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

Re: Billy Jacobs v. Robert Baty: Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (11) From: Keith Collura Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 Time: About 8:20
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 8, 2013
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
      https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75

      (11)

      From: Keith Collura
      Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
      Time: About 8:20 PM MT

      There are others that want to start 3-feet from
      the finish-line?

      geez when science fails to prove their point they
      want a huge head-start.

      (12)

      From: Billy Jacobs
      Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
      Time: About 8:40 PM MT

      I think I agree with that, Robert.

      (13)

      From: Billy Jacobs
      Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
      Time: About 8:41 PM MT

      I assume you're referring to Christianity, Keith?

      (14)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
      Time: About 8:45 PM MT

      Billy,

      Do you think the minor premise and conclusion are true?

      Major Premise:

      - If God did not exist,
      - then you couldn't know anything.

      Minor Premise:

      - You know something.

      Conclusion:

      - God exists.

      (15)

      From: Billy Jacobs
      Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
      Time: About 8:45 PM MT

      Yes.

      (16)

      From: Keith Collura
      Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
      Time: About 8:45 PM MT

      Billy I'm referring to presuppositionalism.

      (17)

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

      OK!

      Billy, it's your turn.

      Can you explain Sye Ten Bruggencate's reasoning
      supporting the truth claim made for the major premise?


      ------------------------------------------
      ------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy) https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith) (18) From: Billy
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 8, 2013
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
        https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy)
        https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith)

        (18)

        From: Billy Jacobs
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 8:55 PM MT

        I'll try my hand at it.

        The basic explication of the major premise takes the
        form of transcendental argumentation, one method that
        Immanuel Kant was known for.

        It attempts to set forth the necessary (and exclusive)
        preconditions for a particular experience to be intelligible.

        When applied to this logical syllogism formulated, the
        experiences would include the laws of logic, uniformity
        of nature, and morality, and the necessary precondition
        would be the existence of the Christian God as He has
        revealed Himself in nature and Scripture.

        (19)

        From: Billy Jacobs
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:00 PM MT

        Keith, how has science proved Presuppositionalism wrong?

        (20)

        From: Billy Jacobs
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:01 PM MT

        Or failed to prove it's point,
        if you meant to convey that as distinct.

        (21)

        From: Keith Collura
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:02 PM MT

        Science as in critical thinking destroys it.

        (22)

        From: Billy Jacobs
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:02 PM MT

        How so?

        (23)

        From: Keith Collura
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:03 PM MT

        Presuppositionalism starts with the premise "god exists" right?

        (24)

        From: Billy Jacobs
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:05 PM MT

        Correct.

        (25)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:10 PM MT

        Billy, you wrote, in part:

        - When applied to this logical
        - syllogism formulated, the
        - experiences would include the
        - laws of logic, uniformity
        - of nature, and morality, and
        - the necessary precondition
        - would be the existence of the
        - Christian God as He has
        - revealed Himself in nature and
        - Scripture.

        In other, simpler words, Billy, are you proposing that
        Sye is presupposing the existence of God as is implied
        in the label assigned to Sye's claim; presuppositionalism?

        If so, would you agree that that IS circular reasoning
        as stipulated below:

        - Circular reasoning is reasoning
        - in which the reasoner begins
        - with what he or she is trying
        - to end up with.

        If not, please explain.

        (26)

        From: Keith Collura
        Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
        Time: About 9:12 PM MT

        Okay...how does that make any sense when "debating"?

        You get to start with the notion of a supernatural
        being when we live in a natural world?

        You bring the *anomaly* to the table and expect
        everyone to accept that as a starting point?

        It makes no sense whatsoever.

        Either you can argue your point up to the god position
        then continue from there or you can't.

        Skipping all the way, just about to the finish-line,
        is illogical and frankly cheating when you want to
        have a serious debate.

        ---------------------------------------------
        ---------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 https://www.facebook.com/keaco (27) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday,
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 8, 2013
          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/
          https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75
          https://www.facebook.com/keaco

          (27)

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

          See Sye run!
          Run, Sye, Run!

          Here's another example of what I have been up against
          since I originally met Sye on one of Eric Hovind's
          FaceBook pages.

          See:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31535

          They've headed for hills again, quite unlike the more
          cordial Billy Jacobs.

          I do not find that discussion on Sye's FaceBook page and
          I get the following message when linking to John Brady's
          FaceBook page where the article originated:

          https://www.facebook.com/PutItInGear (John Brady)

          - Sorry, this page isn't available
          - The link you followed may be broken,
          - or the page may have been removed.

          I've learned recently that that is the message you get
          when your opposition loses an argument and goes underground.

          Run Sye, run!
          See Sye run!

          I won again!

          ------------------------------------
          ------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs) https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 8, 2013
            https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
            https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs)
            https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)

            (28)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
            Time: About 11:00 PM MT

            Billy,

            You also wrote, in part:

            - The basic explication of the
            - major premise takes the form
            - of transcendental argumentation.

            and you wrote to Keith:

            - How has science proved
            - Presuppositionalism wrong?

            Sye's champion in presuppositional theology, Greg Bahnsen,
            said this about that in his much-touted "Great Debate":

            - "Transcendentals are not falsifiable".

            Billy,

            Would you agree with Bahnsen that the transcendentals under discussion and as used by Sye to promote his "proof of God"
            claim are NOT falsifiable?

            ---------------------------------------
            ---------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            There s been a lull in the action. So, I thought I would post this all-in-one account of the action to date (28 messages in the exchange). Currently, we are
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 9, 2013
              There's been a lull in the action. So, I thought I would post this all-in-one account of the action to date (28 messages in the exchange).

              Currently, we are waiting for Billy to return to the discussion and, just maybe, admit that Sye Ten Bruggencate's alleged "proof of God" is NO "proof of God" and maybe recognize why that should be the case.

              BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

              https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
              https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs)
              https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
              https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)

              (1)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 6:45 PM MT

              I identify with the presupp approach, and I'd be
              willing to interact with you Robert, but would
              you suffer us to do it here on FB?

              I admit, I prefer it as a venue over Yahoo
              (which confuses me).

              (2)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 6:50 PM MT

              Billy, we can give it a try.

              Are you familiar with Sye's "proof of God" claim
              which I contend is NO "proof of God"?

              If not, I will post it and propose how we might
              proceed.

              (3)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 7:00 PM MT

              If it's the typical Presuppositional/Transcendental
              argument (in the Van Tillian, Bahnsenian strain),
              then yes.

              Does it go something like this:

              > "You want a proof of God, here it is;
              > without God, you can't prove anything."

              (4)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 7:01 PM MT

              Billy,

              From Sye's recent Apologia Radio interview,
              he put it this way:

              - "The proof that God exists is
              - that without him you can't
              - know anything."
              -
              -- Sye Ten Bruggencate

              Would you agree that saying it doesn't make it so?

              If "yes", then I will proceed in walking your through
              my analysis and giving you a chance at rebuttal.

              (5)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 7:05 PM MT

              Yes, I agree that saying it doesn't make it so.

              (6)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 7:07 PM MT

              Billy,

              OK, let's try to take another step.

              - "The proof that God exists is
              - that without him you can't
              - know anything."
              -
              -- Sye Ten Bruggencate

              Would you agree that the claim implies the following argument?

              Major Premise:

              - If God did not exist,
              - then you couldn't know anything.

              Minor Premise:

              - You know something.

              Conclusion:

              - God exists.

              If you agree, we will try another step.

              If not, please explain.

              (7)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 7:10 PM MT

              I agree.

              (8)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 7:15 PM MT

              Billy,

              Easy, isn't it.

              Do you also agree that the argument is so constructed
              that if its premises are true its conclusion will
              follow as true therefrom?

              For purposes of this exercise, that is the stipulated
              definition of a logically valid argument.

              (9)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:00 PM MT

              Yes, I agree.

              (10)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:05 PM MT

              Billy,

              Would you agree with me that the following argument
              is NOT circular?

              Major Premise:

              - If God did not exist,
              - then you couldn't know anything.

              Minor Premise:

              - You know something.

              Conclusion:

              - God exists.

              Stipulated Definition of Circular Argument:

              > A fallacious argument in which the
              > conclusion is assumed in one of
              > the premises; begging the question.

              (11)

              From: Keith Collura
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:20 PM MT

              There are others that want to start 3-feet from
              the finish-line?

              geez when science fails to prove their point they
              want a huge head-start.

              (12)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:40 PM MT

              I think I agree with that, Robert.

              (13)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:41 PM MT

              I assume you're referring to Christianity, Keith?

              (14)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:45 PM MT

              Billy,

              Do you think the minor premise and conclusion are true?

              Major Premise:

              - If God did not exist,
              - then you couldn't know anything.

              Minor Premise:

              - You know something.

              Conclusion:

              - God exists.

              (15)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:45 PM MT

              Yes.

              (16)

              From: Keith Collura
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:45 PM MT

              Billy I'm referring to presuppositionalism.

              (17)

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

              OK!

              Billy, it's your turn.

              Can you explain Sye Ten Bruggencate's reasoning
              supporting the truth claim made for the major premise?

              (18)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 8:55 PM MT

              I'll try my hand at it.

              The basic explication of the major premise takes the
              form of transcendental argumentation, one method that
              Immanuel Kant was known for.

              It attempts to set forth the necessary (and exclusive)
              preconditions for a particular experience to be intelligible.

              When applied to this logical syllogism formulated, the
              experiences would include the laws of logic, uniformity
              of nature, and morality, and the necessary precondition
              would be the existence of the Christian God as He has
              revealed Himself in nature and Scripture.

              (19)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:00 PM MT

              Keith, how has science proved Presuppositionalism wrong?

              (20)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:01 PM MT

              Or failed to prove it's point,
              if you meant to convey that as distinct.

              (21)

              From: Keith Collura
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:02 PM MT

              Science as in critical thinking destroys it.

              (22)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:02 PM MT

              How so?

              (23)

              From: Keith Collura
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:03 PM MT

              Presuppositionalism starts with the premise "god exists" right?

              (24)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:05 PM MT

              Correct.

              (25)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:10 PM MT

              Billy, you wrote, in part:

              - When applied to this logical
              - syllogism formulated, the
              - experiences would include the
              - laws of logic, uniformity
              - of nature, and morality, and
              - the necessary precondition
              - would be the existence of the
              - Christian God as He has
              - revealed Himself in nature and
              - Scripture.

              In other, simpler words, Billy, are you proposing that
              Sye is presupposing the existence of God as is implied
              in the label assigned to Sye's claim; presuppositionalism?

              If so, would you agree that that IS circular reasoning
              as stipulated below:

              - Circular reasoning is reasoning
              - in which the reasoner begins
              - with what he or she is trying
              - to end up with.

              If not, please explain.

              (26)

              From: Keith Collura
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 9:12 PM MT

              Okay...how does that make any sense when "debating"?

              You get to start with the notion of a supernatural
              being when we live in a natural world?

              You bring the *anomaly* to the table and expect
              everyone to accept that as a starting point?

              It makes no sense whatsoever.

              Either you can argue your point up to the god position
              then continue from there or you can't.

              Skipping all the way, just about to the finish-line,
              is illogical and frankly cheating when you want to
              have a serious debate.

              (27)

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

              See Sye run!
              Run, Sye, Run!

              Here's another example of what I have been up against
              since I originally met Sye on one of Eric Hovind's
              FaceBook pages.

              See:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31535

              They've headed for hills again, quite unlike the more
              cordial Billy Jacobs.

              I do not find that discussion on Sye's FaceBook page and
              I get the following message when linking to John Brady's
              FaceBook page where the article originated:

              https://www.facebook.com/PutItInGear (John Brady)

              - Sorry, this page isn't available
              - The link you followed may be broken,
              - or the page may have been removed.

              I've learned recently that that is the message you get
              when your opposition loses an argument and goes underground.

              Run Sye, run!
              See Sye run!

              I won again!

              (28)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Monday, April 8, 2013
              Time: About 11:00 PM MT

              Billy,

              You also wrote, in part:

              - The basic explication of the
              - major premise takes the form
              - of transcendental argumentation.

              and you wrote to Keith:

              - How has science proved
              - Presuppositionalism wrong?

              Sye's champion in presuppositional theology, Greg Bahnsen,
              said this about that in his much-touted "Great Debate":

              - "Transcendentals are not falsifiable".

              Billy,

              Would you agree with Bahnsen that the transcendentals
              under discussion and as used by Sye to promote his
              "proof of God" claim are NOT falsifiable?


              ------------------------------------
              ------------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              (The action begins again!) BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 9, 2013
                (The action begins again!)

                BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

                https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
                https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs)
                https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
                https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)

                (29)

                From: Billy Jacobs
                Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                Time: About 4:40 PM MT

                I think my response should address both Robert's second
                to last comment, as well as Keith's last comment.

                The transcendental argument does not fall into the logical
                fallacy of circular reasoning because it has to do with an
                ultimate criterion of truth, and therefore necessarily
                assumes what it is arguing for, for to do otherwise would
                be inconsistent.

                We all have ultimate epistemological starting points,
                otherwise we fall into an infinite regress of attempted justifications for what we believe.

                What we as Christians maintain is that the Christian God
                is the ultimate authority of the universe. To defer to
                anything besides Him to give Him credibility would
                essentially be to disprove/undermine the authority we
                acknowledge as self-attesting.

                Again, we Christians are not the only ones who make an
                argument from authority. Some people place that authority
                on the senses of man (empiricism), while others place that
                authority on the laws of logic (rationalism).

                (30)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                Time: About 4:55 PM MT

                Billy,

                For my part, I am trying to keep this as between you and
                me (we might have negotiated how that could be accomplished,
                but you did not seem so inclined).

                Your latest posting was not responsive to my inquiries and
                where we are at in this conversation; in my opinion.

                Let's try to resolve some issues you did not properly address.

                Billy,

                Do you agree with Bahnsen that,

                - "transcendentals are not falsifiable"?

                You wrote, in part:

                - "The transcendental argument does
                - not fall into the logical fallacy
                - of circular reasoning...".

                We already agreed that the argument under consideration
                in this discussion is NOT circular.

                That should not be confused with whether or not the
                reasoning you might use to establish the truth of the
                disputed major premise is circular.

                I asked you to accept or refuse the following stipulated
                definition as to circular reasoning:

                - Circular reasoning is reasoning
                - in which the reasoner begins
                - with what he or she is trying
                - to end up with.

                Billy, that doesn't say anything about being fallacious.
                Whether it is fallacious, and when, is another issue which
                may become relevant later.

                Sye Ten Bruggencate, whose "proof of God" claim is what
                is under consideration here, is known to admit that he
                uses circular reasoning to support his position.

                Billy, do you accept the stipulated definition of circular
                reasoning I have proposed?

                If not, please explain.

                Billy, do you deny that Sye uses circular reasoning to
                support his position and "proof of God" claim?

                If so, please explain.

                -----------------------------------
                -----------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 9, 2013
                  BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

                  https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
                  https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs)
                  https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
                  https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)

                  (31)

                  From: Billy Jacobs
                  Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                  Time: About 7:00 PM MT

                  Robert, I would entreat you toward patience, sir.

                  To be fair, I did qualify my last comment as addressing
                  your "second to last comment", so I don't think I can be
                  construed as ducking your arguments while pretentiously
                  presenting myself as having exhaustively addressed them all.

                  Forgive me for trying to kill two birds with one stone.

                  I simply perceived my responses toward you and Keith as
                  basically synonymous, given the nature of your inquiries/disagreements, but if you wish to keep our
                  comments strictly back-and-forth, I have no problem with
                  that.

                  As for the issues that you assert I did not properly
                  address (the falsifiability of transcendental argumentation),
                  I would ask for some sort of citation from Bahnsen
                  (either a time marker if you obtained this quote through
                  audio, or if you could link a transcript of the debate
                  and guide me to the portion wherein you found this statement)
                  if it wouldn't be too much trouble, because I personally
                  feel the proposition could be interpreted in at least two
                  different ways, knowing particular lines of thinking that
                  Bahnsen subscribed to.

                  I want to make sure I'm interacting with the proper meaning.

                  Also, I'd like to add that I don't necessarily intend to
                  vindicate Sye Ten Bruggencate's arguments for the sake of
                  vindicating *his* arguments, firstly because I am not aware
                  of them.

                  I am here to identify with Christian Presuppositionalism,
                  and if Sye has incidentally overlapped with what I perceive
                  to be an accurate representation of such (such as the
                  syllogism you articulated), great.

                  But I can not infallibly speak to what Sye did or didn't
                  say or mean.

                  (32)

                  From: Billy Jacobs
                  Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                  Time: About 7:15 PM MT

                  Circular reasoning is commonly known as a logical fallacy,
                  Robert, so to assert that your stipulated definition doesn't
                  say anything about it being fallacious is irrelevant.

                  "The reasoning that" I "might use to establish the truth
                  of the disputed major premise" is subordinate to the major
                  premise itself, so to come after me with an accusation of
                  begging the question is a bit misguided, because we have
                  now stepped out of the syllogism (strictly speaking) to
                  investigate whether or not it may be shown to be not only
                  valid, but sound. And like I said earlier, of course I'm
                  going to operate within a Christian worldview to argue
                  for such.

                  To do otherwise would be inconsistent.

                  If you really wish to convict me of the crime of circular
                  reasoning, then I, in turn, would simply ask of you to give
                  a justification for why you believe the laws of logic
                  (that you evidently esteem) are sound.

                  (33)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                  Time: About 9:00 PM MT

                  Billy,

                  Here is a reference, as requested, for your regarding
                  that "Great Debate" of Bahnsen's that presuppositionalists
                  like to tout:

                  http://cdn.theresurgence.com/files/2012/01/13/The_Great_Debate.pdf

                  "Transcendentals are not falsifiable" can be found at least
                  twice on page 57.

                  I'll deal with the other matters in one or more separate
                  postings.

                  (34)

                  From: Billy Jacobs
                  Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                  Time: About 9:05 PM MT

                  Thanks Robert.

                  I'm going to bed here pretty quick, then work tomorrow.

                  I'll try to interact with your question as soon as I
                  get a chance.

                  (35)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                  Time: About 9:10 PM MT

                  Billy, you wrote, in part:

                  - Circular reasoning is commonly
                  - known as a logical fallacy,
                  - Robert, so to assert that your
                  - stipulated definition doesn't
                  - say anything about it being
                  - fallacious is irrelevant.

                  Billy, you are going off into the weeds with such a claim.

                  Understanding and agreeing on how terms are to be used in
                  this conversation is most relevant to communicating and
                  recognizing why Sye's "proof of God" claim provides NO
                  "proof of God".

                  Circular reasoning is one thing; characterizing it as
                  fallacious or not is quite another. Sye makes that
                  distinction in his efforts and it is most important that
                  you recognize that I don't intend to quibble with you
                  about the characterization of "fallacious".

                  Also, it is important to make the distinction in order
                  to help you keep from waxing equivocal.

                  For instance, you have already, for those in the know,
                  implicitly conceded the reasoning necessary to justify
                  Sye's major premise is "circular" (by stipulated definition)
                  when you wrote, in part:

                  - The transcendental argument...
                  - necessarily assumes what it is
                  - arguing for...

                  If you don't want to simplify things by agreeing to
                  characterize that, by stipulated definition, as "circular",
                  then I will try to oblige you.

                  However, I note that my stipulated definition (without the characterization) identifies that explicit claim of yours,
                  that is key to understanding and accepting my claim that
                  Sye's "proof of God" is NOT a "proof of God", as "circular" ("assuming what is argued for"/"beginning with what you are
                  trying to end up with").

                  Sye would say........

                  - "yeah, but it's not viciously circular"!

                  Again, I don't plan on quibbling with you over "vicious"
                  or "virtuous".

                  I do plan on making sure I equate your explicit admission
                  to the stipulated definition of circular without the
                  character evaluation.

                  More later; please wait till I complete my response later
                  to your latest postings.

                  Stay tuned...

                  ---------------------------
                  ---------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 9, 2013
                    BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

                    https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
                    https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs)
                    https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
                    https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)

                    (36)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
                    Time: About 10:15 PM MT

                    Billy,

                    After thinking about it a bit, I thought I would try to
                    use this message to try and jump to the "punch line(s)"
                    and then consider your rebuttal and proceed accordingly.

                    The subject of this discussion thread is "Calling Out
                    Sye Ten Bruggencate".

                    You chose to engage that discussion and that will remain
                    the focus of my effort. However, that should not be a
                    problem for you because, while Sye is the man at the
                    center of attention, his presuppositionalism seems quite
                    "orthodox" to me.

                    In dealing with Sye's problem I will be also be dealing
                    with yours.

                    Here's my review and "justification" for denying that
                    Sye's "proof of God" claim is NO "proof of God".

                    Sye claims:

                    - "The proof that God exists is
                    - that without him you can't
                    - know anything."

                    That's a statement/proposition, not an argument.

                    That implies the following NON-circular, logically valid
                    argument intended by Sye to "prove God":

                    Major Premise:

                    - If God did not exist,
                    - then you could NOT know anything.

                    Minor Premise:

                    - You CAN know something.

                    Conclusion:

                    - God exists.

                    You and I agree that the minor premise and conclusion are
                    true, leaving only the major premise to be demonstrated
                    to be true in order to "prove God" by Sye Ten Bruggencate
                    and conquer the atheist world.

                    That's where we disagree.

                    My claim is that Sye is wrong to claim that the major
                    premise is a "proof" because all he and you have to support
                    the truth of it is a non-falsifiable, transcendental
                    presupposition.

                    In order to establish Sye's major premise he, and you, and
                    other presuppositionalists "assume what you are arguing
                    for"/"begin with what you are trying to end up with".

                    Sye and y'all leave yourselves no other alternative.

                    Y'all have implicitly admitted that your alleged
                    "transcendental proof"/"presupposition"/"assumption"
                    and reasoning to justify the major premise is NOT, NOT,
                    NOT "proof".

                    That y'all have to qualify the alleged proof as "transcendental proof" is an implied admission that it is no more than a philosophical exercise/word game/gimmick which Sye uses quite effectively in his "trolling" for video and Internet partners.

                    I can play word games with the argument as well.

                    For instance, as a theist, I can accept the truth of the major premise.

                    The difference between me and thee and Sye is that I don't go
                    around trying to make a career out of claiming it is a "proof
                    of God".

                    It's not a "proof of God".

                    From my perspective, the major premise is a conclusion and not
                    a premise; "no God, no nothing" (that, however, is not quite
                    what Sye means or argues with his claims).

                    That's really what presuppositionalists, in my opinion, believe
                    as well, but they (i.e., Sye Ten Bruggencate) mis-characterize
                    the position as a "proof of God".

                    Sye needs to stop proclaiming he's got the "proof of God". His alleged "proof of God" fails as a "proof".

                    Billy, will you join with me in calling for Sye to repent of
                    this error?

                    If not, I will await your rebuttal and proceed accordingly.

                    Maybe you can affect my repentance on this simple, fundamental
                    issue.

                    Maybe not.

                    ----------------------------
                    ----------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    A flurry of activity today; none of which involves me. I ll post my next entry after I digest what all the excitement was about and try to limit my part in
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 10, 2013
                      A flurry of activity today; none of which involves me. I'll post my next entry after I digest what all the excitement was about and try to limit my part in the exchange to what was originally intended; a one-on-one with Billy Jacobs, current surrogate for Sye Ten Bruggencate.

                      BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

                      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
                      https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy Jacobs)
                      https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
                      https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)

                      (37)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2012
                      Time: About 9:30 AM MT

                      I would disagree with the statement that transcendentals
                      are not falsifiable, for Bahnsen implies the contrary in
                      the first paragraph by exposing Dr. Stein for failing to
                      illustrate a contradiction in the transcendental argument.

                      Bahnsen clarifies what he meant by referring to the
                      philosophical nature of the debate (something which Dr.
                      Stein failed to account for). Because of that, the nature
                      of the discussion necessitates indirect proofs.

                      We are comparing entire world views over against each
                      other; we don't share some sort of neutral starting
                      point, and to think otherwise is to utterly lose sight
                      of the type of argument we are engaging in.

                      (38)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 9:35 AM MT

                      How is what I'm saying not a proof or argument?
                      How are you using those terms?

                      (39)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 9:40 AM MT

                      You should try to interact with the argument instead
                      of avoiding it.

                      How do you make sense of the laws of logic, the principle
                      of uniformity, and morality *apart from* the Christian
                      worldview?

                      Let's put your network of presuppositions on the table
                      and see how much more credible they are than the Christian
                      system.

                      This is a part of the transcendental argument, so to
                      refuse to answer those questions and submit an alternative
                      certainly does not demonstrate a willingness to uncover
                      the truth of the matter on your part.

                      (40)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 9:45 PM MT

                      Billy the problem is this.

                      You're so used to asking these "apologetic" questions
                      then you expect an answer. These questions/assertions
                      are nothing but a malformed mess!

                      I bet you're used to asking atheists "...then WHO made
                      the universe?".

                      Your question makes no sense outside of your worldview
                      aka your delusional-view.

                      (41)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 9:50 AM MT

                      Is it really too much to ask for you guys to account
                      for what you believe in and act upon (the laws of
                      logic, uniformity of nature, and morality)?

                      Isn't that exactly what you ask of me?

                      (42)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 9:55 PM MT

                      Again, stop masking your inability to interact with my
                      arguments with bogus accusations that I'm violating
                      basic rules of both formal and informal logic.

                      (43)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:00 AM MT

                      Billy, maybe you can answer the simple question that
                      sye consistently runs from?

                      How does your argument not also prove allah to a
                      muslim, hence you believe in the wrong god?

                      (44)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:05 AM MT

                      Billy lets start here.

                      Point out ANY Christian nation, state, providence,
                      etc that has these impeccable christian morals??

                      Since there are over 2billion Christians the data
                      should be clear and abundant. The data should
                      clearly show that christians are more moral than
                      non-chrisitans.

                      Lets hear it...

                      (45)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:10 AM MT

                      Good question Jim .

                      Because "Allah" has a different volume of "revelation"
                      referring to himself (the Koran), and in this volume
                      Allah is said to be essentially transcendent, so much
                      so that human language can not communicate his attributes
                      to mankind.

                      Yet, the Koran proceeds to describe Allah to humans,
                      and hold them accountable for such information.

                      This is obviously incoherent.

                      Islam basically falls into the ever widening category
                      of Christian heresy.

                      (46)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:15 AM MT

                      Keith, why should I even bother to answer your questions
                      if you won't answer mine?

                      (47)

                      From: Chad Benz
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:20 AM MT

                      We can observe the patterns in math which lead us to
                      the conclusions. (conclusions also being observations)

                      All abstract ideas are ultimately patterns of observations.

                      If I see one pebble on the ground, and then I add a
                      pebble I will get two.

                      Did two exist before humans?
                      The idea didn't.

                      Those pebbles are not the same thing, why have I decided
                      that they should be added together?

                      I observed them to be similar enough to add them to the
                      abstract notion of a pebble. Will it exist as a pattern
                      that has the potential to be observed by conscious
                      creatures?

                      Yes.

                      Does this mean that it exists as a law in some metaphysical
                      sense, no!

                      Logic is an observation of patterns.

                      There you go Billy Jacobs.

                      (48)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:25

                      I'm trying to answer yours. But you have to understand how
                      I understand morals and evaluate claims.

                      Answer my question and we will the see how fallacious your
                      assertion that chrisitians hold morality in their hands.

                      (49)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:30 AM MT

                      You are aware the bible is guilty of everything of which
                      you just accused the qur'an, right?

                      You have read your Bible, right?

                      (50)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:35 AM MT

                      Yes, I have read my Bible Jim. Could you direct me to
                      a specific example?

                      (51)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:40 AM MT

                      Keith, the veracity of Christianity and it's exclusive
                      ability to account for morality is *not* contingent upon
                      the history of individuals who have professed it as their
                      faith, and to direct the conversation that way is to be
                      grossly unaware if what it is you are even discussing.

                      (52)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:45 AM MT

                      What we are discussing is the necessity of a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science
                      and in terms of which all experience is related and
                      interpreted, not whether or not individuals have been
                      known to live 100% consistently with said system.

                      Those are two completely different topics.

                      (53)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:46 AM MT

                      Okay then how do you PROVE or even begin to asset that
                      only the chrisitan worldview can account for morals when
                      you can't point to predominantly christian societies and
                      show how chrisitans are far more moral than the rest?

                      You have a conclusion but no premise....nice and easy huh?

                      (54)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:46 AM MT

                      assert*

                      (55)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:47 AM MT

                      Is that a "no", then, on whether or not you'll answer
                      my questions?

                      (56)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:48 AM MT

                      You want to answer it, you don't want my answer.
                      Admit it Mr Morality, liars for jesus is the way to go!

                      (57)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:49 AM MT

                      "You want to answer it,"

                      I want to answer what?

                      "you don't want my answer."...See More

                      (58)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:50 AM MT

                      Here you go billy:

                      Romans 11:33-35

                      O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge
                      of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past
                      finding out!

                      For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been
                      his counsellor?

                      Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed
                      unto him again?

                      And that is one of an endless number of contradictions in
                      the bible. And that doesn't even address the multiple times
                      the bible is outroght dead wrong.

                      And you realize your argument also proves leprechauns?

                      https://m.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889?view=permalink&id=276633352470170&__user=100000169307499

                      (59)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 50:51 AM MT

                      But you read your bible, right?
                      Lmao....

                      (60)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:52 AM MT

                      "the veracity of Christianity and it's exclusive ability
                      to account for morality is *not* contingent upon the
                      history of individuals who have professed it as their faith"
                      so, in other words, Christianity alone is useless?" thanks
                      for admitting that.

                      (61)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:53 AM MT

                      .....and now he's gone.

                      The favorite tactic of the presuppositionalist.

                      (62)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:55 AM MT

                      Where's the contradiction?

                      (63)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 10:56 AM MT

                      " Is it really too much to ask for you guys to account
                      for what you believe in and act upon (the laws of logic,
                      uniformity of nature, and morality)?"

                      Nope"

                      1.

                      Logic is an arbitrary label we apply to
                      provable observations.

                      It is an idea in our minds.


                      2.

                      Uniformity of nature.

                      This is just gibberish. If you mean nature's ability
                      to support human life, I think the millions of
                      uninhabitable planets would contradict such an idea.

                      3.

                      Morality.

                      Moral behavior has been documented in many non human
                      social species. It is an advantageous adaptation for
                      social beings. Species that do not cooperate, that
                      murder and steal without repercussion do not survive.

                      Evolution 101 bro.

                      (64)

                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:05 AM MT

                      When the dust settles a bit and I figure out where y'all
                      are in the weeds, I will try to take up where I left off
                      with Billy.

                      Otherwise, Billy, if you wish to negotiate for a little
                      one-on-one time, my place remains open for you.

                      Otherwise, I will be continuing my effort here to deal
                      with you regarding Sye's alleged "proof of God" and not
                      be distracted by the secondary and tertiary issues
                      raised by others which you are chasing.

                      (65)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:10 AM MT

                      Sounds good Robert Baty

                      (66)

                      From: Jim Tripnosys Rael
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:11 AM MT

                      Now billy plays dumb...nice.

                      The Bible clearly states god is unknowable, then goes
                      on to describe endless attributes of saud god.

                      You know, tje same thibg you recognized right away in
                      the qur'an?

                      Special pleading much?

                      (67)

                      From: Keith Collura
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:12 AM MT

                      Introducing!!

                      Spin Doctor Gino and Tap Dancing Billy!

                      ....I feel another meme coming on lol

                      (68)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:13 AM MT

                      Not playing dumb, just want to know *specifically* what
                      I'm interacting with when dealing the serious charge of
                      contradiction.

                      (69)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:14 AM MT

                      Verse 34 is simply a quotation from Isaiah 40:13.

                      Try reading it contextually, and tell me whether or not
                      you're being faithful to the flow of text.

                      As for his judgments (which are secret) being unsearchable
                      and His ways (carrying out of those judgments) being
                      inscrutable, Paul is clearly simply bursting forth in
                      doxology here, expressing the majesty of the Creator over
                      against that of the creature.

                      To try to eisegete such a foreign doctrine as the utter incomprehensibility of God in to this song of praise is
                      to *completely* miss Paul's perspective.

                      (70)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:15 AM MT

                      To state this passage alone clearly communicates God as
                      unknowable is a joke.

                      (71)

                      From: Billy Jacobs
                      Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013
                      Time: About 11:16 AM MT

                      ... seeing as how your main emphasis sharply differs
                      from that of Paul's here.


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