To those of you complaining that we are still going on about this - the easy solution is to stop clicking on this thread!!
To those who are still interested, I just thought I'd add this...
Sye, in his many dealings with people here, has always refused to refute the notion that an Invisible Pink Hammer, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc could easily be inserted into his proof instead of Sye's particular god. These examples are all equally as plausible to be the source of everything as all that is needed to make a presupp argument is some sort of transcendent being that can have always existed and that notions of absoulteness can be derived from. His rationale for not engaging in these is essentially that he does not waste his time
dealing with positions that his opponent doesn't actually hold. He also did this with Stephen Law's accounts for logic - he refused to address them
because Law would not commit himself to any of them.
Well I've caught Sye doing the exact same thing here
In his back and forth with an evidentialist Christian called John Fraser (very entertaining by the way - presuppositionalist vs evidentialist), they are discussing whether undeniable proof of the resurrection of Christ would convince a non-believer. Fraser says it would (or should) and Sye says it wouldn't because a non-believer can always say that "Perhaps someday there will be a naturalistic explanation as to why a body which was dead for 3 days came back to life" and that this position would be impossible to refute using evidence. Fraser doesn't like this explanation and claims that no skeptic would ever argue such a ridiculous point. He claims that Sye is being disingenuous because he is arguing for the possibility of a point that nobody has ever made...
I’ll make it then John, and you refute me. Here goes: “Perhaps someday there will be a naturalistic explanation as to why a body which was dead for 3 days came back to life.” There ya go John, refute me.
Sye has adopted a position that he doesn't actually hold which cannot be refuted in order to show the absurdity of his opponents argument. This is exactly the type of argumentation that he wouldn't tolerate us doing in order to show the absurdity of his own position - precisely because it does show the absurdity of his position.
Hypocritical and inconsistent to say the least. Oh and I'm not posting this to prompt a response Sye. I already know you'll just ask why hypocrisy and inconsistency are wrong according to my worldview, blah blah blah, thus evading the whole point. I just wanted to put this inconsistent behaviour of yours on the record.