Our New Home

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

The Forum

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Good critique of TAG (and how I predict Sye would respond)



Here's a summary of some of my problems with TAG.
However good skepticism is skeptical of itself so I'll put on my presup hat to see how Sye would respond.
There are 2 question wrapped up when Sye ask atheists to "account for logic".
The ontic question and the epistemic question. Sye's answer to the ontic question is that they are reflections of the mind of God. He answers to the epistemic question by saying God has revealed these laws to him in a way he can be certain of them.

*puts on presup hat*
TheoreticBS answers the ontic question by calling them "necessary pre-conditions of existence"ie every object that exists follows these laws by virtue of the fact that it exists. However he is unable to answer the epistemic question,, but he claims Christians cannot do it either. He question-begs by not considering the option that God could reveal it to Sye.
Then he turns around and says presups should account for God.I'm thinking of Sye saying that God is accounted for "by the impossibility of the contrary".If God didn't exist then it would be impossible to be certain of logic and nothing could be accounted for.

*takes off presup hat*
Do you think I did an accurate represntation of Sye's argument?

16 comments:

  1. I actually ignore Sye as much as possible because I've seen his arguments defeated time after time and it just gets so old. Also, I remember going to his website and taking that test or whatever it was he has set up over there...the series of questions. It starts out with a false dichotomy and gets worse. Nothing can be accomplished when someone starts out with faulty logic. But point that out to him and he'll just ask how can you account for the laws of logic, and he'll ask it over and over again no matter what your answer.

    This, however, sounds right in relation to him:

    If God didn't exist then it would be impossible to be certain of logic and nothing could be accounted for.

    Yep. That's Sye.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NM,
    You took the words right out of my mouth. Total agreeance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A transcendental argument (the basis of the video) is a philosophical argument that starts from what a person experiences, and then deduces what must be the case for the person to have that experience.

    This is what college freshman do on Saturday nights because they don't have enough money to do anything else.

    Most of us "transcend" transcendental arguments by age twenty, if not before.

    It is a basis for philosophy and though I do not tolerate it well, I must admit that it is a valid exercise in critical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Froggie said:

    This is what college freshman do on Saturday nights because they don't have enough money to do anything else.


    LOL! That and a case of beer and you summed up my college experience!

    I think that's why philosophy kind of bores me now, I took so many classes in it in college and then we all sat around 'oohing and ahhing' over our little deep thoughts. I still read philosophical books, but I take extremely long breaks from it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Video:
    Oh, that is *such* a good point (that Sye can't account for logical absolutes either). Believing that God embodies these absolutes but being unable to account for God pretty much invalidates the superiority of presupposition.

    Obsidian:
    Although it generally sounds me to like you did a decent job, I don't actually think Sye puts much thought into what he's saying/defending. The passage below doesn't feel Sye-enough:

    "TheoreticBS answers the ontic question by calling them "necessary pre-conditions of existence"ie every object that exists follows these laws by virtue of the fact that it exists. However he is unable to answer the epistemic question,, but he claims Christians cannot do it either. He question-begs by not considering the option that God could reveal it to Sye."

    It might just be a language thing, too; I'm not sure.

    Kelley: the transcendental argument for the existence of god

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If God didn't exist then it would be impossible to be certain of logic and nothing could be accounted for."

    If I remember correctly Sye takes the bible literally. If Sye's god exists there is no way that god is in the realm of logic with all that world flooding, turning people into salt, and dinosaur bone hiding (you know, making sure there are no dinosaur bones with the human bones to test our faith) he does. If you take the bible literally how can you even begin to take logic seriously? Any minute now god could turn us all into frogs or send flying horses down to take us up to heaven....

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like how he described logic as descriptive and prescriptive. I like that definition.

    And of course when a theist says "you don't know, but I have an answer - GOD DID IT," you know he just shifted the problem away from the original source and placed it on God. -_-

    ReplyDelete
  8. This guy is exceptionally clear. A high school guy! Darn it.

    I bet this goes above most people's heads anyway. But excellent job.

    (I wonder if there was a response. I bet the other guy missed the whole thing.)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  9. get_education said...
    "This guy is exceptionally clear. A high school guy! Darn it."

    Who? Me (wrote the post) or Scott(a.k.a TheoreticalBulls***)(in the video).
    Scott is 24 and I'm a college freshman btw.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Obsidian,

    Theoreticalbullshit. He describes himself as a high-schooler, unless I got it wrong. Maybe he has not put there his current education status.

    Anyway, I saw a response video. Sye style all over the place. Written. Using all the tricks:

    1. Selecting only parts that he has already constructed answers for. (But sounding like he did answer the whole thing. These people think that because they can attack one part that makes the whole thing wrong).

    2. Purposely misunderstanding the points.

    3. Adding wishful thinking in regards to the bible (horoscope-style reading of the bible to be precise.)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Obsidian,

    Cool!

    Kelley R.,

    What is "TAG"?

    Bullshit.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  13. nonmagic said...
    If God didn't exist then it would be impossible to be certain of logic and nothing could be accounted for.

    Can you be absolutely sure of that? :)

    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.