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

Re: Bradford To Defend Bruggencate/Hovind "Proof of God"?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    My reply to Jonathan Bradford s verbose evasions: https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (5) From: Robert Baty Date:
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
      My reply to Jonathan Bradford's verbose evasions:

      https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
      https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

      (5)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
      Time: About 8:00 AM MT

      PROPOSITION FOR DISCUSSION:

      - IF you can prove something,
      - THEN God exists.
      -
      -- Affirm: Jonathan Bradford
      -- Deny: Robert Baty

      Rather than come forward with an effort to explain
      why Jonathan thinks that statement is true, Jonathan
      writes as follows:

      - Sye has made a statement:
      -
      - "The Proof that God exists
      - is that without Him you
      - couldn't prove anything."
      -
      - From this statement, you then
      - build what you call an 'inferred'
      - argument. You then call upon Sye
      - to defend this argument that you
      - have created. Robert, this is the
      - very definition of a straw man
      - logical fallacy. You admit to
      - making up your own version of
      - Sye's position to then attempt
      - to tear it down. This is absurd.
      - To call Sye out for not defending
      - an argument that you yourself have
      - admitted to making up is just plain
      - foolishness.
      -
      -- Jonathan Bradford

      What I am doing, of course, is not foolishness and it
      is most certainly not as described by the evasive
      Jonathan Bradford.

      The argument does not represent a "strawman fallacy"
      and there has been no demonstration here that supports
      the proposition that it does not represent Sye Ten
      Bruggencate's "proof of God" claim.

      However, I am long-suffering in helping other people deal
      with their problems.

      Jonathan also wrote, in part:

      - You and I want to have a
      - discussion on a certain issue.
      -
      - We decide upon some common ground
      - that we both accept as a basis for
      - this discussion.

      Obviously, after the initial progress regarding the
      argument, agreeing that it was properly constructed
      and had a true conclusion and minor premise, Jonathan
      has decided he's not up to dealing with that certain
      issue as to the major premise and he offered nothing
      discernable by way of an affirmation for its truth;
      except to imply that it is true based on his presuppositional apologetics and that he actually, implicitly, agrees with me
      that Sye's claim that it is a "proof of God" is NO "proof"
      of God.

      Yes, I know, Jonathan thinks otherwise, and that is fine.

      The important part of what we have accomplished, I think,
      is that Jonathan wants to deny that my argument is properly
      inferred from Sye's claim.

      Despite Jonathan's claim that the argument is properly
      constructed and has true premises which, based on our
      ability to prove something leads to the conclusion that
      "God exists", Jonathan wants to deny that such argument
      is properly inferred from Sye's statement and deny that
      it properly reflects Sye's argument/position.

      That's fine too!

      I will note that Jonathan proposes to reject the argument
      as being a reflection of Sye's position.

      I will wait, however, to see if anyone with moral influence
      on Sye Ten Bruggencate will be able to get him, Sye, to
      explicitly endorse Jonathan's claim rejecting the argument
      or agree with me that the argument is properly inferred
      from his statement and properly reflects his position.

      Sye, I am waiting.

      -------------------------------------
      -------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      I added this in an effort to further and properly frame the fundamental issue based on Jonathan s verbose evasions: https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
        I added this in an effort to further and properly frame the fundamental issue based on Jonathan's verbose evasions:

        https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
        https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

        (6)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
        Time: About 9:10 AM MT

        Robert Baty ---

        Jonathan Bradford wrote, in part:

        - "Let's take a step back
        - and look at this..."

        OK, but let's step back and look at this from a more
        appropriate angle.

        Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind have become famous
        for popularizing the notion as "proof of God" that:

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

        So, what's the argument?

        We know the conclusion:

        - "God exists".

        We know the minor premise:

        - "you can prove something".

        Can we infer the major premise from the conclusion and
        minor premise?

        I think so, and it looks like this:

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

        So then, I think we've got all we need to properly present
        Sye's and Eric's argument:

        Major Premise:

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

        Minor Premise:

        - You can prove something.

        Conclusion:

        - Therefore, God exists.

        So, we have stepped back and are waiting for Sye Ten
        Bruggencate and/or Eric Hovind to resolve the issue
        raised by Jonathan Bradford and for them, Sye and/or
        Eric, to explicitly accept the above argument as
        representing their position or for them to explicitly
        reject it.

        I win either way, but I would like for them, as well
        as the evasive, misguided Jonathan Bradford, to repent
        and deal openly and honestly with these simple, fundamental
        matters.

        ----------------------
        ----------------------
      • rlbaty50
        I also have now posted the following directly to Sye Ten Bruggencate via one of his FaceBook pages where he has recently been seen posting. He s blocked me
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
          I also have now posted the following directly to Sye Ten Bruggencate via one of his FaceBook pages where he has recently been seen posting. He's blocked me from his other FaceBook page where I had been posting.

          https://www.facebook.com/syetenb

          (7)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
          Time: About 9:25 AM MT

          Sye,

          Sean Boatman and Jonathan Bradford have been running
          a little interference for you.

          You might help them out by repenting, coming clean,
          and openly, honestly and explicitly responding to what
          has now become the fundamental issue; whether or not
          you accept the above argument as a reflection of your
          "proof of God" claim (i.e., a properly constructed
          argument with true premises).

          See:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31376

          In a show of good faith, Sye, please direct your response
          via email addressed to:

          Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

          ----------------------------------
          ----------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (8) From: Robert Baty Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013 Time: About 1:15 PM MT Jonathan
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
            https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
            https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

            (8)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
            Time: About 1:15 PM MT

            Jonathan Bradford wrote, in part:

            - You (Robert Baty) build what
            - you call an 'inferred' argument.
            -
            - You then call upon Sye to defend
            - this argument that you have created.
            -
            - This is the very definition of a
            - straw man logical fallacy.

            Let's try it this way:

            Straw man fallacy defined:

            "A fallacy in which an opponent's position is
            depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable
            than is justified by what was actually asserted."

            It seems that Jonathan can't even get that straight; or
            agree with me on a stipulative definition for the straw
            man fallacy if we are going to be discussing it.

            Sye Ten Bruggencate asserted:

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

            If Sye Ten Bruggencate wants to take the position that
            the following is not properly inferred, using the divine
            logic he believes in, then let Sye come out, come clean,
            and tell us explicitly that he does not claim it as
            reasonably representing his position:

            Major Premise:

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

            Minor Premise:

            - You can prove something.

            Conclusion:

            - Therefore, God exists.

            If that argument is just what I claim for it, let Sye come
            out, come clean and counsel his misguided supporters as to
            the propriety of my claims regarding the argument.

            I win either way.

            I just want to give Sye as many opportunities as I can to
            deal openly and honestly with my representations of his
            position and have no desire to misrepresent what he claims
            about my representations of his position.

            -----------------------
            -----------------------
          • rlbaty50
            We have a winner! Jonathan Bradford wins the verbosity prize with his latest 4 postings in further evasion of his problems; but he makes important concessions
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
              We have a winner! Jonathan Bradford wins the verbosity prize with his latest 4 postings in further evasion of his problems; but he makes important concessions confirming my victory over him, Sye and Eric.

              After posting his 4 missives in this message, I will post my reply in a separate message.

              https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
              https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

              (9)

              From: Jonathan Bradford
              Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
              Time: About 2:45 PM MT

              Robert,

              Wow! You are so far off the reservation, now I know why others would block or delete you. It's almost as if you don't understand basic reading comprehension skills, or even English. You have tunnel vision towards your own idea, and then you blame others when you don't get the things you want. It's like dealing with an intellectual 8 year old.

              Yet in my patience, I'll make another attempt to deal with you. Let's have a look at your reply.

              // PROPOSITION FOR DISCUSSION:

              - IF you can prove something,
              - THEN God exists.
              -
              -- Affirm: Jonathan Bradford
              -- Deny: Robert Baty //

              Robert, please remember that this is your desire for conversation. This is not a mutually agreed upon topic for discussion. You came here and dictated terms for a discussion, then whined when they weren't met. I agreed to show you why you were missing the picture with your attempts to force a discussion into the narrow pigeon hole you think it should be in.

              // What I am doing, of course, is not foolishness and it is most certainly not as described by the evasive Jonathan Bradford. //

              It is absolutely foolishness, on multiple levels. In this case, it is foolishness to attempt to define someone's position for them, then claim that they can't support it when they don't respond to your made up arguments in the method that you wish them to respond.

              As for me being evasive, that's just pure nonsense. It's like you have your head in the sand and don't wish to exercise basic reading comprehension skills. I can hardly be called evasive when I responded exactly the way I agreed to respond. And I can hardly be called evasive when I responded to the issue in question. Just because you can't seem to grasp the concept or form of the response, doesn't mean that a response was evasive.

              // The argument does not represent a "strawman fallacy" and there has been no demonstration here that supports the proposition that it does not represent Sye Ten Bruggencate's "proof of God" claim. //

              A straw man logical fallacy is when you create your own version of another person's position for the purpose of attacking what the other person didn't actually say. You freely admitted to creating an inferred argument from Sye and Eric's position. It's in black and white. You've admitted it in writing. Anyone who wants to can read the part where you admit making it up and assigning it to them. You can't really get much closer to the concept of a straw man than that.

              To deny it is mind-boggling!

              // However, I am long-suffering in helping other people deal with their problems. //

              I do believe that a more appropriate response would have been "I am long-suffering in ignoring what people say and pounding the drum on my own position". That would have been more accurate here.

              // Obviously, after the initial progress regarding the argument, agreeing that it was properly constructed and had a true conclusion and minor premise, Jonathan has decided he's not up to dealing with that certain issue as to the major premise and he offered nothing discernable by way of an affirmation for its truth //

              First, I went to excessive lengths to show why that's not actually the issue. Just because you think that it's the issue, because that's the way you want to look at it, doesn't mean that's actually the issue at hand. Your complete and total inability to even recognize the presuppositions that you bring to the table is mind-boggling. Until you recognize those things that have been pointed out to you numerous times, actual conversation with you on this is likely to go completely nowhere. You seem to have a mental block on the issue, unable to see outside your own narrow focus on your own pet argument.

              Just because I know a certain premise is true, that does not mean that I would argue that way to support the conclusion, which I also know to be true. You want to force people into your way of thinking, when that's not the way they have presented their way of thinking.

              Second, I actually did offer much discussion to show why it is true. Once again, you seem to be narrowly focused upon deductive style confirmation, and can't seem to grasp a transcendental method of thought. But your inability to do so doesn't negate the fact that the major premise was shown to be true. Multiple ways. If you aren't a fan of the methodology, or can't understand it, that's a different point entirely. But to claim 'nothing discernible' was offered is just flat out untrue. Anybody can see that.

              // except to imply that it is true based on his presuppositional apologetics and that he actually, implicitly, agrees with me that Sye's claim that it is a "proof of God" is NO "proof" of God. //

              And here we are again, with your inability to understand the presuppositions that you bring to the table. Just because you don't recognize your own presuppositions, and don't see how they affect the entire conversation, despite my extensive attempt to show you quite clearly how they do actually affect the conversation, you still want to lie about my position and claim that I implicitly agree with you.

              I have clearly and obviously DIS-agreed with you, both explicitly in my comments, and implicitly in the argumentation that I gave to you. To claim otherwise is either willful blindness or complete dishonesty.

              // Despite Jonathan's claim that the argument is properly constructed and has true premises which, based on our ability to prove something leads to the conclusion that "God exists", Jonathan wants to deny that such argument is properly inferred from Sye's statement and deny that it properly reflects Sye's argument/position. //

              Robert, what I am saying, since it is clearly spelled out in the words that I have used, is that you are arguing against a form of argument that Sye and Eric didn't use. This is evident from the way that you, self-admittedly, had to create an inferred form of the argument. The real question is, why are you not able to deal with the comments Sye and Eric made, instead of having to create your own version of them? Why can't you deal with their comments on their own terms, instead of forcing what they say into your terms? First you make up your own version of Sye and Eric's claims, and now you are making up your own version of mine. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Again, I can see why people don't wish to engage with you.

              // I will wait, however, to see if anyone with moral influence on Sye Ten Bruggencate will be able to get him, Sye, to explicitly endorse Jonathan's claim rejecting the argument or agree with me that the argument is properly inferred from his statement and properly reflects his position. //

              Once again, you are setting up a position and then claiming you win by default. It's absurd, and would be humourous if it weren't so sad.

              (10)

              From: Jonathan Bradford
              Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
              Time: About 2:50 PM MT

              // - "Let's take a step back
              - and look at this..."

              OK, but let's step back and look at this from a more appropriate angle. //

              The appropriate angle was the one that I showed, exposing the presuppositions that you bring to the table. But instead of recognizing that, or even attempting to address it through a denial followed by reasoning, you completely refuse to deal with the issue. You refuse to even acknowledge that the point was made. The fundamental point of the issue, which was clearly spelled out for you, is something you categorically refuse to address. Once again, I am unsure if this is simply a massive blind spot in your intellect, that you are unable to see it, or if you are being intentionally dishonest in refusing to address the issue.

              // Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind have become famous for popularizing the notion as "proof of God" that:………So, what's the argument? //

              First, they aren't the original one's to popularize it. Nothing against Sye and Eric, they do wonderful work in service to God, but they will also both tell you that they stand on the shoulders of those who went before them. The quote that you keep repeating as the basis for the argument that you make up has been around in some form since before both of them were born.

              Second, why do you continue to not address the argument on the terms in which they produce it? To continue to change what they say, and force it into your format for your purposes of discussion, and then go so far as to expect them to respond to your argument all the while claiming that it is theirs - well, as mentioned already, that is just pure foolishness.

              // So then, I think we've got all we need to properly present Sye's and Eric's argument: //

              And here's the key: you seem to want to claim that the 'proper' way to present it is in deductive form. Yet they present it transcendentally. Stop trying to force them to deal with your argument, and be intellectually honest and deal with their argument as presented. I realize that this will probably require some extensive learning on your part. You will need to go out and research transcendental reasoning and argumentation. But if you seriously want to engage with what they say, in any intellectually honest way, you are going to need to do that.

              Unfortunately, with your continued denial to do so, it seems that you have no desire to engage them in any intellectually honest way.

              // So, we have stepped back and are waiting for Sye Ten Bruggencate and/or Eric Hovind to resolve the issue raised by Jonathan Bradford //

              And more dishonesty appears. This is not the issue that I have raised. Anyone can read my comments and clearly see that when I said "Let's take a step back and look at this", compared to when you said "let's take a step back and look at this", I looked at it in a fundamentally different way than you did. To then apply your ideas to me is flat out lying, Robert. To claim that I raised this issue, when it is clearly you that raised it, is simply a lie. Anyone can see it, it's there on the record. Your intellectual dishonesty is made completely explicit and obvious.

              // to explicitly accept the above argument as representing their position or for them to explicitly reject it. //

              Or they can simply respond as I have been trying to show you here - by showing that deductive reasoning is not the appropriate methodology to use, and that a transcendental methodology exposes your presuppositions and establishes the claim. You would do well to recognize the false dichotomy you present, and deal with the comments that they make on their own terms!

              // I win either way, //

              You sure do want to believe that. It's obvious that it's your only possible hope. But no amount of your failure to discuss their actual comments, and no amount of attacking the straw man of your own making, will actually help you see the fundamental presuppositions that you bring to the table.

              // but I would like for them, as well as the evasive, misguided Jonathan Bradford, to repent and deal openly and honestly with these simple, fundamental matters. //

              I have been neither evasive (since I extensively dealt with the issue in question), nor misguided (since I have done everything I can to help you recognize and admit the fundamental presuppositions that you have). To call me either is outright dishonesty. You've made no attempt to deal with the issues presented, and simply resorted to ad hominem attacks in the end. You've used up any goodwill that I have presented to you.

              (11)

              From: Jonathan Bradford
              Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
              Time: About 2:55 PM MT

              // "A fallacy in which an opponent's position is depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what was actually asserted." It seems that Jonathan can't even get that straight; or agree with me on a stipulative definition for the straw man fallacy if we are going to be discussing it. //

              I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised when you simply choose to define things in such a way as to make it the best possible scenario for your case. Since I have already provided a definition for a straw man fallacy further above, I can't believe that you would think I use the same definition that you wish to present here. If you go back up to where I first mentioned it, I stated that "you then build what you call an 'inferred' argument. You then call upon Sye to defend this argument that you have created". I then stated that "this is the very definition of a straw man logical fallacy". I then clarified this with the statement "You admit to making up your own version of Sye's position to then attempt to tear it down." So I've already shown you what I believe is a straw man argument - making up an argument that your opponent didn't present in order to attack a position that they do not put forth.

              This is perfectly consistent with the definition of a straw man argument found from many different sources. For example:

              "A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to argue against that misrepresentation"

              "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it"

              "A straw man argument is when a person attacks an argument which is different from the opponent's argument"

              "A straw man fallacy occurs when someone attacks a different position than the one actually put forth"

              This is what you have been doing. Sye and Eric present a transcendental argument. You present a deductive argument. Those are different things. You seem to fundamentally not understand that fact. Until you grasp that, I don't think you'll ever be able to do anything other than bang your head against the wall on this issue.

              You may not think that it is important, but it's one of the vital issue about which those guys are even talking. To attempt to prove ANYTHING deductively must ultimately presuppose that God exists.

              In our specific conversation here, you also miss the entire point that I am trying to make. I personally believe everything about the argument as you've presented it. However, it's not an argument I would defend, as you are asking me to, since to even state the argument, it is necessary for God to exist. God isn't proved deductively, God is necessary for deduction to even be valid in the first place. Let me say that again so it can sink in: God isn't proved deductively, God is necessary for deduction to even be valid in the first place. Despite the fact that a deductive argument like this may be valid and sound, it isn't the proper method to prove God. God is the necessary precondition for absolutely every last aspect of that argument to exist in the first place. It is valid and sound because God exists. God isn't the conclusion of your argument - He is the necessary foundation for you to even make the argument in the first place. You couldn't even state the argument, let alone be for or against it, unless God exists.

              // If Sye Ten Bruggencate wants to take the position that the following is not properly inferred, using the divine logic he believes in, then let Sye come out, come clean, and tell us explicitly that he does not claim it as reasonably representing his position //

              Why should he bother responding to every single person who chooses to misrepresent him? Why should he spend time trying to defend an argument that he doesn't make? Robert, you seem to think that you've got a great case to prove Sye and Eric wrong. But you haven't even understood what they are saying, which you have conclusively shown here. If you ever get to the point of even understanding what they say, and can come up with a coherent response to their actual position, they may give you the time of day.

              But until you can actually show that you can do that, I doubt you'll get a response from them.

              (12)

              From: Jonathan Bradford
              Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
              Time: About 3:00 PM MT

              But in the interest of offering you an opportunity to keep the conversation going, I'll give you another opportunity. Since you like to create other people's position for them, here's what we are going to do. If you want to continue the conversation, here is what it's going to require. We are going to have to bring your presuppositions to the forefront so they can be made clear to you.

              First, let's talk about our common ground. For us to have any type of intelligible conversation, we must agree to some common ground so that we can proceed. At the very minimum, for us to continue this conversation, we must accept:

              i) the existence of human knowledge - we are both going to make knowledge claims throughout this discussion;

              ii) the existence of truth - we are both going to make truth claims throughout this discussion;

              iii) the validity of human reasoning - we are both going to use our reasoning throughout this discussion; and

              iv) the existence of logic - we are both going to rely on logic throughout this discussion.

              These four things, at a minimum, are required common ground that we both must agree to before the conversation can go any further. I can only assume that you would like to continue the conversation accepting these four points as common ground we share. If you wish to deny any of these things, then unfortunately we can't proceed with the discussion. If we don't accept at least these four things, the discussion would devolve into absurdity quite quickly, so we need to accept these as common ground before we continue.

              Now, at the same time, having been exposed to Sye and Eric in the past, you have been presented with a number of different truths about these four things:

              i) You have been presented with the fact that God can be the foundation for the existence of human knowledge. You have also been presented with the fact that an atheistic worldview can not possibly provide a foundation for the existence of human knowledge.

              ii) You have been presented with the fact that God can be the foundation for the existence of truth. You have also been presented with the fact that the concept of truth is entirely arbitrary in an atheistic worldview.

              iii) You have been presented with the fact that God can provide a verification of the validity of human reasoning. You have also been presented with the fact that the validity of human reasoning is simply arbitrary in an atheistic worldview.

              iv) You have been presented with the fact that God can be the foundation for the existence of logic. You have also been presented with the fact that an atheistic worldview can not possibly provide a foundation for the existence of logic.

              So, the existence of the Christian God is a necessary precondition for human knowledge, truth, human reasoning, and logic. If you wish our conversation to be based upon this common ground, and you wish to make use of human knowledge, truth, human reasoning and logic, and you desire me to do the same, then you have two options:

              1) Accept that the Christian God exists. This way we have a foundation for the ability to continue the conversation using human knowledge, truth, human reasoning and logic. However, to do so ends your objections, as you would have now accepted the existence of God.

              2) Reject that the Christian God exists. If you take this route, in order to continue having the conversation, and in order to continue relying upon human knowledge, truth, human reasoning and logic, you will need to provide a foundation for these things. You will need to present to me a worldview which can act as the precondition for the existence of all four of these things. If you wish to continue to make any knowledge claims, make any truth claims, make use of human reasoning, or make use of logic in the conversation, then these four things would be the common ground that we share. If you wish to use these things to even attempt to make an argument against the existence of God, you would need to provide a foundation for the existence of such things prior to continuing.

              Now, if you wish to continue the conversation without providing such a foundation, I will take that as acknowledgement that you accept God as the foundation for each of these things, and in doing so, you acknowledge that God exists. Every single time you make a knowledge claim, that will be verification that you admit God exists. Every single time you make a truth claim, that will be verification that you admit God exists. Every single time you attempt to use your reasoning, that will be verification that you admit God exists. And every single time you attempt to use logic, that will be verification that you admit God exists.

              So - are you willing to come up with a foundation for these four things that does not require God?

              If so, proceed. I look forward to your attempt.

              If not, every statement that you make will simply strengthen the proof that you know God exists, but you choose to suppress that truth and live in your sin instead.

              -------------------------
              -------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (13) From: Robert Baty Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013 Time: About 4:30 PM MT
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
                https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                (13)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
                Time: About 4:30 PM MT

                Jonathan,

                If you wish to engage in a serious discussion of my sustained claim that the alleged "proof of God" as popularized and proposed by Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind is NO "proof" of God, then you need to repent, be open and honest, deal in good faith and negotiate the logistical details as to how we might pursue and produce such a discussion.

                Otherwise, I am still waiting for Sye and/or Eric to counsel you or agree with you regarding their position as to my representation of their position as is reflected in that argument.

                I can take it either way; for either way for me is a win.

                Sye and Eric assert:

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

                There is a conclusion proposed in that assertion. That conclusion is "God exists".

                Get it:

                Conclusion:

                - Therefore, God exists.

                There is a premise proposed in that assertion. That premise is "you can prove something".

                Get it:

                Minor Premise:

                - You can prove something.

                Using the divine logic of Sye and Eric, you can tie those together with another premise.

                Get it:

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

                Then you can tie all of that together using the divine logic of Sye and Eric and it looks like this:

                Major Premise:

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

                Minor Premise:

                - You can prove something.

                Conclusion:

                - Therefore, God exists.

                Jonathan is cute with his verbose evasions, but his opinions and cover for Eric and Sye do not resolve the question as to whether or not, explicitly, Eric and Sye think I have correctly represented their position on these fundamental matters or not.

                I win either way.

                Sye and Eric have asserted a "proof" for God and when their alleged proof is put forth using their divine logic, they are no where to be found to admit or deny my representations and deal openly and honestly with any issues they may take with my representations.

                Sye, Eric,

                I'll continue to wait and I am confident that you are well aware of how you may contact me regarding these important public issues.

                In Summary:

                Sye and Eric have implicitly admitted/conceded that my analysis is correct and that their "proof", as noted above, is NO "proof".

                They believe the argument to be properly constructed and to have true premises, but they cannot establish the truth of their major premise except by presupposition. That's fine, it just provides NO "proof of God" as they allege.

                They may never explicitly admit/concede the point, but I have asked, and I am more than willing to discuss the details.

                Otherwise, I am long-suffering and will watch and wait.

                ----------------------------
                ----------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                Two more evasive messages from Jonathan Bradford. I ll post them here and then post my reply in a separate message. https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
                  Two more evasive messages from Jonathan Bradford. I'll post them here and then post my reply in a separate message.

                  https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                  https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                  (14)

                  From: Jonathan Bradford
                  Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
                  Time: About 5:05 PM MT

                  Jonathan Bradford Robert,

                  // If you wish to engage in a serious discussion of my sustained claim that the alleged "proof of God" as popularized and proposed by Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind is NO "proof" of God, then you need to repent, be open and honest, deal in good faith and negotiate the logistical details as to how we might pursue and produce such a discussion. //

                  I have done just that. You inability to understand transcendental reasoning is not my fault. Your inability to recognize your own presuppositions is not my fault. Your inability to look beyond your own narrow focus is not my fault. Trying to blame me for your own shortcomings is just sad.

                  // Otherwise, I am still waiting for Sye and/or Eric to counsel you or agree with you regarding their position as to my representation of their position as is reflected in that argument. //

                  I can't answer for those gentlemen, but I can categorically say that you do misrepresent them. They present a transcendental argument. You present a deductive argument. These are not the same thing. Until you recognize and acknowledge that, you are simply spinning your wheels in the mud you have dug yourself into.

                  But since you seem to like basic yes or no questions, let's try it your way.

                  Do Sye and Eric present a transcendental line of reasoning for God's existence?

                  Jonathan - Yes
                  Robert - ???

                  Does Robert present a deductive line of reasoning for God's existence?

                  Jonathan - Yes
                  Robert - ???

                  Is a transcendental line of reasoning the same as a deductive line of reasoning?

                  Jonathan - No
                  Robert - ???

                  Has Robert presented his argument in a different way than Sye and Eric present it?

                  Jonathan - Yes
                  Robert - ???

                  In doing so, has Robert presented something other than what Sye and Eric present?

                  Jonathan - Yes
                  Robert - ???

                  Has Robert then fabricated a position Sye and Eric don't hold and attacked this fabricated position?

                  Jonathan - Yes
                  Robert - ???

                  Is Robert guilty of a logical fallacy?

                  Jonathan - Yes
                  Robert - ???

                  Now, are those simple enough questions for you to follow along? I've done my best to present it in a way that I think you can understand, and bring it down to a level that you can comprehend, based upon what I know about you.

                  // I can take it either way; for either way for me is a win. //

                  Of course you believe that. That's one of the strengths of a straw man position - it makes it easy for you to think that you have won. Doesn't make it in any way logical, valid, or even intellectual, though.

                  // Sye and Eric assert: …… Get it: ….. Get it: ….. Get it: ….. etc, etc, //

                  Robert, no matter how much you try and spell it out, all you are doing is providing more verification that you are arguing against something that Sye and Eric don't put forward, and are making more and more of a fool of yourself.

                  // Jonathan is cute with his verbose evasions, but his opinions and cover for Eric and Sye do not resolve the question as to whether or not, explicitly, Eric and Sye think I have correctly represented their position on these fundamental matters or not. //

                  I don't claim to speak for Sye or Eric in any way. I can imagine that they don't bother responding to you since you clearly, despite all attempts to educate you on the issue, refuse to recognize the presuppositions you bring to the discussion. I have spelled them out multiple times, in multiple ways, and you don't even address the issue for a single second. Amazing how someone can bury their head in the sand so far.

                  // Sye and Eric have asserted a "proof" for God and when their alleged proof is put forth using their divine logic, they are no where to be found to admit or deny my representations and deal openly and honestly with any issues they may take with my representations. //

                  And President Obama doesn't address the arguments I put forth against his policy. I guess that means he's afraid to admit he's wrong and I'm right. Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn't have the time to deal with someone who just wants to whine about their irrelevant position.

                  // Sye and Eric have implicitly admitted/conceded that my analysis is correct and that their "proof", as noted above, is NO "proof". //

                  Refusing to engage foolishness is not implicitly conceding or admitting that such foolishness has merit. Often foolishness is ignored for the very fact of it's foolishness. Consider that for a while.

                  (15)

                  From: Jonathan Bradford
                  Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
                  Time: About 5:10 PM MT

                  Okay, as per a previous post of mine, you have failed to provide a foundation for the common ground you wish to accept in discussing this issue.

                  i) Your latest post makes knowledge claims. You have failed to provide a foundation for the existence of human knowledge. As such, you can only stand on the foundation that God provides, and thereby confirm your knowledge of God's existence.

                  ii) Your latest post makes truth claims. You have failed to provide a foundation for the existence of truth. As such, you can only stand on the foundation that God provides, and thereby confirm your knowledge of God's existence.

                  iii) Your latest post attempts to make use of human reasoning. You have failed to provide a foundation for the validity of human reasoning. As such, you can only stand on the foundation that God provides, and thereby confirm your knowledge of God's existence.

                  iv) Your latest post attempts to make use of logic. You have failed to provide a foundation for the existence of logic. As such, you can only stand on the foundation that God provides, and thereby confirm your knowledge of God's existence.

                  Robert, you have shown multiple times over that you are clearly aware of God's existence.

                  It's blatantly obvious.

                  The issue is that you take all these wonderful gifts that God has given you (knowledge, truth, the ability to reason, logic, etc) and you fail to thank God for them.

                  You go so far as to take these gifts from God, and then use them to attack Him.

                  This is a fundamental breaking of the first commandment, Robert.

                  You need to repent of your sins.

                  -----------------------------------
                  -----------------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (16) From: Robert Baty Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013 Time: About 5:15 PM MT
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
                    https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                    https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                    (16)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
                    Time: About 5:15 PM MT

                    Jonathan,

                    Your lack of repentance and continued hypocrisy is noted.

                    If you can now bring yourself to repent and bring forth
                    your works meet for such repentance, you can demonstrate
                    such by making your appearance at my place and requesting
                    that we engage in a discussion of the logistical details
                    necessary to insure a most productive discussion of your
                    continuing problems.

                    Here's the link to my place:

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

                    You can post there by simply addressing your email message to:

                    Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                    See you there,
                    or not!

                    Otherwise, Jonathan, I'm still waiting and watching to see
                    if Eric and/or Sye will come out, come clean and either
                    endorse your analysis or attempt to counsel you regarding
                    your errors.

                    If you and yours do not have the requisite moral influence
                    to get Eric and/or Sye to come out and come clean about
                    these important, public issues, I will have to wait and
                    see if there are others with the requisite influence upon
                    them or if they just decide to do right by me on their own.

                    ----------------------
                    ----------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (17) From: Robert Baty Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013 Time: About 6:20 PM MT Robert
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
                      https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                      https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                      (17)

                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
                      Time: About 6:20 PM MT

                      Robert Baty ---

                      I thought of this little game we can play if there
                      is interest here.

                      Some may remember the "proof of God" claim popularized
                      by such as Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind:

                      - "The Proof that God exists
                      - is that without Him you couldn't
                      - prove anything."
                      -
                      -- Affirm: Sye Ten Bruggencate
                      -- Affirm: Eric Hovind

                      Using the divine powers of logic that Sye and Eric have
                      been heard to so often promote, I could only come up
                      with 2 arguments that could be built from that statement.

                      You may recall that statements such as that are not
                      arguments.

                      Arguments are formulations of premises/statements which
                      one proposes leads to a conclusion.

                      Here are the 2 I came up with:

                      (1)

                      Major Premise:

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

                      Minor Premise:

                      - You can prove something.

                      Conclusion:

                      - Therefore, God exists.

                      (2)

                      Major Premise:

                      - IF God does not exist,
                      - THEN you can't prove anything.

                      Minor Premise:

                      - You can prove something.

                      Conclusion:

                      - Therefore, God exists.

                      You can call those "buttermilk" for all I care.

                      It's not the label that wins the game, it's the presentation
                      of an actual argument properly inferable from the explicit
                      "proof" claim popularized by Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric
                      Hovind.

                      P.S. to Jonathan:

                      Have you talked to Obama lately about your problem?

                      I talked to Sye about his.
                      He turned tail and ran!
                      He's been on the run ever since!
                      His sympathizers have attempted to provide cover.

                      You lost, Jonathan!
                      You lost!

                      --------------------------
                      --------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (18) From: Robert Baty Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013 Time: About 9:45 PM MT Robert
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 23, 2013
                        https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                        https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                        (18)

                        From: Robert Baty
                        Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013
                        Time: About 9:45 PM MT

                        Robert Baty ---

                        Jonathan wrote, in part:

                        - ...people are often not
                        - persuaded by truth.

                        That works both ways, of course, and in this case Jonathan has shown that he should spend more time before the mirror when he feels like popping off with such things.

                        Now, let's consider some of Jonathan's recent statements as compared to what Sye, whose argument is the subject of this exercise, has claimed.

                        Jonathan writes:

                        - ...transcendental reasoning...
                        - ...transcendental line of reasoning...
                        - ...deductive line of reasoning...
                        - ...a transcendental method of thought.
                        -
                        - Sye and Eric present a transcendental
                        - argument.
                        -
                        - You present a deductive argument.
                        -
                        - Those are different things.
                        -
                        - God isn't proved deductively.

                        Sye Ten Bruggencate puts it this way:

                        - "I do have a logical proof
                        - that God exists."
                        -
                        - "The proof that God exists
                        - is that without Him you
                        - couldn't prove anything."
                        -
                        - "It's a legitimate proof."
                        -
                        - "Logic does not change."
                        - "Logic is not made of matter."
                        - "Logic is universal."
                        -
                        - The Proof that God exists is
                        - that without Him you couldn't
                        - prove anything.
                        -
                        - While this proof is valid,
                        - no one needs this proof.
                        -
                        - This type of logical proof
                        - deals with "transcendentals"
                        - ...," and the proof is called
                        - a "transcendental proof."

                        Some may not be persuaded, but Jonathan already addressed the problems with those folks as I noted above.

                        I used Sye Ten Bruggencate's and Eric Hovind's own words and divine logic to put their statement into argument form; a logical argument with logic that is universal, not material, and unchanging.

                        Jonathan may fool some, but he cannot fool all by labeling the argument as "deductive" as if "deductive" precludes the use of Sye's and Eric's "transcendental proof" to establish the truth of one or both of its premises.

                        Even Jonathan, instead of simply setting forth his alleged "transcendental argument" based on Sye's and Eric's proposed "proof of God" claim, suggests there are no other arguments to be inferred therefrom except the ones I have presented and that it is "a transcendental line of reasoning" and/or "transcendental method of thought" that must be used to attempt to establish the truth of the disputed major premise.

                        And so my simple, otherwise uncontroversial claim is established and remains unrebutted.

                        That is, the argument is properly inferred from the words of Sye and Eric and does actually represent their position, implicitly and/or explicitly, as to the "proof of God" claim they have popularized.

                        The problem, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that in resorting to "a transcendental line of reasoning" and "a transcendental method of thought" they give up their much-touted "proof of God" claim and it becomes NO "proof" of God.

                        They, and others, may believe their argument and transcendentalism works, but it does NOT work as a "proof of God".

                        Here's that "deductive" argument of Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind which, in their hands, is also a "transcendental" argument that provides NO "proof of God":

                        Major Premise:

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

                        Minor Premise:

                        - You can prove something.

                        Conclusion:

                        - Therefore, God exists.

                        Besides a number of logical errors Jonathan has been caught in regarding these important public issues, perhaps I should propose that another one he has been practicing regarding the above matters is the "black/white fallacy"; supposing that an argument is either "deductive" or "transcendental".

                        Of course, for all I care, you can call it "buttermilk" and I still won.

                        -----------------
                        -----------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        Like others before him, Jonathan Bradford has gone to publishing his go to hell, Robert sentiments; implicitly admitting that he has come up on the losing
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 24, 2013
                          Like others before him, Jonathan Bradford has gone to publishing his "go to hell, Robert" sentiments; implicitly admitting that he has come up on the losing side of this conversation.

                          I will post Jonathan's latest here and then my responses and some comments from a 3rd part who entered the thread, Lara. Lara's first message to which Jonathan's responds below was not really on-topic and so I didn't that message from her here.

                          https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                          https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                          (19)

                          From: Jonathan Bradford
                          Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                          Time: About 1:00 AM MT

                          Robert,

                          Just when I thought you couldn't produce a bigger fail than you already have, you go all out! I really don't think someone could be more blind to the truth staring them in the face.

                          Let's start with the basics.

                          i) You have made knowledge claims in your posts. You have failed to provide, or even attempt to provide, a foundation for the existence of human knowledge. To even make your most recent posts, you admit that God exists.

                          ii) You have made truth claims in your posts. You have failed to provide, or even attempt to provide, a foundation for the existence of truth. To even make your most recent posts, you admit that God exists.

                          iii) You have attempted to use human reasoning in your posts. You have failed to provide, or even attempt to provide, a foundation for the validity of human reasoning. To even make your most recent posts, you admit that God exists.

                          iv) You have attempted to use logic in your posts. You have failed to provide, or even attempt to provide, a foundation for the existence of logic. To even make your most recent posts, you admit that God exists.

                          Now that we have established that every comment you make actually must presuppose the existence of God, and the very fact that you make them shows that you do know God exists, let's have a look at the other foolishness you've presented here.

                          First, I just wanted to congratulate you on your Yahoo Group that you are so excited about.

                          I wandered over there and noticed that you are carrying on a conversation with yourself.

                          Well done!

                          // Your lack of repentance and continued hypocrisy is noted. //

                          What is it exactly that I should be repenting for? You keep saying this, but don't outline what it is. And what have I been hypocritical about?

                          I did exactly what I told you I would do - I showed that your argument completely destroys itself, since you need to stand upon the existence of God and the truth of the bible for you to even make your argument.

                          // I thought of this little game we can play if there is interest here. //

                          Such a game would require knowledge, truth, reasoning and logic. To even propose the game requires the presupposition of God's existence. Therefore, by proposing this game, you have again shown that you know God exists.

                          (not to mention that you are making up your own rules to the game, which are based upon statements which are simply false to begin with)

                          // I talked to Sye about his.
                          He turned tail and ran!
                          He's been on the run ever since!
                          His sympathizers have attempted to provide cover.

                          You lost, Jonathan!
                          You lost! //

                          So juvenile! I have a brother-in-law that likes to take the scoresheet after we've played some type of card game, and no matter what the final score was, he always circles his name and writes "Winner" beside it. He only does it as a running family joke.

                          Apparently, you actually live in the delusion of doing this type of thing for real. Don't worry - watching someone, who can't grasp reality when it is clearly placed directly in front of them, claim that I lost carries no merit in reality. It may help you sleep at night, but it can't help you get over the fact that you just don't see the truth in front of your face.

                          // Even Jonathan, instead of simply setting forth his alleged "transcendental argument" based on Sye's and Eric's proposed "proof of God" claim, suggests there are no other arguments to be inferred therefrom except the ones I have presented //

                          First, if you actually bothered to read my initial posts, you will see that I DID set forth the argument.

                          You haven't even once addressed the comments that I made in that regard.

                          You've ignored them all.

                          To claim I didn't 'set forth' the argument is a categorical lie.

                          Why do you continue to lie when the truth is simply a few scrolls of the mouse up higher in this very thread?

                          Second, please quote where I "suggested there are no other arguments to be inferred therefrom except the ones I have presented". I did no such thing.

                          However, given your completely obvious lack of reading comprehension skills, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here that maybe you just simply misunderstood me somewhere.

                          Please show my comment that led you to this conclusion, and we can see whether or not you are simply misunderstanding basic English again, or if you are in fact lying again.

                          // And so my simple, otherwise uncontroversial claim is established and remains unrebutted. //

                          Your claim was never established in the first place. It was a simple assertion with no support. It remains as such, and has suffered complete devastation from the arguments provided above.

                          // They, and others, may believe their argument and transcendentalism works, but it does NOT work as a "proof of God". //

                          Again, simple assertions, with no support, that have been categorically shown to be false, are insufficient to disprove fundamental truths of reality.

                          All you are left with is attempting to delude yourself out of reality, but that doesn't change reality.

                          God exists, Robert.

                          Every single statement that you keep making here simply adds to the overwhelming evidence that you know he exists.

                          // Besides a number of logical errors Jonathan has been caught in regarding these important public issues //

                          You have yet to show even a single supposed logical error.

                          You simply keep stating your opinions, and then calling them facts.

                          It's embarrassing, actually. And you have still failed to provide a foundation for logic. To even attempt to make the accusation that someone else is being illogic presupposes the existence of logic, which presupposes the existence of God, which you have once again shown that you know is true. You keep saying things that expose your knowledge of the truth of God's existence.

                          Robert, you need to repent of your sins against the God whom you absolutely know exists.

                          // Of course, for all I care, you can call it "buttermilk" and I still won. //

                          So sad. Your self delusion runs so deep.

                          You are like a child who dreams up an imaginary pet dog. Then tries to have him attack someone. The child keeps yelling "my dog is biting you", while the person just keeps saying "there is no dog". Eventually, that person stops talking with the child and merely walks away. And yet you seem to think that makes your dog real. So pathetic.

                          Robert, this is the lunacy that you end up with when you deny God.

                          Your reasoning turns to complete foolishness, and your arguments can't even get out of the gate of coherence. It's intellectual futility on complete display.

                          (20)

                          From: Jonathan Bradford
                          Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                          Time: About 1:00 AM MT

                          And once more, just to sum up.

                          i) Robert continues to make knowledge claims, with no foundation for human knowledge other than God, showing that he knows God exists.

                          ii) Robert continues to make truth claims, with no foundation for truth other than God, showing that he knows God exists.

                          iii) Robert continues to use human reasoning, with no foundation for the validity of human reasoning other than God, showing that he knows God exists.

                          iv) Robert continues to use logic, with no foundation for logic other than God, showing that he knows God exists.

                          Robert has shown over and over and over again that he knows God exists.

                          Robert, it's time to repent for your sins against God.

                          (21)

                          From: Jonathan Bradford
                          Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                          Time: About 1:00 AM MT

                          Lara,

                          Thanks for joining the conversation.

                          I don't think we would actually be far off on our beliefs, maybe just stating them in different ways.

                          // AS A CHRISTIAN I DISAGREE WITH ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOVE Scripture does NOT govern my life . . . . . . .Christ does! //

                          This is truth. However, the number one method which Christ uses to govern our lives as Christians is Scripture. This is where all life-governing originates, and this is where all life-governing is compared back to. So I think Dr. Bahnsen is making the same point as you, just on a different level of detail in the method.

                          // that I can explain to anyone in vivid real life detail. I have the evidence of eye witness testimony. Not only the testimony of those who knew Christ when he walked the earth 2000 years ago & wrote about it in the Scripture. Not only the testimony of hundred's of thousands of people who have walked with Christ and lived and breathed him for 2000 years, but I have over 30 years of my own daily testimony of who God is and what he does in human lives. //

                          This is all true, and is wonderful witness to so many people. This is great evidence of the truth of the gospel.

                          But some people, who may be like our simple Robert here, will often tell you that they simply don't believe you. They don't believe any of it. Then they will go further and attack the fact that those things are even true. Such a witness is irrelevant to them.

                          // You guys are all trying to argue about the text & reason, and it's as pointless as applying textual criticism to a biography, when life partners who wrote the biography and the subject of the biography himself are sitting in front of you available to answer any questions that you have. //

                          What someone like Sean or myself are trying to do here is to show that any attempt to even argue against the truth of God's existence and the bible as His true revelation to us would require the presupposition of the truth of God's existence and the bible as His true revelation to us. To even argue against God, actually requires God to exist.

                          The apostle Paul calls us to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5). Sometimes that involves showing someone like Robert that his attempt to disprove the existence of God, or mount an argument against the existence of God, is self-contradictory at it's core. Sometimes it involves showing them that their own argument actually defeats itself. Sometimes it involves tearing off the blinders and showing them that they actually do know that God exists - they simply deny Him in their sin. (Rom 1:18-22)

                          // Stop hiding behind your intellectualism and have a relationship with someone for once in your life! If any of you guys are married, do you spend hours arguing about on what basis you can prove that your wife exists? //

                          Lara, this IS trying to have a relationship with someone. Despite what you may think, I actually care about Robert. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I'm trying to show him the foolishness of his viewpoint so that he can come to Christ and be saved. I would love to have Robert as a friend and a brother in Christ.

                          And there is a big difference between whether or not Robert accepts the existence of a person's wife, and whether or not Robert accepts the existence of God. If Robert were to deny the existence of a person's wife, the worst consequence would simply be lots of weird awkwardness and confusing situations.

                          On the other hand, if Robert takes his denial of the existence of God to his grave, the consequence is an eternity spent in hell.

                          That is a huge difference, and it is vitally important.

                          I don't want Robert to spend an eternity in hell.

                          I don't want Robert to follow the trail of his foolishness into an eternity worse than any of us can imagine.

                          And that's why I'll continue to show people like Robert that their arguments against God will always fail, because to make any argument about anything at all requires God to exist in the first place.

                          Sorry if any of this has upset you or offended you, Lara.

                          ------------------------
                          ------------------------
                        • rlbaty50
                          https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 https://www.facebook.com/SixForty (22) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013 Time: About 8:00 AM MT Jonathan
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 24, 2013
                            https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9
                            https://www.facebook.com/SixForty

                            (22)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                            Time: About 8:00 AM MT

                            Jonathan wrote to Lara, in part:

                            - Sometimes that involves showing
                            - someone like Robert that his
                            - attempt to disprove the existence
                            - of God, or mount an argument
                            - against the existence of God...
                            -
                            - If Robert takes his denial of
                            - the existence of God...

                            I figured Jonathan was off-track from the beginning and
                            those comments seem to confirm the fact.

                            I have not denied the existence of God, attempted to
                            disprove the existence of God, or mounted an argument
                            against the existence of God.

                            I have "simply" and effectively pointed out where the
                            "proof of God" claim from Sye and Eric has failed and
                            why that is the case; why they have implicitly agreed
                            with me and sought their explicit acknowledgement so
                            folks like Jonathan would not continue their blundering
                            in defense of a failed "proof" claim.

                            Jonathan has truly showed himself to be the one in need
                            of repentance and the bringing forth of works meet for
                            repentance.

                            Jonathan's continuing bad faith demonstration is made
                            all the more manifest in his admission that he's been
                            snooping around my place and yet would not so much as
                            requite my love by dropping a note to make his appearance.

                            Of course, Jonathan's bad faith continues as well as he
                            goes on and on and on with his misadventures and mis-
                            directions and evasions and refusing to be open and honest
                            about engaging me, as I requested, in a discussion of the
                            logistical details necessary to presenting a more formal
                            discussion of one or more of his continuing problems.

                            Come out, come out, Jonathan!

                            There is help and repentance available, but you have to
                            accept it!

                            I will try to continue to make myself available for such
                            a time as you are willing to engage in an open, honest
                            conversation of one or more of your specific problems in
                            refusing to accept my proposition that the "proof of God"
                            claim of Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate is NO "proof".

                            You know the place.
                            You know the way.

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

                            The email address for your and others, is:

                            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                            See you there, or see you running!

                            (23)

                            From: Lara Scott
                            Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                            Time: About 8:10 AM MT

                            Jonathan,

                            I'm not offended at all, thanks for letting me join the
                            conversation. I joined because I feel compelled to inject
                            some life.

                            You said:

                            //However, the number one method which Christ uses to govern
                            our lives as Christians is Scripture//

                            No. Christ does not use "methods" to govern our lives (like
                            some bureaucrat using methods to control the masses), nor did
                            he give us the Scripture as a "method". Christ uses "love" and
                            gives us himself, the fulfillment of all scripture, to govern
                            our lives. And he uses "life" and gives us His life-giving Holy Spirit who enables us see Him/ourselves in the scripture and who enables us by grace to live in Him and be one with Him and to
                            invite others to the freedom of being one with Him in his love.

                            You said:

                            //The apostle Paul calls us to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God"
                            (2 Cor 10:5).//

                            That's true, but how? In context it says that we do not use
                            mere human fleshly weapons (like reason for instance) but
                            weapons that are powerful (power that Jesus promised would
                            come from the Holy Spirit, see: Lk 24:49 & Acts 1:8) to
                            demolish arguments. And that the goal was every thought focused
                            on the obedience of Christ (not on your brilliant intellectual arguments).

                            You said:

                            //this IS trying to have a relationship with someone. Despite
                            what you may think, I actually care about Robert. I wouldn't
                            be here if I didn't. I'm trying to show him the foolishness
                            of his viewpoint so that he can come to Christ and be saved//

                            Hmmm, we have a "relationship" with someone by standing in a
                            position of superiority and trying to change them??? We show
                            people that we "care" about them by showing them that their
                            views are foolish??? If I remember correctly Jesus showed
                            people that he cared about them by healing them, by serving
                            them, by touching them in the midst of their rejection, by
                            washing their feet and by dying for them while they were
                            sinning and rejecting him, by unlocking the prison doors of
                            hell (that hold people in unbelief) and by inviting every
                            human being to be reborn and to sit with him at the right
                            hand of the Father as one with him in all his victorious
                            glory. Only Jesus did all that! Our job is to live in what
                            he did and invite others to do the same.

                            And Jesus said "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall
                            be in danger of hell fire." Mat. 5:22

                            (24)

                            From: Lara Scott
                            Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                            Time: About 8:30 AM MT

                            Robert,

                            I don't know anything about you but I hope and pray that
                            you have experienced love in this life.

                            If you have even for a moment, then you've experienced
                            God because God is love.

                            However, most Christians, including myself, are really
                            bad at demonstrating the unconditional, humble, faithful
                            love of God to people.

                            Because we also have believed the lie that we have to
                            please him in order to receive his love. No, he loves
                            us just as we are and anyone can receive that.

                            Please forgive us.

                            (25)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                            Time: About 9:00 AM MT

                            Lara,

                            Thanks for the sentiments.

                            Did you have something to offer regarding the failed
                            "proof of God" claim of Sye Ten Bruggencate and/or Eric Hovind?

                            In my experience, people like Jonathan quite often resort to
                            such antics as Jonathan has; one in particular has now caught
                            my attention because of its frequency.

                            That is, Jonathan, in recognition of the fact that he has
                            come out on the losing end of this conversation/issue has
                            resorted to posting cute

                            - "go to hell, Robert"

                            messages.

                            I would rather he had repented and begun to bring forth his
                            works meet for repentance. There is still time and we've got
                            a number of important public issues to discuss, the present
                            issue being the failed transcendental argument of Sye Ten
                            Bruggencate and Eric Hovind which has been falsely promoted
                            as a "proof of God":

                            Sye and Eric assert:

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

                            Sye's and Eric's Transcendental Argument:

                            Major Premise:

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

                            Minor Premise:

                            - You can prove something.

                            Conclusion:

                            - Therefore, God exists.

                            That Sye and Eric and Jonathan and others believe, based
                            on some sort of transcendental meditations which they propose,
                            that the argument is sound does not make it a "proof of God".

                            If any be interested in discussing the details, here's the
                            place and the email address to use in sending in your messages:

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

                            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                            See y'all there,
                            or not.

                            (26)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Sunday, March 24, 2013
                            Time: About 9:20 AM MT

                            I had written, in part, as quoted by Jonathan:

                            - Even Jonathan, instead of simply
                            - setting forth his alleged "transcendental
                            - argument" based on Sye's and Eric's
                            - proposed "proof of God" claim, suggests
                            - there are no other arguments to be
                            - inferred therefrom except the ones I
                            - have presented.

                            Jonathan then writes:

                            - I (Jonathan) DID set forth
                            - the argument.

                            Did anybody see it?
                            I don't remember seeing it!
                            Anybody?

                            Curious that Jonathan did not dare to simply post it instead
                            of try to claim "it's in there".

                            Maybe it's in there.
                            I don't think so.

                            If somebody finds it, I hope they will send a copy of it,
                            with appropriate reference to where it is found, to the
                            following email address in a show of good faith and to
                            requite my love for this place:

                            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                            Here for ready reference are those words of Sye and Eric
                            and their two transcendental arguments I have inferred
                            therefrom:

                            Sye and Eric assert:

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

                            Sye's and Eric's Transcendental Arguments:

                            TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT #1

                            Major Premise:

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

                            Minor Premise:

                            - You can prove something.

                            Conclusion:

                            - Therefore, God exists.

                            TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT #2

                            Major Premise:

                            - IF God does not exist,
                            - THEN you can't prove anything.

                            Minor Premise:

                            - You can prove something.

                            Conclusion:

                            - Therefore, God exists.

                            I will be glad to consider a 3rd argument, or 4th, 5th,
                            as many as you might suggest, and such as may be reasonably
                            inferred from the "proof of God" claim popularized by Sye
                            and Eric, quoted above, and consider the merits thereof.

                            Despite Jonathan's verbose evasions, my simple demonstration
                            that Sye's and Eric's "proof of God" claim is NO "proof" of
                            God remains unrebutted.

                            Those interested in a further discussion of such things are
                            welcome to come around my place and take up that conversation
                            there, in a show of good faith:

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

                            See y'all there,
                            or not.

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