addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Brisbane Atheists Message Board Brisbane Atheists Meetup Group (BAMG) Discussion Forum › Our friendly troll Sye

Our friendly troll Sye

AlexS
user 6983727
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 182
I hope he doesnt see this, but our old troll friend Sye, who was a pain in the ass posting under ProofthatGodExists and resulted in our new troll-polling policy, has now been elevated to appearing on Fundies say the darndest things (www.fstdt.com). He said:-

Average Rating: 4.8
Reynold said: "Where do you get the idea that your god is the only "possible" source of logic? Can you show that without him, "logic" could not exist?"

This is true by the impossibility of the contrary, no other worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariant entities.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye TenB, Stephen Law -- philosophical blog [Comments (4)] [2008-Aug-01]

A typically idiotic statement - and pretty much the same thing he was saying in our discussion forum. But the response from one of the philosophers is priceless:-

Sye,
Let me take a moment to reminisce in your crappie flop.

Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.

So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".

And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”

To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.

You ready for this Sye, You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”

Do you see it? Yeah, you do don’t you Sye:
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. That we can see and prove that, and that falls into the argument for God.

But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove that absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.

So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.

OH SNAP

Ben P
user 6288712
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 247
My brain kind of choked on this. I didn't quite follow. I'm not in the most mentally agile frame of mind
... but I very much liked the "OH SNAP" at the end.
AlexS
user 6983727
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 183
Effectively they asked sye to give an example of a statement that was independent and not related to any other statements and he replied - The law of non-contradiction, which, ironically, can only operate in the presence of other statements. Thus, he was shown to be an idiot.

SNAP.
Bob S.
user 3951825
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 8
Logic is a systematic description of the irreducible minimum relationships between propositions for a coherent, self-consistent reasoning process, discussion, discourse, whatever you want to call it, about the content of any set of propositions about reality.

It is the starting point for coherent discourse.

The rules of logic start from the 'assumption' that there exist sets of propositions, statements about reality that cannot all simultaneously be true, that describe distinguishable, different possible attributes, events, relationships between entities, ie that there is structure to reality, not just a blur of every everything posssible existing and happening at once and/or at pure

This is fundamental.

To insist that this somehow can only be the case if there is some grander entity within which such a structure can exist explains absolutely nothing, merely opening the way to the worst sort of infinite regress, requiring ever grander entities within which any given entity must exist, therefore such a proposal is essentially self-refuting.

Rather pursue the more fruitful chain of 'infinite' regress, where each complex proposition of logic, or the elaborations of logical reasoning, ie mathematics in all its forms, is shown to be derived from simpler, more fundamental theorems, till we arrive at the most elementary.

Analogous to following 'cause and effect' chains back, where any given 'effect' can be seen as being initiated by a set of one or more 'causes' whic may well be much more elementary and lesser that the effect triggered, so that the 'ultimate cause' need only be a set of infinitesimal 'twitches' in the fabric of reality.

As long as all the identifiable cause-effect links form, on average, a geometrically decreasing sequence in duration and energy, as we trace back, then even a theoretically infinite sequence will total to a finite duration and energy, a point that the Greek philosophers totally failed to get there minds around, as with Xeno's famous paradoxes, which are totally resolved by later mathematics, such as those dealing with infinite series and calculus.

So once you eliminate the assumption that 'cause' must always be greater than 'effect', most if not all traditional arguments for 'God' vanish in a puff of logic, as Douglas Adams once said. Just think of the final snowflake that triggers the avalanche...

'God' and all such ideas are part of a lesser, derivative reality, the world of speculative ideas which is totally dependent on our own minds, which in turn are parasitic on the world of nature.
AlexS
user 6983727
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 185
Damn you are smart Bob. I really appreciate that kind of clarity from time to time. The problem is that if you try and explain the "achilles and the turtle" situation (and its modern mathematical conclusion) to a theist they always reduce it to the argument that "you can't get something from nothing" point of view - at which point I usually start to pull out my hair. Hence I avoid that track of thinking when discussing infinites with theists.
Bob S.
user 3951825
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 10
I guess the key point is that even if you can't get 'something from nothing', the ultimate 'something' does not have to be anything more than a quantum level twitching of a basic space-time energy field, the very opposite of some infinitely powerful super-being.

IOW 'God' is a useless, illogical, empty attempt at an 'explanation' of reality, fit only for the terminally deluded such as fundies and theologians...
A former member
Post #: 112
EXACTLY!!!

This is one of the reasons I take issue with the science-bashing, etc. Because even the "alternate point of view" doesn't particularly lead to a personal god who cares about apples and smites people with floods, etc.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy