Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

A place to talk about specific theists and our interactions with 'em. Should we engage or dismiss? Are there effective strategies?

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby zilch » Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:54 pm

freddies_dead wrote: can anyone tell me whether Sye once shows how he can be sure that the omnipotent God he claims to have had revelations from is actually telling him the truth and isn't just fucking with him?


freddie, are you deadie? I already said that, and Sye's said it probably hundreds of times, if not thousands, in various venues: Sye can be sure that God is not just fucking with him because God is Good, by definition, common sense, and what the Bible says, and a Good God wouldn't fuck with Sye. Jeesh.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15133
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby SyeTenB » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:11 pm

freddies_dead wrote:I'm not reading through all that - can anyone tell me whether Sye once shows how he can be sure that the omnipotent God he claims to have had revelations from is actually telling him the truth

I know it for certain the same way you do.
The atheist can't find God, for the same reason, that a thief can't find a policeman.
User avatar
SyeTenB
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby freddies_dead » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:14 pm

zilch wrote:
freddies_dead wrote: can anyone tell me whether Sye once shows how he can be sure that the omnipotent God he claims to have had revelations from is actually telling him the truth and isn't just fucking with him?


freddie, are you deadie? I already said that, and Sye's said it probably hundreds of times, if not thousands, in various venues: Sye can be sure that God is not just fucking with him because God is Good, by definition, common sense, and what the Bible says, and a Good God wouldn't fuck with Sye. Jeesh.

Which surely just begs the question as a trickster God is hardly likely to admit to being a big ole meanie now is it?
Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).
User avatar
freddies_dead
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby freddies_dead » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:14 pm

SyeTenB wrote:
freddies_dead wrote:I'm not reading through all that - can anyone tell me whether Sye once shows how he can be sure that the omnipotent God he claims to have had revelations from is actually telling him the truth

I know it for certain the same way you do.

So you don't know for certain ... sweet .
Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).
User avatar
freddies_dead
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby zilch » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:17 pm

freddies_dead wrote:
zilch wrote:
freddies_dead wrote: can anyone tell me whether Sye once shows how he can be sure that the omnipotent God he claims to have had revelations from is actually telling him the truth and isn't just fucking with him?


freddie, are you deadie? I already said that, and Sye's said it probably hundreds of times, if not thousands, in various venues: Sye can be sure that God is not just fucking with him because God is Good, by definition, common sense, and what the Bible says, and a Good God wouldn't fuck with Sye. Jeesh.

Which surely just begs the question as a trickster God is hardly likely to admit to being a big ole meanie now is it?


Well, a nice trickster God would admit it. And you would recognize a not-nice trickster God by his cackling...
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15133
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby freddies_dead » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:18 pm

zilch wrote:Well, a nice trickster God would admit it. And you would recognize a not-nice trickster God by his cackling...

Aaaahh, fair enough ;)
Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).
User avatar
freddies_dead
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:18 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby rhiggs » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:38 pm

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...

Sye's response:
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.


See that?

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. :D
Remember you're an individual - just like everyone else.
http://fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.com/
User avatar
rhiggs
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Dublin's Fair City, Ireland

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby zilch » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:16 pm

But rhiggs, don't you see that it's okay for Sye to pretend to hold a position he doesn't for the sake of argument, but it's not okay for an atheist to do the same, because Sye has an objective standard of truth, and knows that this position is false; but the atheist has no objective standard of truth, and so can't know whether or not a position he claims not to hold is not the truth?
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15133
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby BeamStalk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:21 pm

zilch wrote:But rhiggs, don't you see that it's okay for Sye to pretend to hold a position he doesn't for the sake of argument, but it's not okay for an atheist to do the same, because Sye has an objective standard of truth, and knows that this position is false; but the atheist has no objective standard of truth, and so can't know whether or not a position he claims not to hold is not the truth?


I need an aspirin...
The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head.
-Terry Pratchett, "Hogfather"
User avatar
BeamStalk
 
Posts: 6808
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:10 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Atheist demolishes Sye's presupp in radio debate

Postby rhiggs » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:37 pm

zilch wrote:But rhiggs, don't you see that it's okay for Sye to pretend to hold a position he doesn't for the sake of argument, but it's not okay for an atheist to do the same, because Sye has an objective standard of truth, and knows that this position is false; but the atheist has no objective standard of truth, and so can't know whether or not a position he claims not to hold is not the truth?


And by the same token, since a non-presupper has no objective standard of truth, he/she will never actually be able to cross the divide and 'know' that presuppositionalism is true anyway....so what's the point?
Last edited by rhiggs on Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Remember you're an individual - just like everyone else.
http://fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.com/
User avatar
rhiggs
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Dublin's Fair City, Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Care and Feeding of Recalcitrant, Incorrigible Fundies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron