Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Sye Ten Bruggencate v. Robert Baty - Proof of God?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    http://www.facebook.com/erichovind http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ (21) From: Sye Ten Bruggencate Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 Time: About 7:30 PM MT Not
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 24, 2013
      http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

      (21)

      From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
      Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013
      Time: About 7:30 PM MT

      Not at all.
      How about a live Skype debate?

      (22)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013
      Time: About 7:34 PM MT

      For Sye Ten Bruggencate, et al!

      Sye's and Eric's Major Premise:

      - If you can prove something,
      - then God exists.

      Sye's and Eric's Minor Premise:

      - You can prove something.

      Sye's and Eric's Conclusion:

      - Therefore, God exists.

      Three simple questions:

      1.

      Do you think the argument is so constructed
      that if its premises are true its conclusion
      will follow as true therefrom?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
      - Eric Hovind - ???
      - Danny Hoogestraat - ???

      - Robert Baty - Yes

      2.

      Do you think the minor premise is true?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
      - Eric Hovind - ???
      - Danny Hoogestraat - ???

      - Robert Baty - Yes

      3.

      Do you think the major premise is true?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
      - Eric Hovind - ???
      - Danny Hoogestraat - ???

      - Robert Baty - No

      Discussion to follow according to the time and
      interest of participants.

      Alternate Venue:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31043

      (23)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013
      Time: About 7:36 PM MT

      Sye, answer the questions and we can discuss
      the logistics as to what we might "debate".

      ---------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      http://www.facebook.com/erichovind http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ The latest exchanges were rather rapid fire. The following timeline runs through 8:35 PM
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 24, 2013
        http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
        http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

        The latest exchanges were rather rapid fire. The following timeline runs through 8:35 PM MT

        (24)

        From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Again, too long and convoluted.

        If you want to debate, that's fine,
        but I don't feel like sifting through your diaper.

        (25)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        It's your argument Sye, and you are being
        deliberately evasive and dishonest.

        Come out, or not! Answer the questions or not.

        Either way, I win, you lose; which may explain
        why neither you nor your followers will dare to
        deal with your problems as I have set them out
        using your own argument.

        (26)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        This isn't a contest.

        (27)

        From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Like I said, I am pleased to engage you live on
        Skype.

        Even right now if you like.

        I just don't feel like trying to figure out what
        you are trying to say in your long convoluted post.

        (28)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Sye,

        I am longsuffering and will try to simplify it for
        you and allow us to deal with your fundamental
        problem one simple question at a time.

        First, your argument:

        Major Premise:

        - If you can prove something,
        - then God exists.

        Minor Premise:

        - You can prove something.

        Conclusion:

        - Therefore, God exists.

        Step #1:

        Do you think the argument is so constructed
        that if its premises are true its conclusion
        will follow as true therefrom?

        - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
        - Robert Baty - Yes

        (29)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Sye, if you want to work on the logistics of a
        more formal discussion, you are going to have
        to come out, come clean and deal openly and honestly
        with me.

        (30)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        He (Sye) already offered a live debate.
        Except or decline, end of argument.

        (31)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Danny, that's not being either open or honest;
        and remember that you are one who has not answered
        the simple, logical, rational questions dealing
        with Sye's only argument.

        Sye doesn't get to dictate the logistics of any
        more formal discussion we might have.

        If he, or you, are serious about engaging in a more
        formal discussion, come out, come clean, and openly
        honestly discuss the logicistics wherein we might
        produce a profitable exchange regarding Sye's argument
        as I have presented it and the 3 fundamental issues
        relating to it.

        (32)

        From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Who said formal? Let's talk!

        (33)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        So, Sye, talk!

        What is your answer to the first question dealing
        with the construction of your argument?
        a few seconds ago ยท Like

        (34)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Man up!
        Man up!
        Man up!

        (35)

        From: Julie Tucker
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        I'm hearing the Jepordy Theme in my head.

        (36)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Danny, I take it you are trying to encourage Sye to
        come out, come clean, and answer those 3 simple,
        logical, rational questions dealing with his own
        argument; questions fundamental to dealing with his
        problem.

        (37)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Sye, I think I said "more formal"; formal being a
        relative term and the present set up being quite
        less formal than would allow for a more appropriate
        analysis, one-on-one, regarding your argument and
        the fundamentals of your problem.

        (38)

        From: Julie Tucker
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        You never answer questions, just answer back with
        "how do you know that" and "are you absolutely sure"
        Pathetic!

        (39)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        No Rob, I was talking to you. Man up dude.

        (40)

        From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Typical. Sad, but typical. Ciao!

        (41)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Sye, I think I said "more formal"; formal being a
        relative term and the present set up being quite
        less formal than would allow for a more appropriate
        analysis, one-on-one, regarding your argument and
        the fundamentals of your problem.

        (42)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Danny, your comment has more application to Sye who
        continues to "run" from "giving an answer" or even
        indicating he's willing to come out, come clean and
        openly, honestly discuss how we might "more formally"
        deal with his argument and his problem.

        (43)

        From: Julie Tucker
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Bye, Bye Sye!!
        Go arrange some more sound bites.

        (44)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Julie, do you think Eric and/or Danny might be able to
        give an answer regarding how they think about Sye's
        argument and the fundamental issues relevant to dealing
        with their problem with that argument?

        If not Sye, Eric, or Danny, who? OK, I'll take it game,
        set, match!

        (45)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Texting is never good for debate, it ruins tone
        and dialog.

        This makes things difficult.

        Sye had no problem in live debate. You declined.

        (46)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Whatever makes you sleep better at night..

        (47)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Danny, if you or Sye or any other "champion" you
        might be able to find wants to more formally
        discuss Sye's and Eric's argument and the fundamental
        issues dealing with the problem with their position,
        feel free to let me know.

        I am more than willing to work out the necessary
        logistics of whatever it is we may disagree with
        regarding those 3 issues dealing with Sye's and
        Eric's argument.

        Methinks there may be no disagreement; Eric and Sye
        just don't want to admit that I properly set up
        their argument and identified their problem.

        They lost!
        I won!

        I am willing to consider a rematch.

        (48)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Jeremiah 20:11

        But the LORD is with me like a dread champion;
        Therefore my persecutors will stumble and not
        prevail. They will be utterly ashamed, because
        they have failed, With an everlasting disgrace
        that will not be forgotten.

        (49)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Run, Danny, run!
        See Danny run!

        Let me know if you want to deal openly and honestly
        with Sye's and Eric's argument and those 3 fundamental
        questions.

        You know, Danny, simple, logical, rational questions
        that you said you should have already answered and
        that Sye should have already answered.

        Eric should answer as well if anyone manages to get
        his attention; though he may be expected to follow
        Sye without "giving an answer".

        (50)

        From: Danny Hoogestraat
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        Matthew 5:11

        Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and
        persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
        against you falsely, for my sake.

        (51)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013

        I think Danny's reference has application to such a
        s I have received tonight from Sye and Danny.

        Like I said earlier, I am longsuffering.

        If Danny or one of his champions wants to come out,
        come clean and deal openly and honestly with Sye's
        and Eric's argument and those 3 simple, logical,
        rational, fundamental issues, I am still available.

        ------------------------------------------
        ------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        http://www.facebook.com/erichovind http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ (52) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 Time: About 9:15 PM MT My Summary
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 24, 2013
          http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
          http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

          (52)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013
          Time: About 9:15 PM MT

          My Summary of the Bruggencate v. Baty Exchange

          http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
          http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

          I propose that despite my effort to bring out a legitimate
          opponent, including Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind, and
          Danny Hoogestraat, none dared to openly, honestly engage me
          in a discussion of the Sye's and Eric's much publicized and
          much promoted position regarding their alleged "proof of God"
          or rebutted any of my simple claims addressing the fundamental problem with the position popularized by Sye and Eric.

          Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind say:

          - "The Proof that God exists is that
          - without Him you couldn't prove anything."

          That claim implicitly presents the following argument for consideration:

          Major Premise:

          - If you can prove something,
          - then God exists.

          Minor Premise:

          - You can prove something.

          Conclusion:

          - Therefore, God exists.

          Three simple questions fundamental to our evaluation of
          that argument and Sye's and Eric's positions related thereto:

          1.

          Do you think the argument is so constructed
          that if its premises are true its conclusion
          will follow as true therefrom?

          - Sye Ten Bruggencate - Yes
          - Eric Hovind - Yes

          - Robert Baty - Yes

          2.

          Do you think the minor premise is true?

          - Sye Ten Bruggencate - Yes
          - Eric Hovind - Yes

          - Robert Baty - Yes

          3.

          Do you think the major premise is true?

          - Sye Ten Bruggencate - Yes
          - Eric Hovind - Yes

          - Robert Baty - No

          The key to establishing the "proof of God" as claimed by
          Sye and Eric is in the establishment that the major premise
          is true.

          This, I propose, Sye and Eric cannot do, have not done.

          It is not disputed that Sye and Eric "believe" their major
          premise to be true (i.e., - If you can prove something, then
          God exists).

          However, Sye and Eric cannot be considered to have "proved"
          that God exists by simply declaring their belief in a premise
          that is beyond their ability to "prove".

          In my opinion, Sye and Eric and their followers should be
          more careful than to try and claim they have the "proof of
          God" in that argument when they do not.

          My invitation remains outstanding should any wish to discuss
          with me Sye's and Eric's argument, my analysis of their
          position related thereto, and the problem with it.

          I request that if you wish to take the matter up with me
          further, that you requite my love for this venue and join
          me at my place:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

          You don't have to be a member to participate there, though
          membership has its privileges.

          You can participate by following the action via the website
          above and simply sending an email address to:

          Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

          See you there, or not!

          ----------------------------------------
          ----------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          Another analysis of my run-in with Sye Ten Bruggencate: http://www.facebook.com/erichovind http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ (53) From: Alex Botten Date:
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 25, 2013
            Another analysis of my run-in with Sye Ten Bruggencate:

            http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
            http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

            (53)

            From: Alex Botten
            Date: Monday, February 25, 2013
            Time: About

            Most amused to see Danny hide behind Sye's skirts!

            Then both of them running away squealing 'victory!'
            is too much!

            ---------------------------------------------------

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
            http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

            (52)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013
            Time: About 9:15 PM MT

            My Summary of the Bruggencate v. Baty Exchange

            http://www.facebook.com/erichovind
            http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

            I propose that despite my effort to bring out a legitimate
            opponent, including Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind, and
            Danny Hoogestraat, none dared to openly, honestly engage me
            in a discussion of the Sye's and Eric's much publicized and
            much promoted position regarding their alleged "proof of God"
            or rebutted any of my simple claims addressing the fundamental problem with the
            position popularized by Sye and Eric.

            Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind say:

            - "The Proof that God exists is that
            - without Him you couldn't prove anything."

            That claim implicitly presents the following argument for consideration:

            Major Premise:

            - If you can prove something,
            - then God exists.

            Minor Premise:

            - You can prove something.

            Conclusion:

            - Therefore, God exists.

            Three simple questions fundamental to our evaluation of
            that argument and Sye's and Eric's positions related thereto:

            1.

            Do you think the argument is so constructed
            that if its premises are true its conclusion
            will follow as true therefrom?

            - Sye Ten Bruggencate - Yes
            - Eric Hovind - Yes

            - Robert Baty - Yes

            2.

            Do you think the minor premise is true?

            - Sye Ten Bruggencate - Yes
            - Eric Hovind - Yes

            - Robert Baty - Yes

            3.

            Do you think the major premise is true?

            - Sye Ten Bruggencate - Yes
            - Eric Hovind - Yes

            - Robert Baty - No

            The key to establishing the "proof of God" as claimed by
            Sye and Eric is in the establishment that the major premise
            is true.

            This, I propose, Sye and Eric cannot do, have not done.

            It is not disputed that Sye and Eric "believe" their major
            premise to be true (i.e., - If you can prove something, then
            God exists).

            However, Sye and Eric cannot be considered to have "proved"
            that God exists by simply declaring their belief in a premise
            that is beyond their ability to "prove".

            In my opinion, Sye and Eric and their followers should be
            more careful than to try and claim they have the "proof of
            God" in that argument when they do not.

            My invitation remains outstanding should any wish to discuss
            with me Sye's and Eric's argument, my analysis of their
            position related thereto, and the problem with it.

            I request that if you wish to take the matter up with me
            further, that you requite my love for this venue and join
            me at my place:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

            You don't have to be a member to participate there, though
            membership has its privileges.

            You can participate by following the action via the website
            above and simply sending an email address to:

            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

            See you there, or not!

            ----------------------------------------
            ----------------------------------------
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.