Stephen Law

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: 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 pr...

The presuppositional apologetics of Sye's Sinner Ministries kept us busy for ages on this blog. Paul C. drew my attention to this very clear treatment of presuppositionalism from the philosopher Gene Witmer . It's good. I am also reading Greg Bahnsen's book "Always Ready" (Greg being a [now deceased] presuppositionalist Sye knew and clearly admires). What's interesting, reading this other stuff, is that while Sye clearly uses a lot of standard presuppositional stuff, some of his moves are novel. Here is an illustration: Sye asks "What's your account of logic, etc.?" Me "You mean, what makes the laws of logic hold? Well, I 'm not sure. But here are three answers I quite like." [I present them - one is Quinean and one Wittgensteinian. At least two explain why the laws of logic may not even require an "explanation" or "underpinning".) Sye "But what's your account! You must have one! I am not going to dea...

I had a thought - not one that's going to convince Sye, of course, but anyway, here it is, for discussion: Sye's proof appears to be: 1. Logic cannot exist without God 2. Logic exists Conclusion: God exists This is a deductively valid argument (necessarily, if the premises are true, so is the conclusion). Of course, for a "proof" you need more than validity. So what else? Self-evident premises? Well, if so, then Sye will say: my premises are self-evident (and of course to him they seem to be). So it is a proof! Trouble is, what he is really supposed to be doing is proving to us that God exists. Now you cannot prove something to an audience in this way if the premises are not self evident to your audience. Illustration: I can prove I just drew a three-sided figure: 1. I just drew a triangle 2. Triangles are three sided figures Conclusion: I just drew a three-sided figure Have I "proved" to you my conclusion? Of course not. You still have no idea whether I dr...

If you were reading this blog last July/August you will remember a very, very long exchange between myself and Sye, of Sinner Ministries . Sye has a "proof" of God which is based on "presuppositonal apologetics". We spent ages - two or three weeks and over 30 main posts - slowly and carefully unpacking Sye's arguments and rispostes, until, eventually, he was left with nowhere to run. I kind of enjoyed doing it, but some of you got highly irritated, I know. Anyway, the 30 odd posts can be found listed under "sinner ministries" on my sidebar menu. Well, Sye now turns up on the debunking atheists website where he is peddling the exact same arguments, winding people up all over again. When one commentator mentioned that I had dealt with a point Sye raised on this blog, Sye, I'm told, said: "I guess you haven't been paying attention Dale. We discussed my time at Stephen Law's blog at an earlier entry here, and also the fact that he never o...

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 th...

Just discovered this talk, with accompanying slides, which pushes the same atheism-bashing argument - atheists cannot allow for or justify logic and reason. The website is here . From there you can download the talk (mp3) and also the accompanying slides (example to the right). The author, David Anderson, is a creationist, and has a blog here . On which I also found this sort of argument: The goal of those who want to live their life without God is to find some justification for doing so. In general, they put their hopes in science. They hope that they will be able to reduce all of human life and experience ultimately to biology, reduce that biology to chemistry and then reduce that chemistry to physics. In other words, they hope to explain everything as the inevitable outworking of impersonal laws. Nothing transcendent or greater than the universe will be required to explain anything happening in the universe. Well, apart from the tricky question of the origin of the universe itself,...

"…for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between the analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith." Quine Quine is one of the most influential philosophers of the Twentieth Century. The son of a schoolteacher mother and entrepreneur father, Quine studied mathematics and logic at Oberlin College before winning a scholarship to Harvard. He spent his entire teaching career at Harvard, holding the Edgar Pierce Chair of Philosophy at Harvard University from 1956 to 2000. During WWII, Quine worked for US military intelligence. QUINE’S ATTACK ON ANALYTICITY Two kinds of truth Many philosophers have drawn a distinction between two kinds of truth. Take these two sentences: All bachelors are unmarried males All vixens are female foxes Both are true. But why? It’s tempting to answer: because of what the words “bachelor” and “vixen” mean. Th...

As we are still talking about whether atheists can "account" for (i.e. justify, allow for, and explain) the laws of logic, here's a third possibility outlined in next post. Quine's view is that the laws of nature are not necessary. This is a popular view (more so in the U.S., largely because of Quine's influence). Quine considers them very high level empirical propositions. And revisable in the light of experience. Sye will have to shoot this theory down too, as well as the two I have already presented.... Of course, even when you, Sye, have dealt with these three, there are innumerable other possibilities you must rule out. What you really need is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.

I have to go off for maybe a week. Will be back. Carry on with out me. In the meantime, I produce a sketch of my own presuppositionalism I have been developing. It goes like this. 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?

One thought that may be bothering Sye (though who can tell?) is: what makes the laws of logic hold? What explains and accounts for their necessity? What prevents it from ever being the case that a proposition P is both true and false? What makes the law of non-contradiction true? Ages ago I suggested one possible answer to this type of question: these questions may themselves be confused. Suppose someone asks "What makes all stallions male? What is this strange force - a super force - that forces the world to be such that nothing is both a stallion and not male? Clearly, this person is confused. Nothing is required to make it the case that all the stallions are male. rather, "stallion" just means male horse. Understand what "stallion" means and you are immediately in a position to know they will all be male. Indeed, there is nothing to make the case because "non-male stallion" does not describe some state of affairs that the world some conspire...

It's been suggested (by me and others) that: SUGGESTION: the laws of logic may just be necessary - their necessity may just be a brute fact for which no further explanation can be given or is required. Sye's response to this has repeatedly been. "OK, God exists necessarily (as a brute fact). How do you like your argument now?" This is a silly response. The suggestion I and others have made above is just that - a suggestion. We can say to Sye - "You claim you can rule out all atheist world views in which the laws of logic hold necessarily. OK, then, so start by ruling this view out." It is not argued for (not by me). We don't even have to say it's true. It is offered as a possibility that Sye seems not to have ruled out. That's exactly what I do say, in fact: Sye has not yet ruled it out. The onus is on him to rule it out. Sye can claim his God exists necessarily. Sye can indeed similarly just insist God's existence is just a brute fact, not ...

Sye has read "The God of Eth" - thanks Sye, for doing that - and here's his response: Alright, I read your “God of Eth.” My conclusion, it is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Both debaters in your story are arguing evidentially, and I am a presuppositionalist, not an evidentialist. Their debate presupposes the laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God’s revelation. That same God also reveals that He is all good. There is no logical contradiction with God’s being all good, and the presence of evil, as you cannot show that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for the evil in this world. You can’t even tell us what evil is, apart from an absolute standard of morality (God). ME Sye, quoting from your website, I see you say: "Don't get me wrong, I think evidential arguments are wonderful - for Christians" Yet now, when I give you evidence against what you believe, you say you are "not an evidentialist". Does this mean yo...

Sye's been busy responding to my last post: ME: ”I pointed out one possible way round this problem (which I am not necessarily endorsing, BTW)” SYE: Hmmm, I ask what YOUR justification for the laws of logic is. I understand why you don’t want to post it though. Wouldn’t look too good having an amateur eviscerate it. MY REPLY: Well, unlike you, I am not too confident I have the right answer, Sye. But I am pretty confident, for the reasons explained here, that you don't. Nor do I see any reason yet why atheists have in principle any more problem here, as you assert. Indeed, I have given you two reasons to suppose they actually have less of a problem than you do. ME ”- make the justification non-inferential. Perhaps we can just directly see that certain very basic forms of argument are truth preserving (this is actually quite plausible, isn't it?).” SYE: Problem is, this makes logic contingent to past observations, and it loses its universality, and if you want to say that...

One question Sye keeps asking (see preceding post) is: (1) How can you atheists justify the laws of logic? How can you know that the laws of logic hold true? We saw, in an earlier post, that asking for a justification of logic seems to produce a paradox. If the justification involves an inference, then it will itself use the laws of logic, and so be circular . And thus no justification at all! I pointed out one possible way round this problem (which I am not necessarily endorsing, BTW) - make the justification non-inferential . Perhaps we can just directly see that certain very basic forms of argument are truth preserving (this is actually quite plausible, isn't it?). Sye says that God's revelation let's him know logic can be trusted. So he too appeals to a kind of "seeing"-type justification. But the above version is more economical. Here are the competing accounts: 1. The above atheist-friendly suggestion is that we can just "see" certain forms of i...

Sye keeps issuing a challenge to atheists to account for the rules of logic. They can't, insists Sye. Only a Christian can do that, he says. Of course, even if we atheists can't account for the rules of logic, that doesn't show they cannot be accounted for within an atheist world view. So if Sye is trying to construct an argument for the claim that only a Christian can account for logic, this won't do, because: 1. Our inability to do something does not show it cannot be done 2. Even if atheism cannot account for logic, it's still a huge further leap to the conclusion that Christians, and indeed only Christians, can. Anyhow, can atheists "account for logic"? As I said earlier, there seem to be two challenges that Sye is pressing. They are: 1. How, if atheism is true, can the laws of logic possibly exist ? What underpins them and makes them hold true? 2. How can an atheist justify his or her belief in the laws of logic? How can they know that, e.g. the ...

Well Sye said he has an argument for his premise (1) . We have asked him countless times what it is. He won't say. Indeed, he just gets weirdly evasive. So I think we are justified in concluding he hasn't got any argument for premise (1). (1) is, then, a contentious and unargued for premise. But then, while Sye's argument is deductively valid, it relies on a contentious and unargued for premise, and so fails to establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Having established that beyond reasonable doubt, we can now do a proper job of examining his endlessly repeated challenge to atheists to account for the laws of logic. I'll do that next.

By the way Sye, as you clearly think you have "won" this debate - and with a professional philosopher no less! - you will certainly want to put a well-publicized link to this debate on your website, for all to see, right? Do let me know when you have put the link up! I suggest just linking to this entire run of posts: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries%27%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22

Hi Sye You said: Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this: 1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary). 2. Logic exists 3. Therefore God exists. All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God. You folks are going on and on about the format, why not offer your refutation? ANSWER: We did. One way to show you have no proof (a "proof" establishing something as true beyond reasonable doubt) is to show (1) is false. But that is not the only way (do you agree?). Another would be to show that (1) is contentious and unargued for, which it appears to be. You say your (1) is not unargued for - there is an argument for it: "impossibility of the contrary". You refuse to say what the argument is, though (i.e. you refuse to spell it out as premises and conclusion). Instead, you do say WE must "prove 'impossibility of the contr...

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...

Hi Sye So we are back here again. OK, let's go round again. Only this time even more slowly and carefully. On your website , you present this argument: (1) The existence of laws of logic nec. requires the existence of the Christian God (2) The laws of logic exist Therefore: the Christian God exists. You call this a "proof". You have also said the argument on your website establishes, as it stands , the truth of the above conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, right? Now we ask why we should accept premise (1). You say there is also an argument for (1) on your website. We look. We can't find it. You say it's behind the "continue" button . We still cannot find it - all we can find is the * assertion * that the contrary of (1) is impossible, but no * argument * that the contrary of (1) is impossible. So, some questions: (i) It is an argument, in the sense of premises and conclusion, that you supply to support (1), correct? (ii) This argument does lie on the pa...