an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Sye Tenbruggencate and his worthless argument.

So, I had a look at the ‘Proof that God Exists’ website run by Sye Tenbruggencate, and emailed him to point out that the TAG argument is nothing more than word play, proving nothing.

I began by asking him to 1) prove that gods exist, and then 2) prove that his particular version of his particular god is the ‘right’ one, this is the reply I got –

“P1 The God of Christianity is the necessary precondition for intelligibility.
P2. There is intelligibility
C. Therefore the God of Christianity exists.”

Hmmm. Well, that’s interesting. It doesn’t prove anything at all, and relies entirely on belief in gods as part of its evidence to show they exist.

I countered with –

‘1. Unicorns are needed for intelligence to exist
2. Intelligence exists
3. Therefore unicorns exist’

It’s bollocks of course, just like Sye’s argument (which is, as far as I understand it, the same as Matt Slick’s).

I’ve gone back to him and asked him to prove that “The God of Christianity is the necessary precondition for intelligibility”, I wonder what he’ll say next?

EDIT – I just read this – http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/sye-show-continues.html – and was very amused by his argument that counters Sye (and the rest of the pre-sup crowd)

Single Post Navigation

39 thoughts on “Sye Tenbruggencate and his worthless argument.

  1. Alex,>>EDIT – I just read this – [Stephen Law] and was very amused by his argument that counters SyeStephen Law's whole premiss is on Sye having brain damage. Stephen said: "Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock." We took a moment to conclude that the fact that he was discussing things with Sye and, attempting, to engage him in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that he believes that Sye is a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation. The evidence is within Stephen already, thus Sye didn't have to respond to any of Stephen Law's brain damage garbage because its already been revealed as a false premiss. Also, Stephan's whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy. Stephen Law was debunked by his own argument. Also, Sye stated it this way: The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!Any takers?

  2. 'Laws of Logic' are a man made idea, they say nothing about whether gods exist or not.I asked Sye to prove that gods exist and that his version of the one he believes in is the 'right' one – his only 'proof' was an entirely circular one. You can't prove something exists by using your belief in it as proof.There are no gods, never were.

  3. Alex,>>You can't prove something exists by using your belief in it as proof.Why not (within your worldview)? Is 'begging the question' absolutely fallacious?Because you bring up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.>>There are no gods, never were.This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that there is no God. Are you?In other words, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

  4. One more thing Alex,Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

  5. I'm sorry, but your TAG word games aren't going to fly here, it's purest bullshit."Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? "No, because to be omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously is impossible, no such being exists.You're not going to gain ANY ground here, I'd move onto some who might be stupid enough to believe your nonsense if I were you.

  6. Alex,>>I'm sorry, but your TAG word games aren't going to fly here…Are we to take that as you don't know how to address it, as in some pseudo avoidance mechanism? Just address the questions, don't try to run away like a scared little boy. Or concede to your lack. Then we can begin to understand Him more. Its a good thing. Never be afraid of, or run away from, truth."Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? ">>No, because to be omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously is impossible, no such being exists.No? You claim that its impossible for such a being to exist? To KNOW this, one would have to be omniscient them self. Thus, its directly a contradictory statement.It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity. Please try again. You are exposing, to hopefully yourself, that your worldview is reduced to the absurd. We can work with that to a better understanding. If you are willing that is. Is truth a bad thing? >>You're not going to gain ANY ground hereSo you admit that you are dogmatic about your beliefs? That is a step towards truth, yet again. Keep it up!

  7. Don't be a patronising dick, Dan, that's not going to fly here either."No? You claim that its impossible for such a being to exist? To KNOW this, one would have to be omniscient them self. Thus, its directly a contradictory statement."To be all knowing and all powerful at the same time is impossible – if one is all knowing one knows what one will do next, which prevents one from changing one's mind….so no longer all powerful. Really, the Christian obsession with making their god the biggest and the best has resulted in an impossible being.As for the rest of your reply, I'm not going to play your TAG games, not because I'm a 'scared little boy' but because I see right though it so am saving us all some time.

  8. Alex,>>Don't be a patronising dick, Dan, that's not going to fly here either.When things fly smack into your face, things have a way of discontinuing to fly, that is for sure. :7)>>if one is all knowing one knows what one will do next, which prevents one from changing one's mind….so no longer all powerful. And you KNOW this how? So you claim to KNOW that no one can KNOW? (snicker)Besides, you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.You inspired me to do a new post though. What you have said reminded me of a video I watched a couple of days ago.I titled it Atheism: Not KnowingI will remember you as one of the poster children for that one. Take care of yourself, and don't die before figuring all this out.

  9. Ah, so you're going with the old fall back of 'all powerful doesn't actually mean all powerful'! Good one! You're already diminishing the power of your god because you know it's a logical impossibility.I used to be a believer Dan, then I realised it was all garbage. You're right though, gods can't contradict their own characters, because they don't exist.

  10. The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic.Making assertions and thinking the assertion is right until it is proven wrong is not how things work, Dan.

  11. JC,>>Making assertions and thinking the assertion is right until it is proven wrong is not how things work, Dan.God being necessary for logic is my axiom.

  12. Gods not being necessary for logic is my axiom.Wow. Easy game to win.

  13. Indeed, The Bird.All that the TAG is is a logic word game, it doesn't say or prove anything in the real world. For some reason it's been hooked into by a small group of Christians who then smugly and almost aggressively push their views on others. Seemingly easily swayed by the circular logic of the argument, they feel like some great 'truth' has been revealed to them. In reality all they've done is buy into an argument that's similar to this – Light is the opposite of DarkAll feathers are lightTherefore no feathers are darkor my previously used example of -1. Unicorns are needed for intelligence to exist2. Intelligence exists3. Therefore unicorns existThe problem with it is that it doesn't actually prove its first proposition other than by assuming it's true for the purpose of the rest of the argument. Sye's version especially is easy to show as nothing but circular reasoning, as you can use it to prove that ANYTHING exists.Example – 1. Smurfs are required for intelligence to exist2. Intelligence exists3. Therefore Smurfs existAbsolute nonsense, and transparently so. People like Sye and Matt Slick (and apparently Dan) have bought into it hardcore, seemingly building an industry of bullshit around it (certainly a couple of crapola lying 'ministries'). I guess it helps them live with their reality denying delusions, as well as bringing in a few quid.As for 'laws of logic'….do a quick google and you'll find that no such things actually exist outside of joyless Calvinists discussing the TAG.

  14. Seemingly easily swayed by the circular logic of the argument…I don't think that they (or anyone for that matter) has been swayed by these "arguments". These people already believed in God and they worked backwards from there.It looks to me like their arguments are not meant to persuade non-believers but instead make believers feel like they have some intellectual reasoning behind their faith. I'm even sure that, when pressed, these people would even admit their arguments are circular.

  15. I think you're right JC.

  16. Alex,On your example of unicorns, I wanted to point out that unicorns do exist. Have you ever heard of Rhinoceros unicornis? Folk stories pointed to the Elasmotherium. Look it up.>>As for 'laws of logic'….do a quick google and you'll find that no such things actually exist outside of joyless Calvinists discussing the TAG.Thanks for admitting that the laws of logic do exist. As Sye once pointed out "Denying logic, includes denying the law of non-contradiction. If the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily apply, then by denying logic, you are actually affirming logic, since contradictions are allowed."Wow, you sure have an interesting (read absurd) worldview there. Keep up that great work.Politically do you lean to the left also? I was curious because if you ever wonder why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and liberals are called the “left”? The answer is in Ecclesiastes 10:2

  17. JC,>>I don't think that they (or anyone for that matter) has been swayed by these "arguments".Was never meant to be.>>These people already believed in God and they worked backwards from there.That might be a fair assessment.>>It looks to me like their arguments are not meant to persuade non-believers but instead make believers feel like they have some intellectual reasoning behind their faith.Actually, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.>>I'm even sure that, when pressed, these people would even admit their arguments are circular.Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.Problem is JC, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. Nevertheless, JC. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

  18. Wow, Dan, your ability to consistently type absolute bollocks is astounding. Even Joe Cienkowski occasionally says something that isn't entirely laughable nonsense.

  19. Dan said:"I wanted to point out that unicorns do exist."Nah dude, that's a rhinoceros. As Sye once pointed out…Why don't you just marry Sye?I was curious because if you ever wonder why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and liberals are called the “left”? The answer is in Ecclesiastes 10:2Nah dude, the answer is 18th century French parliament. Dan said to JC:"Problem is JC, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular."Dude, in case you didn't realize it, you have the same problem.

  20. Dan, you'll probably need some ointment to treat that burn.

  21. Bird,>>Why don't you just marry Sye?Hehe. He is a beautiful man but I am taken. Missed me by this much :7)Besides, it must mean that you wish to marry everyone you quote. Right? Otherwise its a Relativist Fallacy. >>Nah dude, the answer is 18th century French parliament. Yea, that last part was meant as playful joking. I did forget the :7) at the end. Here is another. The conservatives are “right” and the liberals don’t want to be called “wrong” so they call themselves “left”…See? Jokes.>>Dude, in case you didn't realize it, you have the same problem. And here I tried to preempt that typical response by quoting Greg Bahnsen. Maybe lack of understanding is an Atheistic trait. :7)

  22. "Dude, in case you didn't realize it, you have the same problem."Looks like you don't realize your problem.

  23. "See? Jokes."You've failed to understand the point of a joke it seems. Don't worry, I'm sure with the massive howlers that you're making about belief in invisible sky men who watch our ever move, no one will notice.Also, what the fuck is a colon seven? Is this some kind of smiley that only you use?

  24. Let's put it this way -There was a point in time before you heard this TAG argument so it follows that you also used reason to evaluate it and everything else.

  25. So, Dan, you used reasoning to evaluate your reasoning. Something that you claimed invalidated JC.

  26. This post has been removed by the author.

  27. Alex,Are you offering to rub some type of lotion on me? As inviting as that sounds, I was just goofing. If you haven't guessed it, I am straight. Please don't get your panties in a bunch over me. Lusting is a sin if you didn't know. :7)>>Is this some kind of smiley that only you use?Hehe, yea its me since I have a big Jew nose. :7)

  28. Don't try and be cute, Dan, I think you're a deluded idiot…you're NOT amongst friends here.

  29. Bird,>>There was a point in time before you heard this TAG argument so it follows that you also used reason to evaluate it and everything else. That may be true to a degree. I even placed myself in the Judges seat to judge God. Does not mean it was right though. Now, I understand more. You cannot fault me for advancement in my education about God.Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."Yes Alex, I understand I am in "Hostile" territory. Doesn't stop me from being entertained myself.

  30. Alex,>>Dan, I think you're a deluded idiot…you're NOT amongst friends here. Bandwagon fallacy? This is getting rich.

  31. "Van Til said it this way…."Van Til was the dick who made up all this worthless TAG shit, is mentioning him meant to impress anyone?"Bandwagon fallacy? This is getting rich."Dan, you're not in a position to mock anyone, you believer in fantasy.

  32. "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."Did you just prove there is no God? Well done!

  33. –gah, to be fair, it makes a great case for agnosticism.

  34. Dig that, the guy who complains about Van Til being quoted was the one quoting a science fiction writer in his failed "debate" with Matt Slick.

  35. If you would actually listen to the audio, S-bringer, Slick was trounced good and proper. He resorted to "you hate god, god-hater" and other childish nonsense. He has the mentality of a child – like you.

  36. "Dig that, the guy who complains about Van Til being quoted was the one quoting a science fiction writer in his failed "debate" with Matt Slick. "So, when are you going to call The Atheist Experience? Or are you too much of a coward, preferring to hide on your blog where you ban comments you don't agree with, or hanging out with the other deluded halfwits on Please Convince Me where you know you're 'safe'?Yeah, I think it's probably that you're a coward.

  37. "He has the mentality of a child – like you."Oooooh! Atheist intellectualism! I've been trounced too!With that kind of alleged thinking, no wonder you can't see how your tuppence hero lost handily.

  38. I think if you use skype it's free to call Atheist Experience….

  39. Pingback: It’s Been a Year Since I First Encountered Sye! « an atheist viewpoint

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: