So I'm sad to say, here is yet another debate I've had with Sye, (which will make three). Not sure why I waste my time with it so I'm fairly certain this will be it... My comments in BLUE, Sye in GREEN. - this is technically still ongoing, but as you'll see it isn't going to go anywhere; I'll update it accordingly.
Some important references/links:
(SYSTEMIC TRUTH POST)
(THE INVALIDITY OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH POST)
(DEBATE TWO WITH SYE)
(SYE'S ARGUMENT)
A: Sye,
You said:”The laws of logic are universal (despite your objection), abstract, and invariant.” That is to say, as you always maintain, they are absolute.
So then, lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
You’ve made quite the lofty assertion, Sye, and of course you have yet to prove it. Perhaps you could:
A.) State a Law of Logic – perhaps you could start with the law of non-contradiction.
B.) Demonstrate for us how that law of logic satisfies 1 – 4 above
C.) Show how that law is not “Systemic”
Also, you are not allowed to borrow from my world view to do so.
Recall that Systemic Truth says the following: (CLICK HERE)
S: Andrew Louis said: The same things he's been saying for far too long :-D
Andrew, is it absolutely true, that there is no absolute truth?
A: Sye,
perhaps you'd like me to repeat the question (understanding that you must first establish that absolute truth is even a valid proposition): I of course have already answered your question, you seem to not be able to offer proof of your world view.
So then, lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
You’ve made quite the lofty assertion, Sye, and of course you have yet to prove it. Perhaps you could:
A.) State a Law of Logic – perhaps you could start with the law of non-contradiction.
B.) Demonstrate for us how that law of logic satisfies 1 – 4 above
C.) Show how that law is not “Systemic”
S: Andrew Louis said:
"Sye,perhaps you'd like me to repeat the question"
Nope, I'd like you to answer mine: Is it absolutely true, that there is no absolute truth?"(understanding that you must first extablish that absolute truth is even a valid proposition)"Is it absolutely true that I must establish this Andrew?(I'll try to get to the serious arguments tomorrow).G'night all (again).
A: Sye,once again you seem to have reading issues. Not only have I answered your question, but I've refuted it as a valid proposition. So because I'm a good guy, I'll repost (AGAIN) the question, along with the premise that debunks your worldview:
Sye,You said:”The laws of logic are universal (despite your objection), abstract, and invariant.” That is to say, as you always maintain, they are absolute.So then, lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
You’ve made quite the lofty assertion, Sye, and of course you have yet to prove it. Perhaps you could:
A.) State a Law of Logic – perhaps you could start with the law of non-contradiction.
B.) Demonstrate for us how that law of logic satisfies 1 – 4 above
C.) Show how that law is not “Systemic”A
lso, you are not allowed to borrow from my world view to do so.Recall that Systemic Truth says the following: (REFER TO SYSTEMIC TRUTH)
S: Andrew Louis said: A whole lot of stuff again, but he did not answer my question – again. Andrew, is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?I could go through your entire post, and point each time you have made an absolute truth claim, but really, that would be pointless.
Here are but a few:So then, lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :… yada yada yadaSounds like an absolute truth claim to me Andrew. It MUST?” Also, you are not allowed to borrow from my world view to do so.”Is that absolutely true Andrew?” Truth itself is systemic,”Is it absolutely true that truth is systemic?” Anyway, truth is objective, but truth is not absolute.”Is it absolutely true that truth is objective, and not absolute Andrew?Well, I doubt that you will get the point, but hopefully those reading along will. Denying absolute truth is self-refuting.
A: Denying absolute truth is not sefl refuting as I shown it's not even a valid proposition. So here it is again as Sye is having trouble:
So then, lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
You’ve made quite the lofty assertion, Sye, and of course you have yet to prove it. Perhaps you could:
A.) State a Law of Logic – perhaps you could start with the law of non-contradiction.
B.) Demonstrate for us how that law of logic satisfies 1 – 4 above
C.) Show how that law is not “Systemic”
Let me break this down in another way to show the flaw in your question, “Does Absolute Truth exist”, and further demonstrate for you how truth is systemic. I’d like to do this be looking at meanings and sentence structure. (I’ll take this slow)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE "Invalidity of Absolute Truth Argument")
S: Andrew, Look I appreciate how much effort you must put into your long posts, but I have to confess, I don't even read them. Quite simply, if it IS NOT absolutley true, that there is no absolute truth, then there can be absolute truth, and if it IS absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, then also, there must be, absolute truth.Denying absolute truth (as you are doing) is self-refuting.
A: Sye, you will realize the absurdity of your statement once you take the time to read my latest post. You're repeating absurdity in the face of it, and anyone who chooses to read it will see as such.
How can you launch an honest argument it you won't even take the time to read? People have been calling you dishonest, and you're proving them right.
S: Andrew Louis said: "How can you launch an honest argument it you won't even take the time to read? People have been calling you dishonest, and you're proving them right."
Tell you what Andrew, answer my question ONCE and I will read your post: Is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?
A: Sye, you just said a funny:"Tell you what Andrew, answer my question ONCE and I will read your post: Is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
Simply read my previous post, Sye, and you'll see I've clearly answered your question (oh wait that's right, you dont read them - you're dishonest).
Here, I'll post it again for you again:
(SEE SYSTEMIC TRUTH HERE) (SEE THE INVALIDITY OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH HERE)
S: Andrew, you examined my question, but you have not answered it (as I determined by sifting through that mess you like to repeat). Again I ask, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?I won't even skim your next post past the first sentence if it does not include an answer to my question.
Cheers.
A: Sye, you just said a funny:"Tell you what Andrew, answer my question ONCE and I will read your post: Is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
Simply read my previous post, Sye, and you'll see I've clearly answered your question (oh wait that's right, you dont read them - you're dishonest).Here, I'll post it again for you again:
Sye,your question doesn't make sense until you can establish the validity of absolute. So lets have it...
Now this is where you ask, "Is that absolutely true", in which case you can read my post to shed light on your inability to read, comprehend and be honest....g-night
S: Andrew Louis said: "your question doesn't make sense until you can establish the validity of absolute."Andrew, is it absolutely true that my question does not make sense until I can establish the validity of absolute?
If you do not answer my question, I will no longer respond to you. It is up to Dan if he wants to let your repeated posts clog up his blog.Blog clogger :-D Hey that's funny!(Verification word - "splog" Now THAT'S even funnier! I think we may have your new nickname!)
A: Sye, Because I’m such a great guy I’m going to try to simplify my LONG post that you can’t seem to read and create an elementary school version of it.
Once again, all sentences contain a SUBJECT which I’ll denote with (x) and a PREDICATE which I’ll denote with [z]. So your sentence could be, “Is (x) [z]?”
Now here’s the crucial part:
If the SUBJECT of your sentence is itself internally predicated, as in (xy), then it assumes (pre-supposes if you will) that the PREDICATE we’re applying to it is true of both SUBJECTS by themselves.
In other words if your sentence is:
“Is/Does (xy) [z]?”
then what we really have is:
“Is/Does (x[z]) (y[z]) = TRUE {together}?”
As you can see, this sentence structure assumes that the predicate applies to both elements of the subject by themselves. The real question then, isn’t to the existence of either of them, but to the existence of both of them together.
So we can simplify that by asking:
“Is (x)[y]?”
So, the question is:
“Does Absolute Truth Exist?”
What we really have is:
“Does (Absolute[exist]) (Truth[exist]) = exist {together}?”
So the first question one should ask is, does the PREDICATE “exist” apply to both Truth and Absolute by themselves? If it doesn’t and/or one cannot show it, then one has merely created an invalid subject for predication.
On the other hand, if one can establish the existence of at least one absolute, than our question becomes (as we can now factor out exist):
“Is Truth Absolute?”
Notice that in this sentence a “NO” response does not yield the option of responding, “Is that absolutely true?” as by answering no we’ve invalidated Absolute as being an applicable predicate to truth; so in effect the question doesn’t make sense.
However, in order to even get to that point one needs to establish the validity of the word ABSOLUTE, or one is merely spewing rhetorical bullsht. One's use of it (in context) PRE-SUPPOSES it’s reality – in other words one only has a self refuting statement when you pre-suppose absolute to be something real and proven. My position is, of course, the question is nonsense.
So to the question:
“Does absolute truth exist?”
I will respond:
“You have created an invalid subject for predication.”
And one can ask:
“Is that absolutely true?”
And I will respond:
“You’ve created an invalid subject for predication.”
Ad-infinitum if you like.
S: Andrew Louis said: ” So to your question:“Does absolute truth exist?” I will respond: “You have created an invalid subject for predication.”Andrew, where is true that I have “created an invalid subject for predication?” Only in your system of truth, or universally?
A: Sye, you said:
"Andrew, where is true that I have “created an invalid subject for predication?”
In parenthesis,
Does (Absolute Truth) exist?
Sye, you also said:
Is it true..."Only in your system of truth, or universally?
This seems to demonstrate your inability to understand what I'm saying. To make this easier, perhaps you could shed some light on what in my statement you don't understand.
Your question seems to have the analog that follows this way:
YOU SAY: "The capitol of New York is the Bronx."
AND I SAY: "No, the capitol of New York is New York."
THEN YOU RESPOND:"What language are you speaking, is it universal?"
S: It's a simple question Andrew:"Where is it true that I have “created an invalid subject for predication?”
I'm not assuming anything about absolute truth in that question. It's like asking: "Where is the capitol of New York?"
A: Sye, GREAT!
It's a simple answer then. You've created it in the following way; as I've already stated:
(If you find that this simply doesn't follow, then of course you will point that out and show the validity of "Absolute".)
(REFERENCE BACK TO ORIGINAL ARGUMENT)
S: Look Andrew, I have asked a question where absolutes are not assumed, and you have resorted to cutting and pasting your old argument. Please answer my question, or I will return to ignoring you.Cheers
A: Sye, perhaps you don't understand where the burdon of proof lies. Your contention is that absolute truth exists by the question, "Does absolute truth exist?" being self refuting.
My argument is that your contention for absolute truth doesn't make sense for reasons already stated in 3 different premises on 3 different posts (none of which you have been able to address)
NOW: If you'd like to tell me where I'm wrong then I'm all ears, or in this case, eyes.
S: Andrew, forget that for now. We will get back to it, just please answer my question. I have been extremely patient with you:
Q: Where is it true that I have “created an invalid subject for predication?”
A: Sye, (you can't flesh off the burden of proof by taking the Socratic rout)
There is no reason to “forget it for now” as the burdon of proof is not on me. I have a refutation against your mere contention; if you do not feel that I have pointed out WHERE you have created an invalid subject for predication, then surely you can show that. Otherwise, refer to my 3 premises.
Let me put this in simpler terms.
A.) You contend self refuting statement “X”.
B.) I argue that NOT”X” (or “X” is invalid) due to the existence of condition“Y” in statement “X”.
1.) Then you ask, “where is it true that condition “Y” ?”- However, I have already shown condition “Y” in “B.)” as defined within the premise. If you feel I have not shown condition “Y”, then surely you can point to NOTcondition”Y”.
Otherwise, as it stands, I have a successful argument against “X”.
What we’re after here, Sye, is your argument for “X” that shows condition “Y” is invalid.
S: Andrew said: "I have a refutation against your mere contention"
I realize that this is your claim, but since you only believe in what you call 'systemic truth,' I want to know how far that 'truth' reaches so I know whether or not I need to worry about it. You see, if for example, it's only 'true' in your head, I really don't give a rip.Cheers
A: Sye,
I SAID: "I have a refutation against your mere contention"
YOU SAID: "I realize that this is your claim, but since you only believe in what you call 'systemic truth,' I want to know how far that 'truth' reaches so I know whether or not I need to worry about it. You see, if for example, it's only 'true' in your head, I really don't give a rip."
-----
How does this pertain to my argument?
1.) Once again then, if you do not feel that I have pointed out WHERE you have created an invalid subject for predication, then surely you can show that.
2.) Furthermore, you have made the bold assertion that I didn’t even make an argument, rather I just made a claim; perhaps you can also back that up.
3.) In what way is my argument that “You have created an invalid subject for predication” (along with the post that backs it up), not an argument?
4.) If it would be your contention that it’s not valid based on it “just being in my head”, then perhaps you can back THAT up as well.
S: @ AndrewYawn
A: @ Sye'burp'
When children can't answer questions they do stuff like this. Way to go Sye, you big dumb head.
S: Andrew Louis said: ”When children can't answer questions they do stuff like this. Way to go Sye, you big dumb head.”More like: When you can’t answer my questions, you cut and paste your same non-answer, in a vain attempt to hide that fact.
A: Sye, you said:"When you can’t answer my questions, you cut and paste your same non-answer, in a vain attempt to hide that fact."
Great! Your question was:
Q: Where is it true that I have “created an invalid subject for predication?”
In what way did my argument not answer this question?
S: Oh, and in case you forgot the question you keep ducking: Where is it true that I have “created an invalid subject for predication?Cheers
A: Oh and Sye, to your question, we alraedy covered that and you thought it would be cute to YAWN, but here it is again:
1.) Once again then, if you do not feel that I have pointed out WHERE you have created an invalid subject for predication, then surely you can show that.
2.) Furthermore, you have made the bold assertion that I didn’t even make an argument, rather I just made a claim; perhaps you can also back that up.
3.) In what way is my argument that “You have created an invalid subject for predication” (along with the post that backs it up), not an argument?
4.) If it would be your contention that it’s not valid based on it “just being in my head”, then perhaps you can back THAT up as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment