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/ The latest exchanges were rather rapid fire. The following timeline runs through 8:35 PM
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.