How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2014, 12:22 AM
How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
"Proof that god exists"

His arguments feel brainwashy and obnoxious to me, but they're unrefutable. Any logical argument against them relies upon logic, which requires God. I don't know how he can be happy about this either. Christians always assert that life is meaningless without God, but I find it meaningless with their god. If the Bible is true, any sort of fun WHATSOEVER is evil and punishable with eternal torture. If the Bible is true, I will be bored for an eternity. That doesn't sound very meaningful to me. This doesn't help my already extreme depression, since there doesn't appear to be any way out of his arguments.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 12:27 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 12:37 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
I believe some one some where else has already pointed out the yawning chasms that Mister Bruggencate's words are full of some where else upon the forums.

Sadly, I am close to toddling off for the night and have scant time to search, I apologize. Sad

I think there was also a rather good 'Debunking debate' linked some where here abouts as well between Sye and some one... :/

I think there's a sneaky 'Presupposition' hidden under/inside most of his points. Beyond that I leave the floor open to a more learned forum member.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 12:27 AM
RE: How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
(30-05-2014 12:22 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  "Proof that god exists"

His arguments feel brainwashy and obnoxious to me, but they're unrefutable. Any logical argument against them relies upon logic, which requires God. I don't know how he can be happy about this either. Christians always assert that life is meaningless without God, but I find it meaningless with their god. If the Bible is true, any sort of fun WHATSOEVER is evil and punishable with eternal torture. If the Bible is true, I will be bored for an eternity. That doesn't sound very meaningful to me. This doesn't help my already extreme depression, since there doesn't appear to be any way out of his arguments.

Sye Ten's apologetic is built upon flawed assumptions, mainly that he can trust in his god to not lie to him. It's all bullshit presuppositionalism and circular reasoning.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-05-2014, 12:58 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 01:39 AM by Aseptic Skeptic.)
Ice is cold
So, first we play some word games.

1. If I don't care whether "absolute truth" exists, I am kicked off the site. Fair enough, why force this shit onto someone who doesn't care? So I'll assume that I care.
2. If I don't know whether "absolute truth" exists, I get word games "is it absolutely true that absolute truth doesn't exist?". Fair enough, those word games are reasonably valid, so I am forced to the next page, but that's OK, it's the option I would have picked anyway.
3. If I don't "know anything to be true" I get the same word games to force me to admit that I know some things are true. Fair enough, because I do know somethings are true. For example, I have a nose. This is true, it's even absolutely true. No, I won't bother with brain-in-a-jar-hallucinating or universe-is-just-a-computer-simulation silliness; I'm too existential for that. So I am forced to the next page, but that's OK, it's the option I would have picked anyway.
4. If I say that logic does not exist, I get more word games that force me back to say that logic does exist. It's actually rather funny - I especially liked the bit about arbitrarily clicking the other button. So I am forced to the next page, but that's OK, it's the option I would have picked anyway.
5. He gets even more humorous with the "Logic does not change" question. If I pick that logic can change, he actually makes me laugh as he forces me to pick that logic doesn't change. So once again, I am forced to the next page, but that's OK, it's the option I would have picked anyway.
(although I have to admit that I'm not 100% sold on this answer. Maybe logic does change. That's a deeply profound question, actually, but at least superficially it seems like it doesn't change, so I will stick with that choice)
6. Logic is made of matter. LOL. The question itself is immaterial (see what I did there?). Well, at least it's laughable. But it is funny to play with the material option. I like that he told me that I have bigger problems than his website can handle. Cute. Obviously logic is not made of matter so I am forced to the next page, but that's OK, it's the option I would have picked anyway.
7. Now he asks if logic is relative. If I say "yes" then I get "If you believe that logic is relative, then you don't." I'm not quite sure this makes sense to me, but OK, whatever, I only picked it because I was curious to see what he'd do. Again, I am forced to the next page, but that's OK, it's the option I would have picked anyway.
8. Finally, I get to the last page of this crap. He repeats what I've chosen: "To reach this page you have admitted that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal." OK, I have no really definite arguments so far. I'm good with where we are.
Then he says "Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING..." OK, fine, I can agree.
And then for the big fail: "...and cannot be made sense of apart from God."

What the fuck?

Where did this come from. I thought he was going to prove that god exists???

All the does is miraculously insert god into his presupposition. He was fine up to this point; I was willing to play along and pretty much agreed with everything in his summary statement where he repeated what I had selected. But now suddenly he just assumes I agree with this crap that I "cannot make sense of truth, knowledge, and logic apart from god."

No, no, no, NO!!!

This I do NOT agree with. At all. That's a huge assumption, assuming that god is the cause of truth, knowledge, and logic. He cannot simply prove that god exists by assuming that god exists. For this step to make any sense, ANY SENSE AT ALL, he would need to PROVE THAT WE CANNOT MAKE SENSE OF TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, OR LOGIC APART FROM GOD. He offers no such proof. Just the assumption, the presupposition, that it's true.

Which it isn't.

Click the button and he says "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."

Still more presuppositions with ZERO PROOF.

Where does he get this crap?

Oh. Here's where:

"While this proof is valid, no one needs this proof. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him."

While this proof is valid? VALID? He inserts his conclusion into his presupposition and calls it valid?

Hey, I can do that too. I can prove that ice is cold.
1. Is ordinary ice made of water? If you say no, I'll play word games to make you say yes.
2. Is ice hard? If you say no, I'll call you silly and make you say yes.
3. So, to get to this point, you agreed that ordinary ice is hard water. As we know, hard water cannot exist apart from cold, therefore, ice is cold.
4. And this proof is VALID because there are only two types of people in the world, those who know ice is cold and those who don't. I never attempt to prove the existence of cold because cold is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in cold.

QED.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
30-05-2014, 01:25 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 01:43 AM by Aseptic Skeptic.)
But wait, there's more...
Sye`s dumb website Wrote:Why is God Necessary For:

Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know.

More presupposition. Why does the "someone" have to be "God"? Couldn't it be Buddha? Quetzalcoatl? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I will grant that, while I believe that I have a nose, I consider that fact to be a fact, irrefutable knowledge, I cannot absolutely know that something I don't know (e.g. that I am only an A.I. simulation in a mega-computer) could prove me wrong. His point is valid in the sense that everything we think we know might be wrong, but I'm willing to believe that the world is what it seems to be rather than making unfalsifiable claims that it could be something else.

Sye`s dumb website Wrote:Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.

"brain-fizz"?

What a stupid idea.

This load of crap is disgusting. He seems to think that our thoughts being a "mere by-product of the electrochemical process in our evolved brains" means everything must be random.

This is a common mistake of theists and apologists, assuming that evolution is random, lucky chance, one a gajillion, infinitely improbable, like a tornado building a jumbo jet in a junkyard.

Bullshit.

There is nothing random about it. Sure, chance played some small part in evolution. By chance, occasional beneficial mutations occur and are passed on to future generations making them better selected to survive in their environment. But bad mutations occur too, and bazillions of mutations, more bad than good, are guaranteed to randomly provide some good stuff, eventually. And since many of those good mutations persist and most of the bad mutations inevitably disappear through extinction, eventually evolution has resulted in producing evolved electromechanical brains capable of ORDERLY and NON-RANDOMLY producing coherent thoughts, on purpose, deliberately, most of the time. When we're not drunk or high.

"Chemicals do not produce truth; they just react". Well, that's fundamentally true. Chemicals do not produce truth, but a long series of electrochemical reactions in an orderly, evolved brain, can and obviously do lead to thoughts. Some of which are meaningful and true, while some are not.

"For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm."

More presuppositional bullshit. Again, why not Allah or Brahma or Zeus? But more importantly, where is his proof that our electromechanical brains cannot have evolved the ability to understand and generate truth? He can say it all he wants, but his only "proof", and it's not really proof at all, is that his holy book tells him it's true.

Sye`s dumb website Wrote:Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change.

This is the most laughable and ironic part of this whole page. His holy book says we need god (not Odin or Osirus or Lord Xenu) to have logic. So, basically, he believes that some book of ancient mythology tells him that he cannot produce logic without the mythological boogeyman in the book and his "logical" mind says "Yeah, that's so TRUE!".

That's the most illogical line of crap on this site: "I know logic exists because god is logical and god exists and god gives me logic so that I can know that logic exists because god is logical and god exists and god gives me logic so that I can know that logic exists because..."

If he's so fucking logical, then why doesn't he know how illogical his circular reasoning (un-reasoning) really is?

I so wish that Sye could see how ironically illogical his "logical" proof is.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
30-05-2014, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 02:23 AM by rampant.a.i..)
How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
It's a parlor trick. Given the number of debates he's engaged in, he knows what he's going is deceptive, and doesn't make rational sense. That's why he speeds through the debate trying to force the answers he wants to build his deceptive argument.

Logic and reason predate the Christian God's revelation through Christianity, and the God of the Israelites before that, and I've never once heard Sye make a claim disputing that. You can't base logic, morals, ethics, reason "on the Christian worldview" or the Christian God, because those things far predate Christianity.

Existence is prime. No worldview can change observable cause -> effect relationships (above the quantum level).

Even if he were to be correct, and we could not make rational judgements about the world, there would be no discernible difference between a Gnostic Atheist with what he defines as an irrational worldview making rational choices, or a Christian making rational choices.

If the only morality and ethics we had access to were those given to us by God, we would be simply unable to read the bible and criticize God's behavior.

His reasoning is entirely circular, he draws his premise from his conclusion. The "Proof that God exists is without him you could not prove anything," and non-falsifiable claims are not even wrong.

If logic, math, science and morality are not made of matter, they are "immaterial" in a narrow sense, but not immaterial in a literal sense. They are conceptual, a hidden third option he does not provide.

He does, however, characterize them as "abstract." By the definitions he's laying out, a God that is immaterial would have to be abstract, or conceptual, neither of which are capable of thought or action.

He then goes on to characterize mathematics and logic as "Universal Laws" and advances the argument that there must be a "Lawgiver" to make sense of that "fact." However, his appeal to authority (God says so :. It's true) is given a special pleading status that exempts it from the Universal Laws he just laid out. A cause could be made that God deserves special pleading for the ability to "speak" things into existence, but he them goes on to assert that Universal Laws are unchanging, and yet the one of "Rational laws" he's invoking to make his argument, and just cast as "unchanging" is causality, and a cause would have to exist for changes in "Universal Law" to take place, otherwise the distinction between changing and unchanging is meaningless.

Never mind that he's never actually made a case for why God is necessary for any of this to be the case; he just assumes it.

A thing can only be universal and unchanging if it is conceptual. Immaterial things do not have this property, only concepts do. For example: for Math to include the unchanging truths that "1+1=2" and "Pi," or the infinite set of irrational numbers between 0 and 1, it must be conceptual, otherwise all math is irrational.

And if any of the "Universal Laws" are "immaterial" but not conceptual, they do not exist at all.

If Sye's God is immaterial yet not conceptual, Sye's God does not exist.

And if Sye's God is immaterial and conceptual, God does not exist outside of his imagination.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
30-05-2014, 01:46 AM
RE: How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
(30-05-2014 12:22 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  His arguments feel brainwashy and obnoxious to me, but they're unrefutable.

Hopefully now you have some refutations. I hope that maybe this will give you a little hope for humanity and might help you battle your depression.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 02:37 AM
How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
(30-05-2014 01:46 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 12:22 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  His arguments feel brainwashy and obnoxious to me, but they're unrefutable.

Hopefully now you have some refutations. I hope that maybe this will give you a little hope for humanity and might help you battle your depression.

Or something. Listen, if it makes you feel any better, there's a position I've long held that I can't quite quantify correctly:

Given that God is omnipresent, exists outside of space and time and everywhere at once, yet intangible, has characteristics yet cannot be by definition confirmed or disproved empirically, is said to interact with the world only by cosmic events rationally explainable, save for a book with no empirical evidence for the events said to transpire in realize by that book, and many, many conceptualizations of God exist far predating the Christian worldview, even though God is said to be eternal and unchanging, God only qualifies as a concept.

For concepts to exist, a mind a required.

And there is no real world distinction between a concept used to explain events in the material world, and an intangible, non-falsifiable, empirically exempt entity.

Therefore: God exists.

In the mind of believers in God, as a concept, that only manifests in the material wold through material means otherwise explicable.

Therefore God is imaginary.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 03:15 AM
RE: How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
(30-05-2014 12:22 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  His arguments feel brainwashy and obnoxious to me, but they're unrefutable. Any logical argument against them relies upon logic, which requires God.

Except that it doesn't. In fact, it's exactly the opposite, God requires logic in order to exist in your mind.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 03:19 AM
RE: How would you deal with Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments?
Nothing makes sense to me anymore. I guess I'm just retarded. This should have been obvious from my birth.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: