.peterpawan.com/index.php?s=sye&search.x=0&search.y=0
http://pvblivs.blogspot.com/
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10120&whichpage=1
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2006/11/american-atheist-edwin-kagin.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/ray_comfort_answers_a_question.php
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/search.aspx
Sye, (simple)
ReplyDeleteI don't propose that absolute truths do not exist.
I'm proposing that absolute truth is not a valid proposition for reasons just stated, so in order for me to answer your question you have to prove to me that it is. Once we can establish it's validity as a proposition we'll be off and on our way.
I'm going to be out for a couple days, so I'll have to catch up on this later.
You guys are frickin post machines, I'm not gettin shit done at work and my wife is giving me the evil, your not gettin sex tonight eye.
Sye,
no hard fellings, I just disagree with you. The disharmony created by the computor screen creates tension that's unecessary. I can almost be "absolutely" sure that this will not come to a conclusion and you will be booted from yet another atheist site. Why not drop the argument your forcing and try to find common ground with people? Where do you, I and the Raytracotors see things eye to eye? All we're doing is forcing eachothers meat down the others gills, and no one likes that, it breads anomocity and contempt(I can't spell worth a shit). I get the feeling from your track record that maybe you just enjoy it.
Andrew Louis said: ”I don't propose that absolute truths do not exist.
ReplyDeleteI'm proposing that absolute truth is not a valid proposition for reasons just stated”
Alright then, I propose that absolute truth IS a valid proposition, so which system is true, yours or mine?
”Sye, no hard fellings, I just disagree with you.”
Perhaps you are forgetting the littany of names you called me?
"I can almost be "absolutely" sure that this will not come to a conclusion and you will be booted from yet another atheist site."
Actually I think it's hillarious when 'freethinkers' boot people from their sites, because they don't think the way they want them to :-D
”Why not drop the argument your forcing and try to find common ground with people?”
Neutrality is a myth. I’m not interested in coddling people into Hell.
Cheers,
Sye
Maragon said: ”No one here sees evidence based reasoning as circular except for you.”
ReplyDeleteWhat is the evidence that the future WILL BE like the past?
”Continual tests of gravity.”
Please tell me how you test the future???
”I don't need to be 100% certain - because normal, logical, intelligent people know that no one can truly be 100% certain of anything.”
Um, are you 100% certain of that??? (Thanks again!!!)
A> A pencil drops to the floor.
B>This is evidence of gravity.
C>Based on this evidence, gravity exists.
Point out the unproved proposition in my example.
Actually, you haven’t proved ANY of them, but what you have been saying is that gravity WILL exist, because gravity HAS existed, NOT that gravity DOES exist. Thankfully the record is there for all to see. (Perhaps you best go on a deletin’ spree :-)
”What is your evidence that god will continue to make the future behave like the past? And don't dodge the question.”
Genesis 8:22 for one.
”I don't have to disprove your assertion that god tells you things - the onus is on the person making the fantastical claim; you.”
You make the fantastical claim that logic and science are possible without God. Prove YOUR claim please.
”Fallacies shouldn't be allowed in anyone's world view.”
Why not?
”I don't 'believe' in anything. I see evidence of both randomness and uniformity.”
Um, yes, you believe that randomness WILL remain random, and uniformity WILL remain uniform. What is the evidence for this please?
”You are assuming that they both cannot be properties of the universe - prove to me that they can't.”
You’re joking right? They are mutually exclusive properties.
”Then explain how you decide what you need to be 100% certain about.”
Huh?
”Wow, I'm shocked - a crazy, ugly fundie like you? Still single?”
Flattery will get you nowhere :-D
”Obvious troll is obvious.”
Step away from the bong :-)
”And you're doing less for christianity than you like to believe.”
I’m not doing anything for Christianity. You’ll be happy to know that I am only a tool :-D Still though, by the e-mails I receive (some of which are posted on my site), you can see the effectiveness of this apologetic.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye, you did not address my questions in a sequential and complete manner. In fact you skipped all of the important ones.
ReplyDeleteUntil you answer every single question I asked in my previous post, I will consider you to have defaulted on our discussion.
Maragon-
ReplyDeleteExtremely well done - thanks for your patience and wit. And thanks for the linkd of Sye getting his ass kicked all over the internet.
Sye - it doesn't look like your fifth grade logic is getting you anywhere around here. I sugest you go take on this guy- ought to be right up your alley.
Good luck.
Circular Sye wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou’ll be happy to know that I am only a tool
At last! Something we can all agree on!
Thank you Mark.
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed that anyone is still reading this drivel.
It's just me making a point and Sye asking me if I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY SURE THAT I'M SURE about it.
Maragon,
ReplyDeletethat's how Sye works. He's completely dishonest and that's not free thinking. He's says he's a free thinker, but only if you freely think like he does. You can only let a fly buzz in your face for so long before you swat it.
Simply because you say that absolute truth exists is a proposition doesn’t make it a proposition. Prove that it is.
Lets go back to fourth grade Sye and brake down a proposition, ready class. Ranting Student, sit down! Love the Nazi smokin the cigarette by the way.
PROPOSITION:
Sye’s shirt is red.
Ok, so whether we agree or disagree about this proposition isn’t important, what’s important is that it’s a proposition. What I’m saying is, your shirt (the object) has the property of being red. That is it stimulates the sense in a relative way such that I see what we call hue, and in this case that hue is red - we agree on that because we're both westerners, but it doesn't matter.
NOT A PROPOSITION:
Absolute truth exists. (there are two problems with this statement, lets follow from above)
A.) What you’re saying is, truth (the object) has the property of being absolute. Ok, what truth, where’s the object of your so called proposition that has the property of being absolute?
B.) And this again is why it’s not even a valid proposition, (but I already said this). you apply absolute to truth, which is not a proposition. The reason it is not a proposition is because it must be so void of, (on the one hand) object, and void of, (on the other hand) subject. That is it's exclusive by virtue of it needing to be so in every possible circumstance - it's a paradox of sorts, it's self defeating and unprovable. In the sense that your saying it however, it's a systemic statement, but not a proposition.
PROPOSITION:
Truth is systemic
This says that truth (the object) has the property of being systemic. You can say what truth – and my response is, ALL truth. Systemic I’ve already defined above.
I'm repeating myself over and over, I gotta tell you Sye, The raytractors are some pretty nice people. I'm suprised the havn't booted you yet. But I see that Maragon is jsut having a fun time kickin you around. and I try to be nice too. Chump
Maragon said: "Sye, you did not address my questions in a sequential and complete manner. In fact you skipped all of the important ones."
ReplyDeleteYa, I figured you'd be bowing out right about now :-) Not like you answered all of my questions :-)
No worries, I'm happy, nay thrilled, to leave it there.
Thanks Meagan!
Cheers,
Sye