Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Defeating Presuppositional Apologetics in One Paragraph or Less

Obsidian's last post on presuppositions was a good read, but falls right into the Christian trap of presuppositional apologetics. The reason why Sye and others cling to these arguments is that it obfuscates their core point, and people end up arguing nonsense for hours giving Sye and other Christian apologetics the illusion of being on equal footing with the rationalists.

---------------------------------------------------

The argument starts off by saying the Christian presupposes God exists and that explains everything to them. If we replace to the word, "presupposes" with "has faith that," then you still get the same argument, but it amounts to nothing more than fideism (blind faith). Any attempt to apply this standard of blind faith to atheists will almost certainly fail since even the problem of induction doesn't solve itself through blind faith.

149 comments:

  1. On a side note: presuppositions in philosophy are not things you suppose are true before making an argument.

    Presuppositions come after the argument is made, and are assumed true for the argument to make sense. To presuppose God exists is more a conclusion than a starting point.

    Similarly, even in Sye's arguments, God is a conclusion, not an assumed truth after he came to some other conclusion. So to call God a presupposition is a misnomer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think I'll go with Paul Brown's excellent suggestion: WFDDIM?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A) a day in which I learn a new word is a good one

    B) although I agree with the Faith approach, how can you logically reject an argument which by definition rejects your (the non-believer's) standard of logic?

    What gets me is how Presupp is posed as a logical argument, while it fundamentally rejects any logic that it's not already accepted the existence of. That's not something you can disprove logically. The best you can hope for is that the presupp screws up somehow...


    You also wrote To presuppose God exists is more a conclusion than a starting point.

    In the case of presupposition, I agree.

    --

    I'm not looking for a pat on the back, just curious: what did you think about the quantum mechanics approach to disproving the absoluteness of the law of noncontradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought the quantum mechanics approach made perfect sense since in the quantum level, the ideas of true and false become a wave of probabilities, enabling both true and false outcomes at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Back to the topic, Whateverman brings up a good point. Whenever an apologetic brings up blind faith or "pressupositionalism," they reject the very nature of rationality that all other logical arguments are based.

    But that's just one of the problems of blind faith.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sly sye- "I can't prove anything, but there is nothing that can be contradictory to my God and my bible."

    Sye lists on his profile that his industry is "religion"

    Without evidence to the contrary, in my book that just makes him one more parasitical jack-off who contributes absolutely nothing to the benefit of society. Just like "Youth Pastors".

    ReplyDelete
  7. But that's just one of the problems of blind faith.

    At the risk of starting something tangential, I actually don't think there's anything wrong with blind faith. It gets a bad rap because the faith is often stated as truth, or used to justify unethical/idiotic behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @kaitlyn
    [Whenever an apologetic brings up blind faith or "pressupositionalism," they reject the very nature of rationality that all other logical arguments are based.

    But that's just one of the problems of blind faith.]
    if by irrational , you mean "not using reason or logic" then this is valid.
    But how else would you justify logic if not by using an irrational method? If you used logic you would be going in a circle.
    sye at least accounts for it by revelation. have you presented any 'illogical' account of logic without appealing to revelation?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @kaitlyn
    how can you be certain of anything?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "But how else would you justify logic if not by using an irrational method?"

    Why do we have to justify logic through non-empirical means?

    "how can you be certain of anything?"

    Why do we need to be certain of anything?

    This is all intellectual dishonesty on your part, Mr. Freethinker. The point remains, can you show that God exists, yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  11. MFT: "But how else would you justify logic if not by using an irrational method? If you used logic you would be going in a circle."

    As I was arguing a few threads back, far in the long-long-ago, nothing but logic could justify logic. Anything "above" it in whatever heirarchy you want to say its a part of would, by necessity, not follow those rules of logic and by its very nature violate such foundational laws such as that of non-contradiction. Such an entity would be both extant and nonextant, creative and noncreative, etc., and why should a logical paradox be the source of logic itself?

    "How can you be certain of anything?"

    Like whoah dude, your Day-Two-of-Philosophy-101-Question just totally blew my mind. Like, what if we're all... like... in a dream... of like some guy, right, and, like we don't actually know it, but like that guy might be in another dude's dream man! I mean schaaa... dude, man...

    ReplyDelete
  12. MrFreethinker wrote:
    @kaitlyn
    how can you be certain of anything?


    MrFree, if your head suddenly and violently explodes due to incredible amounts of psychic power being focused at you across the internet, that's completely normal and nothing to do with me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kaitlyn said: "even the problem of induction doesn't solve itself through blind faith."

    But it does through justified faith. Still though, support your claim:

    1. How do you know this?
    2. How do you solve it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "1. How do you know this?
    2. How do you solve it?"

    How do I know what?

    Why do I need to solve anything?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kaitlyn said: "How do I know what?"

    The question was referring to the quote in that same post.

    "Why do I need to solve anything?"

    In order to be able to live consistently with what you claim, and what you do. Of course, if you don't care about living inconsistently, or the consequences thereof, you don't, but your argument against any other supposed solution falls flat.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sye,

    I see you're still using English. Any chance you can justify using it (without borrowing from my language) as a reliable means of communicating?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  17. "In order to be able to live consistently with what you claim"

    I don't try nor do I claim to live consistently. I am by my own admission, a hypocrite. This is a moot point and off topic.

    "If you don't care about living inconsistently... your argument against any other supposed solution falls flat."

    No it doesn't. My arguments stand on their own regardless of how I live my life.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ ExPatMatt

    Zeker Weten!

    Ik weet dat het Engels een haalbaar middel van mededeling is, aangezien de God me de het redeneren capaciteit heeft gegeven om dat besluit op te stellen. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kaitlyn said: ”I don't try nor do I claim to live consistently. I am by my own admission, a hypocrite. This is a moot point and off topic.”

    Only for now, since, by your own admission of inconsistency, it could be a valid point and entirely on topic, by the time I post this.

    ”No it doesn't. My arguments stand on their own regardless of how I live my life.”

    But if your reasoning is inconsistent, then you have nothing to underpin any argument. All you are doing is expelling hot air.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MrFreethinker wrote:
    @kaitlyn
    how can you be certain of anything?


    Well, well. Looky here. We have a new SyetenB sockpuppet.

    If this question were directed at me I would say that since SyeTenB has stated that my logic works just as well as his, but his is more correct than mine... wait a sec.....

    Mf'er,
    I am absolutely certain that there is a very wide chasm in the credulity of people like you and rational types.

    I actually love it when you support these quasi-philosophical/ irrational arguments.

    I can overlook Sye, since he has singlehandedly brought this decrepit and unfounded "proof" into the forefront for a short spell. But it is easy to see that he has failed miserably. The Steven Law debate clearly shows that.

    So, what do you want to do now? You wanna spend the next two months asking the same stoopid question? You wanna move on?

    Do you spank your kids?

    You know full well you are hitching your wagon to a failed old miserable fool who has nothing to do rather than pose the same irrational question to people day after day.

    Let us just say that I have my brain removed and I come back here and announce that I think that Sye is correct in every manner. And millions of people do it too. We come back here and find that Sye's arguments aren't contributing one bit to the actual welfare of anyone in the universe. Sye is a dead end...bankrupt philosophy.

    Sye's only intention is to try to draw attention to himself and he has been remarkably successful at that. I commend him. He is playing you people like stringed puppets.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "But if your reasoning is inconsistent, then you have nothing to underpin any argument. All you are doing is expelling hot air."

    How so?

    Not only that, you are an expert in inconsistent thinking. You try to use the basics of logic and reason to prove the unreasonable and unlogical.

    Stop calling the kettle black, you pot.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Froggie said: "Sye's only intention is to try to draw attention to himself and he has been remarkably successful at that. I commend him. He is playing you people like stringed puppets."

    And if this were the case, you escape the swath of that brush how? :-D

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sye,
    You said to Kait,
    "But if your reasoning...."

    You have never yet shown that your reasoning is valid, except to claim that it comes from some supernatural force for which you have no evidence. You are a pathetic old fool.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You changed the subject. First you asserted that I don't live consistently to what I claim.

    I agree, I don't always live my life in ways in which I should.

    Now you claim "your reasoning is inconsistent."

    I disagree. My reasoning is consistent.

    I cannot tell if you're being dishonest or if you simply can't read or write English well enough to have a discussion with me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sye,
    Suffice to say that I have seen similar arguments many on many times in the past.

    You are always ignored in the end, albeit you claim victory.

    Claiming victory doesn't make it lil buddy.

    It is entertaining to watch your silly beliefs go up in the smoke of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kaitlyn said: ”How so?”

    Reasoning requires truth, which by its very nature is consistent. If you are arguing inconsistently, then truth is out of the picture, and you cannot have a valid point.

    ”Not only that, you are an expert in inconsistent thinking.”

    Is that true, or just one of your inconsistent meanderings?

    ”You try to use the basics of logic and reason to prove the unreasonable and unlogical.”

    Is that true, or just one of your inconsistent meanderings? Just out of curiosity though, how do you get an absolute standard of reason, and logic, from inconsistent reasoning?

    ”You changed the subject. First you asserted that I don't live consistently to what I claim. I agree, I don't always live my life in ways in which I should. Now you claim "your reasoning is inconsistent."I disagree. My reasoning is consistent. “

    So, you are separating you reasoning now from how you live??? Is reasoning not a part of how you live? In what realm are you reasoning then?

    (I was responding to your first post, when you posted the second, so the first part was addressing your first post).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Froggy said: "It is entertaining to watch your silly beliefs go up in the smoke of reason."

    It is intersting to watch you allude to 'reason' which you have exactly zero basis for, according to your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sye,

    "And if this were the case, you escape the swath of that brush how?"

    Well, simply because I spend about one thousandth or less of my time arguing my views rather than the countless hours you spend engaging people with your idiotic claims.

    Any further questions?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why do you people bother responding to Sye?

    His arguments rest on the unproved assertion that the bible is the infallible work of the deity he likes best because said deity claims this to be true in the bible. Sye is proving the validity of the bible, and by proxy his deity by assuming both exist and are true in the first place.

    Until Sye or any silly presupposistionalist can offer testable evidence that can attest to the validity of the bible without appealing to the bible, anything he says is unfounded and worth absolutely nothing.

    But you already knew that, didn't you guys?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sye,
    I hate to tell you this but every time you make a comment or post, you become more irrelevent.

    Let's be frank. You didn't stand a chance with Stven Law.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Reasoning requires truth, which by its very nature is consistent."

    No it isn't. Facts are consistent, truth is not.

    "If you are arguing inconsistently, then truth is out of the picture, and you cannot have a valid point."

    You're wrong, pure and simple. You cannot throw away someone's argument if they made a mistake or reasoned differently in an earlier argument.

    Is a smoker wrong for advocating against smoking cigarettes? Of course not.

    The only one here with consistent reasoning is myself. You are on very shaky ground if you want to talk about inconsistent reasoning.

    You attempt to use reason and logic to justify belief in a being you cannot account for.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sye weakly jumps in:
    "It is intersting to watch you allude to 'reason' which you have exactly zero basis for, according to your worldview.'

    Yes I do. I get to use your very same reasoning as you said yourself that Non-theists "borrow" their logic from Christians.

    Who cares where I got it if I have it?

    By Sye.

    You are busted everywhere you go...

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Is that true, or just one of your inconsistent meanderings?"

    Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the point is the epitome of willful ignorance, dishonest discussion, and logical fallacies.

    Stop obfuscating and show me evidence that God exists or admit you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kaitlyn said: "Stop obfuscating and show me evidence that God exists or admit you cannot."

    Your very ability to reason, is evidence that God exists.

    Alright folks, feel free to continue with the ad homs, I'm going back to Dan's blog where I am actually having a very interesting discussion. If you'd like to continue this there, feel free.

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Your very ability to reason, is evidence that God exists."

    Describe a way in which we can test your assertion to asses the validity of your claims.
    Oh, we can't? Then of what use are they?

    This is about as intelligent and rational as me claiming that my evidence of gods non-existence is that if a god existed, he wouldn't create asshats like you.

    If it can't be tested, a claim is unsupported. If a claim is unsupported then it's useless.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Maragon,
    You said,

    "Why do you people bother responding to Sye?"

    We all go through that "phase," and he will surely engage others with his mental crywanking.

    My Opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Your very ability to reason, is evidence that God exists.

    Alright folks, feel free to continue with the ad homs, I'm going back to Dan's blog where I am actually having a very interesting discussion. If you'd like to continue this there, feel free.

    Cheers,

    Sye"

    Sye admits defeat,

    I win! \O/

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sye,
    You said,
    "Alright folks, feel free to continue with the ad homs, I'm going back to Dan's blog where I am actually having a very interesting discussion. If you'd like to continue this there, feel free."

    HEY THANKS! DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON THE WAY OUT!

    ReplyDelete
  39. The funny thing is that the only one using an ad hominem was Sye when he was claiming I was wrong or he could ignore my argument because I am fallable.

    That's a real ad hominem. Calling someone stupid or name calling is usually a non sequitor.

    I feel so accomplished today. :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. GEE! I am wondering why all these good people are hurling ad homs at a person who perpetuates a flawed and incoherent Philosophy.

    Why would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Your very ability to reason, is evidence that God exists. "



    Well, I guess that settles that matter, except one lil thing. Who is this god that you are referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Kait,
    I have to remember that. The next time someone calls ma fallable I shall surely perish at the thought.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Your very ability to reason, is evidence that God exists."

    The fact that you're successfully arguing against me just proves how right I am... wow, who here doesn't just seriously hate self-righteous prigs like that. Its like saying "The fact that you're using English proves the existence of the Tower of Babel."

    ReplyDelete
  44. "The next time someone calls ma fallable "

    Hahaha, very funny. I wish I could edit posts for spelling. :P

    ReplyDelete
  45. So Kaitlyn, by your own admission you are a hypocrite and live consistently with your worldview.
    What do you think you have accomplished? How can you call this a victory?

    ReplyDelete
  46. [If it can't be tested, a claim is unsupported. If a claim is unsupported then it's useless.]
    *realises that this claim of Maragon's with regard to the usefulness of a claim cannot be tested itself and is thus self-refuting*

    the Socratic method pwns

    ReplyDelete
  47. Obsidian wrote What do you think you have accomplished? How can you call this a victory?

    First of all, she responded sincerely and honestly to an insincere and dishonest wind-bag.

    And he walked away.

    ...

    How could that NOT be a victory?

    ReplyDelete
  48. "*realises that this claim of Maragon's with regard to the usefulness of a claim cannot be tested itself and is thus self-refuting*"

    *realizes that 'freethinker' is too stupid to understand that the validity of my statement is proven on a daily basis via scientific testing.*

    ReplyDelete
  49. [realizes that 'freethinker' is too stupid to understand that the validity of my statement is proven on a daily basis via scientific testing.]
    When did the scientists test this principle?Is scientific testing the only way to determine truth?

    ReplyDelete
  50. MFT wrote When did the scientists test this principle?

    Science is productive because it discards those claims which can;t be tested.

    Society benefits from this, and this can be seen in the technology you use to type silly questions. If scientists concerned themselves with the unprovable...

    Well, I suppose the people who invented your computer would instead be spending their time arguing about whether God exists or not...

    ---

    Seriously, if you don't understand why a claim that can't be tested is useless, you've abdicated your responsibility for thinking...

    ReplyDelete
  51. [Seriously, if you don't understand why a claim that can't be tested is useless, you've abdicated your responsibility for thinking...]
    Please..
    This kind of thinking is just a warmed over version of the verification principle from the long refuted logical positivist movement.
    If you can't see that this type of principle is self-refuting, i can't help you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Please..
    This kind of thinking is just a warmed over version of the verification principle from the long refuted logical positivist movement.
    If you can't see that this type of principle is self-refuting, i can't help you guys.


    Ok MFT, I'm going to use your kind of thinking against you. Ready?

    God has told me that you're misguided. He's said that you believe yourself to be on the side of the righteous, but that you're completely ignorant to the will of the one true God.

    Have a great time in Hell. Don't say I didn't warn you.







    ^^ unverifiable claim. You're going to Hell, and there's nothing you can do to prove me (and God) wrong.

    What exactly does this do to subsequent conversation between us? If I maintain my position and you maintain yours, then we will never proceed.

    You live your life, MFT, based on your ability to verify claims. To ignore this is the epitome of ignorance in the name of justifying your point.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You're just a figment of my imagining, MFT. Nothing you say has any basis in reality, and as such isn't worthy of consideration. Stop wasting your (imaginary) time...





    ^^ another unverifiable claim. Logical positivism aside, claims that can not be proven true or false to sa reasonable degree of certainty have no place in a productive society.

    You know this.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "So Kaitlyn, by your own admission you are a hypocrite and live consistently with your worldview."

    I don't live consistently with my worldview.

    For example, I would recommend everyone work out every day, but I do not do this. I do not live consistently with my world view. I am a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  55. By the by, by being honest and admitting my faults, I exposed Sye's intellectual dishonesty. Any onlooker would see that I'm willing to admit my faults and think about ideas whereas Sye will not.

    It's always good to win arguments, but not at the cost of being dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  56. [Logical positivism aside, claims that can not be proven true or false to sa reasonable degree of certainty have no place in a productive society.]
    Can this claim be verified?

    Again as I pointed out wem the verification principle itself cannot be verified. Its self-refuting.

    ReplyDelete
  57. [I don't live consistently with my worldview.]
    I believe he meant inconsistently

    [For example, I would recommend everyone work out every day, but I do not do this. I do not live consistently with my world view. I am a hypocrite.]
    true

    [By the by, by being honest and admitting my faults, I exposed Sye's intellectual dishonesty.]
    How was sye dishonest? I did not see him lie(by the way what standard of morality do you use to decide sye is dishonest and why does this standard necessarily apply to him?)

    [Any onlooker would see that I'm willing to admit my faults and think about ideas whereas Sye will not.]
    That's because sye has epistemic certainty of his beliefs, but it is impossible for you to know anything for certain.

    Kaitlyn, why adopt a worldview that you cannot live consistently with?
    It would be like me saying that i believed that there were in moral standards and then calling everyone who does not hold my view dishonest.
    I would be engaging in self-deception. I would be a hypocrite of the highest order and suppressing the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "That's because sye has epistemic certainty of his beliefs, but it is impossible for you to know anything for certain."

    Why do you assert that?
    How can he know anything for certain when he relies on the unproved premise that the bible is the inerrant work of a deity?

    "When did the scientists test this principle?Is scientific testing the only way to determine truth?"

    They test it every single time they evaluate a claim. If a claim is testable, it can be proven to be false or to be true. If it isn't testable it is discarded as useless. I know you're christian, but you're not braindead - stop acting like it.

    If you believe that a claim is useful still when it's untestable, explain why and cite examples.

    ReplyDelete
  59. So, you can reason that God is the source of reason because God is the source of reason. How is that argument any less circular than you accuse ours of being? Oh wait, because God is why. Sorry, how silly of me, shouldve realized.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ SyeTenB

    I allege that you have a brain injury. prve to me that you can think logically.

    If you can't or won't do this then we must assume the worst and merely stop conversing with you. After all it may agrivate your brain injury.

    Well Sye? I'm waiting.....I thought as much. :D

    See all I'm doing is using your style of argument and applying it to you. Makes your argument look like the bullshit it is doesn't it? Makes you look kind of foolish too I'll bet.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ Free

    You wrote "But how else would you justify logic if not by using an irrational method? If you used logic you would be going in a circle.
    sye at least accounts for it by revelation."

    No he doesn't Free.

    As I've shown you many, many times before both Sye & yourself use induction to justify induction.

    But you say that your faith in induction is justified by special revelation. And you know that this revelation is dependable? let me guess. Because of the character of God. And you know that God's statements about Himself are justified?
    Sooner or later you're going to reply "because the evidence points to that conclusion...i.e. induction.

    That makes the fourth or is it fifth time I've pointed this out to you Free.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "How was sye dishonest? I did not see him lie(by the way what standard of morality do you use to decide sye is dishonest and why does this standard necessarily apply to him?)"

    Mr. Freethinker, you exemplify the very nature of intellectual dishonesty.

    Look at your screen name. Like anyone believes you're a freethinker... -_-

    ReplyDelete
  63. Chris said: "I allege that you have a brain injury. prve to me that you can think logically."

    What exactly do you mean by logical thinking? I can't prove something to you, unless I know what it is to be proved.

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

    ReplyDelete
  65. @ free

    Justify your use of an Earth language, without using an Earth language of course.

    What? You cant do it? The very challenge is stupid you say? But that is what you are continually doing Free.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @ Free

    You wrote "Are you denying an omnipotent being could reveal things to us in a way we can be certain they are dependable? "

    Yep that is essentially what I am saying. If your certainty is due to a power of God onvincing you in some mystical fashion then God may very well be a deceiver who is just misusing His power. How would you know after all? Your opinion isn't based on evidence, merely God's power.

    But if it is based on EVIDENCE, you are on firm ground. But evidence requires induction. Hence my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "[By the by, by being honest and admitting my faults, I exposed Sye's intellectual dishonesty.]
    How was sye dishonest? I did not see him lie(by the way what standard of morality do you use to decide sye is dishonest and why does this standard necessarily apply to him?)"


    Hahaha, it just occurred to me that Mr. Freethinker doesn't know the meaning of intellectual honesty.

    That's funny.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @ Sye

    You wrote "What exactly do you mean by logical thinking? I can't prove something to you, unless I know what it is to be proved."

    But your very question assumes that you can think logically.

    I'm just using your own stupid argument Sye. Bullshit isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Chris said: "Justify your use of an Earth language, without using an Earth language of course."

    -/-\\||\__---\\--|||-

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ Sye

    You wrote "-/-\\||\__---\\--|||-"

    Sorry but I do not accept profanity as an answer to my question.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Chris said: "I'm just using your own stupid argument Sye. Bullshit isn't it?"

    Not at all, I think it's a great argument! Can you answer my question now please? "What exactly do you mean by logical thinking?"

    ReplyDelete
  72. Chris said: "Sorry but I do not accept profanity as an answer to my question."

    And how exactly is it that you know that that was not a non-earth language???

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ Sye

    You wrote "Not at all, I think it's a great argument!"

    And I'm sure that many other brain damaged people would agree with you.

    You then wrote "What exactly do you mean by logical thinking?"

    How can anyone answer this question when we do not know the extent of your injuries? First show me that you don't have a brain injury and then we can talk.

    As I've pointed out I'm just following your rules. First you have to account for your brain injury like you are demanding that others account for the rules of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @ Sye

    You wrote "And how exactly is it that you know that that was not a non-earth language???"

    I'm sorry I'm not authorised to give out such information, especially to someone with a brain injury. Who knows how many people you might tell.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Chris said: ”As I've pointed out I'm just following your rules. First you have to account for your brain injury like you are demanding that others account for the rules of logic.”

    Um, I’m not alleging a brain injury, you are. Now, you asked me to prove that I can think logically, so, for the third time I ask, what exactly do you mean by logical thinking? If you do not know what it is you want me to prove, I can’t really prove it to you now can I?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Chris: "I'm sorry I'm not authorised to give out such information, especially to someone with a brain injury. Who knows how many people you might tell."

    So, that is what your argument boils down to: I know, but I can't tell you???"

    Looks like we're done here then. G'night.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ Sye

    You wrote "Um, I’m not alleging a brain injury, you are."

    Correct but I never suggested otherwise. Brain injury acting up again.

    You then wrote "Now, you asked me to prove that I can think logically, so, for the third time I ask, what exactly do you mean by logical thinking? If you do not know what it is you want me to prove, I can’t really prove it to you now can I?"

    I will accept the oxford dictiony of philosophy's definition of logic.

    Now prove to me that you can think logically.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @ Sye

    You wrote "So, that is what your argument boils down to: I know, but I can't tell you???"

    Not can't. I got my information from the same sourse as you. There you go. [I just got my authorisation :D]. In other words you give out bullshit & I give out bullshit.

    You then wrote "Looks like we're done here then. G'night."

    Why sye doesn't want to play any more? Doesn't like the taste of his own bullshit? Then, if I may make a suggestion, stop trying to feed it to others.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Sye is the one making claims about God, presuppositions, logic, etc...

    Yet, Sye asks an awful lot of questions for someone with the onus of proof.

    The intellectual dishonesty is potent.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Please don't think all Christians are like Sye. Sye is doing this one one reason. To glorify himself and not the Christ.
    Dan and other have called him a "Rock star".
    Divinity can not be proven with silly wordgames. Faith, remember. Tell your friends.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @ kaitlyn

    I couldn't agree more

    ReplyDelete
  82. @ jesus will save

    I agree with you. It is my belief that Sye and his groupies are egoists. Worshippers of their own egos if you will. As such they do indeed worship a false God.

    For myself I would never dream of confusing Sye and his crowd with genuine christians. I am truely sorry if I have ever given that impression.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Kaitlyn, why adopt a worldview that you cannot live consistently with?"

    Because some of us have ideals we cannot possibly hope to live up to but maintain adamant about them none the less.

    What does this have to do with God? Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  84. New rule: the next time a Christian apologetic asks me a question that isn't a clarification, I'm just going to throw a trout at them. I can almost assure you it's not an honest inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @ kaitlyn

    You wrote "the next time a Christian apologetic asks me a question that isn't a clarification, I'm just going to throw a trout at them."

    Leave the poor trout alone. What have they ever done to you to deserve such a fate? Poor fish. :)

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Chris
    Jws is a Poe. just look at his profile

    ReplyDelete
  87. [Yet, Sye asks an awful lot of questions for someone with the onus of proof.]
    Sye posited his worldview and explains how he accounts for logic,morality,induction, certainty,knowlege , reason and truth.
    he is now challenging you to explain your worldview and account for those things.
    Until you can account for those concepts like reason and knowlege we cannot have any kind of reasonable debate, much less apply any kind of burden of proof.
    we're still waiting for you to account for them, K .
    if your worldview is so bankrupt that it cannot account for these things , well......

    ReplyDelete
  88. @ Free

    Thanks for the info

    Now let's have a look at your repeat errors.

    You wrote "Sye posited his worldview and explains how he accounts for logic,morality,induction, certainty,knowlege , reason and truth.
    he is now challenging you to explain your worldview and account for those things."

    My response: He doesn't & neither do you! You both use induction to justify induction. Either that or you use an unverified source to justify induction. Your choice. That makes five times I've pointed this out.

    You next write "Until you can account for those concepts like reason and knowlege we cannot have any kind of reasonable debate, much less apply any kind of burden of proof."

    Ludicrous. I don't have to explain a TV in order to make use of it. I don't have to explain logic in order to make use of it. Logic and you aren't speaking to each other are you Free?

    ReplyDelete
  89. I think defeating presup can be done in one sentence:

    Presuppositional is founded on one/many unproven assertions and until these assertions are proven the skeptic is allowed to ignore the rest of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  90. [Mr. Freethinker, you exemplify the very nature of intellectual dishonesty.]
    I suppose trying to get your views on ethics out of you is useless.*sigh*

    [Look at your screen name. ]
    It's from my excellent parody blog (come check it out.)
    Like anyone believes you're a freethinker... -_-

    ReplyDelete
  91. Vagon said...
    Presuppositional is founded on one/many unproven assertions and until these assertions are proven the skeptic is allowed to ignore the rest of the argument.


    Isn't that what the "presupposition" in "Presuppositional" means anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  92. @ Free

    You wrote "I suppose trying to get your views on ethics out of you is useless.*sigh*"

    I'm a Rossian neokantian & I will add my voice to Kaitlyn's in condemning your behaviour. To whit "you exemplify the very nature of intellectual dishonesty."

    ReplyDelete
  93. Jws is a Poe. just look at his profile

    Just because his beliefs are different to yours doesn't make him a Poe.
    If you watch his videos, he's an old rambling breaded man.
    I've seen him giving long lists of Bible verses to back up his beliefs elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  94. @Vagon
    In case you miss the boat here is the thing.Every "proof" relies on logic, reason,knowledge and truth. Until the skeptic account for these things the presup is allowed to ignore the rest of their rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  95. @ CM

    Thanks. I made a cardinal error and relied upon Free's information. I should have known better :-(

    Mr. JWS my apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ Free

    As I've already explained to you again & again that is bullshit.

    I don't have to account for the TV in order to make use of it. I don't have to account for logic in order to make use of it.

    A logical statement remains logical even if the person providing the argument cannot account for the rules of logic.

    And as I have pointed out, this makes the sixth time, you haven't accounted for induction either. So according to you all presupps are not allowed to use induction until they have accounted for it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @Kaitlyn
    You appear to accept your belief in induction and logic without justification.
    let's say you met a Christian who believed that he did not have to offer any kind of justification for belief in god during a debate.
    would you criticize him for his "blind faith" and hold him to his epistemic duty to justify his beliefs ? or would you accept this too?

    ReplyDelete
  98. @ Free

    Why won't you answer my questions free?

    ReplyDelete
  99. @ Free

    Invalid analogy.

    You wrote "You appear to accept your belief in induction and logic without justification."

    But logic does have justification Probabilism remember?

    You then continue: "let's say you met a Christian who believed that he did not have to offer any kind of justification for belief in god during a debate."

    You mean like you've done with presupp? After all you accept induction without evidence.

    Also a proper analogy would be for kaitlyn to reply to the christian that he couldn't use any argument at all until he had accounted for every moment of God's existence until now. Unreasonable? Yes! Just like presupp.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Seems to me there are three types of statements. True, False and Meaningless.
    Sye makes meaningless claims and asks meaningless questions. Like when he asked why definitions define. And someone said "by definition!" and Sye implied he thought God made definitions define by definition.
    And this was in 2006 under his other screenname "Canuckfish". He's a troll with one trick. And it's a dumb trick.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Now, the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence beginning with the word "why" does not mean that English sentence should receive an answer. I could say, why are unicorns hollow? That appears to mean something, but it doesn't deserve an answer."
    Richard Dawkins

    ReplyDelete
  102. I wrote "Logical positivism aside, claims that can not be proven true or false to sa reasonable degree of certainty have no place in a productive society."


    MFT responded Can this claim be verified?

    Again as I pointed out wem the verification principle itself cannot be verified. Its self-refuting.


    And as I pointed out, there are several extremely general reasons for it's veracity.

    Go ahead, keep ignoring the fact that you wouldn't be able to type a single sentence without the idea being valid. Go ahead, please. It's entertaining...

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

    ReplyDelete
  104. "You appear to accept your belief in induction and logic without justification."

    No I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  105. MFT wrote Until you can account for those concepts like reason and knowlege we cannot have any kind of reasonable debate

    Sye (and you) can not account for those things either. Your claim that "God did it" is fine, but you can't account for him, either. You say he always existed, that he's capable of everything, etc - but that's not a real answer.

    WHY did God give us the ability to reason and use logic? How did he do so?

    Until you can account for those concepts like reason and knowlege we cannot have any kind of reasonable debate

    ReplyDelete
  106. MFT asked Kaitlyn, why adopt a worldview that you cannot live consistently with?

    Hypocrite. You do the very same thing by being a fundamentalist Christian. You can never be the perfect being that is the ideal of your religion, yet you boldly proclaim your faith in something you can never attain.

    EDIT: spelling

    ReplyDelete
  107. "Sye posited his worldview and explains how he accounts for logic,morality,induction, certainty,knowlege , reason and truth.
    he is now challenging you to explain your worldview and account for those things."

    Dude, Mr. Freethinker...

    Sye attempts to "account" for these things by saying "God did it," but he cannot account for God. So what has he really accounted for? Nothing.

    "Until you can account for those concepts like reason and knowlege we cannot have any kind of reasonable debate, much less apply any kind of burden of proof."

    Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. I don't have to account to anything. The onus is on you or Sye to show that God exists. I simply don't believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Sye attempts to "account" for these things by saying "God did it," but he cannot account for God. So what has he really accounted for? Nothing.

    QFE

    ReplyDelete
  109. Question: Do you need to account for your car, its engines component, how it's made, the automotive engineers who designed the car, the place where the oil came from for the car, etc... in order to use your car?

    Answer: Of course not. You can use your car without knowing a thing about how it's made or how it operates internally. You do not have to account for your car to use it.

    The idea you need to account for logic or reason before you can use them is just begging the question.

    Perhaps it's another logical fallacy. What's it called when you make assertions that fail basic scrutiny just because it helps your argument?

    I guess it's just good old intellectual dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Kaitlyn said: ”Question: Do you need to account for your car, its engines component, how it's made, the automotive engineers who designed the car, the place where the oil came from for the car, etc... in order to use your car?
    Answer: Of course not. You can use your car without knowing a thing about how it's made or how it operates internally. You do not have to account for your car to use it”


    I completely agree. The problem comes when you drive your car, but profess a worldview where cars, engines, automotive engineers, and oil cannot exist. Then you just look like a blithering idiot. All I am asking is how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in your worldview. If your argument is reduced to, they just do, then I counter with “God just exists,” and leave it at that. Not much of an argument though.

    Keep in mind, I have never said that atheists do not, or cannot use logic, just that they cannot account for, or make sense of what they are doing.

    ”The idea you need to account for logic or reason before you can use them is just begging the question. “

    So, let me see if I have this right, the idea you need to account for logic or reason before you can use them is not begging the question? That’s what I’m saying! Oh wait, perhaps you would want me to account for my new law of logic which says ‘contradictions are fine,’ before I can use it? Hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Vagon said: "I think defeating presup can be done in one sentence: Presuppositional is founded on one/many unproven assertions and until these assertions are proven the skeptic is allowed to ignore the rest of the argument."

    Problem is, the very conceot of 'proof' presupposes God, so your 'defeater,' is actually self-defeating.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @ Sye

    Ah at last. I've provided my definition of logic. Now if you'd be so kind as to prove that you an think logically and so don't have brain damage. That would be great.

    Don't forget to say hi to the people in the cranial damage ward.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ Everyone

    Sye wrote "Problem is, the very conceot of 'proof' presupposes God, so your 'defeater,' is actually self-defeating."

    He actually thinks this makes logical sense. Poor poor brain damaged man.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Chris said: "I will accept the oxford dictiony of philosophy's definition of logic."

    So, you are assuming that I can read, that I can make sense of a definition, and that I can figure out that your typo of 'dictiony' actually meant dictionary.

    Looks like you don't believe I have a brain injury after all :-D

    ReplyDelete
  115. @ Sye

    Sye wrote "So, you are assuming that I can read, that I can make sense of a definition, and that I can figure out that your typo of 'dictiony' actually meant dictionary."

    Not at all you poor poor man. I thought that one of the nurses at the cranial injury wardcould read it to you. Alternately I hear they are doing wonderful things now with talking books.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @ Sye

    In fact I can prove you have brain injury so the question is really not IF you have it or not but how extensive is the injury.

    What's that you ask? What's my proof? Why the impossibility of the contrary of course.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Chris said: "What's that you ask? What's my proof? Why the impossibility of the contrary of course."

    Why is it impossible that my brain is not injured, and, in fact, in perfect working condition?

    ReplyDelete
  118. @ Sye

    You wrote "Why is it impossible that my brain is not injured, and, in fact, in perfect working condition?"

    Ah but you only think things like this because you have a damaged brain.

    Would someone with an undamaged brain be unable to provide me with an example of logical thought?

    Would they continually use such a bullshit way of thinking as presuppositionalism? Of course they wouldn't!

    Ergo you are brain damaged.

    You poor poor man. It's a tragedy really.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "I am asking is how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in your worldview"

    They don't, because they don't exist. You've never proven otherwise. Simple asserting their existence over and over and over is not the same as providing evidence for their existence.

    "Problem is, the very conceot of 'proof' presupposes God, so your 'defeater,' is actually self-defeating."

    Explain how 'proof' presupposes god.
    Explain how you can come to this conclusion without appealing to your circular pre-supposed premise that the bible is true because it says that it is.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Maybe I'm thickheaded, but I cant even understand what Sye and MFT are pretending to be sincerely asking for here. You want us to prove proof without using proof to do so? To justify justifications unjustifiably? What in your God's name are you asking for? Like what would be an example of a satisfactory answer to this whole "how do you know that you know what you know when you know what you know while you know that you know while... well y'know" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Rex Mundane said:

    ”Maybe I'm thickheaded, but I cant even understand what Sye and MFT are pretending to be sincerely asking for here. You want us to prove proof without using proof to do so?”

    No, I want you to explain how ‘proof’ of anything makes sense in your worldview. Proof presupposes, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, truth, knowledge and the validity of your reasoning. I simply want to know how any of those concepts make sense according to your worldview. For instance, how does one without universal knowledge, come up with a universal law, or universal truth? How does one get abstract entities from a physical world? On what basis does one proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, science, etc.WILL NOT change? On what basis does one proceed with the assumption that their ability to reason is valid? How is it possible to know ANYTHING according to any atheistic worldview? We would not be having this discussion if atheists lived consistently with their professed beliefs, but they simply do not. For example, they cannot account for the universality of logic, (or some even claim that it is not universal), but then say that I am committing a logical fallacy which necessarily appies to my argument! I ask why the logic necessarily applies to my argument, and they come back with ad homs, and ‘it does because it does’ responses.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Rex,

    I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one feeling like a thickhead.



    So, anyone catch the Liverpool game last night? Anyone? No? Okay then; on with the philosomophyzing..

    ReplyDelete
  123. "Proof presupposes, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, truth, knowledge and the validity of your reasoning."

    Explain how proof pre-supposes things that don't exist.

    "I simply want to know how any of those concepts make sense according to your worldview."

    They don't. Our 'worldview' rejects things that don't actually exist whereas yours embraces them.

    "For instance, how does one without universal knowledge, come up with a universal law, or universal truth? "

    One doesn't. No such things exist or leave evidence of their existence.

    "How does one get abstract entities from a physical world?"

    Abstract concepts are different than abstract entities.

    "On what basis does one proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, science, etc.WILL NOT change?"

    The basis is evidence derived.

    "How is it possible to know ANYTHING according to any atheistic worldview?"

    How is it possible to know anything in your worldview? You base your statements on the unproved assertion that the bible is the work of an infallible being because it says that it is. Until you can provide evidence for these extraordinary claims that are not circular in nature, anything you state is irrelevant and vacuous.

    "We would not be having this discussion if atheists lived consistently with their professed beliefs, but they simply do not."

    No one lives consistently with their beliefs. I'm sure you think many things are sinful - but you still sin. Therefore you are a hypocrite and do not live consistently within your belief system.

    "For example, they cannot account for the universality of logic, (or some even claim that it is not universal), but then say that I am committing a logical fallacy which necessarily appies to my argument!"

    How can you account for anything at all when you base your statements on the unproved assertion that the bible is the work of an infallible being because it says that it is?

    You fail, Sye.
    You failed the first time I smacked you down and you fail just as hard now.

    ReplyDelete
  124. @maragon
    You don't believe in universal truths?
    Why debate God's existence or evolution if such things are ultimately subjective?

    ReplyDelete
  125. MrFreeThinker said...

    "@maragon
    You don't believe in universal truths?
    Why debate God's existence or evolution if such things are ultimately subjective?"

    Why do you ask such stupid questions?
    You already know that I don't accept your half-baked notions of 'universal truth'.
    To state that something is universal is to imply that you have absolute knowledge and can refute all of the ways in which something might be 'not true'. No rational person claims absolute knowledge.

    Just because I can't state that evolution is universal doesn't mean I can't show evidence that it happens on our planet.

    It's always 'ALL OR NOTHING' with you, and it makes you look rather foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Proof presupposes, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, truth, knowledge and the validity of your reasoning.

    ...it does? Can you... well I was going to say prove it but how exactly do you back up this claim that Proof is only valid if these universal intangibles exist?

    I simply want to know how any of those concepts make sense according to your worldview.

    Well they sorta don't, is the thing. Why should they? Must these abstract absolutes exist in our worldview, you feel? I don't feel they necessarily do. Again, upon what do you base your assertion that they necessarily must?

    For instance, how does one without universal knowledge, come up with a universal law, or universal truth?

    Well yeah, that'd sort of be impossible. But no law is universal in the way you're describing. The law of gravity for example has held only thus far as our ability to test it. In ways we haven't yet tested it, we can predict, but have no real reason to claim we can predict with 100% certainty what the results will yield. So since there are no universal laws... what's your point?

    On what basis does one proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, science, etc. WILL NOT change?

    On a poor one, since those laws HAVE REPEATEDLY changed throughout history.

    On what basis does one proceed with the assumption that their ability to reason is valid?

    On the basis that it hasn't really gone wrong yet. If it ever did, one would then have to proceed to revise their reasoning.

    How is it possible to know ANYTHING according to any atheistic worldview?

    Je pense, donc je suis. I think, therefore I, whatever I may turn out to be, exist. This I know, and do not require anything external to myself to validate it.

    For example, they cannot account for the universality of logic, (or some even claim that it is not universal), but then say that I am committing a logical fallacy which necessarily appies to my argument!

    Logic, I think as the group is describing it, is basically the human invention of it, which is necessarily finite, and therefore not universal. That said, if you are arguing the primacy of Logic and do use a Logical fallacy to do so, doesn't it sort of shatter your argument?

    I ask why the logic necessarily applies to my argument, and they come back with ad homs, and ‘it does because it does’ responses.

    Oh yes fine, very well. Everyone? For shame on you all for using ad homs on por little sye over here. You've hurt his feelings so much that he's been forced to break out the CAPSLOCK to demonstrate how right he is. Tsk-bloody-tsk, all of you.

    Yeah, I'm being insulting. I'm a jackass, sorry, should've said sooner.

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

    ReplyDelete
  128. MFT:"You don't believe in universal truths? Why debate God's existence or evolution if such things are ultimately subjective?"

    Ah good, the "if nothing is certain, then how is God's nonexistence certain" argument. Graduated Summa Cum Lawdy from Crazy Ray's School of Biblical Evangelism, no doubt.

    I could respond glibly with "If you believe that God's Nonexistence is uncertain, then how can you possibly believe His nonexistence to be impossible?" but I'll ask instead, whats a good example of a "universal truth" as youre describing it?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Sorry, but I'm really too tired to catch up on everything here, so please pardon me jumping in...

    Hasn't it been discussed before that there can be no 'universal truths' without 'universal knowledge'?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Laof,

    Many many many many times. =)

    ReplyDelete
  131. Sye wrote...

    "The problem comes when you drive your car, but profess a worldview where cars, engines, automotive engineers, and oil cannot exist. Then you just look like a blithering idiot."

    You know that not believing in God does not mean you necessarily don't believe in anything else.

    Why resort to such straw men? I assume your argument is just too weak to do otherwise.

    "All I am asking is how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in your worldview."

    A) We have not established that universal, abstract, invariant entities exist.

    B) If they do exist, having an answer or saying, "I don't know" has no bearing whether you should or should not believe in God.

    C) If they do not exist, then this point is ridiculous.

    Either way, you're just spouting hot air here.

    "If your argument is reduced to, they just do, then I counter with “God just exists,” and leave it at that. Not much of an argument though."

    If I ask you how quantum mechanics accounts for a wave of probabilities among up quarks in beta decay reactions, you might say, "I don't know, it just does." Then I would counter, "Mountain Dew is the best soda ever."

    Come on, Sye, you're not even debating. You're asking a bunch of random people random questions to avoid making any real argument.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Sye's argument in one sentence:

    If you cannot answer some philosophical conundrum off the top of your head, then "god did it" is a reasonable and logical explanation.

    This whole discussion boils down to another God of the gaps argument. How weak is that?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Chris Mackey: One key difference is the unfounded nature, i.e. without objective reality.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Maragon -

    "Many many many many times. =)"

    Good! Then I'm not delusional (today).

    ReplyDelete
  135. [Hasn't it been discussed before that there can be no 'universal truths' without 'universal knowledge'?]
    That's why these atheists here are working so hard to deny universal truths. To be aware of universal truths a being with universal knowlege (i.e. God) must have revealed it to you in a way you can be certain of it. It's sad to watch them work so hard to suppress the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  136. @Kaitlyn -From wikipedia
    "The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature. "
    Sye is not using God of the Gaps. He is not claiming there are any gaps in knowledge. he is claiming without God is is impossible to know anything for certain.He is not saying there are 'gaps' in science. He is saying it is impossible to account for the validity of science apart from god.

    ReplyDelete
  137. @ Sye

    Poor poor man. Still bravely trying to pretend that you have a fully functioning brain just like everyone else?

    But you give your brain damaged state away every time you use that stupid presupp argument. It's invalid. If it weren't you'd be able to show rational thought to us.

    [Nurse please explain this to yourpatient] If we were to offer the evidence you request how would you be able to understand it? After all you are brain damaged. Unable to understand rational thought. You poor poor man

    ReplyDelete
  138. "That's why these atheists here are working so hard to deny universal truths. To be aware of universal truths a being with universal knowlege (i.e. God) must have revealed it to you in a way you can be certain of it. It's sad to watch them work so hard to suppress the truth."

    You really are dense, aren't you?
    Laof is referring to the fact that no human can provide evidence that they possess absolute knowledge, making any claim to absolute truth laughable at best.

    You can't even give us an EXAMPLE of a universal truth that could be establish via testable, tangible evidence.

    How ignorant and arrogant you are. Our fallible human brains can't even begin to comprehend 1/10 of a percent of all that this universe holds. And yet you'll claim that as a teenager floating on a spec of dust in some lonely corner of an unremarkable galaxy have ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY SOMETHING YOU CLAIM EXISTS BUT CANNOT PROVIDE ANY TESTABLE EVIDENCE FOR.

    If you accept that human beings are fallible, then you HAVE to accept that you can be fooled into thinking that something has been 'revealed to you in a way that you can be certain about' when, in fact, it hasn't and you're just a self-important idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @ Free

    The evidence that presupp is an invalid argument is that sye himself is unable [using presupp rules] to show he can even think logically.

    Yet you seem to believe that the argument is perfectly valid. Hmm I think there might be more than Sye who is a victim of brain damage here. :D

    Would you like to prove that YOU can think rationally Free?

    ReplyDelete
  140. sye never does explain how, or why his creator god is necessarily the Judeo-Christian God.

    Nor does he ever explain through his presuppositional bullshit why the bible is not just a bunch of childish stories and myths.

    Are you a bible literalist, sye?

    How old do you think the earth is?

    Did Noah carry dinosaurs on the ark?

    ReplyDelete
  141. @ LAOF

    It has indeed. You are spot on. What they are suggesting is that God somehow communicated [in an infallible fashion] these universal truths.

    They hold this despite the fact that if this were so their mind would have to be infinite in scope in order to be able to contain universal truths.

    Which is why I begin to suspect that my argument [they have brain damage] has more than a smidgin of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  142. @ Free

    You wrote "Sye is not using God of the Gaps."

    Gap between logic & its source. Sye's answer...goddidit.

    That is a God of the gaps argument free.

    Why do you lie so consistently Free?
    Does your brain damage make you do that?

    ReplyDelete
  143. "That's why these atheists here are working so hard to deny universal truths. To be aware of universal truths a being with universal knowlege (i.e. God) must have revealed it to you in a way you can be certain of it. It's sad to watch them work so hard to suppress the truth."

    Oh your god, you arrogant putz.

    Prove... dammmit prove anything, any single muck-fathering thing that you just said.

    Prove, using as we all must, finite evidence, the existence of a single "universal truth."

    Prove too that we are all aware of them being universal.

    Prove then that the only way to achieve awareness of a universal truth is through revelation, and that they cannot be reasoned out. (This will, naturally, defeat your first argument, I realize, but you won't answer anyway so nut it)

    Prove too that this entity of revelation must, by necessity, posses universal knowledge.

    And finally, prove that the only entity with universal knowledge must fit the classification of God, and for extra credit, how it can only be your specific interpretation of Yahweh and certainly not that of the Mormons or the Jews, and absolutely not Brahma, Vishnu, Allah, etc.

    And while youre at it, please, please, in the name of this "humility" thing you fantasize yourself as having, stop pitying people who disagree with your opinion on God, okay? You only do it to get a rise out of us and its infuriating that you won't just grow the hell up and have a reasonable debate, and instead just say "I pity you for not agreeing with me, who am being right. Yay me!"

    Dammit man I'm this close to revoking your rights to enjoy Fallout. THIS CLOSE!

    ReplyDelete
  144. "Problem is, the very conceot of 'proof' presupposes God, so your 'defeater,' is actually self-defeating."

    No. The simplest solution does not involve your particular god, or any other. By adding a god you add an extra unproven and uneeded complication.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I love how these Christians try to back up their claims with deistic arguments with absolutely no reason to back up a belief in Christianity.

    It's as if they think arguing that God exists proves Christianity. It's the most ridiculous line of thinking I've ever heard.

    They don't even take criticism to their deistic arguments seriously like most deists do. It's more intellectual dishonesty. Use what you think supports your view, ignore what doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  146. MFT wrote Sye is not using God of the Gaps

    He's making a big deal out of us not being able to account for logic and reason. And then subsequently resolving the problem by saying "God did it".

    Presupposition is indeed a variation of the God of the Gaps phenomenon.

    ---

    Incidentally, Presupps can't account for logic and reason either, because they can't account for God. The Bible gives no indication as to where he came from, what he did with his off-hours, or why he wanted to create mankind (let alone logic and reason).

    "God Did It" is simply a demonstration of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  147. The Bible gives no indication as to where he came from, what he did with his off-hours, or why he wanted to create mankind.

    Simple-

    He came from Mahwah, NJ. He bowls in his spare time and he created mankind so there would be bowling leagues.

    Book of Lebowski, chapter 4, verses 11-19.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.