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

Latest on Vincenzini v. Baty on Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Here is what I have gleaned from the flurry of activity last night! Others were involved but I have tried to limit my record here to the one-on-one between me
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
      Here is what I have gleaned from the flurry of activity last night! Others were involved but I have tried to limit my record here to the one-on-one between me and Gino.

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
      https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)

      (1)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 6:55 PM MT

      Did Gino just write this:

      - It's just distracting to have
      - to constantly deal with someone
      - who refuses to acknowledge that
      - they have a worldview and hold
      - it unassailable.

      Based on my experience, it is the Presuppositionalists
      who hold their worldview as unassailable.

      Maybe Gino will now give an answer to the two starter
      questions that have been set forth in that other
      stand-alone thread:

      Question #1:

      - Is it possible that God
      - exists?
      -
      - Atheist response: "yes"

      Question #2:

      - Is it possible that God
      - does not exist?
      -
      - Gino Vincenzini: ???

      Reference

      Presuppositional Claim:

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

      (Then again, maybe Gino has me blocked!)

      (2)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:00 PM MT

      No.

      The contrary of the Existence of God is impossible...

      Here's why: All of the things in the universe which are
      transcendent including the principle of induction, rely
      on the existence of God. In short (and this is a very
      simplified construction of the argument, there's more
      to it then just the premises outlined here).

      Without God you cannot prove anything, you cannot know
      anything, and you cannot render the world around you in
      any intelligible way.

      (3)


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:05 PM MT

      Gino's little hypocrisy is noted:

      - "It's just distracting to have
      - to constantly deal with someone
      - who refuses to acknowledge that
      - they have a worldview and hold
      - it unassailable."
      -
      -- Gino Vincenzini
      -- Presuppositionalist

      Afterwhich Gino Vincenzini wrote:

      - Question #2:
      -
      - Is it possible that God
      - does not exist?
      -
      -- Gino Vincenzini - "no"
      -
      - The contrary of the Existence
      - of God is impossible.
      -
      -- Gino Vincenzini

      (4)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:10 PM MT

      My worldview is subject to criticism and review...

      the necessity of evidence and the overarching commitment
      to naturalism and materialism for an atheist is not.

      So far, a successful internal critique of my worldview
      has not been offered.

      Just simply decried for having presuppositions (as though
      competing worldviews do not which makes no sense since a
      worldview IS presuppositions).

      Robert, will you submit your worldview to scrutiny and
      review and possibly criticism?

      (5)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:15 PM MT

      Gino, see stand alone subject thread here for my reply.

      (6)


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:16 PM MT

      (The stand-alone thread Gino has not responded to)

      Gino,

      One of the Presuppositional champions, Bahnsen, declared presuppositionalism (the transcendental thing) as
      non-falsifiable.

      I will admit to that.
      It's the same with "Last Thursdayism".

      Gino, are you yet prepared to explicitly admit that Sye
      Ten Bruggencate's and Eric Hovind's "proof of God" claim
      is NO, NO, NO "proof of God"?

      Gino, you asked:

      - Robert, will you submit your
      - worldview to scrutiny and
      - review and possibly criticism?

      I will be glad to compare such issues in which we might
      have a mutual interest...and that on a level playing field.

      (7)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:30 PM MT

      The proof of God is found in the fact that the universe
      cannot be rendered intelligibly without a presupposition
      of him.

      The sovereignty and the Creatorship of the Christian God
      is the only way to provide a basis for induction, reasoning, morality, etc.

      (8)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 7:45 PM MT

      Gino wrote to Tina, in part:

      - The proof of God is found
      - in the fact that the universe
      - cannot be rendered intelligibly
      - without a presupposition of him.

      That statement itself is presupposed by the Presuppositionalists
      and presuppositions are not proof.

      I think we are still waiting for someone of the Presuppositional
      camp to stipulate to what they mean when they declare they've
      got "proof of God".

      In my world, presuppositions are not proof.

      (9)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 8:00 AM MT

      Robert Baty:

      You stated that that statement is presupposed and presuppositions
      are not proof.

      The presupposition that presuppositions are not proof is not
      a proof of anything either and in fact is merely an assertion.

      Can you show me something you know which isn't based on presuppositions which do not have an infinite regress back
      to a circular argument or presupposition?

      (10)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 8:15 PM MT

      Gino now writes:

      - The presupposition that
      - presuppositions are not
      - proof is not a proof of
      - anything either.

      That presuppositions are not proof is not a presupposition.

      As you indicate Gino, it also is not in dispute that
      presuppositions are not proof.

      So, Gino, will you now be explicit in admitting and agreeing
      with me that the popular Presuppositional claim to have "proof
      of God" is false?

      (11)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 8:30 PM MT

      Robert Baty: if you're not presupposing that presuppositions
      are not proof, then prove that presuppositions are not proof.

      You just made a claim about the nature of presuppositions so
      back up your claim or admit you too are being fidistic.

      (12)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 8:45 PM MT

      Earlier Gino wrote to me:

      - The presupposition that
      - presuppositions are not
      - proof is not a proof of
      - anything either.

      Gino now writes to me:

      - If you're not presupposing that
      - presuppositions are not proof,
      - then prove that presuppositions
      - are not proof.
      -
      - You just made a claim about the
      - nature of presuppositions so
      - back up your claim...

      Note:

      Did you get that "either". Gino is implicitly admitting that,
      by definition, presuppositions are not proof.

      Of course, Gino and his fellow presuppositionalists, as far
      as I can tell, have yet to put forth their definition of proof.

      That presuppositions are not proof, by definition, is not in
      dispute.

      We needn't quibble further about that; it is agreed by Gino
      that presuppositions are not proof.

      What Gino needs to do now is explicitly admit that the common
      and popular Presuppositional claim as to that "proof of God"
      is false.

      (13)

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 9:00 PM MT

      That's ok Robert, the best definition of proof which was
      meaningful I've gotten from atheists was "convince me".

      Part of my point is that I cannot on my own, You will reject
      unless and until God takes out your heart of stone and gives
      you a heart of flesh. I have called people on here to repentance
      and I seek to at least walk out thinking which doesn't engage
      in sin by not starting with God who is the beginning of all
      knowledge.

      The proof of God isn't the presupposition, it's the NECESSITY
      of the presupposition itself in order to render the universe intelligible. Your worldview won't be able to do that unless
      and until you adopt the Christian World View.

      (14)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 9:45 PM MT

      Gino, you now write:

      - The proof of God isn't the
      - presupposition, it's the
      - NECESSITY of the presupposition
      - itself in order to render the
      - universe intelligible.

      Sye Ten Bruggencate & Eric Hovind
      put it this way, as do so many
      others likeminded:

      - The proof of God is that
      - without Him, you couldn't
      - know or prove anything.

      Gino wants to put it this way:

      - The proof of God is that
      - without Him the universe
      - would not be intelligible.

      The presupposition is not necessary as Gino presupposes.

      Gino was told of God.
      Gino was told of presuppositions.
      Presuppositionalism has no "proof of God".

      As a conversation starter, Presuppositionalism may have
      some value.

      As a "proof of God" it is NOT!

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

      From: Gino Vincenzini
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013
      Time: About 10:00 PM MT

      Robert: You are really good at making assertions...

      I at least try to back them up, you just say them and think
      that settles the argument.... nice try!

      (15)


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
      Time: About 7:25 AM MT

      Gino, see my stand-alone subject thread for my reply to
      your latest evasion above.

      (16)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
      Time: About 7:30 AM MT

      (The stand-alone subject thread for Gino's consideration)

      TO: GINO VINZENZINI

      You wrote to me:

      - I at least try to back them up,
      - you just say them and think that
      - settles the argument.

      Gino, that's false!

      You, Gino, are way behind in dealing openly and honestly
      with the fundamental problems that explain why
      Presuppositionalists provide a failed "proof of God" claim.

      By definition, Presuppositionalism, and presuppositionalists
      like you in particular don't have "back up" for their
      presuppositions.

      I'm still available, Gino, if you want to come out, come
      clean and openly and honestly negotiate the logistical
      details necessary to produce a one-on-one chat about the
      popular "proof of God" claim such as Sye Ten Bruggencate
      and Eric Hovind use.

      --------------------------------
      --------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino) (17) From: Gino Vincenzini Date: Wednesday, April 24,
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
        https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)

        (17)

        From: Gino Vincenzini
        Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
        Time: About 1:30 PM MT

        Robert defining away the proof of God's existence
        because it doesn't reason to God is faster running
        away.

        I challenge you to prove God exists from the premise
        that God doesn't exist because we have no evidence.

        I'll be waiting... see if that makes any sense for
        me to have to do.

        I don't play by your rules because the rules are
        wrong and based on presuppositions which are intended
        to exclude God and the supernatural.

        Chris. Then why doesn't your reasoning allow room for
        one to exist?

        Moreover why do you reason from premises which only
        make sense if God DOES exist?

        (18)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
        Time: About 1:45 PM MT

        Gino,

        I will again start a new thread and give you an
        opportunity to show up in good faith or continuing
        your running.

        (19)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
        Time: About 1:50 PM MT

        Gino, you returned only to run off again in the wrong
        direction as far as dealing with your problem with me
        and the problem of Presuppositionalism as it relates
        to the "proof of God" claims popularized by
        Presuppositionlists.

        Gino, you returned and popped off regarding me:

        - Robert defining away the
        - proof of God's existence
        - because it doesn't reason
        - to God is faster running
        - away.

        That's not what I did and you, Gino, know or should
        know that is not what I did.

        You, Gino, keep refusing to man up and initiate,
        in good faith, the negotiations as to how we might
        produce a more effective one-on-one chat about your
        problems and the "proof of God" claims popularized
        by Presuppositionalists.

        Will you, Gino, run again?

        ------------------------------
        ------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino) (20) From: Gino Vinzenzini Date: Wednesday, April 24,
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
          https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)

          (20)

          From: Gino Vinzenzini
          Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
          Time: About 4:00 PM MT

          Well pointing out why your worldview is insufficient
          to account for reality is not running away and you
          know or should know that "running away" is not what
          that does.

          It's forcing you to examine the real issue of
          worldview - that you keep accusing me of running
          away - to run away from.

          My problem isn't a problem because it's consistent,
          your problem is a problem because you won't man up
          and engage your worldview transcendentally.

          We won't have an effective one on one chat until
          you realize you have a worldview and you do express
          it and it is inconsistent and does indeed borrow
          from the Christian worldview.

          Your move

          (21)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
          Time: About 4:55 PM MT

          Gino,

          I think your problem is such as has been common to
          my experience with Presuppositionalists.

          That is, you don't really want to critically
          consider my unrebutted position that the
          Presuppositional "proof of God" is not a "proof".

          It's not about me or my worldview, Gino.

          Nothing you can say about my worldview or the
          atheist worldview will establish the truth of
          the Presuppositional claim to a "proof of God".

          Gino, you write, in part:

          - We won't have an effective one on
          - one chat until you realize you have
          - a worldview and you do express it
          - and it is inconsistent and does
          - indeed borrow from the Christian
          - worldview.

          We may not have the proposed chat. If not, it
          won't be for the reason(s) you might propose.

          It will be because you refused, as you have
          been refusing, to reasonably and openly and
          honestly negotiate the logistical details
          necessary.

          (22)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
          Time: About 5:05 PM MT

          Gino,

          To try and help you get started with the negotiations,
          I will propose that we take up the following proposition
          which goes to the fundamental issue I have been dealing
          with:

          Vinzenzini v. Baty
          Proposition

          - The "proof of God" is:
          -
          - IF there is no God,
          - THEN we could not know
          - anything.
          -
          -- Affirm: Gino Vinzenzini
          -- Deny: Robert Baty

          -------------------------------
          -------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino) (23) From: Robert Baty Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
            https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue)
            https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino)

            (23)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
            Time: About 7:00 PM MT

            While waiting to see if Gino will run or engage the
            negotiations in that other subject thread, I thought
            I would throw this out for feedback.

            It reflects a little bit different approach to the
            problem.

            Let me know what you think, if you care to let me
            know what you think.

            Some of y'all may be familiar with how Presuppositionalists
            like Sye Ten Bruggencate like to corner folks on the streets
            and campuses of the United States and get their victims and
            video stars and starlets to concede that "it is possible that
            God exists" and, if so, it is possible that "God could reveal
            stuff to Sye in such a way as to make him certain of such stuff".

            As Gino has recently demonstrated here, and as I have heard
            Eric Hovind also indicate, implying that Sye would take the
            same position, for purposes of the conversation/debate/discussion
            the Presuppositionalists apparently will not frame the issue
            as does the atheist (by design; they admit they don't want a
            level playing field).

            That is, while the atheist will concede that God may be a
            possible reality, the Presuppositionalist refuses to engage
            the conversation/debate/discussion framed around the possibility
            that God does not exist.

            I think what the Presuppositionalist is doing is borrowing
            from the Ontological argument as to the "possibility of God"
            issue even while being careful not to be trapped by the "rest
            of the story" should they hypothesize a "world" without God.

            Were the Presuppositionalist to really hypothesize that "world" without God, I think they would be faced with the following Ontological logical wordplay/reasoning (based on Platinga's presentation of it):

            Premise #1 - Presuppositionalist/Ontologist:

            - It is possible that
            - God exists.

            Premise #1 - Atheist:

            - It is possible that
            - God does not exist.

            Premise #2 - Presuppositionalist/Ontologist:

            - If it is possible that
            - God exists,
            - then God exists in some
            - possible world.

            Premise #2 - Atheist:

            - If it is possible that
            - God does not exist,
            - then God does not exist
            - in any possible world.

            Premise #3 - Presuppositionalist/Ontologist:

            - If God exists in some
            - possible world,
            - then he exists in all
            - possible worlds.

            Premise #3 - Atheist:

            - If God does not exist
            - in some possible world,
            - then God does not exist
            - in any possible worlds.

            Premise #4 - Presuppositionalist/Ontologist:

            - If God exists in all
            - possible worlds,
            - then God exists
            - in the actual world.

            Premise #4 - Atheist:

            - If God does not exist
            - in any possible world,
            - then God does not exist
            - in the actual world.

            Premise #5 - Presuppositionalist/Ontologist:

            - If God exists in the
            - actual world,
            - then God exists.

            Premise #5 - Atheist:

            - If God does not exist
            - in the actual world,
            - then God does not exist.

            It seems to be one of those "goose and gander" sorts of
            things - a stalemate perhaps; at least using that game.

            Summary:

            I don't think the above Ontological Argument championed
            by the likes of Platinga is any more a "proof" of God
            than Van Til's, Bahnsen's, Hovind's or Bruggencate's
            Presuppositional "proof of God".

            I do think the above wordplay illustrates, to some extent,
            why Presuppositionalists will typically refuse, in a show
            of hypocrisy, to posit a "world" without God for purposes
            of advancing the discussion of their problems and the failure
            of Presuppositionalism as far as providing the much touted
            "proof of God".

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