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

Re: Vincenzini v. Baty - Presuppositionalism

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (6) From: Robert Baty Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 Time: About 11:00
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
      https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini

      (6)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
      Time: About 11:00 PM MT

      Here's the example I use in asking that presuppositionalists
      like Sye Ten Bruggencate quit claiming their "not-a-proof"
      is "proof of God".

      Non-falsifiable presuppositional assertion:

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

      Non-circular argument implied by the assertion:

      Major Premise:

      - IF there is no God,
      - THEN you cannot know anything.

      Minor Premise:

      - You can know something.

      Conclusion:

      - Therefore, there is a God.

      As Gino has already admitted, he can't establish the truth
      of the major premise implied by his non-falsifiable
      presuppositional assertion.

      His circular reasoning (presupposition) renders him incapable
      of establishing the truth of the major premise.

      As Sye and Jason and others admit, it's only a gimmick to
      use for fussing with atheists and such.

      The alleged "proof of God" is NO "proof".

      ---------------------------------------------

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      I jumped into the discussion after Gino made his comment labeled as (1) below. -
      RLBaty

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
      https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini

      (1)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
      Time: About 9:30 PM MT

      You're fooling yourself if you think your starting point
      alone made my computing device.

      I posit that you need God as a circular starting point
      in order to make sense of what your current worldview
      lacks, why logic is TRANSCENDENT meaning that it actually
      carries the weight to prove something.

      That morality is TRANSCENDENT meaning it carries the
      weight to condemn and sanctify something.

      Without God, you can't use these things anymore and
      remain consistent because your set of circular starting
      points (or presuppositions) which make up how you view
      everything (world view) do not account for these methods
      and functions.

      (2)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
      Time: About 9:50 PM MT

      Greg Bahnsen claimed this:

      - "Transcendentals are not falsifiable".

      So the presuppositionalist makes presuppositional
      assertions which, according to their champion, cannot
      be falsified.

      They cannot establish the truth of their assertions;
      they seem to concede that is the case and that's why
      they call them presuppositions.

      Some believe their assertions.
      Some don't.

      (3)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
      Time: About 10:00 PM MT

      Robert: you believe the assertions even when you claim
      not to. Your use of logic depends on the assertion that
      the Christian God exists.

      (4)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
      Time: About 10:05 PM MT

      The truth of presuppositions can be established, they
      just can't be falsified or proven without engaging a
      circular argument.

      (5)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
      Time: About 10:15 PM MT

      Gino,

      You seem to have learned the lessons of Jason Lisle well
      as he presents the case for presuppositionalism at:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsXYfhlWAXU&feature=endscreen&NR=1

      It's as if you were reading from his script for your
      antics here; or maybe from Sye's.

      The use of logic does not depend on the assertion that
      the Christian God exists.

      As I have said a number of times now, when you admit that
      you can't establish the truth of your assertions except to
      engage in circular reasoning, you give up your assertion that
      you have "proved" anything and you haven't established the
      "truth" of the matter.

      For myself, I have had problems with folks like you even
      agreeing with me as to how to define a circular argument.

      I keep asking for folks like Sye Ten Bruggencate, and now
      you, to give up your claim that presuppositionalism provides
      a "proof of God".

      -----------------------------------------
      -----------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (7) From: Gino Vincenzini Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Time: About
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
        https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini

        (7)

        From: Gino Vincenzini
        Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
        Time: About 10:00 PM MT

        Robert:

        > "You seem to have learned the lessons
        > of Jason Lisle well as he presents the
        > case for presuppositionalism at: <link>"

        No, Actually I don't think I've heard of Jason Lisle:
        it's just that consistent.

        > "It's as if you were reading from his
        > script for your antics here; or maybe
        > from Sye's."

        I was a presuppositionalist before I'd ever heard of
        Sye Ten Bruggencate.

        > "The use of logic does not depend on the
        > assertion that the Christian God exists."

        Nice assertion, is that your presupposition or a statement
        you can prove, if a presupposition, then what makes it a
        necessary precondition to reasoning that it should be a presupposition?

        > "As I have said a number of times now,
        > when you admit that you can't establish
        > the truth of your assertions except to
        > engage in circular reasoning, you give
        > up your assertion that you have "proved"
        > anything and you haven't established the
        > "truth" of the matter."

        Actually I established the truth by showing that my set of presuppositions or world view can account for the reality
        around us (to be generous to you) more adequately than your naturalistic materialistic and humanistic ones. (actually it
        can account perfectly because it reflects the creator of that
        world in view.

        The problem with your view is that you are trying to force
        me to prove something which is a necessary precondition to
        proof and logic in the first place. This is like asking you
        to prove that non-contradiction is logical without using
        logic (because that would be a circular argument).

        > "For myself, I have had problems with
        > folks like you even agreeing with me
        > as to how to define a circular argument."

        The issue is not that a presupposition is a circular argument,
        it is.

        The premise however that is never stated and assumed false
        on the part of atheism (without a shred of proof I might
        add for this being the case) is that God is not precondition,
        but conclusion.

        That is that God must be proved from a "not-god" view point
        (as if that were possible) and then it will be accepted rather
        than realizing the blatent reality that the very reasoning and
        logic in use requires the premise an atheist demands be proven.

        You reject this but I must ask you then, Is non-contradiction transcendentally true?

        If it's a truth then it's a claim, prove it!

        > "I keep asking for folks like Sye Ten
        > Bruggencate, and now you, to give up
        > your claim that presuppositionalism
        > provides a "proof of God"."

        Presuppositionalism provides proof in God.

        It forces you to acknowledge that the proof is in fact all
        around you and clearly percieved by you but in unrighteousness,
        you supress the truth.

        You utilize logic, you observe the universe around you, you
        know in your heart of hearts that God exists and you supress
        that truth and knowledge.

        You don't need me to meet some impossible standard of proof
        (that is 'prove "god" from my "not-god" premises.') to know
        that the proof is already been supplied, you just account it
        wrong.

        Given this I cannot give up the claim that presuppositionalism
        proves God, it does because you cannot even reason without
        borrowing the God premise from my worldview.

        You know this and suppress and ignore.

        You're a kid with his fingers in his ears going "la la la
        la la la! Prove it! La La La La!"

        I can't reason with you if you refuse to reason, but at
        least doing so would be consistent with your deficient
        worldview.

        > "Here's the example I use in asking that
        > presuppositionalists like Sye Ten Bruggencate
        > quit claiming their "not-a-proof" is "proof
        > of God".
        >
        > Non-falsifiable presuppositional assertion:
        >
        >> "The Proof that God exists is
        >> that without Him you couldn't
        >> know anything."
        >
        > Non-circular argument implied by the assertion:
        >
        > Major Premise:
        >
        >> IF there is no God,
        >> THEN you cannot know anything.
        >
        > Minor Premise:
        >
        >> You can know something.
        >
        > Conclusion:
        >
        >> Therefore, there is a God."

        You not only CAN know something but you DO know something,
        moreover logic cannot be established transcendentally without
        belief in the Christian God, otherwise logic is used but not accounted for.

        You can't prove logic with logic because that would be a
        circular argument, you can't prove logic with something
        else because that would mean you can know something without
        using logic.

        Logic is presuppositional and it must be transcendent or
        it's useless to mean anything.

        You can say that we haven't seen anything self contradictory
        that is true but in a naturalistic materialistic worldview,
        there's nothing to actually make this so, so something could
        be true and contradictory as well.... so in your worldview,
        I win, even if you point out inconsistency and contradiction,
        because mine is just the exception to the convention you've previously observed.

        You would never accept that as an argument which is why you
        know that logic is transcendent.

        This means it's presuppositional, and moreover, only God,
        who institutes such trasncendental laws, could give such
        ideas congency.

        This is the major problem with your worldview which mine
        never suffers.

        > "As Gino has already admitted, he can't
        > establish the truth of the major premise
        > implied by his non-falsifiable presuppositional
        > assertion."

        No.

        I use logic and the like to establish the truth of the major
        premise: without God you cannot prove/know anything.

        I've done so in the paragraph above concerning worldviews.

        Mine can account for truth, yours cannot, truth exists
        therefore my worldview is more reasonable and yours is
        not just less reasonable but unreasonable.

        > "His circular reasoning (presupposition)
        > renders him incapable of establishing the
        > truth of the major premise."

        Circular reasoning is part and parcel of all epistemological reasoning.

        You're nuts if you think you can prove something without
        borrowing premises from a Christian Worldview.

        Why don't you go retake epistemology and philosophy 101
        and maybe you'll be equipped to address the topic.

        > "As Sye and Jason and others admit, it's only a gimmick
        > to use for fussing with atheists and such."

        None of the above admitted it's a gimmick, not even I,
        you've grossly forced your meanings and contexts into
        our words and I can't help you if you fail to accept
        communication. I won't address you further until you
        show signs of doing so.

        > The alleged "proof of God" is NO "proof".

        ABSOLUTELY!

        because you cannot prove a presupposition, and you're
        not supposed to.

        Your presuppositions are insufficient while mine are not.

        You 'prove' the presupposition by demonstrating that it
        is capable of accounting for reality and it's opposite
        incapable, that is the impossiblity of the contrary.

        God not existing is impossible and Christianity is the
        only theistic religion which holds consistently.


        (8)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
        Time: About 10:15 PM MT

        Gino,

        My experience has been that presuppositionalists like to out-write/out-talk their opposition and speak of many things off-topic. Your latest efforts have reinforced the conclusions I have drawn from such experiences.

        I think the substance of what you had to say was to agree with me despite all the smoke and mirrors that went before and after.

        I had written:

        - The alleged "proof of God"
        - is NO "proof".

        You confirmed that by writing:

        - ABSOLUTELY!

        You offered an explanation for your agreement with me:

        - ...because you cannot prove
        - a presupposition, and
        - you're not supposed to.

        We might deal with many other details, but you also wrote:

        - I (Gino) can't help you if
        - you fail to accept communication.
        - I won't address you further until
        - you show signs of doing so.

        For now, I will accept your concession of agreement with me
        that the alleged "proof of God" made popular by such as Sye
        Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind is NO "proof of God".

        Should you wish my further consideration of your problems,
        feel free to let me know and we can negotiate some other
        specific issue of mutual interest for further consideration
        and the logistical details necessary to make it productive
        and efficient.

        ------------------------------
        ------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        A number of people have contributed to the FaceBook discussion regarding these matters. I have not copied all of the messages here. I have copied what I
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 4, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          A number of people have contributed to the FaceBook discussion regarding these matters. I have not copied all of the messages here.
          I have copied what I considered most relevant. While Gino Vincenzini may have left the conversation, Sean Boatman, my former adversary via his FaceBook page, would not allow the conversation to come to an end and has re-ignited the issues.

          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
          https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini

          (8)

          From: Sean Boatman
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Gino Vincenzini,

          You will find Robert running around to every venue
          possible shouting from the rooftops that there is
          something logically wrong with the TAG or pre-sup
          argument.

          All the while completely and utterly ignoring the
          fact that he cannot account for logical absolutes
          in the first place despite repeated attempts to
          get him to do so.

          He also refuses to explain why anyone ought to be
          compelled to answer truthfully as if being truthful
          is some sort of moral absolute that we are bound to.

          <----(shoulder shrugs)

          (9)

          From: Sean Boatman
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Speaking of sheep.......

          What I know is that Sye repeatedly comes to these
          kinds of forums and repeatedly sees his questions
          go unanswered.

          (10)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Sean Boatman, one of my recent adversaries, wrote:

          - What I know is that Sye
          - repeatedly comes to these
          - kinds of forums and repeatedly
          - sees his questions go unanswered.

          Quite the hypocrite is Sye.

          He and his apologists whine about their adversaries not
          answering questions, while Sye refuses to deal openly
          and honestly about questions relating to his own, bold
          "proof of God" claim that is NO "proof of God".

          See Sye run!
          Run, Sye run!

          I will try to make myself available to you, Sye, if you
          ever decide to come out, come clean and admit that I have
          properly evaluated your "proof of God" claim and concluded
          you are simply wrong to promote it as a "proof of God".

          Sye, I earlier asked you to openly and honestly negotiate
          with me for a formal, productive exchange regarding your
          problems.

          You, Sye, ran!

          Sean ran!

          Sean, I am also available if you want to come out, come
          clean and negotiate for a productive exchange regarding
          your problems related to Sye's bogus "proof of God" claim.

          Will Sean run again?

          (11)

          From: Tina Hillman Schmidt
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Wait, Gino Vincenzini, so you are saying because we believe
          in science, which is backed up by PROOF, that WE are
          presupposing?

          And that the only reason we have logic and reasoning is
          because GOD gave them to us?

          Argh.

          (12)

          From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Presuppositional Apologetics:

          The argument from "I'm rubber, you're glue.".

          (13)

          From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Oh, and fyi, Sean Boatman is just a xxxxxx poe.

          (14)

          From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
          Date: April 4, 2013

          Well, poe, or a liar for profit.

          (15)

          From: Dan DeMura
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Well Sean... then perhaps you'll be able to answer the
          question that your Daddy Sye nor your brother Gino have
          are able to answer...

          What makes your presuppositional argument distinct from
          a Muslim who holds to the presuppositional argument that
          YOU know within you that Allah exists and Muhammad is
          his prophet you simply refuse to reject it...

          How do you "reason" with this kind of asinine wannabe
          logic?

          Sye won't answer it and in debates he feigns insult
          "see atheists can't answer questions so they run to
          other faiths for their basis"...

          Understand I AM NOT doing any such thing because I see
          a Muslim presuppositional argument just as stupid as I
          do the Christian one...

          My question is how is your presoppositional argument
          any different than any other?

          Do you have an answer?
          Didn't think so.

          (16)

          From: Tina Hillman Schmidt
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Almost EVERY faith thinks their faith is one true faith - so essentially, yes, they all have the same presupposition.

          (17)

          From: Keith Collura
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Tina It depends what claim you're referring to then. I was
          referring to Gino's claim within the faith, and many within
          the faith recognize there are other Christians.

          (18)

          From: Keith Collura
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Sean Boatman u actually understand and agree with Sye?

          This is a first, I just thought he had one puppet screaming
          from rooftops named Tim.

          Maybe this makes sense to Sye and a handful of the rest of
          you because your given special knowledge from god?

          And if your mission is to "save the lost souls" you guys
          are doing a shitty job articulating your point(s).

          (19)

          From: Tina Hillman Schmidt
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          What gets me, Keith Collura, is how the different sects
          of Christianity, like Baptists, Mormons, Church of Christ,
          etc., are all so sure if you don't follow THEIR way, you
          are going to hell anyway.

          It's not just good enough to be a Christian, you have to
          be their type of Christian.

          (20)

          From: Keith Collura
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          ^yea true. It's one big cluster xxxx

          (21)

          From: Sean Boatman
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Well last time I was here I saw nobody even come close
          to refuting it.

          Further, from what I recall, nobody would step up to
          the plate and debate this via Skype for all to see.

          For such a poor argument, it's amazing how nobody ever
          wants to show us the error of our ways.

          Oh well, nothing new in that regard.

          (22)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Sean Boatman writes, in part:

          - Well last time I was here I
          - saw nobody even come close
          - to refuting it.

          That is the nature of "nonfalsifiable" claims; they
          are not refutable.

          Sean can't refute "Last Thursdayism".

          Greg Bahnsen, Sean's presuppositional champion claims
          his/their presuppositional assertions are nonfalsifiable.

          Asserting nonfalsifiable claims does not make them true.

          That, it seems, is something Sean and other
          presuppositionalists haven't figured out.

          Sean and Sye and the host of them can make all sorts of
          claims about the worldviews of others. No such claims
          can make their presupposition true.

          Sye's "proof of God" claim remains nonfalsifiable and
          it remains, as Gino recently admitted here, that
          presuppositional, nonfalsifiable claims cannot be shown
          to be true.

          Sye, et al, it's time to stop going everywhere shouting
          from the rooftops that you've got the "proof of God".

          Your presuppositional, nonfalsifiable claims are NOT,
          NOT, NOT "proof of God".

          (23)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013

          Sean, the offer remains outstanding for you or your
          champion to come out, come clean and openly, honestly
          negotiate the logistical details necessary or produce
          an appropriate discussion of the presuppositional
          problem reflected in the popularized claim of Sye
          Ten Bruggencate, and others, that they've got the
          "proof of God".


          -------------------------------------
          -------------------------------------


          Tentative, unposted, possible post:

          ---

          Sean, et al:

          In order to begin the negotiation process, that you and all your presuppositionalists may never accept, here's a proposition that goes to the fundamental "proof of God" claim shouted from the Internet rooftops by the likes of Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind:

          - If there is no God,
          - Then we wouldn't be here
          - fussing about presuppositionalism.
          -
          - Affirm: Sye, Eric, Sean, Jonathan, et al
          - Affirm: Robert Baty

          The difference between us is that I don't go around proposing that assertion is a "proof of God".

          Sye, et al, do.

          So, I am asking for Sye or his champion to come out, come clean, and openly and honestly address the issue and negotiate the logistical details necessary to allow us to produce an appropriate exchange regarding their presuppositional "proof of God" claim.

          I have to leave for awhile, but will check back later to see if any presuppositional promoter may be willing make his appearance.

          The ultimate results, I propose, have already been identified in the claims of Greg and Gino.

          Sye, et al, would do well to agree with them and me.

          That is, while I would welcome a properly arranged discussion of the above proposition in the context of the presuppositional "proof of God" claim, it isn't really necessary.

          Sye, Sean, et al, simply need to admit that their presupposition is NOT, NOT, NOT "proof of God" and that, while they believe it to be true, they cannot demonstrate the truth of their above stated presupposition.
        • rlbaty50
          There s now been a little more action from Gino Vincenzini! https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (24)
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 8, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            There's now been a little more action from Gino Vincenzini!

            https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
            https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini

            (24)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Friday, April 4, 2013

            The latest empirical evidence supporting my claim that
            Sye Ten Bruggencate continues to run from engaging me
            further in a discussion of his problem as evidenced in
            his popular claim to have the "proof of God" can be
            found in the flurry of messages I have posted to my YAHOO!
            discussion list today archiving my exchange with Sye
            sympathizers who continue to provide cover for his
            continuing to run from me and an open, honest conversation
            about his "proof of God" problem.

            Here's the link to my place to find the archived record
            posted today:

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

            (25)

            From: Gino Vincenzini
            Date: Sunday, April 7, 2013
            Time: About 7:00 PM MT

            That isn't exactly the whole argument you're responding
            to... I can't speak to either man "avoiding" you but
            your atheist worldview is insufficient to account for
            reality.

            (26)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Sunday, April 7, 2013
            Time: About 7:15 PM MT

            Gino,

            I don't happen to think you can establish that I have
            an atheist worldview.

            It's not about me in any case; it's about Sye's false
            claim that his presuppositional affirmations are "proof
            of God".

            Simple enough.

            As for me, I think it is so simple that that is why
            Sye and his are on the run; refusing to even come out,
            come clean and openly, honestly negotiate for a proper
            discussion of Sye's "proof of God" problem.

            My previous message here is a further documentation
            as to the lengths they will go to in order to run
            from me and my simple, effective refutation of Sye's
            "proof" claim.

            (27)

            From: Gino Vincenzini
            Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
            Time: About 8:30 AM MT

            I went into more detail but my browser deleted my response
            before i posted it.

            Basically you ignored a lot of components which go into
            that.

            Thats like saying you've refuted the ten commandments
            because you came up with false ways of understanding
            love God with everything and your neighbor as yourself
            which would be immoral or self defeating.

            (28)

            From: Jim Tripnosys
            Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
            Time: About 8:40 AM MT

            Rael ok, i believe in Anubis,
            prove why jesus is real and Anubis is not......

            (29)

            From: Jim Tripnosys
            Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
            Time: About 8:45 AM MT

            Rael and gino tucked his tail and ran from me
            long ago. it's easier to block than to actually
            have an honest discussion.

            (30)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
            Time: About 9:30 AM MT

            Gino,

            You can try to cover for presuppositionalism.

            I get that.

            However, if you want to get serious about critically
            evaluating my charge against Sye that his "proof of God"
            claim is NO "proof of God", I propose that you show a
            little good faith and come around my place, a much better
            venue for such discussions, and take up the matter and
            your related problems as well.

            Here's the address, with public archives:

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

            All you have to do to engage the discussion there is to
            address your email to:

            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

            As with others of your sort, I propose that the first
            order of business is to negotiate the necessary logistical
            details that might insure a most productive exchange for
            the historical record regarding these important, public
            issues.

            Come out, Gino;
            or not!

            P.S.

            In case you haven't noticed, Gino, I've already
            turned the light on for you there.

            See following link and related messages:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31465

            -------------------------------------------------
            -------------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (31) From: Jim Tripnosys Rael Date:
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 8, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
              https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini
              https://www.facebook.com/jimrael

              (31)

              From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 12:00 noon

              He'll run.
              Make any excuse to avoid a level playing field.

              I call it the "Cartman Tactic"

              "SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOIN' HOME!"

              (32)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 12:30 PM MT

              Jim,

              I am glad to see your use of the "level playing field"
              metaphor.

              It is one I have used many times.

              It is quite appropriate to note because my adversaries
              typically do not like having a level playing field and
              openly, honestly negotiating the appropriate logistical
              details that go alone with putting together a productive
              engagement.

              In my experience, the efforts made to produce a desired
              exchange and the negotiations that may ensue involve
              critical and important details regarding the persons
              and issues involved whether or not the result is the
              production of the desired exchange.

              That's one reason why I ask my adversaries to drop in at
              my place as a show of good faith and to requite my love.

              They typically are found going to and fro and yet refuse
              to even post a simple note at my place as a show of good
              faith; all the while making lame excuses for their refusal.

              That they won't even send a note my way says a lot, in my
              opinion, about the prospects of engaging them in negotiating
              the logistical details necessary for a discussion of their
              problems.

              In Sye's case, of course, he is not shy about boasting that
              the playing field is NOT level and he has no desire to make
              it level.

              Sye considers himself to be on God's current list of direct, personal, literal correspondents.

              That's one of his fundamental, theological, mental problems
              that influences Sye's "proof of God" antics and problems
              related thereto.

              -------------------------------------------
              -------------------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (33) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday,
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 8, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
                https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini
                https://www.facebook.com/jimrael

                (33)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
                Time: About 12:50 PM MT


                In further support of why it is that my recent experiences with Sye and his like-minded sympathizers have led me to believe that they are, as a group, acting in bad faith, I offer the following involving one or more members of this group.

                As documented in the archives at my place, I recently spent considerable time and effort ministering to misguided defenders of Sye Ten Bruggencate via the FaceBook page of Sean Boatman.

                Sean quickly deferred to one Jonathan Bradford whose keyboard appeared to be as productive as Sye's mouth.

                As their failures became more and more evident and I was able to point out some of the most egregrious blundering of Jonathan Bradford, what happened?

                All of the sudden that extensive, historical record disappeared from my sight.

                Someone, obviously, had been tampering with the evidence; Sean Boatman "presuppositionally".

                That issue came up again recently when Jonathan Bradford, in the midst of another exchange with me where he was coming out on the losing end, brought it up and alleged that I just quit posting to (i.e., run off from) the discussion via Sean Boatman's page.

                And when I started pressing for some straight answers on that simple matter, what happened?

                Poof!

                Run, presuppositionalists, run!
                See them run!

                Gino, if you think you stand on higher ground than your fellows Sye, Sean, Jonathan, et al, come out, come clean, and openly, honestly negotiate with me how we might produce a critical analysis of my claim that Sye's "proof of God" claim is NO, NO, NO "proof of God"?

                Gino, you can start your travel down that road by sending you acceptance message to me at:

                Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                ---------------------------------
                ---------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                Vincenzini has been going round and round with others over his brand of presuppositionalism. He s dropped out of his chat with me. However, after viewing
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 13, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Vincenzini has been going round and round with others over his brand of presuppositionalism. He's dropped out of his chat with me. However, after viewing some of his most recent, verbose entries, I thought I would pop in and give my analysis and see if there is a positive response from him.

                  https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
                  https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini'

                  (34)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                  Time: About 7:40 AM MT

                  With so much being said and being thrown into the mix,
                  it's a little hard to tell what all the fuss is about
                  on a fundamental level.

                  However, what I did conclude is that Gino is actually
                  agreeing with me, implicitly, that Eric Hovind's and
                  Sye Ten Bruggencate's alleged "proof of God" is NO
                  "proof of God.

                  It would be nice if he could make that explicit, in
                  25 words or less.

                  Further progress might then be made regarding the merits
                  of presuppositionalism as a gimmick to try and disarm the unsuspecting and unskilled skeptic.

                  ----------------------------------------
                  ----------------------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (35) From: Chad Benz Date:
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 13, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
                    https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini'
                    https://www.facebook.com/the1chad

                    (35)

                    From: Chad Benz
                    Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                    Time: About 11:30 AM MT

                    If something we observe in the universe makes it necessary
                    that a god exists (or more probable than improbable) then
                    belief in god is justified.

                    Gino Vincenzini, thinks that universal law and logic is that
                    thing, I disagree.

                    We both are outlining why we think as we do, and we'll point
                    out problems with each of our perspectives.

                    THAT'S IT!

                    No bullxxxx, no disrespect, no dishonesty.

                    If Gino is as you say, then it will show.

                    I'm not a dullard that can be swindled so easily.

                    Even though it's very hard, we must try to be above reproach
                    in the way we go about debating and discussing.

                    The truth is that even people with the best intentions,
                    respect, and honesty can still "poison the well".

                    With that sobering thought in mind, we go forward.
                    Ugh... I sound so preachy.

                    (36)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                    Time: About 12:00 Noon MT

                    Chad,

                    I don't how familiar you may be with my recent indulgence
                    into the world of presuppositionalism as popularly promoted
                    by Sye Ten Bruggencate and his disciple Eric Hovind.

                    It just so happens that another opening appeared and I was
                    able to post yet another invitation to Sye and a youngster
                    infatuated with him via the youngster's posting to one of
                    Sye's FaceBook pages.

                    I have recorded that development at my place via the message
                    at:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31599

                    You might give it a look and watch Sye's FaceBook page to
                    see how long my invitation remains (others have been deleted).

                    My recent experience with Gino and others is also chronicled
                    there if you care to browse the public archives there.

                    Enjoy!

                    --------------------------------------
                    --------------------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    Gino Vincenzini has the following posted on his FaceBook page regarding his religious views: https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini/info (excerpts) Religious
                    Message 9 of 15 , Apr 13, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Gino Vincenzini has the following posted on his FaceBook page regarding his religious views:

                      https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini/info

                      (excerpts)

                      Religious Views

                      Reformed Organic Pentecostal Christian:

                      Reformed

                      I believe in the faith of the reformers
                      of the 18th century.

                      I believe that the scriptures alone are
                      sufficient to function as the sole infallible
                      rule of faith for the church and God's people
                      (Sola Scriptura).

                      I believe in the sufficiency of grace alone
                      to save the sinful wretched lost soul that
                      we all are and that grace is given to each
                      person to some extent and that for God's
                      elect, Grace is efficient to salvation
                      (Sola Gratia).

                      I believe that everything that comes to
                      pass has been preordained by God for his
                      own self glorification (Sola Deo Gloria).

                      Pentecostal

                      I believe in the spiritual gifts of the
                      New Testament.

                      I believe that God still works in the same
                      miraculous ways that he always has worked
                      and that miracles are part of his divine
                      decree to glorify himself and that their
                      meaning is subject to the highest authority
                      of scripture.

                      ---------------------------------------------
                      ---------------------------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini https://www.facebook.com/the1chad https://www.facebook.com/dandemura
                      Message 10 of 15 , Apr 13, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
                        https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini'
                        https://www.facebook.com/the1chad
                        https://www.facebook.com/dandemura

                        (37)

                        From: Gino Vincenzini
                        Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                        Time: About 9:30 PM MT

                        I have to wake in the morning at 4:00 AM so I will be
                        brief and only respond to the others who have made
                        side comments (despite chad asking you not to)

                        Robert:

                        I don't know why you keep contratulating yourself because
                        you haven't actually done anything, just alleged that you
                        have.

                        I think if you're going to try to refute the presuppositional approach then the easiest way to do that is to provide basis
                        for logic and morality in a worldview sans God without
                        borrowing capital from the Christian worldview.

                        I really don't see anywhere I agreed with you that presuppositionalism is refuted, if you think my admittance
                        that fundamentally truth is based in circular arguments and
                        so it does no good to evaluate them on the level of logical
                        validity but instead consistency then I guess you are truly
                        incapable of rational thought.

                        You'd be better off not trying to address these issues then
                        because you are ignorant of them.

                        Dan:

                        Actually you've still failed to answer my questions in previous discussions, and you've asserted absolute idiocy as unassailable
                        fact while attacking what I've shown to be more than defensible.

                        You then declare yourself the victor without any sort of regard
                        to reality on this subject. You've also shown yourself to be incapable of logical and rational thought when it comes to a
                        variety of relevant subjects despite your intelligence in other subjects.

                        I find this very befuddling that someone so smart could be so
                        dumb.

                        Chad:

                        I intend to reply in the next couple days as I have tomorrow
                        after 4 and the next two days after off work so it should be
                        easier hopefully to find the time.

                        (38)

                        From: Gino Vincenzini
                        Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                        Time: About 9:35 PM MT

                        Dan:

                        or perhaps just thick headed

                        (39)

                        From: Dan DeMura
                        Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                        Time: About 10:00 PM MT

                        Chad:

                        Once again...good luck.

                        (40)

                        From: Robert Baty
                        Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                        Time: About 10:35 PM MT

                        Gino wrote of me, in part:

                        - I don't know why you keep
                        - contratulating yourself
                        - because you haven't actually
                        - done anything, just alleged
                        - that you have.
                        -
                        - I think if you're going to
                        - try to refute the presuppositional
                        - approach then...

                        I notice that Gino continued his bad faith demonstration in
                        refusing to requite my love and make his appearance at my
                        place and initiate a negotiation if he had a serious interest
                        in revisiting his failed efforts to defend the "proof of God"
                        claim popularized by such as Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind.

                        I keep "congratulating myself" because my refutation of the presuppositional claim to have a "proof of God" remains
                        unrebutted as my adversaries continue to run from the proposed exchange.

                        Gino's further effort to try and propose a unilateral course
                        is a further demonstration of his bad faith.

                        Should that change, Gino should have no problem in finding my
                        place, making his appearance, and initiating the negotiations
                        on one or more fundamental issues that we may have a mutual
                        interest in discussing.

                        The presuppositional gimmick may have some value, but as the
                        alleged "proof of God" it fails; as I have repeatedly pointed
                        out without successful rebuttal.

                        I think Gino Vincenziti knows that.
                        I think Sye Ten Bruggencate knows that.
                        I think Eric Hovind knows that.
                        I think Billy Jacobs knows that.
                        I think Jeff Durbin knows that.
                        I think Jacob Stephens knows that.
                        I think Dan DeMura knows that.
                        I think ... knows that.

                        My apologies to those adversaries who cut and ran and whom
                        I may have left out.

                        If you don't think so, here's the place to make your appearance
                        and we can negotiate how best to seriously consider the merits
                        of my claim:

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

                        The archives are easily accessed via that link and are public.

                        To demonstrate your good faith, requite my love, and initiate
                        the negotiations for a serious discussion of the merits my
                        charges, you can simply address an email to:

                        Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                        See you there,
                        or not.

                        (NOTE: Anybody else note the apparent hypocrisy of Gino
                        whining about my allegations, as if they were unsupported,
                        when presuppositions, by definition, offer no "proof" while
                        some allege they do offer "proof" and offering his own
                        unsupported allegations regarding me and my position????)

                        ----------------------------------------------------
                        ----------------------------------------------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini https://www.facebook.com/the1chad https://www.facebook.com/dandemura
                        Message 11 of 15 , Apr 13, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
                          https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini'
                          https://www.facebook.com/the1chad
                          https://www.facebook.com/dandemura

                          (41)

                          From: Dan DeMura
                          Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                          Time: About 11:05 PM MT

                          Robert Baty.... is there a reason I've been
                          listed with Sye and his lover Gino?

                          (42)

                          From: Robert Baty
                          Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                          Time: About 11:10 PM MT

                          Dan, sometimes I get lost trying to keep all the
                          players straight.

                          Feel free to clarify my representation if you take
                          exception to it.

                          (43)

                          From: Chad Benz
                          Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                          Time: About 11:15 PM MT

                          Guys.
                          Chill out.

                          Robert Baty,

                          I have seen your posts and I have looked a little at
                          what Gino has said already.

                          I really don't want to start hiding posts, but you
                          guys are taking shots and making Gino respond to you.

                          You've already gotten those shots in a thousand times,
                          and Gino has made shots a thousand times back.

                          (44)

                          From: Robert Baty
                          Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013
                          Time: About 11:20 PM MT

                          Upon further reflection I also note that Gino also
                          wrote, in part:

                          - I will...only respond to the
                          - others who have made side
                          - comments (despite chad asking
                          - you not to).

                          What was that all about?

                          Did I miss something?

                          In the original post, Chad wrote, in part:

                          - Fellow atheists, I would ask
                          - that you not comment.

                          Later, Chad added:

                          - I want to let Gino make his
                          - point before all atheists
                          - start to join in.

                          Is that what Gino had reference to?

                          Gino earlier tried to accuse me of being an atheist,
                          and when I called him on that he ran off; correct me
                          if I am wrong on that.

                          Is Gino again implying I am an atheist?

                          Gino has dug himself a pretty deep hole and it's past
                          time for him to repent, at least with reference to me,
                          and begin showing a little good faith and bringing forth
                          his works meet for repentance.

                          Chad later wrote:

                          - Gino Vincenzini, when you get
                          - to the part where you say
                          -
                          -- "and therefore god exists",
                          -
                          - I think then I would want
                          - everybody to be included.

                          Presuppositions, such as popularized by Sye Ten Bruggencate
                          and his disciple Eric Hovind never get there; not as
                          intended by Chad.

                          If I am missing anything in my brief analysis, feel free to
                          try and set the record straight.

                          -------------------------------------------
                          -------------------------------------------
                        • rlbaty50
                          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino) https://www.facebook.com/dandemura (Dan)
                          Message 12 of 15 , Apr 16, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
                            https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)
                            https://www.facebook.com/dandemura (Dan)
                            https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith)

                            (45)

                            From: Dan DeMura
                            Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013
                            Time: About 3:30 PM MT

                            Chad... so does Gino get a free pass in this
                            conversation?

                            I'm beginning to think he's avoiding revealing the
                            true Axx of Presuppositionalism that he is and hoping
                            the conversation is just dropped or moves on...

                            just saying.

                            (46)

                            From: Gino Vincenzini
                            Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013
                            Time: About 3:40 PM MT

                            Im getting to the point where im so annoyed that dan
                            and rob cant keep their fingers from flapping for even
                            a day...

                            i guess it just shows the fact that i actually have a
                            life and they dont. Chad i havent forgotten about you
                            and I will respond.

                            (47)

                            From: Gino Vincenzini
                            Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013
                            Time: About 3:45 PM MT

                            ...for a day, that im ready to press hide on their
                            comments.*

                            (48)

                            From: Keith Collura
                            Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013
                            Time: About 4:00 PM MT

                            Wow Gino you've pretty much found a reason to just
                            about ignore everyone.

                            And you see nothing odd about that mindset?

                            (49)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013
                            Time: About 4:25 PM MT

                            Keith,

                            I don't think Gino is ignoring me.

                            He's running from me.

                            I've tried him and his claims and found them wanting.

                            Gino is not so busy.

                            Gino is, in part, just very inefficient because he will
                            not deal with his problems.

                            Run, Gino, run!
                            See Gino run!

                            I would rather Gino had taken a different course, but
                            the one he has chosen makes it a lot easier on me.

                            ------------------------------------------------
                            ------------------------------------------------
                          • rlbaty50
                            Gino mentioned me again so I responded. https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)
                            Message 13 of 15 , Apr 21, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Gino mentioned me again so I responded.

                              https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
                              https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)
                              https://www.facebook.com/dandemura (Dan)
                              https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith)

                              (50)

                              From: Gino Vincenzini
                              Date: Sunday, April 21, 2013
                              Time: About 11:50 AM MT

                              He (Keith) has contributed nothing to discussions with me
                              but insults and vitriol. I don't think I should have to
                              continue to be distracted by his personal attacks which
                              by nature cannot be refuted as they are not actually
                              arguments... just insult.

                              Also I never was an admin, I've always just been a regular
                              member.

                              Thirdly I have tried again and again for you to step above
                              arguments which come from both our worldviews: (God exists
                              vs God doesn't exist) and instead test both worldviews for consistency, validity, and soundness and instead you've
                              demanded I attempt to prove God from your premises that
                              God and the supernatural doesn't exist.

                              It can't be done not because such premises are the right
                              ones to begin with and you can't because you shouldn't
                              (that is that God isn't true) but instead because you
                              can't by design (the worldview assumes God doesn't exist,
                              and that all arguments for the supernatural has a
                              naturalistic explanation which excludes the supernatural.

                              There's nothing which cannot be shoehorned into such a
                              concept thus proving to you anyway that God doesn't exist.

                              I'm not going to argue from your premises because that's
                              stacking the deck, instead I'd rather actually test both
                              worldviews for the above criterion to see if it gives one
                              the necessary criteria to render the world intelligible.

                              You've refused to engage this.

                              So far the only one who has directly engaged the argument
                              sadly is Robert Baty.

                              And Chad has at least been honest enough to at least listen
                              to the argument first and engage in respectful dialogue.

                              So far I haven't really seen any cheap shots from either
                              of them but that's all I've gotten from you, Keith, Dan,
                              Colin, Linda, Tina, etc.

                              Fourthly I have chosen only to block those who are more
                              interested in insult and mockery and persisting in
                              ignorance despite repeated correction.

                              Not those who "disagree with me".

                              I've responded in kind in the past and for that I'm sorry.
                              Going forward I will not respond in kind, but I will not
                              continue to sit here and be insulted by people who refuse
                              to address the argument despite they're in a group which
                              includes debate discussions.

                              (51)

                              From: Robert Baty
                              Date: Sunday, April 21, 2013
                              Time: About 12:10 PM MT

                              Gino, you wrote, in part:

                              - So far the only one who has
                              - directly engaged the argument
                              - sadly is Robert Baty.

                              I don't know about being the only one, but I took on the presuppositionalists and won; they run.

                              Gino, you also wrote, in part:

                              - I have tried again and again for
                              - you test both worldviews.

                              Gino,

                              Presuppositionalists, in this exercise typically ask the
                              atheists:

                              - Is it possible for that God
                              - exists?

                              They answer appropriately with "yes".

                              Gino, to follow your course, what say ye to the following
                              question for purposes of the test exercise:

                              - Is it possible that God
                              - does not exist?

                              I've heard Eric Hovind on video answer with "no", "no",
                              "no", "no", it is not possible that God does not exist.

                              So, Gino, if you are going to test both positions in this
                              exercise as you propose, what say ye to the starter question
                              of:

                              - Is it possible that God
                              - does not exist?

                              --------------------------------
                              --------------------------------
                            • rlbaty50
                              https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino) https://www.facebook.com/dandemura (Dan)
                              Message 14 of 15 , Apr 22, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
                                https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)
                                https://www.facebook.com/dandemura (Dan)
                                https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith)

                                (52)

                                From: Gino Vincenzini
                                Date: Monday, April 22, 2013
                                Time: About 4:00 PM MT

                                Your worldview is and correct
                                me if im wrong chris, andy, is
                                the set of ideas you hold to
                                without proof as a starting
                                place for determining truth.

                                (53)

                                From: Robert Baty
                                Date: Monday, April 22, 2013t
                                Time: About 4:50 PM MT

                                Gino wrote to someone else,
                                in part:

                                - Your worldview is...the set
                                - of ideas you hold to without
                                - proof as a starting place
                                - for determining truth.

                                Another implicit agreement with
                                me by Gino regarding Sye Ten
                                Bruggencate's claim to have
                                "proof of God" which I have
                                said is NO "proof of God".

                                Sye and those like-minded need
                                to quit claiming it is a "proof"
                                when it is NOT, NOT a "proof of
                                God".

                                I don't know that Gino has his
                                definition right with regard
                                to others, but he seems to have
                                got Sye's "Presuppositional"
                                theology defined by stipulation
                                which makes Sye's "proof of
                                God" claim false, by definition.

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