Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A response to Sye from from his post on

Hey sye. Your little quiz on your site is logically flawed and completely stacked towards a foregone conclusion, which I'm sure you know.

I.E, in step one: Saying one does not believe in absolute truth and asserting a true or false question about whether one absolutely believes that, does not speak to a belief in an all emcompassing abolute truth. Facts are absolutely true. Caesar was killed on the floor of the senate, 2+2=4. but those aren't what one would consider truths, those are facts but hardly what any philosopher would consider great Truth. Ontological truth is not the only truth.

Step 7: Saying laws of science and mathematics are unchanging is one thing, but saying morality has not is absurd. It is clear that over time morality has evolved and changed. The Jews murdered children and women according to the supposed orders of God. Why is it now wrong to do so? Clearly this has changed. Nobody today would argue that a jericho situation is acceptable. I'd continue the quiz, but the fallacious conclusions are already clear.


  1. Hey,

    According to which standard of logic is my site 'logically flawed' how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

  2. I apologize. I do not look back at my archives terribly often, and did not see your comment here.

    The reason your site is logically flawed is that it presupposes things without a cause to do so. Instead of understanding that a conclusion must come from the evidence you have decided the conclusion and built a logically flawed argument to reach that conclusion. You equate non-absolutes with absolutes as well, which is a fallacious comparison.

    And logic, being a construction of the mind through experience and understanding does not require an outside source.