More Bullshit from Sye TenB

LINK (HERE) for the historical argument

Through a twist of presupposed fate, I ran into Sye again (HERE/scam.com). Against my better judgment, and in the face of my own sanity, I chose to thrash him another time.

I'm not going to re-hash what I've said in the past, one can (if one would like) use the link above, or go to the site I linked (scam.com) and see how I summarized it there. either way I only want to lay out here what can only be described as (WHAT THE FUCK?).

I will state very briefly a few precursory things:
One should know (via the link) Sye has an argument for God that follows TAG - the Transcendental Argument for God (link to site in the link above). He has a premise, and a conclusion. His first premise which everything rests upon is that absolute truth exists. He attempts to demonstrate this by asking the bull shit question, "Does absolute truth exist". Of course you know where the question leads if answered out right. Bottom line the question presupposes absolute, and takes advantage of the fact that many other people do to.

In response to that, I refuted the legitimacy of the question and showed it to be invalid. Rather then object to the argument as it was, point out inconsistencies, fallacies etc., he proceeded to.... Ask questions, which were as follows:

A.) "where is anything that you say true, and how do you know this?"
B.) "Is what you say only true in your personal system now, or is it true everywhere at all times?"

DOE!
(SPECIAL NOTE: it would behove one to play the song below as you read along with the text. I've found that it increases the experience by at least 10fold... Just a suggestion.)


A few twists and turns aside, Sye tries to accuse me of dodging his questions, apparently assuming there was some burden on me to do so in the face of the argument I already layed out quite nicely for him. So, I responded accordingly:

-----

Sye,
lets get a couple things out of the way first.

i.)I notice you dropped “B” in your response, granting what I’ve said about it.
ii.)You accuse me of “Dodging the question”, when as has been shown I have an argument that refutes yours, and rather then address it, you’re trying to address me – but we’ll get back that.

So, let’s recap, being more efficient and effective this time. You had two questions, in full.
A.) “Where is anything that you say true, and how do you know this?”
B.) “Is what you say only true in your personal system now, or is it true everywhere at all times?”

“B” was rejected as I said, because it presupposed the absolute (which I already refuted), and you dropped it accordingly within your latest response. So we have that cleared up.
(NOTE: it should be noted that the question here is a false dichotomy which says, "its' either absolute, or only true in your system now.". Of course my argument refutes the absolute and never makes any claims to being "only true in my personal system. The reality is that "B" is neither.)

Question “A” actually comes in two parts, as follows:
1.) “Where is anything that you say true…?”
2.) “…how do you know this?”

I rejected the first part of your question as it’s restated in question “B”; i.e. “is what you say true in your personal system now”,AND, “or is it true everywhere at all time”. This is the where that presupposes the absolute, which, I’ve already refuted.
(NOTE: One could say it's true via logic, or true in the aruement, or shown in the argument, but all attempts to point this out in the past have fallen upon deaf ears)

What we have then is question “2”:
“…How do you know this?”

Let me first unpack this. For those who don’t know it (and for you too, Sye, as you seem rather philosophically challanged) this is an epistemological question. i.e. The study of knowledge and how we know things, simply put, epistemology is a theory of knowledge. In the context of what you’re asking me (all questions in whole) you’re essentially saying that I owe you a justification that accounts for the epistemological certainty of my argument, and I presume that for whatever reason you feel that an argument is contingent upon this certainty (but I’ll get to that). i.e. what you’re doing (and this is why you are often called dishonest) is changing the conversation from one that’s about the validity of a logical refutation (a premise and conclusion), against your logical argument (which was shown to be fallacious based on the premise and conclusion), to a conversation about whether or not one is certain about it, as if that’s relevant to the argument.

So here’s the deal, Sye, my argument has nothing whatsoever to do with epistemological certainty (that’s not the conversation we’re having), as a matter of fact, it’s completely irrelevant. i.e. my argument does not stand or fall based upon whether or not I have a basis for knowing it and being certain about it (having epistemological certainty), as a matter of fact it doesn’t even matter whether or not I’m committed to it. I may offer up the argument simply because it’s a good refutation, and may in fact think its complete BS. On the other hand, I could have typed some nonsense into my computer, and in response it generated (completely at random) the argument that you see in the above thread; and of course, the computer that generated it can neither account for, be certain of, or say how it knows what it just displayed – after all it’s just a computer (of course, we could argue AI, but that’s another conversation entirely). That being the case, and the lack of a response from the computer regarding certainty, it doesn’t cause the argument it gave to suddenly be irrelevant, arbitrary and/or fallacious (we could of course argue that it “arbitrarily gave a response”, but this doesn’t mean that the response it gave has fallacies within it as a result). i.e. an argument stands and falls on it’s own merit, not relative to the certitude of the giver regarding it. Which is to say simply that the logic involved can be easily evaluated without a “certain” bases at it’s foundation – yet in another way, we can evaluate the premise all the way down to the conclusion and find fault in it (or not) with or without the certainty of the provider. In that way, your question is completely baseless, irrelevant, dishonest, conversation changing, and tactic for dodging the argument before you.

The point is this, Sye (AGAIN), that there IS an argument before you that refutes your claim to the absolute, and demonstrates the fallacy contained within. Without even addressing my argument and your blatant fallacy, you change the conversation from one of logic, to one of epistemology, thereby dodging (YOUSELF) answering for the inconsistencies and BS in your own argument. Even though you accuse me of it, go figure.

Bottom line, epistemological certainty is irrelevant. You have boldly stated that my argument (BY ITSELF) is a fallacy, but of course you have yet to point out where that is the case, even though I’ve already pointed out yours. I owe no burden to you to demonstrate certainty in the face of what I’ve said. That’s a claim that you make (implicit within your question and changing the conversation), even though you have offered no basis for this.

So then, Sye, quit YOUR dodging (I’ve addressed your argument). If you want to have a philosophical debate on the nature of epistemological certainty, we can certainly do that, but before we get there, there is the business of your fallacious claims to the absolute, and your bootless contention about God.

-----

I thought that was clear enough, but Sye responds:
"....See that's the thing Andrew, you think that you have a point, but all you do is avoid my questions... in a vain attempt to conceal that fact"

-----

WOW! I'm completely beside myself... Perhaps I can help him out a bit though:

-----

Let me try and spell this out for you, Sye. As it’s almost as though you didn’t even read my second to the last post – so I’ll make this short.

You have put forth an argument to prove the existence of “X”, it looks like this:
1.) Premise
2.)……
3.) Conclusion: “X” exists

In turn, I put forth an argument that looks like this:
1.) Premise
2.) …..
3.) Conclusion: Sye’s Premises is false

You have an argument, I have refuted it as it is. If you feel that the refutation fails [as it is], or that it contains a fallacy, then by all means, point that out in the argument before you. If you’re not willing to address the argument (as I have yours), then forfeit, say no, and we can be done with the conversation.

-----

I wonder what he said in response to this?

-----

"Andrew, just answer the questions."

-----

Dancin' douche' bags Batman!

At this point I repeated myself, and he just kept saying, "Just answer the questions". Which I should add, I'm more then happy too. Actually, I'd quite love to have the conversation, and have nice answers to both questions, but at this point in the conversation, it isn't relevant...

-----

So I leave with an analogy - good or bad, it is what it is.

Consider, that we are engaged in a game, which we’ll call the game of logic. This game is not unlike (let’s offer) the game of chess, in that both are governed by rules. In order to play the game, there is typically agreement amongst the players before hand as to the nature of the rules, and in both cases, we actually do have rule books at our disposal. For example, in the game of logic the rule book dictates that one cannot “beg the question”, and in the game of chess, one cannot move a Pawn like a knight (i.e. better stated, a pawn can only move forward one space or left and right one space, per turn).

Now, in the game of logic we make moves just as we do in the game of chess. In the case of chess, those moves come in the form of moving a given piece to a given place on the board. The goal of course, is to put the other player in check. In the game of logic, on the other hand, the goal is to prove, or perhaps disprove a certain thing “X”. One does this by laying out a premise (which is much like moving a chess piece/s on a board). The game of logic, however, doesn’t have a board, so one can say whatever it is one likes in an effort to prove a given thing “X”, however one has to do so according to the rules. For example: Suppose that within one’s premise one “begs the question”. This doesn’t in and of itself mean that what it is you’re trying to prove [X], is false, it simple means that one’s argument is invalid (not made according to the rules of logic) and therefore, the players of the game do not accept the argument and therefore reject the conclusion. Again, it DOES NOT “NECESSARILY” mean that the conclusion is false, it merely means that it has not been shown through the argument.

So here’s the analog:
Suppose (in the case of Sye and I), that we have our chess pieces spread throughout the board, some of mine are gone and some of his are gone (of course, consider that this doesn’t have to be the case, it could in fact be his very first move of the game, but it matters not either way). Let’s further suppose that I’m one play away from placing him in check, no matter what play he makes, and it’s his move. Consider that he takes a Bishop, and moves it as one does a night, placing it in such a strategic location that would put me in check mate. Now, relative to how the pieces currently sit on the board, I’ve lost as can clearly be seen.

However, most certainly I object to the move and quickly say, “You cannot move a Bishop as one does a night. Therefore the move is invalid and indeed you have not won the game.”. Notice again, that as with the game of logic I have not stated that he is “wrong”, “false”, etc., I’ve merely pointed out the his move (or in the case of logic with his premise) is invalid according to the rules. To demonstrate this, I pull out the rule book and show him in the appropriate section the error in the move (which in this case is analogous to the argument I gave in refutation of the absolute). At this point has has two choices; he can agree that in fact he did make a move that was not consistent with the rules, take it back and make valid move; or, on the other hand, hee can forfeit the game (as a perfect 8 year old) and walk away.

However, he does neither of those things, but rather asks the following questions.
“Where is anything you say true, and how do you know this?”
“Is what you say true only true in your personal system now, or is it true everywhere at all times.”

Now, in my argument I’m pointing out the invalid premise, and in the game of chess I’m pointing out the invalid placement of the Bishop. The analog to the first question in the case of the chess game may look something like this:
“Where is the rule you say true, and how do you know this?”

Of course, in this case the rule is true in chess. We know this because it’s stated in the rule book. Now, Sye can either accept or not accept that, take his move back or forfeit. As for my refutation of the first premise (the absolute) the same applies; he can either accept my argument as true and following the rules of logic, or not accept my argument as true and following the rules of logic. If he feel that it is incorrect, contains a fallacy, etc., then he can surely point to that. I owe no further burden to show anything, and can simply leave myself at this point and walk away.

Looking at the second question (and still following the chess analogy) he asked:
“Is the rule you state true only in your personal system now, or is it true everywhere at all time.”

Of course, this question is complete cobblers. We’ve agreed to play a game with rules, it is not my claim (and never was) that the rules were mine, nor is it relevant if rules of chess change tomorrow, or stay the same. In the case of my refutation of the absolute, the question is seen as dichotomous. i.e. in the first place the second part of the dichotomy I refuted outright, and first part of the question I do not claim. My claim is not that what I say is true in my personal system now, it is simply that the first premise does not demonstrate the validity of absolute. If he were bright enough he’d figure that one out, i.e. the answer to the question is neither.

All that being the case, however, my initial statements about him changing the conversation stand, I owe no response to the questions, and for whatever reason he can’t seem to grasp that…..

Sye TenB P.3

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.

On the Invalidity of Absolute Truth

Yes, I'm debating with Sye again, bashing my head against the wall and wondering why. So here is a response to the invalidity of absolute truth that I thought was worth saving for the blog:

Refer to my original statement on absolute truth here:
SEE SYSTEMIC TRUTH HERE

[Sye],
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)

First, let’s consider sentence structure:
Every sentence contains (or implies) two parts; a subject and a predicate. The predicate, or course, is what is said about the subject

EXAMPLE 1:
Consider this sentence,
“Do Hard Rocks exist?”
At first glance this seems like a reasonable question, and it is to a certain degree, however it can be easily simplified. As it stands, however, we have the subject, “Hard Rocks” and the predicate, “Exist”. The question then, is whether or not the predicate “exist” can be applied to the subject “Hard Rocks”.

But let’s simplify the question and rather ask:
“Are Rocks Hard?”
Let me take a step back though and explain why I’m simplifying the question. In the previous sentence, “Hard Rocks” was my subject, however we’d all agree before hand that “hardness” exists, and we’d all agree before hand that “rocks” exist, furthermore, proof (correspondingly) can be offered as to the reality of each. As a result, the question isn’t whether or not “Hard Rocks” exist, (or better put, whether or not “exist” is a valid predicate to “Hard Rocks”), rather the real question is whether or not the predicate “Hard” is valid when applied to the subject “Rocks”. Of course the obvious answer to the question (which we’d all give), is yes, the predicate “Hard” certainly does apply to subject “Rocks”. The key again being, that we understand before hand and can prove by itself the reality of both subject and predicate.

FACTORING:
Now, let me take this even slower; what I’ve done here in reducing the question is what they refer to in mathematics as “Factoring”. In other words in the sentence, “Do Hard Rocks exist?” we’re actually calling into question this statement: “Do (Hard+exist)+(Rocks+exist)=exist Yes?” So, all I’ve done with the question “Are Rocks Hard?” is factor out the “exist” to come up with, “Are Rocks Hard? Yes.” as we all agree in the application of the predicate hard to the subject rock, and furthermore that they both exist on their own. .

EXAMPLE 2:Lets look at another question,
“Do Windy Rocks exist?”
Once again we can factor out exist from this question and simply say, “Are Rocks Windy?” and ask whether or not the predicate “Windy” applies to “Rocks”. Of course I don’t need to answer that question as we’d all correspondingly agree that rocks are in fact not windy.

EXAMPLE 3:
Now, lets look at your question,
“Does Absolute Truth exist?”
I take it by now that you see your underlying flaw in logic, but if not, let’s proceed.

Asking the question in this way assumes that we can factor “exist” from both “Absolute” and “Truth” as if we all agreed to the reality and existence of both. But there are two huge problems here which lie in the questions, “What is absolute?” and “What is Truth?” and furthermore do either of them exist on their own in such a way that to ask the question, “Does Absolute Truth exist?” make sense?

So in order to predicate Truth with Absolute by asking the question, “Is Truth Absolute?”, we need to agree and establish before hand that both are A.) Valid as a subject and predicate – by - B.) Establishing that both have a reality by themselves.

SEE SYSTEMIC TRUTH HERE
I’ve already established in my original premise what truth is, so I won’t belabor the point except to say that, it’s only propositions that are true. In other words, things in and of themselves are not true as they do not by themselves carry the property truth; it’s only what we say about objects which are either true or false. In yet another way, truth exists in the instance we find that a proven predicate applies to a given/proven subject. Void of propositions then, there is no truth – at any rate you can see my original premise on Systemic Truth.

Let’s now look at Absolute then:
In order to establish the validity of your question/proposition, we must establish (outside of rhetorical space) the validity and existence of the word Absolute. Again, lets start by being simple. Absolute is of course a word we use (albeit rhetorically) in everyday speech; one might ask, “You wanna go to lunch?” and I may respond, “Absolutely!” and of course we can all see how this response is a rhetorical one, as, I may not even be able to go, I may not go, and maybe I will go. We can create an analog to this statement with the proclamation, “I’ve been here forever!”, again, this is a rhetorical statement.

Of course we all use phrases like, “Forever”, “Infinity”, and “Absolute”, and in our everyday speech these are no doubt rhetorical statements. In mathematics (for example) we have the theoretical notion of “Infinity”, however the reality of such a case could never be proven, likewise with the notion of “Forever” (unless one can prove otherwise). So it’s obvious then, that we need to substantiate the validity of the notion “Absolute” prior to being able to apply it as a valid predicate to a given subject; and this is why the statement/proposition/question, “Does absolute truth exist?” doesn’t make sense.

In light of this we know that (in the same way we can surmise about infinity) for something to be absolute if must fulfill the following criteria which I’ve already established in my original question, (which is):

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

The Question:
A.) State a truth/law that you consider absolute.
B.) Demonstrate for us how that truth/law satisfies 1 – 4 above.
C.) Show how that truth/law is not “Systemic”

Further more then, in order to ask in honest fashion the question, “Does absolute truth exist?” we must first establish the validity of “Absolute” by demonstrating it as asked above, otherwise what’s being stated is merely a rhetorical question that, where-as it may exist as a seemingly logical question, does not have existence in reality. In other words, (as it’s rhetorical) its existence is only conceptual (theoretical) until it’s shown that absolute has existence outside of that.

With that, Sye, I believe you have a proof to give; and whereas it may be tempting to merely defer to the question, “Is what you say absolutely true?” I believe I’ve clearly shown that the BURDON OF PROOF is clearly in your court.

So lets have it….

Pre-suppositionalism

Sye is back at it HERE.

I miss that guy.

My Continued Debate with Sye

See Part 1 HERE
See my premise for Systemic Truth HERE
See Sye's argument HERE

(MY COMMENTS IN BOLD)


Sye,
(food for thought, I don't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion with Stephen; so no need to answer to any of this at this time.)

I believe I’ve already accounted for the propositions of logic in my world view. I realize once again that you do not agree with my world view, but you have also never accounted for it. You simply say, "Why should I believe in your system of truth?" Which is where I respond, because you cannot prove yours. You also say, "Your system of truth is absurd." Yet you've never offered proof as to how and why it is. So following that, Sye does not exist because he is absurd.


That a logical proposition is immaterial MAY be the case, and according to your assertion it MAY even be the case that God exists - but neither has been proven. A logical proposition correlates to objective reality and that it is immaterial can be seen to be somewhat of a misnomer. For example one might say that 1+1=2 is an immaterial proposition. However this proposition is meaningless by itself as it was derived from the experience of reality as in 1[apple]+1[apple]=2[apples]. In this case the law of logic here is not immaterial in that what our language (the proposition) is reflecting is a change of state in reality. 1+1=2 in this case is a mere linguistic affirmation that this was the case. To say that any logical proposition stands by itself in some immaterial way is to suggest that it is the case outside an object in which it applies to. Which means it would be not relative, or absolute. But this is impossible. Truth is [after all] systemic.

As a result, logical propositions (which are what you call the LAWS of logic) cannot stand by themselves in any absolute sense, so further are not really immaterial at all. If all you mean by immaterial is that thought and language are void of substance, I say that they are contingent (systemically dependent) upon substance. In this way the laws of logic are not derived from God, but systemically from the world. Again (as I’ve said to you before) in order to even put forth a proposition one first needs a method of resolution and in this way your “IMMATERIAL LAWS OF LOGIC” do not stand as being contingent upon God, but relative to the world [system] at large. Furthermore, before there was mind to make propositions, no propositions even existed, therefore no absolute law of logic existed in this instance. The only propositions that exist with regard to the past are ones we make relative to our current position. To put it another way, if the laws of logic are immaterial and absolute (not relative & true for every possible circumstance) then you must show that these laws necessarily existe[d] without mind and without the material world. if you cannot, then it stands that truth is then necessarily systemic.

So what "law of logic" then, is necessarily absolute, and what proof can you offer that it is not contingent [relative to] upon mind and/or matter? Without this, you can throw your proof out the window. If you can't do that, in the vary least offer a proof against systemic truth that doesn't borrow from my world view.


And might I remind you Sye (followng from your tactics) that you struck Stephens argument here:
"(1) The existence of the Great Cosmic Wombat is a necessary precondition of there being laws of logic
(2) Laws of logic exist
Therefore: The Great Cosmic Wombat exists."

Because he was abandoning his world view. So be careful that if you engage my argument that you stay within the confines of your own absolute worldview. So calling it absurd, or reflecting on the possibility of other world views is no longer a valid argument in this case.

Sye, (just a reminder)
I posited my contrary justification for logic, but you were never able to refuted it; on 3 different bloggs. Regardless of whether I'm amateur at best (if even that), you've never answered to the fundamental questions I asked because you couldn't.

And,
if someone else here posits yet another system, chances are they will get the following response from you as I've seen it before (it's a canned response from you):

"What you fail to realize, is that even if your system of truth is valid, it would only be true for the system in which you are working. Anyone could posit another system, and it would necessarily have to be true. I could easily say “Well, you may think that I haven't proven anything according to your system of truth, but according to my system of truth, I have.”

This is hardly a refutation, it's merely a denial of the need for one. Furthermore it beggs the question as to why we should appeal to your system of truth.

You said to Kyle:

"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "

But you won't, so why should Kyle bother?

Sye, (here is my pink slip)
let my contention be(following systemic truth as my proof of ownership of logic), that your proof is not a proof for it contains an unargued for premise.

The statement, "It may be true for your system but not for mine", would be begging the question and not answer as to why I should buy into your system of truth.

This is where you say:
"that the proof is valid based on the impossibility of the contrary."

This too does not prove my claim to logic as being false.

Andre Louis said: "Sye, (here is my pink slip)"

Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
you stated:
"Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?"

Yes, that's in my premise which is posted here and at my blogg. You know it, you've read it.

Bottom line: I've posited a counter justification for the laws of logic with my premise on Systimic Truth (which states that the the laws of logic are SYSTEMIC, NOT absolute). In my proof I've shown how your idea of truth is not propositional, and furthermore not valid.

So,
staying within the confines of your worldview, prove me wrong. Recall that this requires you to:

A.)Show how the statement "Absolute truth exists" is propositional.

B.)Give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not Systemic.

Here's what you're doing Sye.
You state:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "

Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."

I reminded of this:
http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/07/stb-debate.html

@ Andrew

I said: ”Posit a contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it.”

You said: ”Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."

Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws. If you want to get into the debate and posit your justification for the universal, absract, invariant laws of logic, fine, but I could not care less about laws which you claim are only true to you.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
you said:
"Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws."

Eureka! You fail to realize the most fundamental element here Sye.

PROVE that my system is arbitrary and that absolute idealism is true? There is nothing arbitrary about my position. I posited a system for truth, refute it. I think YOUR system is made up, at least in my case I proved why I believe that to be the case, you offer nothing.

The problem is, Sye, is that you've perhaps figured out that the only way to refute my proof is to subscribe to my world view.

Furthermore, the whole point of this is that we're all on different pages and you need to prove that yours is the right page, as I/ME/ANDREW have already done.

Andrew Louis said: "PROVE that my system is arbitrary"

Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
You said:
"Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that."

Sye,
I don't believe in absolute truth, I've already shown it is an impossability. Your proposition above is therefore not valid in my worldview.

So, in light of that, what proof do you have that absolutes exist? Prove to me that, "absolute truth exists" is a proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

Andrew Louis said: "I don't believe in absolute truth"

I can't believe I'm doing this (again). Andrew, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye you said:
"is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"

That is not a valid proposition in my world view, so you must first prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

Andrew Louis said: "That is not a valid proposition in my world view"

It's not a proposition, it's a question.

Sye,
you said:
"It's not a proposition, it's a question." Regarding: "is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"

You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid.

So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

Andrew Louis said: "You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid."

Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer. Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid.

Sorry man, but you are boring me to tears, give it a rest already. The very owner of this blog has no problem with absolute truth, so go argue this where people are interested in hearing it.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
you said:
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer.

Given that I have proven that absolute truth is no such thing, I have already answered your question. You need only to re-read my proof, which I know you already know quite well.

So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

And you said:
"Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."

Prove this to be the case Sye. And understand that in doing so you must:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.

Andrew Louis said:” You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.”

I’m not at all mad, just extremely bored by you.

I said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."

You said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”

Yikes Andrew, this is your very claim. You are the one who believes in systemic truth, by definition, if your argument was valid, it would be only valid in your system. If you claim that your argument is valid outside of your system, you refute yourself. If you can’t see that. I really can’t help you.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye:
Lets try this again.

You said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."

I said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”

Perhaps you are having a lapse in understanding. Prove that it's only invalid in my system and that absolutes necessarily exist. Which of course requires you to:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

Nutcase:
You said:
"I am male" isn't absolute, but it's not arbitrary.

That's right, it's SYSTEMIC, like all truths.

Nutcase, (I love that name)
You don't understand, I've already offered a proof for systemic truth, Sye knows that (recall that Sye's first condition for being able to argue with him was that you needed to establish a justification for your use of logic). Now that I have, Sye refuses to refute that my claims are invalid and/or offer a proof that absolute truth necessarily exists. So he has nothing.

Absolutism [you see] is the vary foundation of his claim that God exists and I have undermined it. If he CANNOT offer a proof against systemic truth and show that, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic. Then the show is all over, his argument is toast.

Sye,
if you are trying to suggest that the proposition, "nutcasenightmare is a male", is absolutely true, then it must be so in every possible circumstance. Was he male before he was conceived. If not then how is that absolute?

Systemically it's true that he's male.

You know what, my proof is there. When you feel like refuting it Sye, and showing that,"that absolutes truth exists" is a proposition, then give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic, you let me know. You can post it on my blogg.

Andrew Louis said: "Systemically it's true that he's male."

Andrew, where is it true that HE is not male?

Cheers,

Sye

Andrew Louis said: "I'm not going to keep repeating it for you."

Thank goodness.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
you said:
"where is it true that HE is not male?"

I cover this vary explicitly in my proof. You're more then welcome to read it again.

Until you can define the standard of logic which you use to evaluate me, then everything you say is invalid. (your pink slip is suspect)

If your claim is that standard of logic you use is absolute, then surely you can see how it is not consistent with my proof, and therefor you should first refute my claims by:

proving , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

Recall Sye,
youve never refuted my world view.

You've never answered to the questions:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.

Yet by my proof (and in the string) I've answered ALL of your questions.

According to my world view the logic that your using to evaluate everyone is invalid unless you prove the above.

Once again YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Sye, (good)
You said: (not to me, but...)
"Do you have any problem with this argument?

[1.]All men are mortal
[2.]Socrates is a man
[3.]Therefore Socrates is mortal."

So, Sye, compare this to:
1. The existence of God is a nec precondition of the existence of logic
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore: God exists

So uhhh, do I have to point out the obvious? Perhaps I will anyway.
1.)That men are mortal can be shown to be true by itself.
2.)That Socrates is man can also be shown to be true by itself.
3.) Therefore we can conclude that 2 is 1.

So,
if you're suggesting that both arguements are the same. Then surely you have the missing proof for 1 that Stephen has been looking for and that shows it is true.

Also, you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity". Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement? If there isn't one, then surely the two arguements are not the same afterall.

Andrew Louis said: ”you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity".”

Yip

”Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement?”

Um, it is not an ultimate authority claim, but I’ll be glad to point it out to you anyway.
Premise one states “All men are mortal” and it begs the question that all men are in fact mortal. Of course you changed it by saying that it can be shown that men are mortal, but I’d love to see how it can be shown that all men are mortal.

Cheers,

Sye

INDEED SYE! PROOF!

And I would like to see you prove that, “that absolute truth exists” is a proposition, and show me an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.

@ Andrew,

Don't take this the wrong way Andrew, but do you do drugs?

Cheers,


Sye

Sye,
When you can prove me wrong you have my blogg address, drop me the proof anytime.

He's all yours you guys.

Andrew, it was a simple question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice.

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. Just for your future consideration,'blog' is short for "web log," hence the one 'g.'

Sye,
sorry I wasn't clear the first time.

When you can prove my proof wrong, "SYSTEMIC TRUTH", by showing, "That absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and give and example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic....

(as I said before, all your questions are already answered via what I've already stated and within my proof itself)

So drop me a line at my bloggggg when you have it, But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.

So,
he's all your guys.

Sye,
I just caught this as I was trolling through.

Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?

Perhaps you’d like to point out how Systemic Truth is invalid according to your world view. That would be the sane, non-drug induced thing to do. You seem to be really good at refuting everyone else here, but as of yet you have not refuted me, and in terms of intelligence I can assure you I’m the dummy here. So what does that make you Sye?

I’ll give it to you that you made an attempt, but you continually fail at:
Proving, “that systemic truth exists” is a valid proposition, and stating something that is an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

If your world view is correct, you should have no problem with this. I fail to understand why you cannot answer those fundamental questions. If you cannot, the system of logic you use on everyone else is invalid, and you have no claim to truth of your proof.

Then what Nietzsche said was true, “[Sye’s]God is dead”.

Andrew said: "Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?"

Knew it! That explains alot actually.

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
So then it should be quite easy for you to tear through the idea of Systemic Truth and prove it wrong. But first realize that to do so you must prove that your system of truth/logic is valid.

Why is that so difficult for you Sye? If you can’t, just say so.

The validity of your claim hangs upon your ability to do that.

Sye,
your knowledge of eastern religion is pathetic. Eastern religion is not pantheistic. You want pantheism, read Spinoza.
You have no idea what your talking about.

And by the way:
prove, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

Cheers,

Andy

Andrew said: "Eastern religion is not pantheistic."

What type of drugs do you actually take Andrew?

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it with 2 basic questions:

Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

yes, that is odd indeed.

Andrew said: "Sye, don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it"

What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.

If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:

Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system.

Prove otherwise Sye.

Andrew said: "It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system."

Um, Andrew, is it absolutely true that yours is the only system, or is it systemically true? And if yours is the only system, doesn't that MAKE any truth within that system absolutely true???

Cheers,

Sye

Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.

If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:

Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

@ Steven Carr

”traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. (Britannica online Encyclopedia)"

Sye,
nice jod on quoting the three fundamental laws of logic.

But, there seems to be one missing. Do you know the one? It's the one you use most often, and it's not in your list.

Sye says: (and I quote)
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity, but not each (read only one) is valid."

So uhhhh, hm, how come that isn't in your list of laws Sye, don't you find that a bit interesting?

Sye,
(Regarding being nice)

You’ll recall that as a result of you not being able to answer this:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

You simply said:
“Your on drugs” (yes, that’s real nice, and quite Christian.)

Then, when you finally do attempt to answer my question you don’t even answer the question, you simply ask more questions, as follows:

“What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!”

From here Sye I respond appropriately with the following:

“what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessarily apply to it."

If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:

Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.”

Now Sye,
I’m not sure if you can see whats going on here, but I’m doing to you what you do to everyone else. Whether or not you agree with my worldview or not, the fact remains that I’ve proved it, it stands in direct opposition to what you believe, and if you cannot account for it (refute it) by answering those two basic questions; then your logic within an absolute world view is invalid and I’m going to go smoke my victory cigar.

Andrew said: "You simply said:
“Your on drugs”"

No Andrew, your memory is clouded, I, out of sincere curiosity asked if you took drugs.

Sye,
Lets recap.

Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.

What's that matter Sye, can't do it? Just say so.

Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."

State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.

Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.

Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.

Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.

So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.

SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?

ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions

Andew Louis said: "Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic."

Andrew I said that I would only be addressing posts in this thread that address my 3 questions. Please post on another thread so I can ignore you there.

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?

Sye said essentailly:
I cannot prove that absolute truth exists. As a result I'm going to ignor it and continue saying:
"Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?"

Sye also essentialy said:
"I cannot give an example of an absolute truth, and I cannot even prove it's a valid proposition."

Come on Sye, if you're so absolutely sure you're right, then answer the questions. I've already answered yours.

Guess I was on the wrong thread:

Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."

State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.

Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.

Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.

Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.

So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.

SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?

ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions

Sye,
I have given you the basis for my beliefs. Now:

"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".

Andrew said: "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".

The law of non-contradiction.

Sye,
you said:
"the law of contradiction"

Sorry, this won't do, but thankyou Sye for finally TRYING to answer my questions.

how does the "law of non-contradiction" not stand in relation to other things? How is it independent? How is it not systemic? Where in a priori space doth float the proposition without objects and subjects.

For things to contradict, there exists things in RELATION to contradict with, and thereofore 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.

@ Andrew Louis,

The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.

Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on.

What this means is that, you start your argument out on an ASSUMPTION that there is absolute truth, and go on to assume that math and logic are absolute, and then go on to assume that morality is absolute, and then go on to assume that God is absolute.

So really, as Stephen initially suggested, you really have no proof at all for anything, other then to simply assert that God exists.

Which gets me to my original point. You use the assumed idea that laws are absolute to prove God, but since we now know that you freely admit you don't know this to be true (and can't prove it) you're really just working off the assumption (faith) of God.

Ahhhhh, yes. You definately lost now Sye, your argument is DONE.

Thankyou, drive through. ALL HAIL SYSTEMIC TRUTH

Andrew Louis said: "Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on."

Nope. You asked a simple question, I gave you a simple answer. Nice straw-man though :-D

Heading out now, hope to get to more later.

Cheers,

Sye

Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute. Which is hopelessly meaningless and essentailly says nothing is absolute.

And.... We're right back to systemic truth.

POW! It's magic.

Andrew said: "Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute."

Lovely more straw-men. I really am heading out, but it looks like you don't need anyone to argue with anyways :-D

Cheers,

Sye

Evidently you don't know what straw man means Sye.

At any rate, what form of logic are you using to evaluate my claim and how does that logic necessarily apply to it.

If your logic is absolute, the give me an example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic.

oh right, you can't. We jsut covered that.

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

Sye,
first off the SUN is not TRUE. Secondly, without a method of resolution your proposition is merely a relative statement about the past and not an absolute (not relative) one.

The "law of non-contradiction" is a language game that applies to your experience, not the world. In other words, before there was mind there were no objects to contradict eachother or themselves. There was nothing being proposed. Therefore the law is systemic, not absolute.

All the law of non-contradiction says is that you cannot have contradicting propositions (A cannot be -A). And again, where are the propositions without mind? What you say about the world is relative to you, what you say (your language), and what your saying it about, and contingent upon the means of coming to a given conclusion.

Answer me this Sye, what color was your hair before you were born?

Sye,
you're doing your bit on ignoring where you can't use the script.

So, I said:

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

Do you see it?
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. Which is to say we can see and prove it, and that falls into the argument for God.

But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove 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.

Sye,
you said:

"Well, if they aren’t universal, they don’t necessarily apply to my argument, if they aren’t abstract, please show me where they are, and if they aren’t invariant, please show me one that has changed, or tell me on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they will not change."

As you can see from my post above (#4 down) YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE ABSOLUTE. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground.

Sye,
I'll comment on one thing here, you said:
"So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction??? How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?"

2+2=4 is meaningless until applied to "SOMETHING". There is nothing valid or invalid about this, and also nothing absolute about it, it's jsut scribles. However when we understand these signs to represent quantities relative to the world (notice I said RELATIVE), we see that penguin is absurde, because we know penguine not to correspond to quantity. But perhaps there is a language where "penguine" is "4". However we wouldn't know such things unless you ask what a person means by that.

Whatever language and sybolism someone uses to communicate the idea of quantity is arbitrary. I could just as easily say, C&t#L. Now clearly you can see this statement is nonesense. But if I said to you that the symbol "C" represented a quantity 2 of something, "t" likewise 3, L was 5, and that the & sign represented the idea that we were summing these two quantities, and # equals the final answer 5. We now know that penguine, doesn't fit here, because of course a penguine is not an idea of quantity, it's word that correspnds to an object / mamal, that lives in the south pole.

Furthermore our idea of quantity is directly taken (systemicaly) from the world. From here the language and symbolism we use and assent to (relative to our community), is judged right or wrong based on how we use it relative to our current situation.

To put it another way:
What we sense with our senses is not what's in the wrong; what ends up being in the wrong is the way we communicate what we're sensing relative to the language we speak, and the meanings of the words we're using in context. In other words it's not nature that's right or wrong (nature holds no property of truth), it's the way we're communicating it relative to our communal language that's wrong.

Which gets me back to SYSTEMIC TRUTH where it is only propositions which are true or false. And we (mind) are the method of resolution to get to that.

Sye,
a vary brief point (phrased differently from earlier):

You often accuse us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.

However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."

So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY. So really you’re saying that it's NECESSARILY the case that you don't have a proof because you’re violating one of your absolute and thus violating the nature of God.

(oh boy, violating God)

The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (which you believe to be absolute as well). I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.

(and violating God’s nature yet again, sheesh)

So you only have a proof if you can violate God’s nature.