RE: Sye Ten debate tactics
April 11, 2014 at 12:01 am
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2014 at 12:06 am by Heywood.)
(April 10, 2014 at 11:46 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Isn't that basically what I was saying? :p
My post wasn't meant to disagree with you but rather to flesh out the point you made.
(April 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm)JuliaL Wrote:(April 10, 2014 at 11:46 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Isn't that basically what I was saying? :p
He/she is right.
My take is that you are both describing the same objection to Sye's argumentation. Same idea, different words.
May I offer a third, very similar take:
Sye's argument is:
1) You may be wrong. Such is a universal human condition. Admit it.
2) My position is different than yours because I am informed by an all knowing, all powerful deity who says I am right. The deity has imposed this knowledge forcefully on me and says he isn't lying so I must BE right.
My objection is, that though Sye may be forced to believe by this deity, there is no way for the deity to know that it is all knowing and therefore no way for Sye to know if he was forced by the deity accurately or not. The same objection can be repeated up through the chain of meta-gods. This corresponds to the recursion which, as MFM states (more formally and correctly than I will ever,) never terminates.
If Sye concludes human reasoning to be unreliable how can he depend on his belief in this deity to be reliable in the first place?
I listened to this debate for half an hour before I concluded it wasn't going anywhere meaningful. I think Sye was horrible but so was the atheist guy.
