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=75600108 (10) From: Sean Boatman Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 Time: About 7:35 PM MT
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.