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

Re: Sean Boatman v. Robert Baty on Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 6 , Mar 22, 2013
          View Source
          • 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.