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

Re: Did Sye take his FaceBook page "underground"???

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600027 (8) From: Sean Boatman Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 Time: About 6:55 PM MT
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 5 6:15 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600027

      (8)

      From: Sean Boatman
      Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
      Time: About 6:55 PM MT

      Robert Baty,

      Now I see why Eric and Sye will not engage with you.

      You will not justify your presuppositions.

      > //You are demonstrating a lack of openness
      > and honesty in your dealings with me; very
      > much like I have recently encountered with
      > such as Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate.//

      Is it true that I am doing that Robert?

      > //I am absolutely sure about that, Sean!//

      So you actually do believe in absolutes, but refuse
      to take the time to justify them?

      > //The discussion I am interested in having with you
      > and/or Sye and/or Eric and/or their "champion" James
      > White who has been mentioned, has to do with whether
      > or not I have properly represented their "proof of God"
      > claim in the following argument://

      Well it seems we have a problem then.

      When you engage with a presuppositionalist, the very term
      ought to clue you in to the idea that we don't have lengthy discussions with folks until they are able to establish the
      tools used in ANY discussion. Our position is that the God
      of Christianity is the only way to account for the elements
      needed for intelligibility.

      We freely give our epistemology, still waiting to hear YOURS
      is as well.

      > //It's too late for you or them to be "quick"
      > about "giving an answer" regarding these simple,
      > fundamental matters, but I am longsuffering and
      > will give you another chance to demonstrate your
      > good faith and to be open and honest in answering
      > the 3 simple questions instead of joining
      > presuppositional supporters in playing the hypocrite
      > and further evading "giving an answer"://

      Well how do you know that I am being dishonest? I asked for
      the absolute standard you are appealing to in making that
      claim and you chose not to provide it……

      > //If you can bring yourself to tell me what you
      > think by answering "yes" or "no" to each question,
      > then we can discuss further what we might have to
      > chat about.//

      Sorry Robert, but the conversation I am interested in having
      is how you can know anything, to ANY degree without starting
      with the God of Scripture. Including whether or not Sye's
      argument is fallacious or not.

      > //You, Sean, don't get to unilaterally dictate,
      > like Sye and his followers have already tried
      > to do, what we are going to discuss, if we are
      > going to discuss something of mutual interest.//

      Clearly, we do not have a subject of mutual interest.

      You want to discuss one thing,
      I want to discuss another.

      Robert, it seems that you want to run around and pose this
      question and when people will not engage according to your
      terms you can then post "victory" on your blog.

      When you are ready to start at the beginning and justify
      knowledge and several other foundational questions, we are
      all right here.

      (9)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
      Time: About 7:05 PM MT

      Sean,

      I see a few things about you as well!

      Your lack of openness and honesty about Sye's and Eric's,
      and by implication your own, "proof of God" argument comes
      across loud and clear.

      I've engaged presuppositionalists, such as you, Eric and Sye,
      and you misrepresent the position as to why they/you "run".

      You, Eric, and Sye have been tried and found wanting;
      absolutely, and that as a result of presenting you/them
      with a simple argument and 3 simple questions.

      You are more than welcome to "start with the God of Scripture",
      as you like to say, as far as telling me what YOU "think" in answering with a simple "yes" or "no" to those 3 simple
      questions.

      If you didn't notice, the Bible uses that same sort of form
      of argument rather frequently.

      Are you afraid to acknowledge that the argument I use to
      represent Sye's and Eric's and, by implication, your
      "proof of God" argument is so constructed that if its
      premises are true its conclusion will follow as true?

      Perhaps you just don't recognize biblical reasoning when
      you see it?

      Or you are not open and honest enough to deal with it!

      If you are trying to complain about what goes on via my
      YAHOO! discussion list, Sean, you are playing the hypocrite
      because I don't come close to playing the game that Eric
      and Sye play with regard to such things.

      Hypocrites all!
      Absolutely!

      We do agree on something, though, Sean. If you or any of
      your presuppositional cowards wants to come out, come
      clean, and deal with my simple, ungetoverable rebuttal
      to Eric's and Sye's claim to have the "proof of God",
      y'all know where to find me.

      --------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108 (10) From: Sean Boatman Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 Time: About 7:35 PM MT
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 5 6:53 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108

        (10)

        From: Sean Boatman
        Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
        Time: About 7:35 PM MT

        The truth of the statement;

        > "the proof of Gods existence is
        > that without Him you cannot prove anything"

        becomes more and more evident as you continue to make
        knowledge claims but refuse to justify how can know
        anything to be true.

        You want to discuss logic, but refuse to account for
        the existence of the laws themselves.

        You want to make absolute truth claims but refuse to
        define what truth is and how it is known.

        You are accusing me of being immoral but refuse to
        provide the absolute standard you appeal to in that
        accusation.

        It's no secret why you want to duck amd run and claim
        victory here and I think its pretty evident who the
        coward is in this exchange.

        (11)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
        Time: About 7:50 PM MT

        Sean,

        It is pretty evident that I have you, and Sye and
        Eric beat!

        And the cowards are all on your side who will not
        admit to whether they believe my argument reasonably
        represents Sye's and Eric's "proof of God" claim and
        is so constructed that if its premises are true its
        conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

        I ask you what you think to 3 simple questions;
        consistent with what Sye and his supporters elsewhere
        have proposed is quite reasonable.

        They whined and complained when they didn't think
        someone was answering their questions.

        Now they/you are being asked to give up the hypocrisy
        and answer 3 simple questions and carry on a normal
        conversation regarding your fundamental problems
        regarding Sye's and Eric's "proof of God" claim.

        Sye and Eric "ran"!
        You, Sean, have now "run"!

        The questions remain for you or your "champion" to answer
        and discuss where there might be a disagreement or lack
        of understanding; or just for the fun of it.

        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.

        Question #1:

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

        - Sean Boatman - ???
        - Presuppositional champion to be named - ???
        - Robert Baty - Yes

        Question #2:

        Do you think the minor premise is true?

        - Sean Boatman - ???
        - Presuppositional champion to be named - ???
        - Robert Baty - Yes

        Question #3:

        Do you think the major premise is true?

        - Sean Boatman - ???
        - Presuppositional champion to be named - ???
        - Robert Baty - No

        Sean, perhaps you could simply be explicit, where earlier
        you were only implicit, in admitting that you actually
        agree with me that Sye's and Eric's alleged "proof of God"
        is NO "proof of God".

        I think that's where you and your fellow presuppositionalists
        are at and you just can't bring yourselves to admit it; quite consistent with what others have noticed about how hard it is
        to get folks like y'all to admit your errors once you've "gone public".

        -----------------------------------
        -----------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108 https://www.facebook.com/vike.cejo (12) From: ViKe Date: Tuesday, March 5,
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 5 9:49 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108

          https://www.facebook.com/vike.cejo

          (12)

          From: ViKe
          Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
          Time: About 9:45 PM MT

          Robert, how do you know it's three questions?

          (13)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
          Time: About 10:45 PM MT

          ViKe,

          I numbered them #1, #2, #3!

          However, I am willing to work with you and call them
          whatever suits your fancy; maybe substituting "banana"
          for #1, "apple" for #2, and "orange" for #3.

          Just let me know what you want to call them.

          As to #1, "banana" or whatever you want to call it,
          ViKe, do you recognize the biblical character of my
          argument representing Sye's and Eric's alleged "proof
          of God" and can you tell me if you think it is so
          constructed that if its premises are true its
          conclusion will follow as true therefrom?

          If so, we are in agreement.

          If not, we can chat about your problem with that.

          --------------------------------------------------
          --------------------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108 https://www.facebook.com/Mr.RLister (14) From: Rudy Lister Date: Wednesday,
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 6 6:11 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108

            https://www.facebook.com/Mr.RLister

            (14)

            From: Rudy Lister
            Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
            Time: About 6:00 AM MT

            Robert, first off you got the argument wrong.

            Yet I can answer your questions No, no, and no.

            (15)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
            Time: About 7:00 AM MT

            Rudy, thanks for those answers.

            Would you like to discuss your disagreements with
            me on that and why you think I got the argument
            wrong?

            If you prefer, you can join that discussion at my
            place:

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

            You can follow along via the Internet since the
            archives are public and if you want to post a message
            you can simply address an email to:

            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

            ---------------------------------
            ---------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108 https://www.facebook.com/wayne.junior.526 (16) From: Wayne Junior Date:
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 6 6:31 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75600108

              https://www.facebook.com/wayne.junior.526

              (16)

              From: Wayne Junior
              Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
              Time: About 7:15 AM MT

              Let's be honest, Robert... There is no explanation
              or answer to the three questions that would be provided
              by a 'presuppositionalist' that you'd accept, further,
              if there was one provided you would still have the problem
              of rationalizing the statement via circular reasoning because
              you fail to believe in the source of all reason, so your
              acceptance or denial of such an answer, to you, would be
              arbitrary, and to the argument, void.

              (17)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
              Time: About 7:25 AM MT

              Wayne, that's not a very nice way to frame your evasion.

              In fact, I have seen Sye and Eric affirm (agree with me)
              elsewhere that the minor premise and conclusion are true
              and, by implication, they believe the major premise to be
              true while I do not.

              It's simple stuff; no tricks or traps.

              They could easily and quickly answer, but, so far, they
              have refused and "run off".

              You are welcome to give it at try, Wayne, and show a
              little good faith. The problem, as I have noted without
              rebuttal, is that while Eric and Sye may believe their
              major premise is true they cannot demonstrate that it
              is true and they, when pressed, I propose, will admit
              that their much touted "proof of God" is NO "proof" at all.

              I think I've got their game figured out on this fundamental
              level; very simple.

              They can play along and deal with their problem regarding
              their "proof of God" claim, or not.

              I can take it either way.

              They simply "presuppose" God and in doing so are being
              disingenuous to then try to claim they've got the "proof
              of God".

              I am more than willing to discuss my analysis, my argument,
              and those 3 questions if any be open and honest enough to
              engage that discussion in the context of Eric and Sye's
              "proof of God" claim.

              ------------------------------------
              ------------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601606 https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (18) From: Sean Boatman Date:
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 6 8:46 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601606

                https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

                (18)

                From: Sean Boatman
                Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                Time: About 8:45 AM MT

                Does debate require knowledge Robert?

                Does debate require logic and absolute truth?

                (19)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                Time: About 9:40 AM MT

                Sean,

                What do you think?

                Can you even bring yourself to answer your own
                questions?

                You may have noticed that I answered those 3
                simple questions I asked?

                Sean, are you suggesting we might have a reasonable
                discussion regarding what we think about the important
                public issues I have addressed (i.e., Eric's and Sye's
                alleged "proof of God").

                Sean, do you think, like I do, that the following
                argument is so constructed that if the premises are
                true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom?

                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.

                Come out, come out, Sean, and try your hand at openly,
                honestly telling us something about how YOU think!

                Or not!

                ----------------------------------------------
                ----------------------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601606 https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (20) From: Robert Baty Date:
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 6 8:57 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601606

                  https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

                  (20)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                  Time: About 9:55 AM MT

                  I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt about
                  Eric and Sye affirming the truth of the minor premise
                  and conclusion in the argument I have presented as
                  representing their "proof of God" claim.

                  One of the things I am waiting for is for them to
                  explicitly affirm or deny that they believe the major
                  premise to be either true or false.

                  I can take it either way they want to go with that.

                  What sayeth Eric and Sye?

                  What sayeth their fellow "Presuppositionalists"?

                  Can they be open and honest enough to "give an answer"
                  on these simple, quite uncontroversial matters?

                  Not yet, but I am long-suffering and waiting!

                  ----------------------------------------------
                  ----------------------------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601606 https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (21) From: Sean Boatman Date:
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 6 10:52 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601606

                    https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

                    (21)

                    From: Sean Boatman
                    Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                    Time: About 10:30 AM MT

                    Clearly, you don't understand the term
                    "presuppositionalist".

                    Of course, maybe you do and it's why you refuse to
                    justify how any of the things necessary to have an
                    intelligent discussion are accounted for according
                    to your worldview.

                    Carry on Robert.

                    Better men than I have tried to get you to back up
                    your implied claims with no success.

                    Like most atheists I encounter, lots of claims and
                    assumptions.

                    Zero ability to justify any of them......

                    (22)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                    Time: About 11:45 AM MT

                    Sean,

                    I think your problem is that I do understand the
                    "presuppositional" problem as evidenced by your antics
                    and the "proof of God" claim popularized by the likes
                    of Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate.

                    Eric, Sye and even you and yours and I can have an
                    intelligent conversation regarding your problems with
                    that "proof of God" claim, but you and they apparently
                    aren't up to the exercise in critical thinking with
                    emphasis on the "proof of God" claim of Eric Hovind and
                    Sye Ten Bruggencate.

                    As I opined earlier, I think the reason for that is
                    because you "know" that I am right and you "know" that
                    Sye's and Eric's "proof of God" claim is NO "proof".

                    I've tested y'all and your argument and have found
                    you wanting!

                    Little ol' me!

                    What a hoot!

                    What's to back up regarding my claims with reference
                    to Sye's and Eric's argument.

                    Sye, Eric and I are all in agreement; Eric and Sye,
                    and their followers, simply won't come out, come clean
                    and admit to it.

                    #1:

                    The argument I set forth as representing
                    Eric's and Sye's "proof of God" is so
                    constructed that if its premises are true
                    then its conclusion will follow as true
                    therefrom.

                    #2:

                    Eric, Sye, and I all agree that the minor
                    premise is true.

                    #3:

                    Eric, Sye, and I all agree that the
                    conclusion is true.

                    #4:

                    Eric, Sye, and I all agree that Eric and
                    Sye think the major premise is true but
                    Eric and Sye cannot show that the major
                    premise is true.

                    #5:

                    Eric and Sye falsely claim that the
                    "proof of God" is that "without Him
                    you couldn't prove anything".

                    So, Eric's and Sye's alleged "proof of God" is NO
                    "proof of God"!

                    I "know" that!
                    Sye "knows" that!
                    Eric "knows" that!

                    If that is not the case, someone who thinks they possess
                    a little moral influence needs to go to work on the
                    fugitives Eric Hovind and Sye Bruggencate and get them
                    the come out, come clean and carry on an intelligent
                    conversation with me regarding their problems.

                    I think I have represented their position on the "proof
                    of God" accurately and have no interest in misrepresenting
                    them.

                    Evasions provided by their lesser, like-minded followers
                    such as I have encounted is cute cover for them, but no
                    substitute for the direct testimony and admissions of Eric
                    and Sye.

                    Maybe Eric and Sye will repent and bring forth their works
                    meet for repentance.

                    Maybe not!

                    ------------------------------------
                    ------------------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601836 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=658766302 (23) From: Paul Anderson
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 6 2:39 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601836

                      https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=658766302

                      (23)

                      From: Paul Anderson
                      Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                      Time: About 3:30 PM MT

                      Is it really that hard for them to understand,
                      or do they intentionally strawman it?

                      (24)

                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                      Time: About 3:35 PM MT

                      Paul, you do what so many do; make a statement like
                      that and fail to specify who it is you are attempting
                      to criticize.

                      So, I will assume you intend to address your criticism
                      to my evasive adversaries here (Eric, Sye, Sean, Wayne,
                      Vike, et al) who haven't been able to bring themselves
                      to admit to what they think regarding those 3 simple
                      questions that go the heart of Sye's and Eric's "proof
                      of God" claim.

                      By the way, Paul, what are your answers to those 3 simple
                      "yes" or "no" questions?

                      --------------------------------------
                      --------------------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601836 (25) From: Robert Baty Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Time: About 3:50 PM MT I
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 6 2:53 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75601836

                        (25)

                        From: Robert Baty
                        Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                        Time: About 3:50 PM MT

                        I thought I might try this and see what happens!

                        Sean Boatman wrote, in part:

                        - "...you refuse to justify how any
                        - of the things necessary to have an
                        - intelligent discussion are accounted
                        - for according to your worldview."

                        Sean's implied argument:

                        Major Premise:

                        - If God does not exist,
                        - then there can be no intelligible
                        - discussion.

                        Minor Premise:

                        - There can be intelligible discussion.

                        Conclusion:

                        - God does exist.

                        Question #1:

                        Do you think Sean Boatman's implied
                        argument is so constructed that if its
                        premises are true its conclusion will
                        follow as true therefrom?

                        - Sean Boatman - ???
                        - Robert Baty - Yes

                        Question #2:

                        Do you think Sean Boatman's implied
                        minor premise true?

                        - Sean Boatman - ???
                        - Robert Baty - Yes

                        Question #3:

                        Do you think Sean Boatman's implied
                        major premise true?

                        - Sean Boatman - ???
                        - Robert Baty - No

                        Anyone here willing to join me in answering the questions
                        with a simple "yes" or "no" and considering a discussion
                        thereof?

                        ---------------------------------
                        ---------------------------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75602721 https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (26) From: Sean Boatman Date:
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 6 3:05 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75602721

                          https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

                          (26)

                          From: Sean Boatman
                          Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                          Time: About 3:55 PM MT

                          Perhaps if you keep copying and pasting the
                          same thing over and over, nobody will notice
                          that you won't give your epistemology.......

                          From: Robert Baty
                          Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                          Time: About 4:00 PM MT

                          Run, Sean, run!
                          See Sean run!
                          I see Sean running!

                          Maybe someone else will come out, come clean
                          and engage in a discussion of the fundamental
                          problems with Eric's and Sye's and Sean's
                          "proof of God" claims.

                          (27)

                          From: Robert Baty
                          Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                          Time: About 4:04 PM MT

                          Sean, why not try your complaint about repetition
                          with Sye and Eric and just try to get them to quit
                          repeating their "proof of God" claim since it has
                          been noticed that they have NO such "proof of God".

                          --------------------------------------
                          --------------------------------------
                        • rlbaty50
                          https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75602721 https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (28) From: Sean Boatman Date:
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 6 3:17 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75602721

                            https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

                            (28)

                            From: Sean Boatman
                            Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                            Time: About 4:10 PM MT

                            Is it absolutely true that they have done that
                            Robert?

                            Tough to tell on your worldview as you deem such
                            questions as the nature of truth to be irrelevant.

                            (29)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                            Time: About 4:12 PM MT

                            Sean, you are way behind on answering questions
                            and your continuing, evasive, hypocrisy is further
                            noted.

                            Those questions are waiting dare you answer and tell
                            us what you think?

                            I do thank you for your latest hypocrisy is proposing
                            a complaint against my repetition while endorsing,
                            implicitly, that of Sye and Eric regarding their
                            "proof of God" claim that is the issue I am addressing.

                            (30)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                            Time: About 4:15 PM MT

                            P.S. to Sean:

                            Yes, it is absolutely true that Eric and Sye have gone
                            about repeating their "proof of God" claim and it has
                            been noticed that their "proof of God" claim is NO
                            "proof".

                            ----------------------------------------------
                            ----------------------------------------------
                          • rlbaty50
                            https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75602721 https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (31) From: Robert Baty Date:
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 6 4:26 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              https://www.facebook.com/marcuspittman/posts/516274831744414?comment_id=75602721

                              https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

                              (31)

                              From: Robert Baty
                              Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
                              Time: About 5:25 PM MT

                              Here's another angle on Eric's and Sye's problem, and the
                              problem they have created for their misguided supporters
                              regarding that "proof of God" claim I have been addressing.

                              I've seen Sye here and there trying to make a big deal of
                              how it is that logic is in the very nature of God and is
                              "immaterial, unchanging and universal"; or something like
                              that.

                              The "if..., then..." logical formulation is commonly found
                              in the Bible, quite approvingly, and here it is that little
                              ol' me has presented Eric and Sye and their misguided
                              followers with a simple "if..., then..." logical formulation
                              that presents Sye's and Eric's "proof of God" argument and I
                              can NOT get Sye or Eric or their misguided followers to even acknowledge that it is so constructed that if the premises
                              are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

                              THE ARGUMENT

                              Major Premise:

                              - IF you can prove something,
                              - THEN God exists.

                              Minor Premise:

                              - You can prove something.

                              Eric's Conclusion:

                              - Therefore, God exists.

                              Question #1:

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

                              - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
                              - Eric Hovind - ???
                              - To be named - ???
                              - Robert Baty - Yes

                              If there be any who can "give an answer", we can then consider a possible discussion and consider moving on to the #2 and #3 questions.

                              Or run...and cover for Eric and Sye!

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