I have issued Mr Mike a challenge. He has responded a number of times (each time he dodges, I respond and then just ask again), but... well...
To everyone unfamilar with scmike the presuppositionalist, his argument basically consists of "You can't be certain that your senses and reasoning are accurate without using your senses or reasoning. I can though, because God is the source of senses and reasoning, and He says they are accurate through his revelations." [paraphrased slightly].
My responce was to see whether his position stands up to his own argument.
The Challenge
"If you can point to a SINGLE REVELATION (natural or special) that you didn't a) perceive with your senses and b) interpret with your reason, then I WILL (and I mean this) admit that your logic DOES NOT disprove your argument."
Scmike first response:
I have asked you (to no avail) if all knowledge must be gathered through the senses. If yes, which of your senses told you this??Could an omnipotent God reveal things to us directly in a way that we can be certain of them??
Scmikes second response:
I will be happy to discuss natural and special revelation with you in great detail, as soon as you tell me what absolute standard of logic you plan to use to evaluate my response, and why that standard must NECESSARILY apply to my argument, as these characteristics are not consistent with the objective standard you claim to be using.
Scmikes third response:
Quasar, please tell me what absolute standard of logic you intend to apply to my logic, how you account for that standard, and why that standard NECESSARILY applies to my logic. Thanks.
I told him after the second responce that I do not believe in an absolute standard of logic. The rules of logic are objective, not absolute, and they apply to all human arguments by virtue of being objective.
The third time, I responded with this: Give me one good reason to answer your three questions (again) if you refuse to answer mine.
He has also commented that I'm starting to sound like Maragon. I took that as a compliment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
So, you sound like me because you demand repeatedly that he actually ANSWER your questions?
ReplyDeleteAh, but do you look, feel, smell and taste like Maragon?
ReplyDeleteHow can you be absolutely certain?
Given that I'm male, looking feeling or smelling like maragon would be kind of creepy. And I'[m not even going to touch "taste".
ReplyDeleteI explained to Scmike why my debate style was slowly changing and I was starting to sound like Maragon:
"1) I originally began with the express intention of disproving your own position with your strange form of logic. You have successfully baited me away from that track without answering any of the questions I posed regarding how well your position stands up to your own arguments. The only remnant of that tactic left is the challenge, which you still refuse to answer, choosing instead to ask unrelated questions in response to it.
2) You are asking me the exact same questions you asked her, and my opinions match closely with hers on this subject.
3) Like her, and despite my best efforts, I am slowly tiring of your repetitive failure to take any of my responses into account. It seems that you are using (in her words) a "script" of 5 or so arguments, and when one argument is refuted or responded to you merely jump to a different one. Later on in the debate, you tend to come back to the refuted argument pretending it was not responded to."
Yeah, those presupps are a strange kind of doolally.
ReplyDeleteI don't bother with them after Sye (and Maragon's mammoth effort). Tail chasing is not my idea of fun (mind you, my cattle dogs enjoy it).
Oh, and I know you are male. I was just after those low hanging cheap laugh fruits that the five senses offered.
Dude...why do you bother? Presuppositionalism is not worth the energy it takes to debunk.
ReplyDeleteHeh heh: read my comment about the senses while picturing a sarcastic grin, and it'll make more sense.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I bother? Errr...
ReplyDelete*shrugs*
Mike is never going to admit any part of his pet philosophy could be wrong, and no lurkers would still be reading the thread after 350 posts, so I honestly have no clue why I'm still talking to him. Morbid curiosity?
I stopped talking to him because he refused to refute my post. He just made a million excuses as to why he shouldn't have to. He was essentially complaining that my post was 'too long' and faulted me for accurately and completely explaining my beliefs and providing evidence for them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, he fore fitted our debate.
His responses are intellectually dishonest and a mirror image of SyeTenB's BS.
ReplyDeletewhat absolute standard of logic you plan to use to evaluate my response, and why that standard must NECESSARILY apply to my argument
This is a nonsensical overly worded way of saying "You do not have the right to even process my argument UNLESS you think like me and if you thought like me you wouldn't question my arugment."
It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit and completely dishonest.
Why does there NEED to be an absolute standard of logic to evaluate anything? Maybe the rules of logic work BECAUSE THEY JUST WORK. It applies to his "argument" because we have a brain, recognize the rules of logic and can reason. Period.
maragon writeths:...he fore fitted our debate.
ReplyDeleteHmm, forfeit or fore-fit. The latter conjures up some pleasant images... no, I'm not going there ;).
His responses are intellectually dishonest
ReplyDelete^^ This.
Kudos to you and Maragon for continuing to debate with Babbles for as long as you did. I don't have the patience for people who refuse to answer questions.
GL with that challenge, though I'm pretty sure you can guess what I think your chances of success are :)
And I just got sucked back in.
ReplyDeleteSwell.
"You do not have the right to even process my argument UNLESS you think like me and if you thought like me you wouldn't question my arugment."
ReplyDeleteNo he is saying that we have to account for some form of logic and why it would apply to his argument before they can critique it on logical grounds. It is very basic
"It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit and completely dishonest."
How is mike being dishonest. He tells them to account for logic( I would think the dishonest one would be the ones who use logic without accounting for it).
"Why does there NEED to be an absolute standard of logic to evaluate anything?"
Because if the lawsoflogic were not absolue then mikes argument could be an exception where they do not apply. The laws of non contradiction could apply and not apply aat the same time.
"Maybe the rules of logic work BECAUSE THEY JUST WORK."
Now account for them
" It applies to his "argument" because we have a brain, recognize the rules of logic and can reason. "
you haven't given any reason they apply or accounted for logic. all you said was that you had a brain.I hope you put it to good useinaccount for logic.
Goodnight
As In have said innumerable times.
ReplyDeletePresups are fundamentally intellectually dishonest. Not just intellectually, but plainly dishonest. The moment they say "Before we can discuss this, how do you justify the logic you plan to use against my argument ..." it is a plain lie. They do not want to discuss anything, just go to their claim that no-godish-no-logic crap.
So, I rather save the arguing, or just have fun using their techniques against them. No other purpose but have fun.
G.E.
No he is saying that we have to account for some form of logic and why it would apply to his argument before they can critique it on logical grounds. It is very basic
ReplyDeleteBullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
How is mike being dishonest. He tells them to account for logic( I would think the dishonest one would be the ones who use logic without accounting for it).
ReplyDeleteIf logic is understood then there is no need to "justify it." The dishonesty comes the very moment you ask someone to justify logic. It is called charged questioning. I already told you about it.
G.E.
Because if the lawsoflogic were not absolue then mikes argument could be an exception where they do not apply. The laws of non contradiction could apply and not apply aat the same time.
ReplyDeleteBullshit again. If mikes arguments were an exception it would be noticeable. This is just a semantics trick, as everything else in the pressup bullshity, liar, intellectually dishonest method.
Now account for them
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell for?
MrFreeThinker,
ReplyDeleteDemonstrate why the rules of logic NEED to be accounted for.
"The dishonesty comes the very moment you ask someone to justify logic"
ReplyDeleteHow is it dishonest to ask you to account for the tools you use? It is self-evident that if you use a tool you should account for it. You can't just accept it on blind faith.
"If mikes arguments were an exception it would be noticeable. "
How would you "notice" an exception to the laws of logic?
G.E. wrote Presups are fundamentally intellectually dishonest. Not just intellectually, but plainly dishonest. The moment they say "Before we can discuss this, how do you justify the logic you plan to use against my argument ..." it is a plain lie. They do not want to discuss anything
ReplyDeleteQFE
MrFreeThinker said "How is it dishonest to ask you to account for the tools you use? It is self-evident that if you use a tool you should account for it. You can't just accept it on blind faith."
ReplyDeleteWhy does logic need to be accounted for?
How is it that your little tool scenario is self-evident, but logic is not?
How did you arrive at your conclusion that to use a tool you must account for it? How do you account for that standard and why does it apply to my argument?
See how that orwellian double speak can be annoying? It is dishonest because presupps are not interested in genuine debate by asking one to account for something without demonstrating why it needs accounted for.
They are just looking for an opportunity to posit their deity.
They are just looking for an opportunity to posit their deity.
ReplyDeleteExactly.
How is it that your little tool scenario is self-evident, but logic is not?
ReplyDeleteMore exactly!