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

Trouble in Presuppositionalism Land?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Some may recall my recent experience with Apologia Radio, its host Jeff Durbin, his church and its affections for things Presuppositional and Sye Ten
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 28 6:09 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Some may recall my recent experience with Apologia Radio, its host Jeff Durbin, his church and its affections for things Presuppositional and Sye Ten Bruggencate.

      Following is an exchange that took place last night on the Apologia Radio FaceBook page. My comment was deleted and Jeff Durbin has blocked me from viewing his personal page and postings. While I can still view the Apologia Radio page, I have been blocked from posting there. Comments not included below were of the typical back-slapping, congratulatory type from Presuppositional sympathizers.

      The exchange, I think, is important because it shows other theists, even young-earthers, see a problem with Presuppositionalism.

      And so Sye Ten Bruggencate continues to "run" from me and the proposed one-on-one chat; he and his can't find one honorable Presuppositionalist to come out, come clean and openly and honestly negotiate for a discussion of why Sye's "proof of God" claim provides NO "proof of God".

      Now to that exchange from last night:

      https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio (venue)
      https://www.facebook.com/jeff.durbin.7 (Jeff)
      https://www.facebook.com/mike.pincher (Mike)

      (excerpted messages - the back-patting
      messages were excluded)

      (1)

      From: Apologia Radio
      Date: Saturday, April 27, 2013
      Time: About 2:00 PM MT

      This is one of the hardest-hitting
      refutations of Atheism ever! Listen-in
      as the debate with an Atheist goes
      into overtime!

      http://www.apologiaradio.com/index.php/answering-the-fool-wsye-ten-bruggencate/

      (2)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Saturday, April 27, 2013
      Time: About 10:00 PM MT

      (reconstruction - message deleted)

      Presuppositionalists believe in God.
      Atheists don't believe in God.

      Presuppositionalism, by definition,
      provides no refutation of atheism.

      (3)

      From: Mike Pincher (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 12:01 AM MT

      Frankly, I found this broadcast
      quite disappointing and couldn't
      sit through all of it.

      I think it "begs the question,"
      is an erroneous "Appeal to Authority"
      and is also a tautology ("circular
      reasoning") to use the Bible as an
      authority to an atheist to say that
      without God there is no knowledge.

      You don't prove a premise by assuming
      it, and that is nothing but a
      foundationless bald assumption.

      That's basic polemics.

      I can't see how any skilled atheist
      debater would fall for such obvious
      logical fallacies.

      And remember, I'm a young earth
      Christian creationist and on your
      side.

      I consider that a very poor tactic
      lacking credibility.

      (4)

      From: Apologia Radio
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 1:00 AM MT

      So you don't agree with
      Proverbs 1:7?

      (5)

      From: Mike Pincher (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 1:05 AM MT

      Of course I agree with it, but
      it's improper argumentation.

      I could also make up my own
      book and apply it to Zeus.

      That's like arguing that God
      should know Genesis and its
      truth because He was there.

      In law, that's nothing but hearsay.
      Prove to me He was there or even
      exists.

      Again, you're preaching to the
      choir on these issues, but I can't
      see any atheist succumbing to such
      lame argumentation.

      If you used that tactic in a court
      of law, your case would be thrown
      out immediately and you'd be held
      in possible contempt.

      (6)

      From: Apologia Radio
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 1:10 AM MT

      - "Of course I agree with it,
      - but it's improper argumentation."

      My hope is that anyone looking at
      this thread who listened to the show
      will understand by your statement
      why we called this a moral issue.

      (7)

      From: Apologia Radio
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 1:30 AM MT

      The argument is that apart from
      God you can't have a justification
      for knowledge.

      You've made your point.
      You disagree.

      God bless you and thank you for
      listening.

      Perhaps, you might consider
      "sitting through all of it"
      before you respond that neutrality
      is the way to defend The Lord of
      Glory.

      Again, thanks for listening.
      God bless you.

      (8)

      From: Mike Pincher (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 1:45 AM MT

      I know some very moral agnostics
      whose integrity I would trust
      over many "alleged" Christians.

      (9)

      From: Apologia Radio
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 1:50 AM MT

      By your last comment it is
      clear you don't understand
      our position.

      You are arguing against a
      straw-man there, brother.

      Try investigating a little more
      before you respond.

      Respectfully.

      (10)

      From: Mike Pincher (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 2:00 AM MT

      God bless you, too.

      But I disagree with your
      nomenclature.

      Apologetics is the theological
      equivalent of the adversarial
      system in law, and that is far
      from "neutral."

      (11)

      From: Apologia Radio (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 2:05 AM MT

      Once again, you should spend
      time trying to understand our
      position before you critique.

      You are throwing punches into
      the air, brother.

      (12)

      From: Mike Pincher (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 2:10 AM MT

      The burden is on you to show
      me where I'm wrong, because
      on its face, you are guilty
      of the three logical fallacies
      I outlined.

      Good night and God bless, but
      I don't see how you can convince
      any atheist beyond a fifth grade
      education with that approach.

      Bye for now.

      (13)

      From: Apologia Radio (attorney)
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 2:15 AM MT

      There are no logical fallacies
      without the God of the Bible.

      As He says in the Proverbs: the
      fear of The Lord is the beginning
      of knowledge.

      You can't have a justified knowledge
      claim about logic as a necessary,
      universal, and invariant law apart
      from the God of Scripture.

      You've made your position clear.

      You think Proverbs is a bad argument.

      We would suggest to you that your
      position of neutrality is not only
      philosophically fallacious but
      immoral - coming from a person who
      professes to have Christ as Lord.

      Neutrality is not only philosophically
      absurd, but, for the Christian...
      Immoral.

      Jesus said, "Whoever is not with me
      is against me".

      God bless.

      (14)

      From: Apologia Radio
      Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013
      Time: About 2:20 AM MT

      We are dealing with the
      preconditions of intelligibility
      here, Mike.

      ----------------------------------
      ----------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      ... I just noticed there have been some recent developments, with Sye joining in the exchange before leaving. https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio (venue)
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 30 2:24 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        ---

        I just noticed there have been some recent developments, with Sye joining in the exchange before leaving.


        https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio (venue)
        https://www.facebook.com/jeff.durbin.7 (Jeff)
        (Jeff and Apologia Radio are one and the same!)
        https://www.facebook.com/mike.pincher (Mike)
        https://www.facebook.com/sye.tenbruggencate (Sye)

        (15)

        From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        Date: Monday, April 29, 2013
        Time: 6:00 AM

        Mike Pincher, please prove the laws of logic by which
        you determine that this is "improper argumentation"
        without using the laws of logic, and also please prove
        that the reasoning you use to come to your conclusions
        about this argumentation (or anything) is valid, without
        using your reasoning.

        Thanks.

        (It seems like one of the first thing
        Sye likes to do when someone suggests
        he is failing in meeting his affirmative
        obligations is to try and change the
        subject. - RLBaty)

        (16)

        From: Mike Pincher (attorney)
        Date: Monday, April 29, 2013
        Time: 8:05 AM

        Sye Ten Bruggencate, you must first demonstrate to me how
        my exercise of reason proves anything other than that I
        have it and can exercise it.

        The "I think, therefore I am" postulate doesn't say HOW
        and WHY I am in terms of ultimate origins.

        I've already stated the logical fallacies that
        presupposition violates, and all you're trying to tell
        me is that by some magic wand the very reason that I
        can think is because there's a God, thus erroneously
        trying to ex nihilo show His existence without proving
        it.

        You can't cite the Bible, because its authenticity and
        authority (and those are two different questions) is
        among those things to be proven. God can never be proven
        by pure logic.

        An element of faith will always be required and every
        Christian must have it. Granted, the evolutionists need
        more faith, but we need it also.

        (17)

        From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        Date: Monday, April 29, 2013
        Time: 8:08 AM

        > //"you must first demonstrate to
        > me how my exercise of reason proves
        > anything other than that I have it
        > and can exercise it."//

        How do you know what I must demonstrate?

        How do you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING
        is valid (without being circular please).

        Thanks.

        (18)

        From: Mike Pincher
        Date: Monday, April 29, 2013
        Time: 8:14 AM

        Because you're the one trying to prove something re God's
        existence, sovereignty and so forth, not me.

        The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one trying to prove
        something.

        Those are the rules of polemic engagement.

        Why you're trying to circumvent them to provide a default,
        easy way out is mystifying to me and only adds fuel to
        the skeptics.

        As I'm sure you realize, I like your conclusions but
        deeply dispute your methodology.

        If you're trying to provide further verification for
        a believer, this might work.

        If you're trying to use it as disputation to win a
        debate, I think it is impossible for it to work.

        (And with that Sye has not been heard
        from again in that exchange! - RLBaty)

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