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 https://www.facebook.com/vike.cejo (12) From: ViKe Date: Tuesday, March 5,
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 5, 2013
    • 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 2 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
      • 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 3 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
        • 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 4 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
          • 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 5 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
            • 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 6 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
              • 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 7 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
                • 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 8 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
                  • 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 9 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
                    • 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 10 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
                      • 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 11 of 17 , Mar 6, 2013
                        • 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.