Sye Ten debate tactics

[Esquilax]

His argument in a nutshell:

"Ha ha, you admit you don't know everything and therefore Jesus"

As far as I can tell, the goal is to pack as much stupid into a short argument so the density will be so great that is will collapse in on itself, becoming a black hole of idiocy and will suck in and devour all rational arguments within its event horizon.

It's simpler than that: he just calls epistemological "first", as if he can claim ownership over the very concept of knowing things, and then expects everyone else to go along with his childish "it's mine now!" tactic, and bow to the additional bare ass assertions he makes. You don't have to, but as long as he refuses to answer any questions then he can walk away thinking we had no answer, and therefore he must be right.

So, argument from ignorance + being an asshole = Sye Ten Bruggencate.

[tor]

His argument in a nutshell:

"Ha ha, you admit you don't know everything and therefore Jesus"

As far as I can tell, the goal is to pack as much stupid into a short argument so the density will be so great that is will collapse in on itself, becoming a black hole of idiocy and will suck in and devour all rational arguments within its event horizon.

It's simpler than that: he just calls epistemological "first", as if he can claim ownership over the very concept of knowing things, and then expects everyone else to go along with his childish "it's mine now!" tactic, and bow to the additional bare ass assertions he makes. You don't have to, but as long as he refuses to answer any questions then he can walk away thinking we had no answer, and therefore he must be right.

So, argument from ignorance + being an asshole = Sye Ten Bruggencate.

Doug Wilson did same against Hitchens.
"We are fizzing like 2 bottles of matter if atheism is true. Who is winning the debate? Nobody! We are just fizzing! If atheism is true nobody can know anything and therefore jesus is our saviour".
Give me a break.

[DeistPaladin]

Doug Wilson... [said] "If atheism is true nobody can know anything and therefore jesus is our saviour".
Give me a break.

This sounds like a subset of the Creationist attempt to turn a weakness (in this case, their unreasonable certainty of an a priori conclusion without evidence and against all evidence) into a strength. Being open to new evidence and willing to change one's mind based on new data is ought to be thought of as an intellectual virtue.

Creationism takes a different approach and plays on the human emotional need for certainty. Our brains are wired to fear the unknown and prefer a made-up answer to none at all. It takes the approach of pointing out how science "changes its mind all the time" and draws upon frauds exposed by the method of peer review.

The process of harping on changes made by a self-correcting system is the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", that is asserting that because science was wrong about the Piltdown Man, how can we ever trust it? Presup seems to use the same deceptive but emotionally soothing tactic of appealing to our need for certainty.

[tor]

Doug Wilson... [said] "If atheism is true nobody can know anything and therefore jesus is our saviour".
Give me a break.

This sounds like a subset of the Creationist attempt to turn a weakness (in this case, their unreasonable certainty of an a priori conclusion without evidence and against all evidence) into a strength. Being open to new evidence and willing to change one's mind based on new data is ought to be thought of as an intellectual virtue.

Creationism takes a different approach and plays on the human emotional need for certainty. Our brains are wired to fear the unknown and prefer a made-up answer to none at all. It takes the approach of pointing out how science "changes its mind all the time" and draws upon frauds exposed by the method of peer review.

The process of harping on changes made by a self-correcting system is the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", that is asserting that because science was wrong about the Piltdown Man, how can we ever trust it? Presup seems to use the same deceptive but emotionally soothing tactic of appealing to our need for certainty.

But doug raises interesting point about fizzing.
If humans are matter in motion how do you know whos thoughts are right and whos thoughts are not right? Doug is fizzing theistically and thinking he is right. And Hitchens is fizzing atheistically and thinks he is right.
How do you know who is right if they are just fizzing and they have no free will to choose what they think?
When people think they are right they have no choice to think they are right regardless if they are actually right.

[DeistPaladin]

But doug raises interesting point about fizzing.
If humans are matter in motion how do you know whos thoughts are right and whos thoughts are not right? Doug is fizzing theistically and thinking he is right. And Hitchens is fizzing atheistically and thinks he is right.
How do you know who is right if they are just fizzing and they have no free will to choose what they think?
When people think they are right they have no choice to think they are right regardless if they are actually right.

The topic of free will vs. determinism is an interesting one but not related to theism vs. atheism.

The reason I say this is because there are four possibilities:
1. God exists, who has planned everything, including our thoughts and actions. (Providence or theistic determinism)
2. God does not exist, all our actions and thoughts are the inevitable result of prior events. (atheistic determinism)
3. God exists but not everything is planned. (theistic free will)
4. God does not exist and the future is not set. (atheistic free will)

Of course, the Bible is divided on this issue of determinism vs. free will but far more verses favor determinism. According to most passages of the Bible that speak on this topic, there is an "elect" that has been chosen by Yahweh to be saved. We as free thinkers and skeptics have had our hearts hardened so that their wisdom will seem as folly to us.

Going deterministic does not help their position.

[tor]

But doug raises interesting point about fizzing.
If humans are matter in motion how do you know whos thoughts are right and whos thoughts are not right? Doug is fizzing theistically and thinking he is right. And Hitchens is fizzing atheistically and thinks he is right.
How do you know who is right if they are just fizzing and they have no free will to choose what they think?
When people think they are right they have no choice to think they are right regardless if they are actually right.

The topic of free will vs. determinism is an interesting one but not related to theism vs. atheism.

The reason I say this is because there are four possibilities:
1. God exists, who has planned everything, including our thoughts and actions. (Providence or theistic determinism)
2. God does not exist, all our actions and thoughts are the inevitable result of prior events. (atheistic determinism)
3. God exists but not everything is planned. (theistic free will)
4. God does not exist and the future is not set. (atheistic free will)

Of course, the Bible is divided on this issue of determinism vs. free will but far more verses favor determinism. According to most passages of the Bible that speak on this topic, there is an "elect" that has been chosen by Yahweh to be saved. We as free thinkers and skeptics have had our hearts hardened so that their wisdom will seem as folly to us.

Going deterministic does not help their position.

No I'm saying that if humans are just matter in motion which obey laws of physics everything they think is a result of laws of physics. If I had Doug Wilsons atom arrangement and temperature I would think everything he thinks and for the same reasons and would think those reasons are good.
Regardless if it's random or not. So people think they are right because their atoms decide it is so. Of course physicist are right because it is proven by computers that are working, planes that are flying etc.
But is still an interesting point.

[JuliaL]

Hahaha. Oh this makes me laugh. But he still has task to figure out what god is saying. Cause different people claim god says different things.

I disagree. He doesn't have to figure out what god is saying. And it doesn't matter what others claim. God (the all powerful all loving all etc) has forced this knowledge into him. It is not his. And because this is GOD herself, the knowledge can't be from a Cartesian demon.
My attack would be against the possibility of a being having all knowledge, including knowledge of its own omniscience. Knowing there is nothing you don't know is denied by incompleteness. If the supposedly omniscient being can be wrong (in what it doesn't know) then Sye cannot trust the accuracy of its assertions (as instanced by its usurpation of his mind.)