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

Re: Latest on Vincenzini v. Baty on Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/156522841147889/ (venue) https://www.facebook.com/gino.vincenzini (Gino) (17) From: Gino Vincenzini Date: Wednesday, April 24,
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 4 , Apr 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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.