On Sye’s own website, ‘Proof that God exists‘, you follow a trail of questions set as dominoes erected to direct you to the desired conclusion:
1. Absolute Truth Exists: I chose yes, ignoring that knowledge will never be perfect or complete. It turns out that when presups ask this question, they’re only talking about whether we can determine whether a claim is true or not; that’s it. Well of course we can. But a statement isn’t “truth” just because you assert it or believe it is true; we can’t call it ‘truth’ until you can SHOW that it is true. This undermines the whole of theology. The faithful say they’re gonna believe what they wanna believe regardless what the facts are, but ‘what the facts are’ is what the truth is, and if it isn’t factual, then it isn’t correct.
2. I Know Something to be True: Actual knowledge is demonstrable with measurable accuracy. This does not apply to anything Sye claims to ‘know’. So he cannot honestly claim that he actually knows anything he brags about knowing. These are only his beliefs, and they are non-sequitors based only on faith. All *my* knowledge is verifiably accurate, but Sye says it isn’t, because he says that I can’t be sure whether I might be insane, or [he says] it might that reality isn’t reliably real, and might become a different reality in the future. Not kidding! he actually asked me how I know that the laws of physics won’t change five seconds from now! My answer? Because reality is really real, unlike the alternative he’s trying to promote.
3. Logic Exists: Yes, multiple modes of reasoning do exist, and the sensible ones all stand against faith-based beliefs.
4. Logic Does Not Change: It does actually, that’s why there are multiple modes under study. However I only consider one sort of logic as being valid, so I discard unreasonable alternatives.
5. Logic is Not Made of Matter: While all thoughts are generated by physical minds using chemical processes, I will still concede that logic is an intangible abstract concept.
6. Logic is Universal: Obviously this is not the case, Sye uses a different ‘logic’ than sane or honest people would. But I still argue that everyone should use the same logic that I do, ignoring invalid alternatives. So I answered yes again.
The next line reads:
“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.”
Thus the ‘proof of God’ is:
“Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God.”
Wait, what? Wrong! The universe only makes sense when we stop trying to incorporate gods, ghosts, and magic into it. Nothing can either be explained or accounted for if we try to involve an imaginary overlord.
Because knowledge is demonstrable with measurable accuracy, and because truth is whatever we can SHOW to be actually factually true, then according to the only logic that makes sense, all the claims of religion are unsupported faith-based assertions of blind belief with no truth in them.
Sye repeats his assertion thus:
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.”
Wow, is that wrong! Proof -in this context- is defined as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Sye offers no evidence whatsoever; only the logical fallacy of a non-sequitur.
But he [relentlessly, obstinately] continues:
“While this proof is valid”,
No it isn’t.
…”no one needs this proof.”
Everyone needs better proof than that. We need something which at least meets the minimum criteria for the least that ‘proof’ can be. What Sye has provided doesn’t even count as evidence because it’s not even factual.
The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world,
…those who’s sins will be forgiven if they profess a belief in impossible nonsense, and those who’s ‘good works will be likely filthy rags’ if they’re not gullible enough to be saved.
those who profess the truth of God’s existence
the truth being that he evidently doesn’t exist
and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence.
that would be those who ignore the evidence and claim continued belief on faith
The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable.
Wrong. Sye wants a false dichotomy, eliminating the overwhelming majority by definitional fiat.
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.
That’s just one more thing the Bible is wrong about.
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.
Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God.
Wrong, unsupported non-sequitur, and demonstrably false.
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.
As Sye himself demonstrated, both on his website, and with me on Dogma Debate, he couldn’t prove anything *WITH* God. The only way you can prove anything is by abandoning inherently auto-deceptive faith, and turning to objective confirmation and rational evaluation of factual evidence instead.