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) (23) From: Robert Baty Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
    Message 1 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.