Skip to main content

Sye's proof

Sye

Just to sum up:

1. We looked at the "proof" on your website. It turned out to turn on the premise that there can be no objective laws of logic without the Judeo-Christian God. You say you don't just assume this but argue for it, and suggest the supporting argument (which you call "the impossibility of the contrary") lies behind the "continue" button. But there's no supporting argument there, and you weirdly refuse to set the argument out. The larger argument fails, then, as a "proof" for it helps itself to a premise that is contentious, challenged and, as yet, unsupported.

2. We then turned to how atheists might "account for" the laws of logic. This conversation was complex, as "account for" covers at least two quite separate issues (the question of how to justify such laws, and the question of what might metaphysically underpin them or make them hold). However, we saw that, again, you have no argument for this conclusion (other than something you call the "impossibility of the contrary", which you constantly allude to, but never actually explain). Worse, I presented three examples of atheist-friendly solutions to the puzzle of how the laws of logic might be "accounted for", none of which you've been able to refute. So, again, your claim that atheists are in principle unable to "account for" logic looks rather flimsy.

True, you do have a whole stock of rhetorical moves that you make in order to deflect attention away from these facts. I lampooned some of them here.

Comments

anticant said…
Sye's "proof" is an edifice of bullshit. The contrary is impossible.
Anonymous said…
Ummm, if Sye is such "bullshit", then why are we still wasting time on him? My goodness, I thought this was over a couple of weeks ago.
Andrew Louis said…
Ahh come on. Football is bullshit too... Yet even then one doesn't tend to let the game end by the other team walking away with the ball with 5mins left... Right?

And as there walking away you proclaim, "ahh, they're game was bullshit anyway."
Anonymous said…
But how do we know when this game is over?
anticant said…
The players get tired of it, and walk off the field.
Andrew Louis said…
How dare you poke holes in my horrible analogy.
anticant said…
Because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Anonymous said…
Oh my God (no pun intended).
anticant said…
No pun is necessary. If you are deluded enough to wish to worship me, I am available.
Anonymous said…
"I am available."

Well that's certainly an advantage over the other candidates...

...and I see you've got your own blog...

What sort of cathedrals do you prefer?
anticant said…
As a schoolboy, I often used to attend Evensong at Wells, which is lovely. But I doubt whether I could afford the upkeep, so won't offer to take it over as my personal temple. Something more modest, such as a luxury yacht cruising the Aegean, would be nice. My new personal cult would probably raise enough to support this.

Actually, I shall soon be paying a first visit there, to some friends who live on a small island. I shall not be as adventurous as Stephen, and will do my best to return unscathed.

Hope your recovery is making good progress, Stephen, and that there will be no lasting after-effects.
Rikertron said…
Wow, I finally made it to the end...

I've spent the last few days reading through this whole string of posts and comments, and wanted to refrain from commenting until I got into the most recent one before chiming in. And it looks like I've missed all the fun.

Regardless, I want to extend my gratitude and compliments to Steven and to all the commenters here for their laborious efforts in illuminating this topic; I've learned quite a lot.

Sye, in case you are still around and are still interested in pursuing this endeavor, I'd like to ask you to elaborate on the idea of revelation 'in a manner in which we can be certain'.

It strikes me that I (and presumably many of the commenters here) have no memory of such an experience in our own lives... and I don't know if if's because it didn't happen, or because I didn't recognize it for what it was.

I'm not trying to be patronizing or deceptive here; I'll admit that I'm looking at things from an atheistic perspective.

But the thing is, I'm one of those atheists that would love to be a theist. In other words, I haven't yet been convinced that there are any gods, but would be quite happy to be shown I was wrong.

I think if you could describe specifically your experience of revelation, and what about that experience makes its certainty assured, it would go a long way to make me and lots of others soften up to your ideas.

We might just lack the information required to recognize certain revelation, and I gather that it's information you possess.

Regards,

Riker.
anticant said…
Riker, Why would you 'love' to be a theist? What do you perceive as the benefits of being one?
Rikertron said…
Anticant,

I simply mean, if there really was a god looking out for us, taking care of us, and preparing an eternity of bliss for us after we die, then that would be an unarguably good thing, right?
ryan anderson said…
well is this it then? the end of the sye endeavor? i read through all of july in the past hours 3 but i honestly couldn't handle anymore of it, and sensed it would take the rest of the day, i looked at his site proofgodexists.org yesterday and was utterly disgusted and was looking for a page like this that punched holes in it. sometimes sye's supposed arguments made me burst out laughing and sometimes they made me go into a rage.. i thought the posts by a certain kyle at the beginning, stephen, andrew, anticant and others were most educating. honestly the reason i was so interested in reading to the end was i was honestly convinced posts such as the great wombat and hindu type posts or many others which basically dismantled his argument would somehow enlighten him and he would just say "oh i was wrong." Oh well it appears this is not the case, it is indeed obvious that the debate was won and always will be won by atheism, anyway good luck in all your pursuit of truth to all of you 2 years late. ;)

Popular posts from this blog

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist