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

Re: Billy Jacobs v. Robert Baty: Presuppositionlism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
      https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
      https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
      https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)


      (137)

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

      Billy,

      I am longsuffering and willing to be as accommodative
      as possible regarding such things.

      If you simply can't bring yourself to accept the stipulated definition of "circular reasoning", which makes no value
      judgment, then maybe we can agree, based on your explicit
      concession, that your basis for trying to justify Sye's
      "proof of God" characterization for his argument may be
      summed up as:

      - From: Billy Jacobs
      - Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2013
      - Time: 4:37 PM
      -
      - The transcendental argument...
      - assumes what it is arguing for...

      ----------------------------------------------
      ----------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      UPDATE! Following is my last message in that exchange. Billy has not returned to the discussion. It may be his day job, as a utility lineman apparently, has
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 12, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        UPDATE!

        Following is my last message in that exchange.

        Billy has not returned to the discussion. It may be his day job, as a utility lineman apparently, has taken him storm chasing and away from his FaceBook activities.

        Time will tell!

        Till then; I am still winning! :o)

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

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

        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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
        https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
        https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
        https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)


        (137)

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

        Billy,

        I am longsuffering and willing to be as accommodative
        as possible regarding such things.

        If you simply can't bring yourself to accept the stipulated definition of
        "circular reasoning", which makes no value
        judgment, then maybe we can agree, based on your explicit
        concession, that your basis for trying to justify Sye's
        "proof of God" characterization for his argument may be
        summed up as:

        - From: Billy Jacobs
        - Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2013
        - Time: 4:37 PM
        -
        - The transcendental argument...
        - assumes what it is arguing for...

        ----------------------------------------------
        ----------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
          https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
          https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
          https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)

          (138)

          From: Billy Jacobs
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:30 PM MT

          Jim, again, just because natural laws have behaved in
          a certain manner in the past, what basis do you have
          for assuming they will do so in the future?

          BTW, you are only begging the question by appealing
          to the inductive principle being called in to question.

          (139)

          From: Billy Jacobs
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:35 PM MT

          Robert, if you refuse to deal with the argument, that's
          fine; just don't tout yourself as some sort of atheist
          champion.

          For you to repeatedly deny that what we have set forth
          is a "proof" without interacting with our arguments
          shows your true colors.

          You won't deal with the arguments because you can't.

          I find it highly ironic that you simply dogmatically
          state that what we have produced is not a proof; without
          citing logicians, without citing philosophers...

          Honestly man, isn't that the very dogmatism you've
          convinced yourself you're arguing against?

          (140)

          From: Billy Jacobs
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:40 PM MT

          I could care less whether you believe the transcendental
          argument is a proof... You're just playing a semantical
          game.

          Try interacting with the arguments.

          (141)

          From: Shane Martin
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:45 PM MT

          um billy... robs not an athiest

          (142)

          From: Shane Martin
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:50 PM MT

          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/permalink/298043826995789/?comment_id=298199166980255&offset=0&total_comments=51

          (143)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:55 PM MT

          Billy Jacobs,

          I may be playing a word game but it's the game board
          the presuppositionalists have prepared to play on,
          and I have beat them at their game.

          Sye's "proof of God" is NO, NO, NO "proof of God".

          Billy, you need to review this discussion and catch up.

          You are way behind in dealing with the failure of Sye
          to establish his claimed "proof". I will be glad to
          consider interacting with you or your champion regarding
          that fundamental issue; just set forth how you plan to
          go about "proving" Sye's major premise and I will either
          accept your "proof" or offer my rebuttal....again!

          (144)

          From: Keith Collura
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:55 PM MT

          Billy Jacobs there is no proof.

          The TAG concludes the same when you replace god with
          FSM or the Easter Bunny.

          Makes no headway

          (145)

          From: Billy Jacobs
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 10:00 PM MT

          Robert; account for the laws of logic, the principle
          of uniformity, and morality *w/o presupposing the
          Christian God*.

          (146)

          From: Keith Collura
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 10:01 PM MT

          lol without your god we can't say 2+2=4 right?
          Too funny

          (147)

          From: Billy Jacobs
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 10:02 PM MT

          Sorry Keith, but last I checked, the "Easter Bunny"
          has never made a claim to or been presented as being
          solely able to provide the necessary preconditions
          for intelligibility as listed above.

          Even if "he" had, his claims would be meaningless,
          because they would've been merely hijacked from the
          Christian worldview.

          (148)

          From: Billy Jacobs
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 10:03 PM MT

          "Without" my God, there'd be no "you"
          to say anything Keith.

          (149)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 10:05 PM MT

          Billy Jacobs, you, like so many before you (most
          recently Jason Stephens) fail to show an appreciation
          for the fact that it is not about me.

          It is about Sye's "proof of God" claim.

          You can NOT establish the "proof" of his major premise
          by asking questions.

          Socrates you are not.

          Did you listen to Courtney's little video explaining
          what you are doing and why presuppositionalists behave
          the way you and your champions do?

          One reason has to do with your preference for the use
          of the "argument from ignorance".

          Playing that card will not establish the "proof" of
          the truth claimed for your major premise.

          You are losing more ground, Billy.

          Reconsider, review the record here, and try to catch up.

          (150)

          From: Keith Collura
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 10:10 PM MT

          So a claim is enough for ya?

          Just a claim huh?
          No justification, evidence?
          Interesting.

          "I found it in a book here, must be
          true or it wouldn't be here"

          (151)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
          Time: About 9:15 PM MT

          Billy,

          I see you've now gotten down to the real,
          fundamental issue regarding your "proof of
          God" claim.

          I was wondering if any of my adversaries
          would actually get around to dealing with
          that.

          You wrote to someone else:

          - "Without" my God, there'd be
          - no "you" to say anything Keith.

          Major Premise:

          - If God did not exist,
          - then nothing would exist.

          Minor premise:

          - Something exists.

          Conclusion:

          - God exists.

          OK, Billy, if you prefer that to Sye's alleged
          "proof of God", I will let you defer to your
          own implicit argument and try to "prove" your
          major premise.

          -------------------------------
          -------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
            https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
            https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
            https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)
            https://www.facebook.com/shane.martin.104418 (Shane)

            (152)

            From: Billy Jacobs
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:15 PM MT

            Okay Robert.

            If you refuse to answer my questions, I don't see
            where you get off condemning others for supposed
            argumentational misconduct.

            You are indeed well practiced in misdirection, but
            if you continue to refuse to deal with the content
            of my arguments, then I'm afraid that we'll have
            to agree to disagree.

            (153)

            From: Billy Jacobs
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:17 PM MT

            Which claim Shane?
            My last one directed toward Keith?

            (154)

            From: Shane Martin
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:18 PM MT

            yes

            (155)

            From: Billy Jacobs
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:20 PM MT

            What you are looking for, Shane, is what I've been
            articulating throughout this thread.

            No one, save Jim Tripnosys Rael, has even attempted
            to submit an alternative worldview whereby the
            entirety of human experience (laws of logic,
            uniformity of nature, and morality) may be rendered
            intelligible.

            Sure, it's much easier to attempt to pick holes in
            someone else's position, especially when you yourself
            avoid submitting your very own position, specifically.

            But, by refusing to do so, the non-Christian theists
            in this thread have simultaneously refused to engage
            in meaningful discussion, which is what I was under
            the impression we were here to do.

            Will you prove me wrong, Shane?

            Will you tell me which worldview makes logic, science,
            and morality possible, if not the Christian system *alone*?

            (156)

            From: Billy Jacobs
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:22 PM MT

            You're still not answering my questions Robert.

            (157)

            From: Shane Martin
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:23 PM MT

            what i'm looking for is proof that without your
            god keith would not exist.

            in other words you can't think of a worldview that
            does account for them, that my good sir is an
            argument from ignorance.

            (158)

            From: Billy Jacobs
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:24 PM MT

            In fact, you're only playing the exact same semantical
            games that you were previously.

            (159)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:25 PM MT

            Billy, all questions do not carry the same weight
            or relevance. I am more than willing to consider
            relevant questions when they become relevant.

            It seems to me, however, that you continually make
            my point and implicitly concede that you cannot
            demonstrate the "proof" of your major premise.

            (160)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:30 PM MT

            Billy, I don't think it is a matter of "agreeing to
            disagree".

            You keep implicitly admitting your agreement with me.

            You've got your "presupposition" regarding the major
            premises and that simply does not suffice for "proof".

            You believe the major premises to be true and that
            simply does not suffice for "proof".

            I won, a long time ago, but I am longsuffering in
            trying to get my adversaries on this very simple
            point to realize it and be explicit in conceding
            my victory.

            (161)

            From: Billy Jacobs
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:31 PM MT

            That's a very interesting response Shane.

            So you're willing to concede that Christianity is
            the exclusive worldview capable of rendering human
            experience intelligible, that none other can do the
            same, but you're still holding out for another due
            to an appeal to your perception of a logical fallacy?

            (162)

            From: Shane Martin
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:32 PM MT

            no, i didn't say anything of the sort and i have
            no idea how you could come to such a conclusion.

            (163)

            From: Shane Martin
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:33 PM MT

            you claimed keith would not exist without god,
            now prove the claim.

            (164)

            From: Shane Martin
            Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
            Time: About 9:35 PM MT

            also i never even said anything about the
            prepositional arguments that you , sye, and gino
            all spout.

            all i want is proof that without god keith would
            not exist.


            ----------------------------------------------
            ----------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
              https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
              https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
              https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)
              https://www.facebook.com/shane.martin.104418 (Shane)

              (165)

              From: Billy Jacobs
              Date: Saturday, April 20, 2013
              Time: About 9:30 AM MT

              So we're not all chasing a ghost here, would you guys
              care to offer your working definition of proof?

              (166)

              From: Chad Benz
              Date: Saturday, April 20, 2013
              Time: About 10:00 AM MT

              An observation or series of observations that can ONLY
              be accounted for by the hypothesis would prove the
              hypothesis...

              Except for possibilities in which we doubt observable
              reality, because we only are trying to prove it within
              the context of observabable reality.

              Also I am using a very broad term for observation.

              Ex. We use logic, or attempt to observe patterns, and
              prove something with math.

              Just remember that the hypothesis must work within
              already existing evidence.

              (167)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Saturday, April 20, 2013
              Time: About 10:15 AM MT

              Billy, inasmuch as it's Sye's claim that I have taken
              up for rebuttal, I will leave it to Sye or his
              apologist/surrogate (i.e., you or some other) to offer
              the stipulated definition he/she may wish to use for
              purposes of considering whether or not Sye's "proof"
              agrees with how I understand that term to be used in
              that context.

              Who knows, if Sye or his surrogate wants to stipulate
              to a definition that fits Sye's boast, I may agree with
              him that, by definition, Sye's got the "proof of God".

              So, Billy, feel free to put up your definition of "proof"
              for consideration in the context of Sye's affirmation.

              I think it rather disengenuous of you to ask others to
              define the terms that Sye uses in his affirmation.

              It's up to the affirmative, in my opinion, to define the
              terms of the proposition that may come into question.

              I have heard it said that in such controversies, much
              of the controversy can be resolved by a defining of the
              terms. So, if Sye or his surrogate can come up with a
              stipulated definition he wants to use for his affirmation
              regarding "proof", there may be no controversy to fuss about.

              It may be that my rebuttal, equally sustainable, simply uses
              a stipulated definition that is different from Sye's.

              So, Billy, feel free to put up your definition of "proof"
              for consideration in the context of Sye's affirmation.

              ------------------------
              ------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue) https://www.facebook.com/billy.jacobs.75 (Billy
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 20, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
                https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
                https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
                https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)
                https://www.facebook.com/shane.martin.104418 (Shane)

                (168)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Saturday, April 20, 2013
                Time: About 11:30 AM MT

                Billy,

                Eric Hovind just posted this on one of his FaceBook
                pages:

                - Is evolution part of science?
                - Depends on what you mean.

                It's the same thing with "proof".

                So, where is Sye's and Eric's stipulated definition
                of "proof" as they intend that term in their oft-repeated
                affirmation that:

                - The proof of God is that without
                - Him you could not know anything,
                - prove anything, etc., etc., etc.

                Maybe they have it published somewhere. I haven't found
                it and their alleged "proof" does not meet my understanding
                of the term "proof".

                Considering how they have made careers out of claiming the
                "proof of God", it would be nice if someone could find some published, stipulated definition that they are intending
                when claiming:

                - The proof of God is that without
                - Him you could not know anything,
                - prove anything, etc., etc., etc.

                -----------------------------------
                -----------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                Sean Boatman shows up...again! BILLY JACOBS V. ROBERT BATY - PRESUPPOSITIONALISM https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (Venue)
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 20, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sean Boatman shows up...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/robert.baty.1 (Robert Baty)
                  https://www.facebook.com/keaco (Keith Callura)
                  https://www.facebook.com/jimrael (Jim Tripnosys Rael)
                  https://www.facebook.com/the1chad (Chad Benz)
                  https://www.facebook.com/shane.martin.104418 (Shane)
                  https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (Sean)

                  (169)

                  From: Sean Boatman
                  Date: Saturday, April 20, 2013
                  Time: About 11:40 AM MT


                  Billy Jacobs,

                  Robert does this everywhere he can.

                  He finds people to "friend" that are
                  connected to Sye so he can get on Sye's
                  page and make comments.

                  You will notice that he fails to mentioned
                  that Sye offered to debate this with him
                  via Skype and Robert declined.

                  That offer was within the last week as I
                  recall.

                  You have been patient here in speaking to
                  him, but he cannot or will not account for
                  the very elements needed to have this
                  discussion. I.e. Logic, uniformity of
                  nature, reason, reality etc.

                  He appeals to laws of logic in asserting a
                  fallacy but fails to provide an explanation
                  for the existence of the laws themselves.

                  Thereby missing entirely the presuppositional
                  nature of the argument.

                  Which in essence is: "God is not something
                  we reason to, He is the one without whom we
                  could not reason."

                  Please note that he will be copying all of
                  your comments to his Yahoo Group page as well.

                  (Que response here by Robert in saying that
                  I failed to answer his questions in previous
                  encounters too.)

                  (170)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Saturday, April 20, 2013
                  Time: About 12:10 PM MT

                  SEAN BOATMAN
                  HYPOCRITE, LIAR, PRESUPPOSITIONALIST

                  Sean just posted, in part:

                  - Robert does this everywhere he
                  - can. He finds people to "friend"
                  - that are connected to Sye so he
                  - can get on Sye's page and make
                  - comments.

                  False.

                  - You will notice that he fails to
                  - mentioned that Sye offered to
                  - debate this with him via Skype
                  - and Robert declined. That offer
                  - was within the last week as I
                  - recall.

                  False.

                  I have always been open to negotiating the
                  venue and Sye has never come out, come clean,
                  and openly and honestly engaged in the
                  negotiations as to how our one-on-one chat
                  about his problems might be produced.

                  Sye has yet to explicitly advise me of his
                  refusal to engage me in a written discussion.

                  Should Sye explicitly decline the written
                  exchange and further engage in the negotiations
                  in good faith, we can discuss venue further
                  and, just maybe, resolve that side matter.

                  - You (Billy) have been patient
                  - here in speaking to him, but
                  - he cannot or will not account
                  - for the very elements needed
                  - to have this discussion. I.e.
                  - Logic, uniformity of nature,
                  - reason, reality etc.

                  What is needed, is what I have begged Sye and
                  his sympathizers to provide; an honest correspondent
                  willing to come out, come clean and openly and
                  honestly deal with Sye's fundamental "proof of God"
                  problem.

                  Note the hypocrisy!

                  Sye and his people have carried on, carry on plenty
                  of conversations with people and even adversaries
                  without them ever having given an account of logic,
                  uniformity of nature, reason, reality, etc.

                  They have a lot of repentin' to do regarding me and
                  these important public issues.

                  - He (Robert) appeals to laws
                  - of logic in asserting a fallacy
                  - but fails to provide an explanation
                  - for the existence of the laws
                  - themselves.

                  - Thereby missing entirely the
                  - presuppositional nature of the
                  - argument.

                  False.

                  It's not about me. It's about how using Sye's own
                  "divine" logic his alleged "proof" can be shown to
                  NOT, NOT, NOT be a "proof".

                  I most assuredly did NOT miss the presuppositional
                  nature of Sye's reasoning; which is why, in part,
                  my denial of his "proof" claim is not, can not be
                  rebutted.

                  - "God is not something we reason
                  - to, He is the one without whom
                  - we could not reason."

                  Just one of many ipse dixit presuppositions proposed
                  by the presuppositionalist liars and hypocrites.

                  - Please note that he will be
                  - copying all of your comments
                  - to his Yahoo Group page as well.

                  Note the continued hypocrisy.

                  At least I don't go around trying to corner kids,
                  videotape my antics, and commercialize the encounters
                  to raise money.

                  These are historic developments in the course of the
                  popular, public resurgence of the failed "Presuppositional"
                  approach to apologetics and it's quite understandable that
                  Sye and his minions would whine so about my victories over
                  the latest presuppositional champion to arise; Sye Ten
                  Bruggencate.

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