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

Sean Boatman v. Robert Baty on Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (1) From: Sean Boatman Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 Time: About 4:20 PM MT To reason with the non-Christian in a
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

      (1)

      From: Sean Boatman
      Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
      Time: About 4:20 PM MT

      "To reason with the non-Christian in a fashion
      purporting to be independent of God or independent
      of reliance upon revelation is to honor the
      unregenerate's notions of "evidence" and "verification"
      as legitimate and correct.

      However, for the Christian, it is Scripture that
      governs *every* aspect of his life, even his concept
      of "evidence" and the way he reasons with skeptics."

      ― Greg L. Bahnsen

      (2)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
      Time: About 4:30 PM MT

      How would the above have anything to do with Sye Ten
      Bruggencate's failure to be explicit in answering the
      following questions with simple "yes" or "no" answers;
      the reasoning, if time and interest, to follow by way
      of discussion:

      Sye Ten Bruggencate says:

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

      The following is inferred therefrom:

      Major Premise:

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

      Minor Premise:

      - You can prove something.

      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?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
      - Other (add name) - ???
      - Robert Baty - Yes

      Question #2:

      Do you think the minor premise
      is true?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
      - Other (add name) - ???
      - Robert Baty - Yes

      Question #3:

      Do you think the major premise
      is true?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
      - Other (add name) - ???
      - Robert Baty - No

      Please send your answers to the questions by email
      addressed to:

      Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

      and follow the progress and discussion at:

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

      --------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (3) From: Sean Boatman Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 Time: About 4:50 PM MT Robert, I get that this is your favorite
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

        (3)

        From: Sean Boatman
        Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
        Time: About 4:50 PM MT

        Robert,

        I get that this is your favorite question to ask
        over and over regardless of the forum.

        But you miss the point after all this time.

        The point is NOT to argue about a particular syllogism
        but to account for the laws of logic themselves by which
        ANY syllogism can be deemed to be logical or not.

        If that's the discussion you wish to have, then let's
        get to it.

        But constantly banging this drum is getting tiresome
        and missing the point so widely that it's breathtaking.

        It seems your sole purpose is to promote your Yahoo
        message group.

        If Sye Ten Bruggencate wants to respond he can do so.

        (4)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
        Time: About 5:00 PM MT

        Sean,

        Thanks for the speedy response.

        Kinda funny that someone like you would come across as
        complaining about the repetition when Sye has made a
        career out of being repetitious.

        However, there is a distinguishable difference between
        Sye's repetitions and mine.

        It's also kinda funny that someone like you would come
        across as complaining about my reference to a much better
        discussion venue when Sye baits people into his venue and
        "proof of God" game in such a way as to have made him
        famous/infamous.

        My exercise is not intended to account for the laws of
        logic.

        Sye and other presuppositionals have their opinion about
        that, and the source is not in dispute in this exercise.

        As noted above, that issue may be relevant in the
        after-exercise discussions.

        Sye has already implicitly indicated his answers to those
        questions are "yes".

        I'm just having a little trouble getting him to explicitly
        answer "yes", or "no", and then, if there is interest,
        discuss any differences.

        As long as there are folks like Sye around, it seems to
        me that "banging this drum" will be justified and the
        hypocrisy of those who think otherwise will be made manifest.

        Like you say, if Sye or any of his fellow, like-minded presuppositionalists, want to respond, they are welcome
        to do so.

        Sean, you might even try your hand at "giving an answer"
        to those 3 simple questions.

        ----------------------------------------
        ----------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (5) From: Eric Preston Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 Time: About 5:05 PM MT Don t worry Robert, you re not the only one
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

          (5)

          From: Eric Preston
          Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
          Time: About 5:05 PM MT

          Don't worry Robert, you're not the only one
          Sean has accused of "missing the point all
          this time".

          (6)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
          Time: About 5:10 PM MT

          Eric, thanks for the support.

          ----------------------------------------
          ----------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (7) From: Jonathan Bradford Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 Time: About 6:15 PM MT
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
            https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

            (7)

            From: Jonathan Bradford
            Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
            Time: About 6:15 PM MT

            Robert,

            > // My exercise is not intended to account
            > for the laws of logic. Sye and other
            > presuppositionals have their opinion about
            > that, and the source is not in dispute in
            > this exercise. //

            But that's the point. The source IS in dispute. You want
            to get around that - but trying to get around that is
            one of the fundamental points that a presuppositionalist
            is trying to make that you simply keep ignoring.

            In answer to your questions,
            I would say yes to all three.

            Because all three are true.

            But before even getting to that point, you need to address
            the fundamental presuppositions you have before you can
            even ask the questions.

            And you don't seem to want to do that.

            For example, you will accept the minor premise, but what justification do you have for accepting it as true?

            On a non-Christian worldview, how do you justify that it
            is possible to prove things?

            Or why do you accept the form of the argument necessitates
            the truth of the conclusion? On a non-Christian worldview,
            how do you justify that the necessary principles of logic
            exist to make the conclusion?

            You want to focus upon your narrow yes/no questions without
            looking at the fundamental problems your worldview can't
            account for prior to even getting to the point where you
            can ask the questions in the first place.

            (despite not having any contact with you previously,
            I have seen you post these comments in various places,
            so I am aware of your love for this argument and your
            inability to see why you've missed the presuppositions
            that this argument bring to the table.)

            (8)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
            Time: About 6:30 PM MT

            Jonathan,

            Thanks for answering the 3 questions, though you went
            about it in a rather round about way.

            Now, I am wondering if you are willing to come out,
            come around my place and discuss how you go about
            establishing your position that the major premise
            is true.

            You would do well to requite my love and make your
            appearance at my place which I referenced earlier
            and explained how you could participate.

            I've already got the light on for you there.

            I haven't missed the presuppositions, Jonathan. I would
            like, however, for you and yours, Sye in particular if
            only he would, to be explicit in demonstrating the
            presupposition which makes his "proof of God" claim
            false.

            Your call, Jonathan, come out and come around my place,
            or not.

            If not, I may again try to follow your interests in
            these important, public issues here and try to preserve
            the conversation at my place.

            ---------------------------------------------
            ---------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (9) From: Robert Baty Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 Time: About 6:50 PM MT Jonathan, I
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
              https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

              (9)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
              Time: About 6:50 PM MT

              Jonathan,

              I will add this to help you with your problems regarding
              the simplicity of this exercise.

              It is not about me or my presuppositions.

              It is about Sye Ten Bruggencate's and Eric Hovind's, just
              to name two, "proof of God" claim which, I propose, fails
              as a "proof" of God.

              Do you understand "stipulations"?

              You and I can now stipulate that the argument implied by
              Sye and Eric is properly constructed, and that its minor
              premise and conclusion are true.

              The only issue in dispute is the truth of the major premise.

              You have affirmed.

              I have denied.

              Your implied "proof" regarding the alleged truth of the
              major premise is your "presupposition" that "God is" and,
              by a presupposed definition therefrom, argue the truth of
              the major premise.

              We just need to make that explicit.

              I think, once we make that explicit, you just might agree
              with me that the much touted "proof of God" is NO "proof".

              Correct me if you think I have missed something here.

              -----------------------------
              -----------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (10) From: Jonathan Bradford Date: Friday, March 22, 2013 Time: About 6:55 PM MT
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                (10)

                From: Jonathan Bradford
                Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
                Time: About 6:55 PM MT

                Robert,

                I am on the way out the door to a meeting at the moment.

                However, once I am back in a few hours, I will be happy
                to show you how your own arguments destroys itself.

                I don't necessarily expect you to be persuaded by it,
                because people are often not persuaded by truth.

                But your argument does implode on itself nonetheless.
                Quite easily, actually.

                (11)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
                Time: About 6:57 PM MT

                Jonathan, we are talking about Sye's argument, but I
                will try to help you with your problems and Sye's as
                much as I can upon your return, as time allows.

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