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

Re: Sean Boatman, et al v. Robert Baty on Presuppositionalism!

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