Our New Home

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

The Forum

Monday, December 8, 2008

Thoughts on Presupositionalism


I've been following the debates with Sye and other presups for a while.Presuppositionalism s thought-provoking to say the least. I've seen people's justifications and thoughts n logic and truth and knowlege turned upside down. Though I feel like facepalming every time Sye says "by the impossibility of the contrary he does make good points.
I've recently been reading Azrienoch's blog and I found why the presupper's case was so compelling to me.The full article is here.
Quotes:
"A long time ago, in a land far, far away, there was a word that caused problems for thinking persons: truth. It wasn’t that truth itself was a daunting something, but rather, it was the legend people had made of it that perplexed them. The meaning of the word, the way we used “truth,” became an entity of its own, and it was something thinking persons chased for their entire history. For example, does any one explanatory view have a total lock-hold on rules or axioms that apply to everyone and everything? What is the source of truth; i.e., what makes something true? What makes something not true? Throughout the history of thinking, these questions dominated our agenda. They were answered quickly and with ease by clever people, and accepted just as easily by not-as-clever people. And thinking passed from the memory of each generation without regard.

Then along comes a spider called Socrates, who wasn’t ever satisfied with the answers people gave. He asked things like, “What is truth?” and then he would ask more questions that would lead the interviewee to contradict themselves and admit they just don’t know what they are talking about. [I wonder who else uses that methodology of asking questions until the poster cntradicts himself......hint starts with a S and ends with TenB].Most people don’t know it, but for a number of years, that’s exactly where truth stood: in a place of oblivion and insecurity."

"But after Socrates died, his student and biographer, Plato, thought it might be fun to outdo his mentor and not be satisfied with the answers Socrates produced. So he revived the old question of where truth comes from (as well as other eternal verities like, “meaning,” “morality,” and “justice”). But instead of letting the interviewee answer, Plato (posing as Socrates) decided to postulate an answer. His idea was that there was a logos, a source of everything, that we couldn’t see with our bodily eyes or understand with common-sense reason. The metaphor he explained this by was that of humanity sitting in a dank cave, restrained by chains, and staring at the far wall. The light outside, which represents the logos or source of everything, casts shadows on the wall we are all staring at. And being chained in place, this is the only thing we’ve seen our whole lives, so of course we’re led to believe it is all there is. But, Plato continues, in our role as thinking person, it is our job to take off our chains, leave the cave and look into the light, and then come back so we can shove our newfound enlightenment in others’ faces.

In one form or another, philosophers since that time have been searching for a source for truth and its friends. It may not have been the exterior of a cave, but also the world, physicality, the individual or the collective mind, circumstances, words, logic and mathematics, God, etc. It has always been assumed that there is a source of truth, a method we could be certain of to give us truth. And the whole of this movement by western philosophy climaxed into a sweet and perfect melody called logical positivism. It was a very strong, very influential philosophy whose traces can still be seen all over the place. No system before it had ever come so close to finding the logos – and yes, despite their objections against that metaphysical search, they were hunting for the logos.

It all came down to what they called, the verification principle. The idea is that, “The statement is literally meaningful (it expresses a proposition) if and only if it is either analytically or empirically verifiable” (Wikipedia). That idea failed. Not only could the verification principle not verify itself, but it only brought back all those old problems of induction. Logical positivism died, but the spirit of insistence that came with it lives on..........................................

In ignoring that there is no truth, a new generation has grown up and, like philosophers of most of the time since Plato, assumed that there is a logos. And, consequently, assumed that there is truth. But let us not forget, the arguments from the first kind of post-modernists still exist and are readily available. Imagine it: if someone thought there was a logos and thought there was truth, but also accounted for these two things in a way that the second group of post-modernists could not, they would make quite a formidable opponent against the beast.

Atheists, scientists, philosophers, and other thinking persons that spawn from the second kind of post-modern tradition: I am calling you out. This is your fault. It is this lack of rigor, effort, and sincerity of atheists, scientists, philosophers, and other thinking persons today that has created the monster of Christian presuppositionalism in non-academic philosophy. But mind you, it won’t be non-academic for long.

I’ve seen you fight presuppositionalism with every reasonable bone in your body. But as long as you continue to claim that there is truth, they will win. They have the upper hand against you in using the deconstructive techniques of the first kind of post-modernism. And as long as you insist that there is truth, they can just take you at your own word. Watching you collide with the presuppositionalists is like watching a mother fight with her own child; you want to beat them as hard as you can, but at the same time, you want pieces of them to survive the fight because their truth is your own.

I’ve read paper upon paper on how to defeat a presuppositionalist in debate, and each time I see one of those methods used, I’ve also seen them fail. So listen closely, because I’m about to tell you how to beat them: cut their feet off. Of course, you will only be able to do this by admitting and remembering that you also have no feet. Show them there is no logos and no truth, and they too will have nothing to stand on. This mutated child you’ve given us will die.

But this is a self-sacrificial mission. Your own flawed philosophy, based off of your hopes and desires instead of your honesty and rigor, will die too. That is the tradeoff. If you decide not to, and go about fighting them your way, you only lend them the time and practice to get stronger. "

174 comments:

  1. Postmodernism is a joke.

    Bring back empricism!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The question you need to ask yourself though Obsidian, is what makes you seek to reject presuppositionalism and what it entails (if you do), rather than embrace it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Abstract thought and postmodernism are for people who can't talk in real terms.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sye TenB said...
    "The question you need to ask yourself though Obsidian, is what makes you seek to reject presuppositionalism and what it entails (if you do), rather than embrace it?"

    The fact that he/she (not sure which) is not the most irritating retard on the planet?
    Sorry, Sye, but I've been watching your "debates" and I've got a new concept for you; I call it WFDDIM (What Fucking Difference Does It Make?). The principal is simple - unless something makes a tangible physical difference to reality as observed by humans (including indirect observations before you say something peurile) then the principle of WFDDIM renders it pointless and instantly obsolete.

    Example:
    How can we be sure that the world is real? We could be brains in jars hooked up to a virtual reality system that just simulates the world exactly as we perceive it.
    WFDDIM? None at all.
    Point is refuted, smashed and relegated to the plot of third rate films starring Pinocchio.
    Done.

    ReplyDelete
  5. See Paul Brown has got it right.

    Any philosophy that can be applied to justify random psychotic or delusional behaviour is clearly a steaming pile of horseshit.

    "Oh what is truth?"

    Who gives a shit? Where's that God of yours? Not here? Oh well neither is my postman but I don't make up a philosophy that magics him into existence simply by saying:

    "Define my" "Define postman" "Define is" "Define not" "Define here"

    What a cop out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul Brown said: ”The principal is simple - unless something makes a tangible physical difference to reality as observed by humans (including indirect observations before you say something peurile) then the principle of WFDDIM renders it pointless and instantly obsolete.”

    Noting, of course, that your very principle is not itself tangible, and is therefore 'pointless and instantly obsolete.'

    ”How can we be sure that the world is real? We could be brains in jars hooked up to a virtual reality system that just simulates the world exactly as we perceive it. WFDDIM? None at all.”

    Unless of course you are denying revelation to the contrary, then IMABFD :-) And if none of this did, you wouldn’t have ‘been watching my debates.’ :-D

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sye TenB said...
    "Paul Brown said: ”The principal is simple - unless something makes a tangible physical difference to reality as observed by humans (including indirect observations before you say something peurile) then the principle of WFDDIM renders it pointless and instantly obsolete.”

    Noting, of course, that your very principle is not itself tangible, and is therefore 'pointless and instantly obsolete.'"

    Except that, by eliminating pointless and irritating concepts (like Occams Razor, but with bigger balls) it makes a large difference to reality. You can object if you like, but tough - my game, my rules.

    "”How can we be sure that the world is real? We could be brains in jars hooked up to a virtual reality system that just simulates the world exactly as we perceive it. WFDDIM? None at all.”

    Unless of course you are denying revelation to the contrary, then IMABFD :-) And if none of this did, you wouldn’t have ‘been watching my debates.’ :-D"

    Sorry, Sye, but a perfect simulation of reality and reality are interchangable. Therefore WFDDIM? None. You lose again.

    Oh, and any argument relying on the words "revelation", "contrary" or "worldview" is automatically disqualified. No reason, it just is. Because I say.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please, kids, don't feed the troll.

    But how do I know that it's a troll?

    ReplyDelete
  9. We can all make shit up that means nothing.

    Postmodernist thought is the equivalent of offering

    "Yeah, in your opinion."

    as a response to every argument, ever. It's lazy and holds great appeal to the uneducated. Why should you learn a damn thing when you can just say:

    "How do you know that what you learn is even true?"

    ReplyDelete
  10. @C.C.
    I thought you denied absolute truth? That seems pretty postmodern to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. People's exact interpretations of any event cannot be the same. Therefore there is no pure absolute.

    That's based on the fact that anything we sense runs through the brain and is interpreted there.

    That isn't postmodern.

    Anyone can see it in action on an EEG.

    I have to go get ready for college now... But is that really true?

    Fuckin' right it is.

    Later guys x

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Raytractors,

    I'm a pretty clever person (if I do say so myself). I have received a post graduate education and would imagine most people would consider me to be a fairly erudite and informed individual who is capable of appraising a source of information for credibility and evaluating its usefulness and compatibility with other data. Due to family and work commitments, I have less time than I might like to read my various web forums etc, and I need to ensure that I maximise the effectiveness of my available time by engaging only in worthwhile pursuits. Having now read over quite a few long posts and having found and carefully read through the responses by Sye TenB, having gone and read up on presuppositionism and having considered the arguments it advances most carefully, my very considered response is to ask why don't you tell tell Sye to fuck off?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Uh OH,

    I smell a 500 comment thread coming.

    Presuppositionalism is merely an attention getting device for decrepit ol' fucktards like Sye. It has no merit or usefulness in any manner.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't worry, Sye won't stay long. There aren't any 14 yr old girls that he can try to talk about sex with.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nice article and quotes, Obsidian. I've recently spent time studying Plato and Aristotle (and thus Socrates), so this is topical too...

    I don't think I've ever claimed there was an objective truth. At best, imho, we can only approach it - similar to the way we try to approach Justice through an institutionalized legal system. The goal is the ideal (justice or truth, respectively), but they're practically inaccessible by us.

    I don't think I've seen a Raytractor claim Truth is absolute. In my experience, only Sye has done this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with both principles described here by CodewordConduit and Paul Brown. A philosophy is to be discarded if:

    1) adhering to it provides no benefit

    OR

    2) adhering to it justifies actions which are generally considered by our species to be ethically repugnant.

    Nihilism, Solipsism (and probably others I can't think of) are interesting concepts to study, but they're ultimately trash. They produce nothing of value when utilized.

    ---

    Baldy, in effect Sye has pretty much made that a valid response. I've tried in the past to listen to him and consider what he says with sincerity, but it's obvious that he's not sincere himself. he doesn't care about the truth he claims to have access to, and he doesn't care what you or I have to say about any of it.

    In effect, Sye, go fuck yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whateverman said: "I've tried in the past to listen to him and consider what he says with sincerity, but it's obvious that he's not sincere himself. he doesn't care about the truth he claims to have access to, and he doesn't care what you or I have to say about any of it."

    Um, is that true, or does it only approach the truth? How close does it 'approach the truth,' and is it true that it appraoches the truth that closely, or does it only approach the truth, that it approaches the truth that closely?

    Denying objective truth is self-refuting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. P.S.

    Whateverman, what is 'ideal truth' or 'ideal justice,' and where did you get those concepts?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yay!!
    another Socratic dialogue
    *subscribes to thread*

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. Obsidian,

    Lovely post.

    I had a look at Sye TenB's website. It's cute the way he tries to prove the existence of God. Works about as well, and for the same reasons, that allowed Zeno to "prove" that motion was impossible.

    Since we're all in free fall anyhow, who needs feet?

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  22. [A philosophy is to be discarded if:
    ........
    2) adhering to it justifies actions which are generally considered by our species to be ethically repugnant.]
    You do realize that in response to sye many atheists did say that acts like molestation and murdering people for fun could be right.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Imo if people were to follow Wem's principle ten we would have to throw moral subjectivists out the window.
    subjectivists can't live consistently with their views. they should allow people to murder and steal from them as long as the other person felt it was subjectively right.

    ReplyDelete
  24. MFT wrote You do realize that in response to sye many atheists did say that acts like molestation and murdering people for fun could be right.

    Yup, I readily concede this as fact (that they've said such things). I'm not overly bothered by it, however, and here's why:

    If you actually look at their overall arguments, they're not saying that child abuse is ok. They're saying that it's not objectively wrong.

    There's a huge difference, which centers around the word "objectively". In the context of this overall discussion, it's equivalent to "absolutely" - meaning that they're not saying it is definitely wrong in every situation and context you might encounter.

    Just as science can not provide facts that are true in every possible situation (ie. it's all relative), morals can never identify right/wrong in every possible context.

    According to the Bible, God murdered people. Ergo, the rightness or wrongness of murder is situational (ok if God does it, not so much if we do). On a day to day basis, people are killed here on this planet, and you wont find many murderers who don't think they were completely unjustified in killing.

    Saying that child abuse might be ok is equivalent to saying "I can't show that child abuse is wrong in every single situation".

    ReplyDelete
  25. MF'er,

    "You do realize that in response to sye many atheists did say that acts like molestation and murdering people for fun could be right."
    I'd like to see where you read that.

    Sye,
    If, as a non-theist, I get to "borrow" the laws of logic from your imaginary God, I have no problem with that.

    They work just as well for me as for you!

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  26. they should allow people to murder and steal from them as long as the other person felt it was subjectively right

    Since I can come up with scenarios in which killing is ok, how do YOU suggest we resolve this problem? God's rules are inconsistently applied, so there goes the notion of an objective standard.

    Look MFT, the fact that I refuse to tell you "X is absolutely true" doesn't mean "ZOMG Whateverman said X isn't true!!1one1!"

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sye,
    By the way, you present a philosophical argument for the existence of your god.
    I'm looking for empirical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sye;

    "Um, is that true, or does it only approach the truth? How close does it 'approach the truth,' and is it true that it appraoches the truth that closely, or does it only approach the truth, that it approaches the truth that closely?

    Denying objective truth is self-refuting."

    You appear to be presupposing that the English language is a valid means of communication - how do you know this to be true according to YOUR worldview?

    As an Englishman I have been revealed the truth of the English language and can use it however I wish (even when I use it unproperly!). Please explain, without borrowing from my language, how you know that English is an effective means of communication.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You appear to be presupposing that the English language is a valid means of communication - how do you know this to be true according to YOUR worldview?

    Proof that Sye's brand of presupposition is philosophically bankrupt. Nice one, EPM

    ReplyDelete
  30. Central to all of this is Sye's blatant dishonesty, in that he claims "killing" infants is not equivalent to "murdering" infants. Likewise, he confirms his dishonesty by alleging that because god has decreed something in a given context, it is not evil in that context. If the bible "documented" a god-given decree to molest children for fun in a given context, he'd [evidently] happily concede that molesting children for fun is absolutely morally good in that context.

    Beyond all of this, however, lies the rub: that Sye and his pre-sup bullshit proves nothing. His primary argument (which he has already stated in this thread, and which he will undoubtedly parrot again in this very thread) is that non-theists cannot "account" for absolutes, logic, or reason, yet he blithely ignores the fact that he has failed to do this himself.

    All he does is assert that god provides the basis upon which absolutes, logic, and reason rest, and he refuses to entertain the possibilities that a) he is wrong, or b) that the god he describes is not the responsible entity. By presupposing his god as the responsible entity for these abstract concepts, he effectively ends all meaningful conversation (not that we haven't noticed this already), and his "argument" ends up amounting merely to a mantra of, "I-have-a-bullshit-explanation-for-abstracts-and-you-don't." There is no value in it other than to confuse and/or impress the simpletons in the audience.

    In Dan Marvin's blog, Sye's appearance has bloated what would otherwise have been a relatively short thread into a 500+ post monstrosity, wherein all of its meaningful content can only be found by removing his posts and those directly responding to them. In short, he is a douche -- or possibly a hemorrhoid. He begs attention, generally receives it, and all the scratching/hygiene in the world won't eradicate his unpleasant itch/odor.

    I had enjoyed myself sparring with Dan and friends, despite the apparent futility, because they were at least willing to hear contrarian arguments -- even if they were predisposed to deny them. Sye's bullshit factory has ruined that, for he denies the possibility of communication by constantly begging to hear an answer to his nonchalantly offered inane questions, "How do you account for...?"

    Answer a fool according to his folly, his bible reads, which is immediately followed by (or is it preceded by -- I forget) and edict to abstain from answering a fool according to his folly... Clearly Sye is the fool, and clearly we (those of us who engage his rhetoric) are guilty of violating one or the other of these contradictory principles. Perhaps we should simply ignore him except to note that he is, indeed a fool and a hemorrhoid.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  31. Stan, this has only happened to me twice, but I've had to stop myself from asking/suggesting that we ban him somehow.

    It's significant because I believe to my core that internet discussion, if done with the intent of talking & learning and thinking, should be free and unfettered. I really do enjoy the fact that MFT and LAOF have stuck around and been active, and hope we have others who decide this is an interesting place to be (even if this subjects them to criticism).

    So, for me to even consider an exception to this is sad, on a personal level.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "You do realize that in response to sye many atheists did say that acts like molestation and murdering people for fun could be right."
    I'd like to see where you read that.


    MFer got that from Dan's lengthy thread, in which Sye claims that many atheists respond in that manner to that particular question. It seems a dubious claim at best, but it is largely irrelevant. If Sye's supporting data comes from his website, it is invalid -- many atheists (self included) answered questions both ways to see where each trail might lead. If his supporting data instead comes from his interactions with atheists via email and/or blog comments, then again the data is skewed, insofar as those respondents are often arguing from a biblical perspective, wherein certain base evils are accepted and/or proscribed.

    Rape (gang- and individual-), slavery, incest, infanticide, attempted filicide, genocide, deceit, human sacrifice, misogyny, murder, polygyny... all of these are explicitly decreed or implicitly condoned throughout the OT, and many spill over into the NT (indeed, none were technically rejected by Jesus and his followers). Sye and Co. may deny this, or they may attempt to rationalize it, but their attempts are pure willful dishonesty and/or cognitive dissonance in action, and all amount to pompous and ignoble eisegesis.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  33. What about a belief in personal truth and not universal truth?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Stan, this has only happened to me twice, but I've had to stop myself from asking/suggesting that we ban him somehow.

    I'm not suggesting a formal ban, I, too, support free speech -- even, and especially, speech to which I object -- but I am suggesting that we refuse to entertain his ego. Even Ray Comfort doesn't [openly] embrace the willful dishonesty that Sye does.

    [Cue "By what standard do you determine Sye to be dishonest...?" and "How is dishonesty determined to be absolutely wrong in your worldview...?" in 3...2...1]

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  35. What about a belief in personal truth and not universal truth?

    This is no different than what Sye preaches (and I realize that Kaitlyn knows this already), it's just that most of us are honest enough to recognize that our personal truths are not necessarily universal truths. Sye and friends are quite happy to assert that their personal truths are somehow universal, based on their personal "revelations."

    Such drivel.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey Sye TenB!

    People at the Raytractors have been talking about you. I'm glad you're here. But heads up, I've heard some of your arguments, and if you ever try to engage me in a debate, you'll lose. :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. ...and Kaitlyn sat back in her fishing boat and awaited the inevitable bite....

    ReplyDelete
  38. @froggie
    Doesn't empiricism use logic?
    (which you just admitted you stole)
    Imagine stealing a car and then asking for empirical evidence of the owner.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Kaitlyn
    [What about a belief in personal truth and not universal truth?]
    You should check out Sye's site. (proofthatgodexists.org)
    He uses many example where we need to appeal to universal truth.
    Imagine going to a cashier and asking for change for a twenty dollar bill.she gives you a 5 in exchange, saying it is personally true for her that 20=5. would you accept it as right as a subjectivist? or would you appeal to a universal standard of mathematics and tell her she is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  40. MFT;

    "or would you appeal to a universal standard of mathematics and tell her she is wrong?"

    As I understand it, it isn't a UNIVERSAL (i.e. absolute) standard of mathematics, it's a standard of mathematics that is generally recognized and understood as being appropriate for that particular situation.

    Also, if it said in the Bible that, oh I don't know, 2 (or 'a few', if you like) was equal to 5,000 would that not indicate that mathematical standards were not absolute?

    ReplyDelete
  41. EPM answered As I understand it, it isn't a UNIVERSAL (i.e. absolute) standard of mathematics, it's a standard of mathematics that is generally recognized and understood as being appropriate for that particular situation.

    Ding ding ding - we have a winner!

    The universality of math is contingent upon pre-accepted standards; for example, that the person and the cashier are both using the same decimal system.

    Ergo - even math is contextual. Just like morality is. Just like science is.

    Just like everything you've ever encountered is.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If you understood math above a highschool level you'd understand why calling it 'absolute' is hilarious.

    PresupposistionalFAIL

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Imagine going to a cashier and asking for change for a twenty dollar bill.she gives you a 5 in exchange, saying it is personally true for her that 20=5"

    Those are facts, which are a subset of truth. Facts are universal, the truth, however, is not.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Whateverman is correct too. Mathematics is a language, and languages are contextual. Using a different number base of 5...

    1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 20

    20 - "5" equals 10. But of course, assuming a number base of 10, it's a fact that 20 - 5 = 15.

    ReplyDelete
  45. MFer said:

    Imagine going to a cashier and asking for change for a twenty dollar bill.she gives you a 5 in exchange, saying it is personally true for her that 20=5. would you accept it as right as a subjectivist? or would you appeal to a universal standard of mathematics and tell her she is wrong?

    This reminds me of an old joke...

    Why do programmers constantly confuse Halloween with Christmas?



















    Because oct(31) = dec(25)

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  46. Kaitlyn said: ” Facts are universal”

    How do you know, absent universal knowlegde?

    ”the truth, however, is not.”

    Again, how do you know? Where is ‘truth’ not ‘true?’

    ReplyDelete
  47. ExPatMatt said:”As I understand it, it isn't a UNIVERSAL (i.e. absolute) standard of mathematics, it's a standard of mathematics that is generally recognized and understood as being appropriate for that particular situation.”

    Obviously not by that teller.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Sye

    Ah there you are.

    I'm still waiting for evidence that you can think logically. I've provided my definition. Now where's your evidence?

    Cricket's chirping

    Yep thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 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. He's a troll with one trick. And it's a dumb trick.


    "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
  50. About Sye's Moral absolutes:

    He says child molestation is absolutely wrong.
    "Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs." (from his website)

    He says lying is absolutely wrong.
    "Yes." (from Dan's blog)

    He says lying to stop a murder is still wrong: "Yes. Your problem is assuming that saving someone's earthly life is the ultimate good."

    I wonder if he thinks lying to stop child molestation is an absolute moral wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sye,

    "ExPatMatt said:”As I understand it, it isn't a UNIVERSAL (i.e. absolute) standard of mathematics, it's a standard of mathematics that is generally recognized and understood as being appropriate for that particular situation.”

    Obviously not by that teller."

    So if one person believes differently to the conventional standard, that suddenly makes mathematics a universal truth? What exactly are you trying to say here??


    Sounds like brain damage to me...

    ReplyDelete
  52. My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock.

    Prove this is false Sye.

    Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a proof when you see it. So it fails."

    Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: "But prove to me your mind is not addled, then, Sye". Which you won't be able to, for the above reason. I might then add, with a flourish - "So you see, it's proved by the impossibility of the contrary".

    And of course I have a good explanation for why your brain is addled - you were hit by a rock.

    Is my claim reasonable, then? Of course not. It's bullshit. I really can't see how
    your position is any less of a bullshit position. Can you?



    ExPatt,
    http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/sye-dim-presuppositinalism.html ,
    right?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Kaitlyn said: ” Facts are universal”

    How do you know, absent universal knowlegde?"


    *Throws trouts at Sye!*

    "”the truth, however, is not.”

    Again, how do you know? Where is ‘truth’ not ‘true?’""


    *Throws trouts at Sye!*

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sorry Sye, the trouts want to exact their revenge on the well you are attempting to poison. :)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Kaitlyn said...

    What about a belief in personal truth and not universal truth?

    I believe that the first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth. Scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth. It is the guiding principal on which Starfleet is based. If you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth, you don't deserve to wear that uniform.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Kaitlyn ,shame on you. You can't interrupt a Socratic dialogue like that.
    How would modern philosophy be if Euthypro and Parmenides had thrown trouts at Socrates instead of answering his questions?
    The point is to try to answer his questions without contradicting yourself. (perhaps you can use the Socratic method on him when you're done).
    Answer the questions!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Kaitlyn said...

    What about a belief in personal truth and not universal truth?

    Really: almost all "truths" are personal; and I say almost all simply because I can't think of any Universal truths, but don't want to exclude them either.

    In my experience to date, yes: everything is relative.

    Why that scares some people, I'm not sure...

    ReplyDelete
  58. Now waitaminnit. Were they farmed or wild caught trout?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ Gorth

    Well argued.

    Of course there is a way out of your refutation. Sye and Free could just admit that presupp is an invalid argument, which in turn invalidates your argument.

    They won't though. Like the brain damaged people they are they cling to the one remaining thought in their poor heads deluding themselves that it is rational.

    Poor poor men. :D

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ obsidian

    You wrote "How would modern philosophy be if Euthypro and Parmenides had thrown trouts at Socrates instead of answering his questions?"

    They did...many times. Socrates had magical armour which was +5 vs. trout.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Kaitlyn ,shame on you. You can't interrupt a Socratic dialogue like that.
    How would modern philosophy be if Euthypro and Parmenides had thrown trouts at Socrates instead of answering his questions?"

    Sye is not interested in a Socratic dialog.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Stop pretending like Sye is intellectually honest. He's not. His questions are an attempt to obfuscate, poison the well, and fish for displays of ignorance.

    I can't explain in very simple terms, but here's what Sye is trying to do. He raises, quite frankly, difficult questions about epistemology, unsolved philosophical problems, and metaphysics.

    He's not interested in anyone's thoughts on the subject, he's fishing for "I don't knows." Like how do you solve the problem of induction? The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has several pages dedicated to this problem, and I could spend hours going over this.

    Sye's answer, of course, is "God did it." If I were to honestly answer Sye's questions, AKA if I thought he was intellectually honest and cared about my thoughts, then I could spend hours, even days discussing a single question he brings up.

    Sye's not honest though. And for the hours I could spend writing proper responses to all of Sye's questions, Sye's only response would be, "God did it."

    Is that fair to me? No. I'm not going to spend the time and effort to be completely intellectually honest with someone who has an intellectually dishonest attitude.

    Sye's just fishing for "I don't knows," he's not interested in hearing real answers. He's trying to use "I don't know" is an admission of defeat.

    It's not worth my time to answer Sye's questions.

    ReplyDelete
  63. As far as your refutation of the absoluteness of the law of non-contradiction goes, you made the claim, support it. The very physicists who performed the experiment don’t even believe that the law of non-contradiction is refuted, so why should anyone care that you do?

    Speaking only for myself, knowing this and putting it into practice are two completely different things.

    He's an idiot, and I'm not answering any more of his questions until he answers mine.

    Which will be "never"

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Kaitlyn
    He raises, quite frankly, difficult questions about epistemology, unsolved philosophical problems, and metaphysics.
    Isn't that what discourse is about? Pointing out flaws in other people's worldviews and seeing how their worldview answers these questions and account for the tools we use. How else could we say any worldview is better than the other?

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Isn't that what discourse is about? Pointing out flaws in other people's worldviews and seeing how their worldview answers these questions and account for the tools we use."

    No, that's what dishonest Christian Apologetics is about. Discussion is about broadening your own horizons, not showing that someone else is wrong.

    "How else could we say any worldview is better than the other?"

    Why do you feel your worldview has to be better than another person's? By what criteria do we judge what is "better?" Come on, Mr. Freethinker, you need to think these things through.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Here's a quick test to see if you're intellectually honest:

    When you enter into a discussion or debate do you hope to...

    A) Win the argument and change the opponent's mind.
    B) Find out you're wrong and learn something new for yourself.

    If you answered A, you're most likely intellectually dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ Free

    You wrote "Isn't that what discourse is about? Pointing out flaws in other people's worldviews and seeing how their worldview answers these questions and account for the tools we use."

    So answer my question Free.

    I assert that you were stuck by a rock & have developed brain damage that stops you from thinking rationally.

    provide valid evidence that you can think rationally Free. Just one bit of evidence is all I require.

    Of course I'm going to use presupp rules so you know that you can't do it. Hence the reason you won't answer me.

    Three choice are open to you.

    1) attempt to provide the valid evidence. I will of course answer by saying "your argument assumes that you don't have a brain injury. Therefore it is invalid."

    2) You can admit that the presupp argument is bullshit. Since my argument is based upon the same principles that maks both of our arguments invalid. I can't use mine & you can't use yours.

    3) You realise that the presupp argument is invalid but, unwilling to admit thi, you run like a rabbit.

    Which will it be Free. Ask the nurse in the cranial trauma unit for advice.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @ Free

    You may even ask what evidence do I have that you have a brain injury?
    Why the impossibility of the contrary of course [a typical presupp argument].

    Your turn Free. Provide one valid logical argument. Just one is all I ask. Or admit A: you have a brain injury or B: Presupp is bullshit.

    Your choice Free.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @ Free

    We'll work out a little code if you like. You keep dodging my question and that will mean that you do recognise that the presupp argument is a load of bullshit but you're too chiken to come right out and say so.

    Ok Free? There you go.

    ReplyDelete
  70. from what I've seen, when sye usually asks these questions its usually to show the concepts that people are talking about are incoherent or self-refuting. I don't think his questions are dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @ Free

    Congratulations. Thanks to our little code you've had the courage to admit that the presupp argument is bullshit. The question now becomes why are you trying to feed us bullshit?

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ Free

    You also wrote "when sye usually asks these questions its usually to show the concepts that people are talking about are incoherent or self-refuting."

    The trouble is Free that when I showed him that by the same argument he couldn't even show that he had a healthy brain did he admit that the presupp argument was BS? No! He just ran like a rabbit.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ Everyone

    The presupp argument is actually a version of a joke argument that was doing the rounds when I studied philosophy. The joke argument goes like this:

    p1: Either I can fly by flapping my arms or there is life on mars.
    p2: I cannot fly by flapping my arms.
    Conclusion: there is life on mars.

    The argument is of course complete rubbish. Why? because the first premise is a false dicotomy. Life on mars is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed by me being unable to fly by flapping my arms. The whole argument is one big fallacy.

    Presupp argument
    p1: Either logic can be justified absolutely or God exists.
    p2: Logic cannot be justified absolutely.
    Conclusion: God exists.

    Once again the first pemise is a false dicotomy. God's existence is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed by the inability of being able to ultimately justify logic. Therefore the entire argument is a logical fallacy.

    As I've demonstrated when I asked both Free & Sye to prove that they had healthy brains.

    The presupp argument is a fallacy & therefore bullshit. The only logical answer to bullshit is more bullshit. Why? You cannot provide a logical answer to a logical fallacy. It is foolish to try.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Kaitlyn said: ”Here's a quick test to see if you're intellectually honest:
    When you enter into a discussion or debate do you hope to...
    A) Win the argument and change the opponent's mind.
    B) Find out you're wrong and learn something new for yourself.
    If you answered A, you're most likely intellectually dishonest.”


    But Kaitlyn also said:

    ”if you ever try to engage me in a debate, you'll lose."

    But then again, Kaitlyn also said:

    ” I don't try nor do I claim to live consistently.”

    So, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised :-D

    ReplyDelete
  75. Chris said: ” The presupp argument is a fallacy & therefore bullshit.”

    By what standard of logic is the presupp argument fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the presupp argument?

    For those reading along, just keep watching, they will hurl insults, but they will never answer that question.

    ReplyDelete
  76. from what I've seen, when sye usually asks these questions its usually to show the concepts that people are talking about are incoherent or self-refuting.

    Sye is unable to fully account for his immaterial and absolute rules of logic (let alone demonstrate that such things exist). By your criteria, this makes his arguments incoherent and self-refuting.

    Here's a hint for you: none of us are able to account for things that don't exist. And when it comes right down to it, it's very difficult to account with 100% assurety for things which actually DO exist.

    If this conversation hasn't revealed that bit of wisdom to you, then I suspect you're far more close-minded than you are capable of imagining.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ Sye

    Oh you poor poor man. Did your brain injury make you forget?

    Let me repeat what I wrote
    "[Nurse please explain this to your patient] 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."

    now since, according to you, presupp is a valid argument, it should be easy to provide me with evidence that you can think logically.

    Of course if the argument is bullshit then it will be impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @ everyone watching
    To quote poor poor sye

    "just keep watching, sye will ridicule, and run like a rabbit but he will never answer that question.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @ Sye

    I'll even make it easier for you. Give me a lgical presupp argument. There you go.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @ Sye

    Sorry Sye's nurse. That should read "Give me a logical presupp argument."

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

    ReplyDelete
  82. Sye wrote:
    "”I don't try nor do I claim to live consistently.”

    So, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised :-D"


    Sye, let me know when you're done poisoning the well and taking me out of context if you're serious about having a discussion with me, which you don't appear to be.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @ Kaitlan

    Psst didn't you hear? A rock hit Sye's head. He has cranial trauma. Can't even think straight. That's why he keeps babbling on and on about presuppositionalism, as though it were a valid argument instead of complete & utter bull.

    You watch. In a little while, if he hasn't forgotten about us completely, he'll come back and ask more questions. As though his questions are the same as answers.

    You have to feel sorry for the guy. He can't even show that he can think rationally at all.

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ Everyone

    You must wonder why Sye keeps just quoting one small sentence out of a whole post. Just another example of the trauma I expect. Anyway I thought anyone reading this would like to know where Sye got his mini-quote from & why the presuppositionalism argument is bull. So I thought I'd repost.
    Thanks Sye. I know everyone who hasn't run into presuppositionalism would appreciate your thoughtfullness.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @ Everyone

    The presupp argument is actually a version of a joke argument that was doing the rounds when I studied philosophy. The joke argument goes like this:

    p1: Either I can fly by flapping my arms or there is life on mars.
    p2: I cannot fly by flapping my arms.
    Conclusion: there is life on mars.

    The argument is of course complete rubbish. Why? because the first premise is a false dicotomy. Life on mars is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed by me being unable to fly by flapping my arms. The whole argument is one big fallacy.

    Presupp argument
    p1: Either logic can be justified absolutely or God exists.
    p2: Logic cannot be justified absolutely.
    Conclusion: God exists.

    Once again the first pemise is a false dicotomy. God's existence is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed by the inability of being able to ultimately justify logic. Therefore the entire argument is a logical fallacy.

    As I've demonstrated when I asked both Free & Sye to prove that they had healthy brains.

    The presupp argument is a fallacy & therefore bullshit. The only logical answer to bullshit is more bullshit. Why? You cannot provide a logical answer to a logical fallacy. It is foolish to try.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @ Everyone

    Of course if presuppositionalism isn't bull then Sye will easily be able to give me an example of logical thought. After all, all I am doing is using the presuppositionalist argument on Sye. So since the argument is valid he should be able to prove he can think. Right? Right? Unless of course the whole presupositionalist argument is crap. If presuppositionalism is just crap then Sye would be turning himself into a bad joke by trying to answer my question.

    Maybe that's the reason he won't even try. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  87. First and foremost, when arguing with presupps, be as concise as you can. A long post with multiple replies gives them plenty of ammunition - in Sye's case, he looks for a point he can single out and ask things such as "Is this absolutely true? or "By what standard of logic do you judge this to be true?".

    He ignores everything else, and rarely answers questions asked of him. So, however you address his points, I'd suggest keeping this in mind.

    @Chris
    Sye claims his logic comes from God; he also claims he knows this because his infallible/perfect/omnipotent God told him so. All he has to do is barf out some rule of logic and claim he knows it's correct.

    Heck, all he has to do is claim God told him he's not brain damaged.

    I agree with you that if he's interested in not appearing to be a complete ass, the burden of proving (through logic) that he's not brain damaged lies upon him.

    As multiple people have shown, however, Sye doesn't care about truth or being honest or contributing to a discussion. As such, he's not going to care about proving he's not brain damaged.

    Just my $0.02

    ReplyDelete
  88. @ W.E.M

    You wrote "Sye claims his logic comes from God; he also claims he knows this because his infallible/perfect/omnipotent God told him so. All he has to do is barf out some rule of logic and claim he knows it's correct."


    My response: It won't work mate. If he tries that I need merely reply "You only think that is logical because of your head injury. You're assuming that you can think rationally."

    See? He can even claim God told him he was logical. My reply? "Really? I bet many of the patients in your cranial trauma ward hear God or santa or the easter bunny telling them something. Just one more indication that you've a head injury I'm afraid."

    You then wrote "I agree with you that if he's interested in not appearing to be a complete ass, the burden of proving (through logic) that he's not brain damaged lies upon him.

    As multiple people have shown, however, Sye doesn't care about truth or being honest or contributing to a discussion. As such, he's not going to care about proving he's not brain damaged."

    That's Ok W.E.M.

    I just want to show that presuppositionalism is a joke and a bad one at that. The longer the thread remains open the more people will see that it's quite easy to turn presuppositionalism against itself & have a good laugh at anyone who voices it.

    Sye is helping to bring presupp down. [evil laugh]. Aint irony grand?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Chris wrote If he tries that I need merely reply "You only think that is logical because of your head injury. You're assuming that you can think rationally."

    See? He can even claim God told him he was logical.


    Ultimately, presupposition is ONLY a claim that claimer believes in the Christian God of the Bible. Beyond that, the logic is irrefutable but ultimately useless.

    It's as useless as nihilism and solipsism. Presupps are not discussing anything - they're telling you your logic is impotent against their worldview.

    So - I agree that Sye cant prove a damned thing. I also agree that I can't prove a damned thing. I wish he were honest enough to admit the fact that he doesn't care what I think.

    I knew this even before I'd ever heard of presupposition...

    ReplyDelete
  90. @ W.E.M

    You wrote that Sye could claim God had told him that he was rational.

    You mssed my response. To whit
    "He can even claim God told him he was logical. My reply? "Really? I bet many of the patients in your cranial trauma ward hear God or santa or the easter bunny telling them something. Just one more indication that you've a head injury I'm afraid."

    ReplyDelete
  91. @ W.E.M

    In the end my point to anyone reading this is that if presuppositionalism is a valid argument Sye should easily be able to show that he has a logically functioning brain.

    The trouble is we're plaing by presuppositionalist rules which are a joke. So Sye cn't do a damn thing. Presupp is a fake & so is anyone who holds to it. I intend to highlight the bullshit for what it is.

    To stop me Sye can't let it just be a stand off. He has to win. Which means he has to show he is rational. An impossible thin to do under presupp rules. Doubly so if it's Sye. :D

    ReplyDelete
  92. @ Sye

    Oh you asked what reason I had for declaring presuppositionalism bullshit. I have proof that it's bullshit. What is the proof you ask?

    [everyone repeat after me] why the impossibility of the contrary of course!

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ Chris, so you claim that I have head trauma, and can't think straight, yet you assume that I could understand your question, even though relayed through a nurse?

    Yip, that makes sense :-D

    ReplyDelete
  94. Chris said: "Oh you asked what reason I had for declaring presuppositionalism bullshit. I have proof that it's bullshit. What is the proof you ask?
    [everyone repeat after me] why the impossibility of the contrary of course!"



    Your false analogy is in thinking that by saying 'the impossibility of the contrary' I am making an empty authority claim. I, however, tell you why the contrary is impossible, as no other worldview can account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. Now, why is contrary impossible to presuppositionalism being BS, and how do you know this?

    ReplyDelete
  95. People have shown other worldviews are possible.
    (And I'd like to point out that the opposite of 'impossible' is 'possible')
    'The impossibility of the contrary' is an empty assertion.
    Now, why are unicorns hollow?

    ReplyDelete
  96. The reason why the theist perspective is flawed is because no other worldview aside from naturalism can account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of the English language.

    Two can play this game.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Kaitlyn said: "The reason why the theist perspective is flawed is because no other worldview aside from naturalism can account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of the English language."

    1. The laws of the english langauge are not universal, they apply only to the English langauge.
    2. How does naturalism account for universal, abstract, invariant laws anyways?
    3. What do laws which apply to language have to do with theological perspectives?
    4. When are you going to start winning this thing?

    ReplyDelete
  98. @ Sye

    You wrote "so you claim that I have head trauma, and can't think straight..."

    My response: Did you forget Sye? According to Presuppositionalism I've already proven that you have a brain injury. Unless presupp is bullshit of course. Is that what you're admitting?

    Then you add "yet you assume that I could understand your question, even though relayed through a nurse?"

    My response; Those nurses are pretty terrific aren't they Sye? Not only able to read & understand all the bullshit presupp arguments I'm using but able to dumb them down to the level of a five year old for you.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @ Sye

    It's a long bit of presupp bullshit this time. Good bo Sye.
    Let's deal with it in small sections.

    You wrote "Your false analogy is in thinking that by saying 'the impossibility of the contrary'"

    My response: It's a true analogy Sye. You only think this because of your head injury. Poor poor man.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Chris said: "able to dumb them down to the level of a five year old for you."

    Are you saying that 5 year olds don't think straight? Perhaps you could tell us what your absolute standard for 'straight thinking' is then, and how you know this?

    ReplyDelete
  101. @ Sye

    You next wrote "I, however, tell you why the contrary is impossible, as no other worldview can account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic."

    Sye, sye sye. I've already tol you why your contrary claim is impossible. You have a brain injury. You poor poor man. Did you forget again? [Nurse please increase his medication].

    ReplyDelete
  102. Chris, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating what your argument against me is reduced to.

    Thanks! :-D

    ReplyDelete
  103. @ Sye

    You finish with more presupp bullshit by writing "Now, why is contrary impossible to presuppositionalism being BS, and how do you know this?"

    And I am prepared to give you the answer you sseek Sye. I promise you. Right AFTER you give me evdence that you can think rationally.

    Have you forgotten that that is what you are supposed to be doing? Not spouting presupp bullshit but giving me evidence that you can think logically. Unless you can't. ;-)

    Say hello to your nurse for me Sye

    ReplyDelete
  104. Chris said: "And I am prepared to give you the answer you sseek Sye. I promise you. Right AFTER you give me evdence that you can think rationally."

    Your very request presupposes that I can.

    "Say hello to your nurse for me Sye"

    Will do Chris, and thanks for addressing me directly and assuming that I can understand you :-D

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ Sye

    You wrote "How does naturalism account for universal, abstract, invariant laws anyways?"

    Sye you poor brain damaged man.
    Logic isn't invariable. Only someone who was brain damaged would believe that.

    Nor is there sufficient evidence that logic is universal. Only a brain damaged man woud think that.

    You poor poor man.

    ReplyDelete
  106. @ Sye

    You wrote "Are you saying that 5 year olds don't think straight?"

    Not at all you poor poor man. It's just that 5 year old can become confused between fantasy [presupp bullshit] & reality [logic]

    You then write "Perhaps you could tell us what your absolute standard for 'straight thinking' is then, and how you know this?"

    Is your brain injury affecting your memory again Sye. I'll repeat myself just for you. Once you can show me evidence that you an think rationally I'll be more than happy to comply.

    ReplyDelete
  107. "1. The laws of the english langauge are not universal, they apply only to the English langauge."

    Of course the English language is universal. If I go up to any English speaker and give them a picture of a dog and ask them what it was, will any of them say, "teapot?" Nope? Why not? English, like, logic, is a descriptive and prescriptive language - universal to all those who speak it.

    If you assert logic is universal, why can't we say this of all languages?

    "2. How does naturalism account for universal, abstract, invariant laws anyways?"

    Only naturalism can account for the English language because the English language points to a slow evolution over time from earlier languages as opposed to special creation.

    Why would humans need to invent the English language if God could have given us better languages? Only naturalism can explain the English language.

    "3, What do laws which apply to language have to do with theological perspectives?"

    Logic and mathematics themselves are languages - both prescriptive and descriptive. Do you retract your assertion that logic has theological implications? If so, I think we've made progress.

    "4. When are you going to start winning this thing?"

    I don't know. I'm not keeping score. But you'll never win an argument against me when I keep pointing out your intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
  108. @ Sye

    You wrote "Chris, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating what your argument against me is reduced to.

    Thanks! :-D"

    Hey Sye seeing as how I'm playing by presupp rules you just made fun of, and pointed out the stupidity of, your own argument. So your very welcome Sye.

    :D
    :D
    :D

    ReplyDelete
  109. Chris said: "Once you can show me evidence that you an think rationally I'll be more than happy to comply."

    Well, your very asking of the question, presupposes that you believe that I can, but I will comply. In base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  110. Chris said: "Hey Sye seeing as how I'm playing by presupp rules you just made fun of"

    Um no, I tell you how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic which I presuppose make sense according to my worldview, you do not, have not, cannot, and will not do the same according to yours. Your little scenarios do not hide that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Kaitlyn said: ”Of course the English language is universal.”

    Um, are you one of those Americans who has never been out of their country?

    ”If I go up to any English speaker and give them a picture of a dog and ask them what it was, will any of them say, "teapot?" Nope? Why not? English, like, logic, is a descriptive and prescriptive language - universal to all those who speak it.”

    Do the grammatical rules which apply to English apply to all languages? (Or do you really believe that there are no other languages?)

    ”If you assert logic is universal, why can't we say this of all languages?”

    Well, I can speak 2 languages fluently and am conversant in at least one other, and the rules which govern one language do not apply universally to all languages. Perhaps you should study grammatical rules before you make this argument. You see Kaitlyn, grammatical rules are cultural, and if the same was true for logic, then we would see all kinds of different logical rules emerg in different cultures, and according to your reasoning, they would all necessarily have to be equally valid.

    I asked: "2. How does naturalism account for universal, abstract, invariant laws anyways?"

    ”Only naturalism can account for the English language because the English language points to a slow evolution over time from earlier languages as opposed to special creation.”

    That begs the question. How do you know that the English language was not given to us?

    Still though, you claim universality, immateriality, and invarince, please answer the original question. I’ll break it down for you:
    1. How can you know that a law is universal, absent universal knowledge?
    2. How does your worldview account for abstract entities?
    3. How do you know that these laws, which you call universal and abstract, will not change?

    ”Why would humans need to invent the English language if God could have given us better languages? Only naturalism can explain the English language.”

    Here’s another explanation, God gave us the English language. You may disagree with that, but it refutes your position that ONLY naturalism can explain the english language.

    ”Logic and mathematics themselves are languages”

    Again, languages are culturally relative, if you are suggesting that this is the case with logic, and mathematics, then you need to study logic and mathematics a little more.

    I asked, and I will ask again: “When are you going to start winning this thing?"

    You answered: ”I don't know. I'm not keeping score. But you'll never win an argument against me when I keep pointing out your intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies.”

    Well, someone on this very thread, gave her test for intellectual dishonesty. Let me see if I can find it. Oh yes, here it is:
    Kaitlyn said: ”Here's a quick test to see if you're intellectually honest:
    When you enter into a discussion or debate do you hope to...
    A) Win the argument and change the opponent's mind.
    B) Find out you're wrong and learn something new for yourself.
    If you answered A, you're most likely intellectually dishonest.”


    But Kaitlyn also said:

    ”if you ever try to engage me in a debate, you'll lose."

    Seems as though this Kaitlyn (know her?) did not enter into this debate to “find out she was wrong, and learn something new about herself,” but to ‘win.’ I guess you’d call her intellectually dishonest – no?

    ReplyDelete
  112. @ Sye

    You wrote "Your very request presupposes that I can."

    Not at all you poor poor man. In fact all of this is just a demonstration to prove that you can't. Either because you have brain damage or because the presuppositional argument is bullshit.


    You then added "Will do Chris, and thanks for addressing me directly and assuming that I can understand you :-D"

    Why Sye you poor poor man. Did you forget? I've already written that you have the mental abilities of a 5 year old. When I say hello & goodbye to my 4 year old neices they know what I'm talking about.
    Are you saying that you couldn't even understand the word "hello"?
    You poor poor brain damaged man.

    :D
    :D
    :D

    ReplyDelete
  113. "You see Kaitlyn, grammatical rules are cultural, and if the same was true for logic, then we would see all kinds of different logical rules emerg in different cultures, and according to your reasoning, they would all necessarily have to be equally valid."

    You see Sye, I only mentioned the English language. The fact that there are other languages that can describe the exact same thing (a dog in this case) doesn't mean squat.

    Mathematics and logic itself can be expressed through different symbols and number bases. For example, today we use standard phonetic numbers (1, 2, 3...), but the Romans used I, II, III. I

    We can use English and German to describe the same ideas differently, just as we can use different types of mathematics in different number bases with different symbols to describe the same idea even if they work differently.

    But here's the crux of my argument: logic and mathematics are languages; human invented languages that which serve prescriptive and descriptive purposes. They do not govern the universe but merely describe it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @ Sye

    You wrote "Well, your very asking of the question, presupposes that you believe that I can..."

    {incorrect Sye. Did your brain damage make you forget again?]

    You then added "but I will comply. In base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4."

    You poor brin damaged man. arithmatic is not logic. [Nurse please read out the Oxford dictionary of philosophy to this poor man so he doesn't embaress himself anymore. I know you'll truggle to dumb it down to his level nurse but please do your best. Thank you].

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Seems as though this Kaitlyn (know her?) did not enter into this debate to “find out she was wrong, and learn something new about herself,” but to ‘win.’ I guess you’d call her intellectually dishonest – no?"

    Maybe I am intellectually dishonest. You don't know me. Maybe I was making a prediction. Maybe I don't care about changing your mind.

    Nice try poisoning the well though. Too bad you can't show me I was wrong through a strong argument but have to resort to logical fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @ Sye, the poor poor brain damaged man.

    You wrote "I tell you how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic..."

    Sye sye sye, I've already explained o you that logic is neither universal nor invariant. Did you forget again?

    You then added "...which I presuppose make sense according to my worldview..."

    And my world view is that you were hit on the head by a rock. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this Sye? Is the old commprehension centre of the brain damaged too.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Sye, being intellectually honest does not mean that there are no winners or losers in debates.

    It just means you won't do just about *anything* to win... you know... like lie or use dishonest debating tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I'd like to point out that in base 10 maths, 2+2=5 for very large values of 2.

    ReplyDelete
  119. @ Sye

    I'll tell you what. We'll work out a code.

    I'll ask you to do something. Here is my request.

    Please provide evidence for your ability to think using presupp rules.

    If you can't do this [because presupp is bullshit] then please either answer my request with another question, go off on a tangent or basicly do anything but fulfill my request.

    Of course if presupp isn't bullshit then you should have no problem at all giving me evidence [assuming that you really aren't brain damaged].

    Of course if you are brain damaged that would explain your obsession with such a bullshit argument as presupp. Hmmm. You poor poor man Sye.

    ReplyDelete
  120. @ Everyone

    Did Sye just admit that his entire argument is completely subjective and totally without evidence to support it?

    Let's see.

    Sye wrote "which I presuppose make sense according to my worldview.

    To presuppose may mean "to assume"
    i.e. think something without evidence to back it up.

    "According to my world view" = totally subjective, my own opinion.

    Put them together and what do we have? "...which I assume according to my subjective opinion..."

    This is why presupp is bullshit. Thank you for admitting that Sye. :D You've even demonstrated that, in a presupp argument you can't even show that you can think rationally. The poor poor brain damaged man that he is. :D

    ReplyDelete
  121. @ everyone

    On December 11, 2008 7:22 AM

    I wrote "just keep watching, sye will ridicule, and run like a rabbit but he will never answer that question."

    Hasn't Sye done just as predicted?
    He has ridiculed, he has gone of on tangents, answered questions with questions, but NEVER answered my request for evidence. Why? Because he cannot.

    It is impossible to provide a logical answer to a logical fallacy. Which demonstrates that presupp is a logical fallacy & therefore BS.

    Moral of my tale: Anytime the icky presupp individuals burst into your site & spout their gibberish just use old uncle Chris's counter and remind them how silly they look.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Kaitlyn said: "Too bad you can't show me I was wrong through a strong argument but have to resort to logical fallacies."

    By what standard of logic are my arguments fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my arguments?

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

    ReplyDelete
  124. Quantum mechanics still making you nervous?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Chris said: "He has ridiculed, he has gone of on tangents, answered questions with questions, but NEVER answered my request for evidence. Why? Because he cannot."

    Sure I did Chris, scroll up. I said that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4.

    (December 11, 2008 3:27 PM)

    ReplyDelete
  126. @ Everyone

    For those of you who don't know thesteps we'll go through, what I like to call the presupp bulldance.
    It goes like this:

    Step one: Assert that a ock has hit their head & they have a brain injury. [this is self supporting since a rock thrown at the head may well cause a brain injury].

    Step two: Ask for evidence that they can think rationally. Stress that you are playing by presuppositional rules

    Step three: Every time they try to assert their rationality reply "Oh you only think that because you're brain damaged."

    It's as easy as pie, and makes them look like fools. Unless of course they want to admit that presupp is a logical fallacy. :( That means you can't use this argument anymore [it's based on the presupp model] but then neither can they. :)

    Here endeth the lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Whateverman said: "Quantum mechanics still making you nervous?"

    Let's see, quantum physicists themselves do not beleive that Schrödinger's cat, or the double slit experiment violate the law of non-contradiction, but you do.
    Um, nope, not at all nervous. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  128. quantum physicists themselves do not beleive that Schrödinger's cat, or the double slit experiment violate the law of non-contradiction

    Please support this with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Chris said: "Step two: Ask for evidence that they can think rationally."

    Which um, presupposes, that um, we can :-D

    ReplyDelete
  130. @ Sye

    You wrote "By what standard of logic are my arguments fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my arguments?"


    Sye, sye, sye. As I've told you many times before. How can kaitlyn provide the answer you seek when you're too brain damaed to understand it?

    Did you forget your brain damage again Sye? Short term memory loss. A definite sign of brain damage.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Sye wrote...
    "By what standard of logic are my arguments fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my arguments?"

    Thanks Sye. Those are interesting questions. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the main point again.

    Here's I'll repeat it in case you glossed over it: logic and mathematics are languages; human invented languages that which serve prescriptive and descriptive purposes. They do not govern the universe but merely describe it.

    ReplyDelete
  132. @ Sye

    You wrote "Sure I did Chris, scroll up. I said that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4."

    You poor brain damaged man. Arithmatic is NOT logic. I already pointed this out. Short term memory loss affecting you again Sye? :D

    ReplyDelete
  133. Kaitlyn wrote Let me know when you're ready to discuss

    He's not. I've been waiting for a while, but he keeps asking questions and ignoring the answers

    ReplyDelete
  134. @ Sye

    You wrote"Let's see, quantum physicists themselves do not beleive that Schrödinger's cat, or the double slit experiment violate the law of non-contradiction, but you do.
    Um, nope, not at all nervous. :-D"

    Poor poor man. You only believe things like this because of brai damage. You poor poor man. :D

    ReplyDelete
  135. @ Sye

    I wrote "Step two: Ask for evidence that they can think rationally."

    And you responded "Which um, presupposes, that um, we can :-D"

    Oh you poor poor man. We're playing by presupp rules. Can't you remember? :D :D :D

    ReplyDelete
  136. Chris said: ”You poor brain damaged man. Arithmatic is NOT logic. I already pointed this out. Short term memory loss affecting you again Sye?”

    Actually Chris, this is what you said: ”Once you can show me evidence that you an think rationally I'll be more than happy to comply."”

    Are you saying that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4 is NOT rational??? And I’m the one that isn’t thinking rationally. Riiiiiight.

    But, since you want evidence from logic, here ya go: “A” cannot be both “A” and “not A”, at the same time and in the same way.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  137. It's a bad example because in base 10 maths, 2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
    1+1=2 might be a better example.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Doh, no, it's not. Disregard the "1+1" part.

    ReplyDelete
  139. since you want evidence from logic, here ya go: “A” cannot be both “A” and “not A”, at the same time and in the same way

    The electron both "goes through slit A" and "does not go through slit A".

    At the same time.

    Care to try again?

    ReplyDelete
  140. @ Sye

    You poor poor brain damaged man.

    You wrote "Are you saying that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4 is NOT rational??? And I’m the one that isn’t thinking rationally. Riiiiiight."

    Sye, sye sye. How do you know that this is logical? You're brain damaged remember? You're presupposing you can think logically again. You poor poor man.

    You next wrote "But, since you want evidence from logic, here ya go: “A” cannot be both “A” and “not A”, at the same time and in the same way."

    But you only think this because of you brain damaged state. You poor poor man. [sigh] Try again. Maybe you can get some help from the nurse.

    Cheers. :D

    ReplyDelete
  141. Whaeverman said: "The electron both "goes through slit A" and "does not go through slit A".
    At the same time.
    Care to try again?"


    Your understanding of that experiment is pathetic. THe electron does not both pass through the slit and not pass through the slit at the same time and in the same way. It either acts as a particle or wave, not both at the same time and in the same way.

    Care to try again?

    ReplyDelete
  142. @ Sye

    Since your so obsessed with the presupp bullshit you poor poor brain damaged man we'll confine ourselves to that from now on.

    Provide evidence, within a presupp argument, that you can think rationally. I don't understand why this is so hard Sye. If presupp is a valid argument all you have to do is prove you can think logically within it's boundaries. Should be simple as pie. :D

    ReplyDelete
  143. @ Sye

    You wrote "THe electron does not both pass through the slit and not pass through the slit at the same time and in the same way. It either acts as a particle or wave, not both at the same time and in the same way."

    Please show why yu think these sentences of yours make any logical sense. Seing as how you've got brain damage and all. :D

    ReplyDelete
  144. It either acts as a particle or wave, not both at the same time and in the same way.

    Incorrect. It is both a particle and a wave at the same time, hence the term "Wave Particle Duality".

    Seriously, if you're concerned with whether your preconceptions are valid or not, you should read up on quantum mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  145. @ Sye

    I must admit I'm feeling a bit guilty. My papy told me never to have a battle of wit with someone who's unarmed. And a brain damaged man definately counts as a witless individual.

    So I'll tell you what Sye. You utter the phrase "presuppositionalism is bullshit" and I'll stop showing you up to all our readers. :D

    After all you poor brain damaged man you should really keep calm & quiet. Too much excitement is bad for you I believe. So what do you say Sye?

    ReplyDelete
  146. @ W.E.M

    You wrote "Seriously, if you're concerned with whether your preconceptions are valid or not, you should read up on quantum mechanics."

    Naughty. That's presupposing Sye can read in his brain damaged state. We can't impose on the nurse's good nature too much can we Sye. :D

    ReplyDelete
  147. @ CM

    I didn't know that "in base 10 maths, 2+2=5 for very large values of 2."

    I never knew that. Thank you.

    @ W.E.M

    I have a friend who's tudying QM. She agrees with your interpretation.

    @ Both

    Frankly I don't think Sye has his heart in the argument this time. He's so easy to refute I don't think he's even trying anymore.

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

    ReplyDelete
  149. @ Sye

    I don't want to get you too excited in your brain damaged state so I'll tell you my counters to any evidence for logical thought you put forward Sye.

    Presupps have a habit of saying "are you sure that youre sure, etc."

    So in good presupp style whatever evidence you put forward I will ask how you KNOW that that evidence is logical. Seeing as how you have brain damage and all.

    Now if presuppositionalism is a valid argument this shouldn't be a problem. Of course if presuppositionalism is bullshit then it will be unanswerable.

    We'll let our readers decide which it is.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Obsidian,

    Kaitlyn ,shame on you. You can't interrupt a Socratic dialogue like that.
    How would modern philosophy be if Euthypro and Parmenides had thrown trouts at Socrates instead of answering his questions?
    The point is to try to answer his questions without contradicting yourself. (perhaps you can use the Socratic method on him when you're done).
    Answer the questions!!!!


    Are you saying that Sye has any points? Kaitlyn can do whatever and however she pleases. Sye's arguments are bullshit, and should be dealt as such. So, if you try and direct me how to deal with this asshole I will give you a well deserved insult.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  151. @ G.E.

    You wrote "Sye's arguments are bullshit, and should be dealt as such."

    Here, here! I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  152. @ Sye

    You wrote "Chris said: ”You poor brain damaged man. Arithmatic is NOT logic. I already pointed this out. Short term memory loss affecting you again Sye?”

    Actually Chris, this is what you said: ”Once you can show me evidence that you an think rationally I'll be more than happy to comply."”

    Sye, sye, sye. Rational is a synonym for logical. And we were going to accept the definition of logical as given by the Oxford dictionary of philosophy.

    Poor poor brain damaged man. :D

    ReplyDelete
  153. Missed opportunities?

    Sye said:

    Chris said: "Step two: Ask for evidence that they can think rationally."

    Which um, presupposes, that um, we can :-D


    Thus, ergo, and so, Sye is saying that when he asks atheists to account for whatever-it-is, he is presupposing they can. Priceless!! :-D

    (Sye's "arguments" are still dishonest rhetoric bullshit, as demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary :-D)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  154. @ G.E.

    You wrote "Thus, ergo, and so, Sye is saying that when he asks atheists to account for whatever-it-is, he is presupposing they can. Priceless!! :-D"

    I completely missed that. Well done. Would you like to tag team?

    You also wrote "Sye's "arguments" are still dishonest rhetoric bullshit, as demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary :-D"

    Roflmao. Now I've got coffee all over my computer screen. :D

    ReplyDelete
  155. Sye hasn't come back in a while. Maybe he finally left. Too many ad homs and all.

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

    ReplyDelete
  157. Hey Chris,

    I completely missed that. Well done. Would you like to tag team?

    Well, as you can see I do tag team, but, as in wrestling, I come when least expected (actually I am a bit extra busy I thought I would not have time even for a small peek).

    Arguing with Sye is useless. Showing his dishonesty is much more productive. He will deny it, and MFT and the like will not acknowledge the obvious (Why MFT? Are you really that dense?), but maybe other people are not that blinded by their faith and/or by their hope for an argument, and/or by their stupidity.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  158. K,

    Sye has not received any ad homs. Only well deserved insults. He single-handedly and thoroughly earned them.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  159. @ G.E.

    You wrote "Arguing with Sye is useless."

    Depnds what you want to achieve. I'm after the meta debate. I just want to show anyone reading that no one can prove anything through presuppositionalism.

    You also wrote "Showing his dishonesty is much more productive. He will deny it, and MFT and the like will not acknowledge the obvious (Why MFT? Are you really that dense?), but maybe other people are not that blinded by their faith and/or hope for an argument, and/or stupidity."

    I tend to agree with you.

    That line of yours that you tend to arrive when least expected...why does it remind me of the line "No one expects the Spanish inquisition?"

    ReplyDelete
  160. Kaitlyn


    You wrote "Too many ad homs and all."

    Hey if Sye ever attempts to seriously argue his case I will be a good little boy. I promise.

    But if he uses bullshit then he should expect the same. As wolverine said "You want it? Try giving it!"

    ReplyDelete
  161. That's not what I meant. In another thread, Sye wrote that he was leaving because there were too many "ad homs" as he put it. He came back though.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Kaitlyn said: "In another thread, Sye wrote that he was leaving because there were too many "ad homs" as he put it."

    I have never said that I was leaving because of ad homs, I actually expect that here.

    ReplyDelete
  163. *Goes back - rereads...*

    You're right. I'm so sorry, Sye TenB. I misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
  164. @ kaitlyn

    I think a biblical principle applies here To whit "For in the same way you judge others [presuppositionalism], you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

    All very biblical.

    @ Sye

    You wrote "I actually expect that [ad homs] here."

    Yes and a goodly number of other places I would suppose - both christian & nonchristian.

    In all seriousness did it ever occur to you that it might be you & not every other nonpresuppositionalist that's at fault?

    No need to reply.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Ad hominems are logical fallacies which only sometimes involve name calling. Name calling is usually a non-sequitor.

    Sye was the only one I noticed using real ad hominems here, but to his credit, he kept name calling to a minimum.

    ReplyDelete
  166. K,

    Name calling is usually a non-sequitor.

    But directed to Sye name calling is well deserved and obvious true-sequitur.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Chris said: "Step two: Ask for evidence that they can think rationally.""

    I said: "Which um, presupposes, that um, we can :-D"

    G.E. said: "Thus, ergo, and so, Sye is saying that when he asks atheists to account for whatever-it-is, he is presupposing they can. Priceless!! :-D"

    Um no, I am presuppsing that they can use whatever-it-is, not that they can account for it.

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  168. @ Sye

    You wrote "Um no, I am presuppsing that they can use whatever-it-is, not that they can account for it."

    No Sye. That is an irational statement. You poor poor brain damaged man.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  169. "that they can account for it."

    Hmm... I don't think I can account for why I can think rationally since I don't know how the brain works.

    Wait a minute... that means...

    Oh my God... God exists. O_O

    ReplyDelete
  170. @ Kaitlyn

    You wrote "Oh my God... God exists. O_O"

    Correct! But, according t the argument, only the irrational can know it.

    Hmmm, which do I want more? To know God exists or to be rational? Decisions, decisions. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  171. I'd rather praise the unquestionably existable God that Sye has so unbelievably shown to actually rule over the Universe than think rationally at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Chris said: "Step two: Ask for evidence that they can think rationally.""

    Sye said: "Which um, presupposes, that um, we can :-D"


    Nope, Chris just wants to show that you can't think rationally, by the impossibility of the contrary, as you continue to prove. Thanks! :)

    Sye said: Um no, I am presuppsing that they can use whatever-it-is, not that they can account for it.

    Um no, you are presupposing that atheists will not notice your rhetoric. Yet you deny it in unrighteousness. :-D

    G.E.

    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.