Conversation with Presuppositionalist Sye

This conversation began when I noticed the YouTube channel “ProofThatGodExists” has disallowed comments on their videos. I wasn’t sure what kind of support they have for monitoring their inbox, but since I could not ask questions on the video pages, I thought I would try to communicate with them through the YouTube inbox system. It’s a clumsy messaging system, but it’s better than nothing. I also have no way of knowing whether the person on the other end of this conversation was Sye Ten Bruggencate for certain, but whoever it was signed several of the messages “Sye” and, given the fact that it’s not a common name and I suspect the person or people who are responding there do not want to intentionally deceive people, I’m fairly confident it was indeed Sye Ten Bruggencate (SYE).

If you have never heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate, you can follow the links above on "ProofThatGodExists" and "Sye Ten Bruggenctae". ProofThatGodExists.org is Sye TB's website.

 

Here is the entire content of the exchange, which took place between 29 December 2013 and 01 January 2014. I lost one of the messages from Sye, but it was very early in the exchange and the message merely gave me permission to ask a few questions. I have noted the omission in the conversation. The rest of the messages were a matter of cut/paste from the emails (and a couple of spelling corrections). I have neither added to nor taken from the messages.

______________________________

 

GAVAGAI: If you disable comments, aren't you giving the impression that you are either not interested in truth or you are fearful that the weaknesses of your arguments will be exposed in fair and open discussion?

SYE: Nope.

GAVAGAI: Oh. Ok. What is the reason?

SYE: Too busy to monitor the immature filth that some post.

GAVAGAI: Ok, that's fair. Do you have time to answer a question or two through this message avenue?
My name is Gavagai. I used to be a believer, but I lost my faith as I read the Bible. I don't necessarily like being a non-believer, but I don't know how to start believing in something I don't believe exists. I have watched some of the "ProofThatGodExists" videos and I have a couple of questions about God and reason.
Thanks
Gavagai

SYE: [lost this reply, but he said something like ‘yes, but try to keep it short’]

GAVAGAI: Your argument, as I understand it, asserts that we cannot make appeals to reason without presupposing the God of the Bible. In a number of exchanges I have watched on YouTube, you also claim that once one accepts the presupposition that God is the foundation for reason, you can proceed to read and study content in the Bible that you, in various instances, acknowledge does not conform to reason (axe floating, donkey speaking, etc, etc, etc).
So, on one hand, you suggest we have no valid reason to accept our own faculty of reasoning without God, and on the other hand, you suggest that once we believe that God lends us confidence in our faculties of reasoning and senses, we apparently need to abandon our reasoning in order to accept the narratives found in the Bible.
Here's my question. Why would the author of reason demand we abandon the faculty of reasoning he endowed us with because his message to us does not conform to reason?
Gavagai

SYE: Hey Gavagai,
I do not say that those things do not conform to reason, or that we need to abandon reason to accept them, they are perfectly reasonable when presupposing God.
Sye

GAVAGAI: Sye, I'm sorry if I am wrong about I am sure I have heard the statement "You can't reason your way to believing that an axe floated..." but it may have been from Eric Hovind.

You might also be merely saying that it is unreasonable without presupposing God. If so, I guess that's fair enough. I would agree with you that those examples aren't violations of reason per se. They are examples of stories that do not conform to our experiences, but they are not logically impossible.

My bigger problem with scripture (the real reason my faith began to erode) was with problems I perceived with justice in the Bible. I believe justice/morality can be extrapolated from reason. When I read the Bible, I read of punishments handed down by men who are alleged to be God's chosen leaders who are being directed by an all just God, but the punishments and commands to their military are not moral. In the New Testament, the concept of hell is immoral. The fact that Jesus tells slaves to obey their masters and does not tell slave masters to free their slaves, immoral. Paul tells Philemon not to beat Onesimus, but he does not direct him to free his slaves. Paul doesn't even instruct Philemon not to beat slaves generally; this Onesimus is a special case because he is a Christian. This is immoral.

Why would I want to serve a God I believe is less moral than myself?

SYE: Gavagai,

//"I'm sorry if I am wrong about I am sure I have heard the statement "You can't reason your way to believing that an axe floated..."//

I would have said that or something similar, but again, that is not inconsistent with my position. Without presupposing God such a position would not be reasonable, with presupposing God it is perfectly reasonable.

//"My bigger problem with scripture (the real reason my faith began to erode) was with problems I perceived with justice in the Bible."//

I already have difficulty with this statement. A Christian cannot have problems with the Bible in the sense that its veracity is brought to question. That would not be an indication of eroding faith that would be an indication that what one's faith is in, is not Scripture, but themselves. One cannot reason out of the position that God and His Word is his ultimate authority, as doing so, would indicate that it never was.

//"I believe justice/morality can be extrapolated from reason."//

Couple of problems, 1. Without God you have no basis for trusting your reason. 2. It can't. You would not be talking about justice or morality, but personal preferences with no way of deciding between conflicting personal preferences.

//"When I read the Bible, I read of punishments handed down by men who are alleged to be God's chosen leaders who are being directed by an all just God, but the punishments and commands to their military are not moral."//

Based on what standard of morality, and how do you know that your reasoning about it is valid?

//"In the New Testament, the concept of hell is immoral."//

Based on what standard of morality, and how do you know that your reasoning about it is valid? Not only is the concept of hell moral, it is necessary for God to be just.

//"The fact that Jesus tells slaves to obey their masters and does not tell slave masters to free their slaves, immoral."//

Based on what standard of morality, and how do you know that your reasoning about it is valid?

//"Paul tells Philemon not to beat Onesimus, but he does not direct him to free his slaves. Paul doesn't even instruct Philemon not to beat slaves generally; this Onesimus is a special case because he is a Christian. This is immoral."//

Based on what standard of morality, and how do you know that your reasoning about it is valid?

//"Why would I want to serve a God I believe is less moral than myself?"//

You wouldn't. You need to repent for elevating yourself above God.

I would not mind keeping this conversation going, but your e-mails are getting longer. Please try to keep them short.

GAVAGAI: Ok. Let's start with this.
"A Christian cannot have problems with the Bible in the sense that its veracity is brought to question. That would not be an indication of eroding faith that would be an indication that what one's faith is in, is not Scripture, but themselves. One cannot reason out of the position that God and His Word is his ultimate authority, as doing so, would indicate that it never was."
When I was a child, I accepted Christ as my savior. I believed with my whole being that the Bible was God's perfect word and I had what anyone would call a repentant and obedient heart. I believed that Christ was God and man, that he died and rose again, and I believed this was God's expression of love for me. As such, it was my daily ambition to live in obedience to the Bible. I held those beliefs unquestioningly from the time I was 8 to the time I was 30ish.
What was I missing?
Gavagai

SYE: One cannot reason out of a position that Jesus Christ is their ultimate authority. That would indicate that their own autonomous reasoning was always their ultimate authority.

When there are things that a Christian does not understand, we don't give up Christianity, we "lean not on our own understanding, but in all our ways acknowledge God, and He will make our paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Scripture clearly states that "those who left us were never among us" 1 John 2:19

What you were missing, was submitting fully to Jesus Christ.

GAVAGAI: So once you submit your reason to Christ, you no longer have free will?

SYE: Free will is not a Biblical doctrine. Our wills are never free, they are in bondage to our natures.

We do have free choice though, ACCORDING to and not CONTRARY to our natures. I do not have the nature of a bird, so I am not free to choose to fly, I do have the nature of a man though, so I am free to choose to walk within that nature.

GAVAGAI: Do you believe I have the ability to choose salvation you believe is offered by the God of the Bible? Or more generically, is it possible for anyone to make that choice?

SYE: No, the dead (Ephesians 2:1) cannot choose life. Salvation is the gift of God. What you need to do is ask for it, and Jesus said: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" John 6:37

GAVAGAI: So God created a majority of humanity with no means to repent and he will then proceed to torture them for eternity. The few who he has chosen, will escape that eternal torture, not because of anything they have done, or not done, but because they believe something that they cannot disbelieve.

Is that right?

SYE: Nope. But if it were, you would have no objective standard of morality to complain about it. The fact that you don't like even this false scenario exposes your precommittment to an absolute standard of morality, and thus your precommittment to God.

Fact is you love your sin that is why you turn from God. You need to cry out for Him to save you.

GAVAGAI: You have changed subjects. What did I get wrong in the framework I tried to construct from the information you were supplying?

God created a majority of humanity with no means to repent (since you say men do not have free will and are bound by their nature), and he will then proceed to torture them for eternity. The few who he has chosen, will escape that eternal torture, not because of anything they have done, or not done, but because they believe something that they cannot disbelieve.

What have I missed? All you said is no.

SYE: Okay, one at a time. How do you know it is a majority?

GAVAGAI: Matt 7:"13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

How can you interpret "many" apart from more (ie a majority) going to eternal damnation and "few" meaning less (minority)?

Furthermore,

1. the majority of the world's population do not profess Christianity as their faith

2. of those who do self-identify as Christian, you apparently believe many are not believers (if I was not a Christian when I professed Christianity, then I'm not sure I know any Christians because I believed and lived out my beliefs with as much or more sincerity as anyone I've known)

SYE: Well, as Charles Spurgeon said: "I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise."

There are many explanations that could reconcile the verse you cite and the possibility that there will be more in Heaven than in Hell, i.e. the view that all infants who die go to Heaven (not saying I agree with this, but it is a possibility).

The point remains, however, that even if this were the case, you have no basis for a moral objection.

GAVAGAI: Why would babies go to heaven rather than hell?

SYE: Cause they all could be of the elect.

GAVAGAI: How do you know that certain babies are selected to go to heaven because of their sin nature and others are selected to go to hell?

SYE: No one is selected to go to heaven because of their sin nature. The point is that God can save babies, as He did with John The Baptist in the womb. Could God do that with all babies? Sure! Has He? I don't know, and I do not presume so, but it is a position that neither of us can deny, and the point remains that you have no basis for any moral objection against God for anything.

GAVAGAI: So it is at least conceivable that the same selection criteria God applies in selecting adults applies to babies. There is nothing in scripture that says "babies that die will go to heaven", correct?

SYE: I disagree with your premise. God does not select, He elects based on His sovereign will.

Scripture is silent on whether or not all babies who die go to Heaven, but there is Scriptural support for concluding that they could.

GAVAGAI: I don't think there is a difference between election and selection, but I'm willing to listen to an explanation if you have a way that they are different in some significant way.

Let's assume that the babies identified in-utero in scripture, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, (are there others?). While it is possible that God saves them all, it is not impossible that God punishes all the others or a portion of the other babies in hell for eternity. There is nothing in scripture that says this is not the case.

Would you be ok with that?

SYE: This is all irrelevant. It just shows that you cannot prove your point that the majority will be in Hell.

You also do not understand God's election. It is not based on what anyone does.

"About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:10-13

GAVAGAI: Sye,

Jesus says many will go to hell and few will go to heaven. Your intuition seems to be that this cannot be true, but you really have no way to reconcile what it says. You have essentially said, you don't understand it, but it cannot be true. Why would you not take that passage at face value? Are you not relying on your own sense of reason and justice rather than the reason of Christ?

This is my last question. You have answered my questions. If you would like, I will do my best to answer yours now.

Gavagai

SYE: //"Jesus says many will go to hell and few will go to heaven. Your intuition seems to be that this cannot be true, but you really have no way to reconcile what it says. You have essentially said, you don't understand it, but it cannot be true."//

Not at all. God would be just in sending everyone to Hell, as that is what we all deserve. I am merely pointing out that you cannot justify your claim that the majority go to Hell.

//"Why would you not take that passage at face value? "//

I do. I am not even saying that I disagree with you, however, as I said, you simply cannot justify your claim, let alone have any moral issue with it.

//"Are you not relying on your own sense of reason and justice rather than the reason of Christ?"//

Nope.

//"This is my last question. You have answered my questions. If you would like, I will do my best to answer yours now."//

I have no questions. I know that you know that God exists, and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. You need to repent of your sin against Him, and put your trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ. I cannot make you do that, but hope and pray that you will.

Sye

GAVAGAI: //"you simply cannot justify your claim, let alone have any moral issue with it."//

False.

SYE: Alright, let's go with that then.

What is truth and how do you know anything to be true or false according to your worldview?

GAVAGAI: I'm not going to say anything here that you haven't heard before.

Truth is that which corresponds with the real world/reality.

We come to know true things through our senses, and we interpret and understand the information we gather with our senses with our reason.

To cut things short, I do indeed use my reason to verify my reason. This is circular, but not viciously circular. You have asked people how they justify their reason, but you act as if there is some means of justifying a belief outside of reason. If we're not using reason, all that's left is unreason.

Gavagai

SYE: //" I do indeed use my reason to verify my reason. This is circular, but not viciously circular."//

Do tell.

GAVAGAI: What do you think about this analogy of your argument?

Sye: How do you know that (x) is one meter?

Student: I measured it using a meter stick.

Sye: How do you know the meter stick is a meter long?

Student: I used another meter stick.

Sye: That's circular. You have to presuppose God in order to know a meter stick is a meter.

I'll grant you there is a difference between reason and the tools we use to quantify length in that we invented the meter. However, I would argue that we (by which I mean the ancient Greeks) have identified and described rules of logic that guide our capacity for rational thought. The laws of logic just describe properties of everything we experience in the world around us. Just like length is a property of objects with linear qualities. We can quantify length. We can't quantify existence, but we can describe the limitations of existence and non-existence with the law of identity.

We don't know God (or any other imagined supernatural being) to verify the law of identity any more than we need a God to verify that a meter is used to quantify the property of objects that have length.

SYE: How do you know that your tools of reasoning are working properly?

GAVAGAI: My reasoning is validated every day by my own experiences as well as by the other rational agents with whom I interact.

The question you like to ask, "How do you know you're not one of the people whose capacity for rational thought is impaired?" isn't solved because you believe you have a voice in your head or whatever other means of revelation from an all knowing god.

There are plenty of people who also claim to have things revealed to them by God or other supernatural being. Some of the people who are most certain they are hearing from God are seemingly the most delusional (see Andrea Yates etc). How do you know whatever means through which God is communicating with you, that your perception of that being is not some imposter or your own self-delusion?

SYE: //"My reasoning is validated every day by my own experiences as well as by the other rational agents with whom I interact."//

Surely you see the problem there? Surely you realize that you employ your reasoning in that process?

GAVAGAI: Sure. I cannot have 100% confidence in the tools I use to validate my reasoning because both my perception of my own experiences and the capacity of other rational agents through whom my reasoning is validated are fallible. Unfortunately, that's all we've got.

Even if you are right, that an infallible deity has the ability to somehow give our reason a stamp of approval, you are relying on your own fallible perception to receive that message. And the majority of people who claim to have a clear line of communication with a deity, be it Yahweh or any other deity, seem to number among those people whose capacity for rational thought is most problematic.

With regard to the fact that I'm using reason to validate my reasoning, again, that isn't problematic because there is no rational alternative. You are also employing reason to validate your reasoning. You just change the term from reason to "justification", and instead of relying on your experiences and other people, you insert God.

Please explain why God is better than relying on people and experiences to validate a person's rational capacity and do so without employing reason.

SYE: Sorry, but that you cannot see the problem with your position is simply mind-boggling to me. I realize that Scripture says that you must repent before you can see the truth, and not the other way around, but the problem with your position is so elemental, that it still surprises me every time.

//"Sure. I cannot have 100% confidence in the tools I use to validate my reasoning because both my perception of my own experiences and the capacity of other rational agents through whom my reasoning is validated are fallible."//

The problem is not that you can't have 100% confidence, the problem is that you have no basis for .0000001% confidence.

//" Unfortunately, that's all we've got."//

Couple of problems, you are using reasoning which you cannot validate to come to this conclusion, and it is, quite simply, question begging.

//"Even if you are right, that an infallible deity has the ability to somehow give our reason a stamp of approval, you are relying on your own fallible perception to receive that message."//

A few problems, you are using reasoning which you cannot validate to come to this conclusion, you are making a certain knowledge claim as to why I cannot have certainty, and you are positing that God cannot give us certainty even with our fallible reasoning.

The rest of your message was filled with more self-refuting knowledge claims. Unless, and until you tell me how you can know anything, when you cannot validate your reasoning, continuing would be pointless.

Repent while you still can my friend.

GAVAGAI: Sye, I feel that we have come to an end here. I have done my best to answer your questions honestly.

You have ignored my challenge to provide a mechanism through which God communicates with you that your faculties of sense and reason are valid that are not conveyed through your fallible faculties of human perception.

You have also ignored my challenge to defend your reliance on that revelation from God as valid using something apart from reason.

If you cannot respond to those challenges, I think we're done.

If you ever find yourself in Arkansas, I'd love to grab a burger, coffee, or beer with you.

Gavagai

GAVAGAI: One last thought, if divine validation for epistemology was legitimate, it stands to reason that we would see evidence that the people who adopt that stance were able to demonstrate superior insight into the world.

Science, medicine, and even the development and documentation of logic itself were not the products of presupposing divine validation of our rational faculties.

I choose to follow where there are results and evidence. That is the only way I know to distinguish real from fantasy.