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

Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty - Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism-on-the-Slide/194801873982784 (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) About Jason Petersen:
    Message 1 of 18 , May 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      ---

      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism-on-the-Slide/194801873982784 (venue)

      https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

      About Jason Petersen:

      http://answersforhope.com/about/

      (excerpts)

      - President of Answers for Hope
      -
      - (Jason) was raised in a southern
      - baptist Christian home.
      -
      - Once (Jason) got to college...(he)
      - began to fall away from my walk with
      - Christ.
      -
      - In early 2010 I started to get back
      - up off the ground.
      -
      - (Jason) started studying apologetics
      - and engaging in informal debates on
      - Facebook.
      -
      - (Jason) was told early on that (he)
      - had a "knack" for it.
      -
      - (Jason) studied the debating
      - techniques used by William Lane
      - Craig. (He) studied young earth
      - creationist..., and atheist
      - worldviews.
      -
      - (He)...recalls telling (his) parents
      -
      -- "If I go to Birmingham and
      -- they tell me that I won't
      -- live because the cancer went
      -- to my brain then I will spend
      -- the rest of my life preaching
      -- the gospel to others."
      -
      - The removal of the cancer was successful.
      -
      - I am currently participating in the
      - Distance Learning Apologetics Certificate
      - in Biola University.

      (2)

      From: Jason Petersen
      Date: Friday, May 25, 2013
      Time: 1:29 PM

      (excerpt)

      My foundation for knowledge of
      things such as the laws of logic
      are rooted in God.

      I can offer the following argument:

      Premise #1:

      - If God does not exist,
      - knowledge is not possible.

      Premise #2:

      - Knowledge is possible.

      Conclusion:

      - Therefore it is not the case
      - that God does not exist.

      (2)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Saturday, May 25, 2013
      Time: About 7:20 PM MT

      Alberto Gandara referred me here but I did not find the Ted Curtis or Bryan Winters he made mention of.

      I did notice Jason Petersen.

      Alberto suggested someone here might be interested in my outstanding invitation which can be found at:

      https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty

      I will be posting this message and some introductory material there should any wish to come around and take up the proposition for producing an exchange regarding the merits of Sye Ten Bruggencate Presuppositional claim that

      - "the proof of God is that
      - without Him you could not
      - prove anything."

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ----------------------------
      ----------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      It just so happens that I ran across one of Jason s debates which appears to be ongoing and, in his own way, takes up the proof of God claim popularized by
      Message 2 of 18 , May 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        It just so happens that I ran across one of Jason's debates which appears to be ongoing and, in his own way, takes up the "proof of God" claim popularized by Sye Ten Bruggencate.

        Here's Jason's latest entries into that debate:

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

        http://answersforhope.com/a-debate-with-a-dishonest-atheist-how-many-contradictions-can-you-count-in-his-arguments/

        From: Jason Petersen
        Date: Saturday, May 25, 2013

        After reading over Jeremy's underwhelming response I have started to notice that he is getting increasingly more emotional and insulting in his responses.

        Let's have a look:

        > "I suppose if you were illiterate you could get
        > that but for those of us who can read, that's
        > exactly what he said."

        Getting upset already Jeremy?

        Please quote where he stated that he believes in God because it's more desirable. If you expect me to stoop to your level you are going to be rather disappointed.

        I am one that believes that cooler heads will prevail.

        I have already addressed your straw man in the first, post, you then repeated yourself, then you said it again. At this point you are committing the fallacy of proof by assertion ad nauseam.

        This means that you are repeatedly making the same unsubstantiated assertion.

        > "If you'd taken logic 101 then you would probably
        > have an understanding of what I'm talking about.
        > Unfortunately it just appears that you suffer
        > from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Presuppositional
        > apologetics assume correctness, then argue. That's
        > pretty well the epitome of question begging."

        I gave a deductive argument that highlights the presuppositional approach in the form of modus tollens.

        Let's recap:

        1. If God does not exist then knowledge is not possible.

        2. Knowledge is possible.

        3. Therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.

        Jeremy, in my discussion with you I have found that you struggle (Among other things.) with the distinction between modus tollens and affirming the consequent.

        Please allow me to be of assistance:

        This is the logical flow of modus tollens:

        1. If P, Q.

        2. Not Q.

        Conclusion: Therefore, not P.

        Now, let's take a closer look at the presuppositional argument I implied:

        1. If God does not exist(P) then knowledge is not possible.(Q)

        2. Knowledge is possible(Not Q.)

        3. Therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.(Not P.)

        This is the a truth table(You learn how to write these in intro to logic class.) that represents modus tollens:

        p q
        T T T
        T F F
        F T T
        F F T

        I have now spelled out how the argument I provided earlier falls into modus tollens and not circular reasoning.

        It is not uncommon for people who are unfamiliar with logical fallacies to mix up modus tollens with affirming the consequent (Although more often confused with modus ponens) or denying the antecedent.)

        I can't fault it for you unless I suspected that you have studied logic. In your case, I don't suspect it.

        > "Projection is not a valid argument."

        A baseless assertion of projection is not a valid rebuttal.

        > "Once again, projection of your ignorance
        > of what constitutes fallacy is not a valid
        > argument."

        I'd like to point out that you have offered no response since I originally corrected you on Dr. Jackson's statements.

        I await your quotation that shows that Dr. Jackson stated that he drew a conclusion due to its desirability.

        Another baseless assertion won't cut it.

        > "Incorrect yet again, I merely pointed out
        > quite a few fallacies being employed."

        Oh really?
        Where?

        All I saw were assertions then repeated assertions after I corrected you.

        > "To humor you and watch you confirm my prediction
        > with your pathetic ensuing gap argument;"

        This is the fallacy of prejudicial conjecture.

        Notice that Jeremy is becoming increasingly more emotional and frustrated.

        It's ironic that he accuses me of projection when he is repeatedly talking down to me.

        Projection is when you take your own negative qualities and then apply them to others.

        Jeremy has been rude and talking down to me from the beginning, as a defense mechanism, he is trying to pretend that I'm the one who is claiming superiority over him.

        He is doing so by calling my statements "pathetic" and accusing me of being "illiterate."

        Then he tries to associate me with psychological processes that are unrelated to my behavior, but apparently have some relevance to his behavior.

        Now, projection is a defense mechanism and it is understandable that Jeremy facing the fact that his worldview is absurd would cause him to try to use defense mechanisms such as projection.

        I have stated before that I will not have a discussion with someone who wants to fling mud and be insulting.

        If Jeremy wants to continue this discussion (It's unlikely given how it's been going for him.) I ask that he calm down and try to approach this discussion with a level head and leave his emotions out of this discussion.

        If he doesn't then I don't plan on continuing this dialogue with him.

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

        From: Jason Petersen
        Date: Saturday, May 25, 2013

        > "1: No. The concept of a certain behavior being
        > immoral cannot exist independent of mind and
        > therefore cannot be objective."

        It appears that you accept a concept known as moral relativism.

        If this is the case then unfortunately you have given up the problem of evil, as to say that God is evil on a basis where everyone should agree appeals to an objective standard independent of your own opinion.

        Now, there is a common conflation that relativists make.

        They tend to think that opinions on values are equivalent to moral values.

        However, this assumes exactly what the relativist is trying to prove.

        Opinions can be wrong.

        If morals are nothing more than sociocultrally relative then that means that what is moral is in fact, an opinion.

        If this is the case, then opinions on morals can be wrong.

        This conflation is interesting because the relativist will argue that morals must be relative because values on morals differ from culture to culture.

        But what we find is that there are morals that are wrong independent of an individual's or culture's opinion.

        For instance, it was objectively wrong for Nazis to kill 6 million Jews despite what the Nazis thought about killing Jews being the proper thing to do.

        It is also objectively wrong to torture a child for fun.

        If the relativist acknowledges that any culture is wrong about their own moral standard despite what they think, then the relativist unwittingly gives into an objective standard for morality that exists outside of one's opinion.

        Thus, their axiological (Axiology equates to value, including morals.) portion of their worldview is self contradictory and can not be true in any possible description of reality.

        If this is the case, then this entails that in the actual world their axiology is false.

        Thus, their foundation for axiology is false.

        Bearing this in mind I would like to ask three questions of Jeremy:

        1.

        Is torturing a child for fun wrong even
        when it's accepted in a culture?

        2.

        Was the murder of 6 million Jews still
        wrong even though there was a culture
        that thought it was okay?

        3.

        Should either of these cultures that
        would accept these actions as moral not
        committed these atrocities?

        > "2-3: It would certainly appear so.
        > The universe seems consistent enough
        > to be learned about"

        In order to discern consistency you must use your reasoning.

        > "4: An argument does not have to be valid
        > logic for the conclusion to be correct but
        > it helps"

        Did you use your reasoning to come to that conclusion?

        > "5: Apparent consistency"

        Ah, circular reasoning!

        Just as I predicted.

        Recall that justification for truth and logic relies on consistency.

        However, his reasoning relies on consistency as well, which must be discerned through his own reasoning.

        Now, he is validating his reasoning by using consistency but is discerning consistency using his reasoning.

        The foundation for Jeremy's knowledge(Epistemology) is completely circular.

        Since this is the case epistemic certainty can not exist in his worldview.

        Unless Jeremy can justify how he knows his reasoning is valid without appealing to his reasoning, he is contradicting his own worldview when he makes any claims to knowledge.

        > "6: Not at all. Atheism is skepticism towards
        > the unsubstantiated claims of a god/gods.
        > Nothing to be contradictory."

        Atheism is a worldview because it has implications on all of the tenets of a worldview:

        1. axiology-Your beliefs about the nature of value such as what is right and wrong.

        2. metaphysics- Your beliefs on the nature of reality.

        3. epistemology-Your beliefs about the nature and source of knowledge.

        4. teleology- Your beliefs about the meaning and purpose of the universe and its inhabitants.

        5. theology- Your beliefs about the existence of God.

        6. anthropology- Your beliefs about the nature of your individual purpose and mankind's purpose.

        7. cosmology-Your beliefs about the origins and nature of the universe, life, and mankind.

        > "7: Given that nature is defined as 'the
        > external world in its entirety' we can't
        > know because anything beyond nature would
        > be beyond our perception."

        This claim is self defeating.

        Such a truth that we can't know anything beyond the natural world is a metaphysical truth that can not be derived from the natural world itself.

        Also, I doubt that Jeremy would want to follow the implications of his statement.

        If no truths could be known outside of nature then he could not claim that God doesn't exist (As he has insinuated many times in this thread) because that claim is outside of the realm of nature.

        Oops!

        > "I keep these on a macro because I have to
        > copy/paste them about so many theists but
        > you fit them better than most;"

        Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

        Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

        The Dunning┬ľKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average.

        This bias is attributed to a meta-cognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."

        I covered this earlier and showed that if anyone is projecting, its you.

        As for the Dunning-Kruger effect, I am not so sure that accusing me of that is a good idea at this point as you have not shown me to be unskilled nor have you been able to back up any of your unsubstantiated assertions in regards to refuting my argument.

        Rather, you have merely repeated them.

        Again, I'd rather this not get personal and have a level headed discussion.

        > "I'll be glad to keep making an example of you,
        > but you're not going to learn if you keep assuming
        > that your abject ignorance is a way of knowing
        > things."

        So far I see a significant difference between your contentions and mine.

        I am able to back up mine while you merely assert yours and throw insults when cornered.

        If you've done anything for me in this discussion it is making me look more intelligent than I really am.

        I am sincerely thankful for that.

        I ask that you stop making this so easy for me and start putting some effort into our discussion!

        (After this other Christians jumped in and the
        debate went in different directions. Jeremy has
        not responded to my last post yet.)

        -------------------------------------
        -------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        I may have misinterpreted the timing of those postings. The heading for the page indicates it was posted earlier this month from one of Eric Hovind s FaceBook
        Message 3 of 18 , May 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I may have misinterpreted the timing of those postings. The heading for the page indicates it was posted earlier this month from one of Eric Hovind's FaceBook pages where I am not allowed.

          So, the individual message information about when the messages were posted may not reflect the actual posting but rather the timing of the post as of the May 7 date when possibly cut and pasted to Jason's website.

          So, you can probably safely conclude that the messages were posted within the last month or so but not today.

          Also, it is interesting that the "debate" appears to have taken place on one of Eric Hovind's FaceBook pages where I am not allowed; perhaps in consequence of my even earlier confrontation with Sye and his people before Sye ran off and Eric "kicked" me off his page.

          The name of Jason Petersen, and the appearance of his FaceBook page seemed familiar to me, but I could not, can not figure out where we might have crossed paths before. Maybe it was on Eric's FaceBook page and maybe at that time Jason was silently sitting back and watching.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

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

          It just so happens that I ran across one of Jason's debates which appears to be
          ongoing and, in his own way, takes up the "proof of God" claim popularized by
          Sye Ten Bruggencate.

          Here's Jason's latest entries into that debate:

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

          http://answersforhope.com/a-debate-with-a-dishonest-atheist-how-many-contradicti\
          ons-can-you-count-in-his-arguments/

          From: Jason Petersen
          Date: Saturday, May 25, 2013

          After reading over Jeremy's underwhelming response I have started to notice that
          he is getting increasingly more emotional and insulting in his responses.

          Let's have a look:

          > "I suppose if you were illiterate you could get
          > that but for those of us who can read, that's
          > exactly what he said."

          Getting upset already Jeremy?

          Please quote where he stated that he believes in God because it's more
          desirable. If you expect me to stoop to your level you are going to be rather
          disappointed.

          I am one that believes that cooler heads will prevail.

          I have already addressed your straw man in the first, post, you then repeated
          yourself, then you said it again. At this point you are committing the fallacy
          of proof by assertion ad nauseam.

          This means that you are repeatedly making the same unsubstantiated assertion.

          > "If you'd taken logic 101 then you would probably
          > have an understanding of what I'm talking about.
          > Unfortunately it just appears that you suffer
          > from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Presuppositional
          > apologetics assume correctness, then argue. That's
          > pretty well the epitome of question begging."

          I gave a deductive argument that highlights the presuppositional approach in the
          form of modus tollens.

          Let's recap:

          1. If God does not exist then knowledge is not possible.

          2. Knowledge is possible.

          3. Therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.

          Jeremy, in my discussion with you I have found that you struggle (Among other
          things.) with the distinction between modus tollens and affirming the
          consequent.

          Please allow me to be of assistance:

          This is the logical flow of modus tollens:

          1. If P, Q.

          2. Not Q.

          Conclusion: Therefore, not P.

          Now, let's take a closer look at the presuppositional argument I implied:

          1. If God does not exist(P) then knowledge is not possible.(Q)

          2. Knowledge is possible(Not Q.)

          3. Therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.(Not P.)

          This is the a truth table(You learn how to write these in intro to logic class.)
          that represents modus tollens:

          p q
          T T T
          T F F
          F T T
          F F T

          I have now spelled out how the argument I provided earlier falls into modus
          tollens and not circular reasoning.

          It is not uncommon for people who are unfamiliar with logical fallacies to mix
          up modus tollens with affirming the consequent (Although more often confused
          with modus ponens) or denying the antecedent.)

          I can't fault it for you unless I suspected that you have studied logic. In your
          case, I don't suspect it.

          > "Projection is not a valid argument."

          A baseless assertion of projection is not a valid rebuttal.

          > "Once again, projection of your ignorance
          > of what constitutes fallacy is not a valid
          > argument."

          I'd like to point out that you have offered no response since I originally
          corrected you on Dr. Jackson's statements.

          I await your quotation that shows that Dr. Jackson stated that he drew a
          conclusion due to its desirability.

          Another baseless assertion won't cut it.

          > "Incorrect yet again, I merely pointed out
          > quite a few fallacies being employed."

          Oh really?
          Where?

          All I saw were assertions then repeated assertions after I corrected you.

          > "To humor you and watch you confirm my prediction
          > with your pathetic ensuing gap argument;"

          This is the fallacy of prejudicial conjecture.

          Notice that Jeremy is becoming increasingly more emotional and frustrated.

          It's ironic that he accuses me of projection when he is repeatedly talking down
          to me.

          Projection is when you take your own negative qualities and then apply them to
          others.

          Jeremy has been rude and talking down to me from the beginning, as a defense
          mechanism, he is trying to pretend that I'm the one who is claiming superiority
          over him.

          He is doing so by calling my statements "pathetic" and accusing me of being
          "illiterate."

          Then he tries to associate me with psychological processes that are unrelated to
          my behavior, but apparently have some relevance to his behavior.

          Now, projection is a defense mechanism and it is understandable that Jeremy
          facing the fact that his worldview is absurd would cause him to try to use
          defense mechanisms such as projection.

          I have stated before that I will not have a discussion with someone who wants to
          fling mud and be insulting.

          If Jeremy wants to continue this discussion (It's unlikely given how it's been
          going for him.) I ask that he calm down and try to approach this discussion with
          a level head and leave his emotions out of this discussion.

          If he doesn't then I don't plan on continuing this dialogue with him.

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

          From: Jason Petersen
          Date: Saturday, May 25, 2013

          > "1: No. The concept of a certain behavior being
          > immoral cannot exist independent of mind and
          > therefore cannot be objective."

          It appears that you accept a concept known as moral relativism.

          If this is the case then unfortunately you have given up the problem of evil, as
          to say that God is evil on a basis where everyone should agree appeals to an
          objective standard independent of your own opinion.

          Now, there is a common conflation that relativists make.

          They tend to think that opinions on values are equivalent to moral values.

          However, this assumes exactly what the relativist is trying to prove.

          Opinions can be wrong.

          If morals are nothing more than sociocultrally relative then that means that
          what is moral is in fact, an opinion.

          If this is the case, then opinions on morals can be wrong.

          This conflation is interesting because the relativist will argue that morals
          must be relative because values on morals differ from culture to culture.

          But what we find is that there are morals that are wrong independent of an
          individual's or culture's opinion.

          For instance, it was objectively wrong for Nazis to kill 6 million Jews despite
          what the Nazis thought about killing Jews being the proper thing to do.

          It is also objectively wrong to torture a child for fun.

          If the relativist acknowledges that any culture is wrong about their own moral
          standard despite what they think, then the relativist unwittingly gives into an
          objective standard for morality that exists outside of one's opinion.

          Thus, their axiological (Axiology equates to value, including morals.) portion
          of their worldview is self contradictory and can not be true in any possible
          description of reality.

          If this is the case, then this entails that in the actual world their axiology
          is false.

          Thus, their foundation for axiology is false.

          Bearing this in mind I would like to ask three questions of Jeremy:

          1.

          Is torturing a child for fun wrong even
          when it's accepted in a culture?

          2.

          Was the murder of 6 million Jews still
          wrong even though there was a culture
          that thought it was okay?

          3.

          Should either of these cultures that
          would accept these actions as moral not
          committed these atrocities?

          > "2-3: It would certainly appear so.
          > The universe seems consistent enough
          > to be learned about"

          In order to discern consistency you must use your reasoning.

          > "4: An argument does not have to be valid
          > logic for the conclusion to be correct but
          > it helps"

          Did you use your reasoning to come to that conclusion?

          > "5: Apparent consistency"

          Ah, circular reasoning!

          Just as I predicted.

          Recall that justification for truth and logic relies on consistency.

          However, his reasoning relies on consistency as well, which must be discerned
          through his own reasoning.

          Now, he is validating his reasoning by using consistency but is discerning
          consistency using his reasoning.

          The foundation for Jeremy's knowledge(Epistemology) is completely circular.

          Since this is the case epistemic certainty can not exist in his worldview.

          Unless Jeremy can justify how he knows his reasoning is valid without appealing
          to his reasoning, he is contradicting his own worldview when he makes any claims
          to knowledge.

          > "6: Not at all. Atheism is skepticism towards
          > the unsubstantiated claims of a god/gods.
          > Nothing to be contradictory."

          Atheism is a worldview because it has implications on all of the tenets of a
          worldview:

          1. axiology-Your beliefs about the nature of value such as what is right and
          wrong.

          2. metaphysics- Your beliefs on the nature of reality.

          3. epistemology-Your beliefs about the nature and source of knowledge.

          4. teleology- Your beliefs about the meaning and purpose of the universe and its
          inhabitants.

          5. theology- Your beliefs about the existence of God.

          6. anthropology- Your beliefs about the nature of your individual purpose and
          mankind's purpose.

          7. cosmology-Your beliefs about the origins and nature of the universe, life,
          and mankind.

          > "7: Given that nature is defined as 'the
          > external world in its entirety' we can't
          > know because anything beyond nature would
          > be beyond our perception."

          This claim is self defeating.

          Such a truth that we can't know anything beyond the natural world is a
          metaphysical truth that can not be derived from the natural world itself.

          Also, I doubt that Jeremy would want to follow the implications of his
          statement.

          If no truths could be known outside of nature then he could not claim that God
          doesn't exist (As he has insinuated many times in this thread) because that
          claim is outside of the realm of nature.

          Oops!

          > "I keep these on a macro because I have to
          > copy/paste them about so many theists but
          > you fit them better than most;"

          Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person
          subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which
          are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

          Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others
          originate those feelings.

          The Dunning┬ľKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals
          suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher
          than average.

          This bias is attributed to a meta-cognitive inability of the unskilled to
          recognize their mistakes."

          I covered this earlier and showed that if anyone is projecting, its you.

          As for the Dunning-Kruger effect, I am not so sure that accusing me of that is a
          good idea at this point as you have not shown me to be unskilled nor have you
          been able to back up any of your unsubstantiated assertions in regards to
          refuting my argument.

          Rather, you have merely repeated them.

          Again, I'd rather this not get personal and have a level headed discussion.

          > "I'll be glad to keep making an example of you,
          > but you're not going to learn if you keep assuming
          > that your abject ignorance is a way of knowing
          > things."

          So far I see a significant difference between your contentions and mine.

          I am able to back up mine while you merely assert yours and throw insults when
          cornered.

          If you've done anything for me in this discussion it is making me look more
          intelligent than I really am.

          I am sincerely thankful for that.

          I ask that you stop making this so easy for me and start putting some effort
          into our discussion!

          (After this other Christians jumped in and the
          debate went in different directions. Jeremy has
          not responded to my last post yet.)

          -------------------------------------
          -------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (3) From: Jason Petersen Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
          Message 4 of 18 , May 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

            https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

            (3)

            From: Jason Petersen
            Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
            Time: About 1:00 AM MT

            Hi Robert.

            Thank you for linking me to this page.

            I also appreciate you providing a summary
            of my background.

            Can you explain to me what your theological
            beliefs are as well as your issues with
            presuppositional apologetics?

            (4)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
            Time: About

            Jason,

            I profess to be a Christian.
            I think Calvinism is flawed.

            For further details, you can review
            10 years of my Internet history,
            such as it is reported, at my other
            place:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

            If you have other specific matters
            you might be interested in, you are
            welcome to bring them up.

            I try to keep things simple.

            Fundamentally, as to Sye's affirmation,
            I don't think Sye's "proof of God"
            provides a "proof of God" and have
            repeatedly proposed that he quit
            proclaiming it as such.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --------------------------------
            --------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            ... https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (5) From: Jason Petersen Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
            Message 5 of 18 , May 26, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              ---

              https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

              https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

              (5)

              From: Jason Petersen
              Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
              Time: About 7:30 AM MT

              Robert,

              I'll have a gander.

              If I may be so bold, I understand that you have been complaining that you are having trouble with a presuppositionalist debating you. If you say that knowledge is possible without God, then I will be happy to have a formal written debate with you in the following format:

              1. Opening statements.

              2. 2 rebbuttals, the first rebuttal would be pertaining to only the opening statement. The second rebuttal would be pertaining to the opening statement.

              3. Closing statements.

              If the debate were to take place, I'd choose the venue of my page, Atheism on the Slide. I have had a couple of formal debates there with success. Let me know if you are up for it!

              (6)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
              Time: About

              Jason,

              That's a lot more progress than I have had with others inclined towards Presuppositionalism.

              I, of course, would prefer to have the exchange here.

              Alternatively, I would propose it be produced concurrently, with you posting your part here and at your place and me posting my part at both places.

              That would save me the trouble of cut and pasting the exchange here.

              Here's the proposition I offer for your affirmation:

              - Proposition:
              -
              - The proof of God is that
              - without Him you could not
              - prove anything.
              -
              -- Affirm: Jason Petersen
              -- Deny: Robert Baty

              There are a lot of other logistical matters that may be relevant and worthy of resolve before we start, or we may proceed more informally.

              I'll let you take the lead regarding the need to work out any additional details before proceeding.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              ---------------------------
              ---------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              ... https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (7) From: Jason Petersen Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
              Message 6 of 18 , May 26, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                ---

                https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                (7)

                From: Jason Petersen
                Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
                Time: About 8:00 AM MT

                Okiedoke, I'd be interested in a formal written format.

                I also agree that we can post the debate in both places.

                I assume that you agree to the formal format correct?

                Before we officially start let me at least take the time
                to look over some of the things you have posted so I can
                identify our areas of agreement/disagreements.

                If we debate, I can agree on debating the affirmative position (Meaning I would go first.)

                If we debate on that specific topic.
                Cheers!

                (8)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
                Time: About 10:20 AM MT

                Jason,

                We are on our way and we just might "get 'er done"!

                Here's the Sye Ten Bruggencate issue that is the subject of the outstanding challenge:

                Proposition:

                - "The proof that God exists is
                - that without Him you could not
                - prove anything."
                -
                -- Affirm: Jason Petersen
                -- Deny: Robert Baty

                I think we agree that Sye's claim implies the following argument:

                Major Premise:

                - IF God did not exist,
                - THEN you could not prove anything.

                Minor Premise:

                - You can prove something.

                Conclusion:

                - God exists.

                I think we agree on the conclusion and the minor premise.

                Your part in the conversation, as I see it, is to offer your justification for believing the major premise is true.

                If I agree with your justification, there will not be a need for a rebuttal; just my concession.

                If I have problems with your justification, I will offer my rebuttal.

                Look around and keep me advised, Jason.

                Your 3 step format appears reasonable and we can deal with other logistical matters as you see fit and as they might come up.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                -----------------------
                -----------------------
              • w_w_c_l
                ... Excellent!
                Message 7 of 18 , May 26, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote
                  (in part):
                  >
                  > Jason,
                  >
                  > We are on our way and we just might "get 'er done"!

                  Excellent!
                • rlbaty50
                  ... Jason just posted another note over there and I have responded. Rick, thanks for letting me know your are still out there. Maybe you can act as my
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 26, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    > "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote
                    > (in part):
                    >
                    >> Jason,
                    >>
                    >> We are on our way and
                    >> we just might "get 'er done"!
                    >
                    > Excellent!

                    Jason just posted another note over there and I have responded.

                    Rick, thanks for letting me know your are still out there.

                    Maybe you can act as my moderator, or at least a mentor.

                    I may be able to use some of your help if things start really percolating.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (9) From: Jason Petersen Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 26, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ---

                      https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                      https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                      (9)

                      From: Jason Petersen
                      Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
                      Time: About 10:40 PM MT

                      My form of the argument is a bit different than
                      Sye's but it does have the same implication.

                      Premise #1:

                      Without God,
                      knowledge is not possible.

                      Premise #2:

                      Knowledge is possible.

                      Conclusion:

                      Therefore, it is not the
                      case that God does not exist.

                      Other than that, I have no issue with the challenge
                      so far.

                      I have not read your material yet but I assure you
                      I will start reading it tonight.

                      I hope to get back to you by tomorrow and we'll go
                      from there.

                      (10)

                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
                      Time: About 10:45 PM MT

                      I'll await further word from you.

                      By the way, I've been fussing a bit with Ted Curtis
                      tonight, along with others, over Presuppositionalism.

                      He mentioned you.

                      Maybe you can check with him for references also that
                      might help you prepare.

                      ------------------------------------
                      ------------------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      ... https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (11) From: Jason Petersen Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ---

                        https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                        https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                        (11)

                        From: Jason Petersen
                        Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                        Time: About 12:01 AM MT

                        Robert Baty, at this point I think we can certainly do
                        the formal debate.

                        I think there are enough areas of disagreement that
                        can provide a stimulating and hopefully productive
                        discussion for those who read it.

                        I hope you don't mind that I am very long winded.

                        As someone who has heavily studied philosophy I like
                        to cover all of the bases, so to speak.

                        Let me start by suggesting that I make a post for
                        our debate on atheism on the slide.

                        You can also choose where I post the copy of my
                        responses here as well, be it in this thread or a
                        separate one.

                        Please let me know which way you prefer.
                        I look forward to debating you.

                        (12)

                        From: Robert Baty
                        Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                        Time: About 7:15 AM MT

                        Jason,

                        Indeed, there are many angles to the issue of
                        Presuppositionalism.

                        I would agree that when we are ready to begin the
                        more formal exchange that separate threads be set
                        up in each of our venues for the express purpose
                        of allowing our one-on-one chat to proceed and be
                        recorded.

                        Others may post in other threads, but we can
                        announce that other postings to the debate thread
                        will be deleted and neither of us will be obligated
                        to respond to them.

                        I only took up a consideration of Presuppositionalism
                        a few weeks ago and with Sye's version via our encounter
                        on one of Eric Hovind's FaceBook pages. Sye and his
                        people did not fare well in that encounter and I have
                        been after Sye to come out to me ever since.

                        I am most interested in having Sye or his surrogate
                        deal with Sye's specific, fundamental claim that

                        - "the proof God exists is that
                        - without Him you could not
                        - prove anything."

                        There are, of course many versions of that in the
                        Presuppositional toolkit.

                        I think it important to document in these negotiations,
                        if it be the case, that you are declining to take up
                        Sye's proposition regarding the "proof of God" and have
                        implicitly indicated a preference for

                        - "the proof God exists is that
                        - without Him you could not
                        - know anything."

                        I think we need to tie down the proposition to be
                        discussed, Jason.

                        Please indicate, if it be the case, that you are
                        declining Sye's posted proposition in favor of your
                        own as I have noted above.

                        ----------------------------------------------
                        ----------------------------------------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        ... https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (13) From: Jason Petersen Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ---

                          https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                          https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                          (13)

                          From: Jason Petersen
                          Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                          Time: About 11:30 AM MT

                          Hi Robert.

                          The argument I give in which the first premise
                          states that knowledge is not possible without
                          God has the very same meaning as Sye's contention
                          that without God you can't prove anything.

                          For, if there is no knowledge, then nothing is
                          provable.

                          In our debate, you can feel free to argue that
                          my position is different than Sye's, but you will
                          not be successful.

                          (Even though that is not relevant to the validity
                          of presuppositional apologetics in the first place.)

                          The argument I use is the modus tollens version of
                          the Transcedental Argument for the Existence of God.

                          Sye uses the same argument but never shares the
                          premises.

                          (Sye is a huge fan of Greg Bahnsen, who argues the
                          modus tollens form of the TAG.)

                          Also note that I have not proposed changing the debate
                          title nor what my burden of proof is.

                          If you do not think my argument is pertinent to the
                          debate topic you can bring that up in our formal
                          debate.

                          If it is the case that my argument does not support
                          my burden of proof in the debate, then the debate
                          should be quite easy for you.

                          Nevertheless, if you want to change the debate topic
                          due to the form of argumentation that I am using feel
                          free, I know for a fact that I can meet my burden of
                          proof.

                          In any event, I am going to make the thread for our
                          debate on Atheism on the Slide.

                          I hope that you will not back out of debating me,
                          particularly after you stated that my formation of
                          the argument was reasonable according to the topic.

                          https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=336189119844058&id=194801873982784

                          - From: Atheism on the Slide (Jason)
                          - Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                          - Time: About 11:30 AM MT
                          -
                          - This is a thread for Jason Petersen
                          - and Robert Baty.
                          -
                          - The title of the debate is
                          -
                          -- "Can you prove anything without God?"
                          -
                          - Jason Petersen will be arguing that
                          - without God you can't prove anything.
                          -
                          - Robert Baty will be arguing against
                          - Jason's proposition.
                          -
                          - We ask that no one post on this thread
                          - except for Robert Baty and Jason Petersen.
                          -
                          -- ~Jason

                          (14)

                          From: Robert Baty
                          Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                          Time: About 11:55 AM MT

                          Jason,

                          You proposed to accept my invitation challenging Sye's
                          "proof of God" claim.

                          I am trying to follow you, but you have been heading
                          off track from the beginning.

                          So, let's try to tie down the proposition for
                          consideration.

                          Jason, you have declined to take up Sye's proposition
                          and, based on your argument, you have implied the
                          substitute proposition taken therefrom:

                          Proposition:

                          - The proof that God exists is
                          - that without Him you could not
                          - know anything.
                          -
                          -- Affirm: Jason Petersen
                          -- Deny: Robert Baty

                          Jason,

                          I think you jumped a gun a bit with your posting to your
                          FaceBook page; misrepresenting the proposition to be
                          discussed.

                          If you are not willing to affirm the above for purposes
                          of our exchange, maybe you will join with me in denying
                          the "proof of God" claim such as is common amongst Presuppositionalists and we can take up whether there
                          are other matters of mutual interest we might chat about.

                          Also, Jason, I note that your posting to your FaceBook
                          page failed to advise your readers that the debate was,
                          by agreement, going to be mirrored at my place.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty

                          -----------------------------
                          -----------------------------
                        • rlbaty50
                          ... https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (15) From: Jason Petersen Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ---

                            https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                            https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                            (15)

                            From: Jason Petersen
                            Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                            Time: About 12:10 PM MT

                            Hi Robert,

                            How would you like the title of the proposition?

                            I will change it accordingly.

                            The contention that you listed was already the
                            contention that I am arguing for.

                            Once you state that I will make the corrections.

                            Either way, I will be able to easily meet the
                            burden of proof.

                            I have high hopes for this debate and I sincerely
                            hope that you are not trying to make excuses to
                            back out.

                            In fact, if you like, you can make the mirror
                            thread (or if you want the debate posted here in
                            this thread that will be fine as well) and then
                            I will post your title on atheism on the slide
                            as well.

                            Do you want me just to post the proposition for
                            the title?

                            All I am wanting is a debate on this topic, and
                            I am ready to start RIGHT NOW.

                            However, it appears that you are trying to make
                            this more difficult than it should be.

                            (16)

                            From: Jason Petersen
                            Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                            Time: About 12:30 PM MT

                            I have made the new debate thread here:

                            https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=336204863175817&id=194801873982784

                            Since I have basically copied and pasted your
                            own words, I can't possibly see how you can have
                            any issues with this formal debate.

                            I look forward to our exchange!

                            - From: Atheism on the Slide (Jason)
                            - Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                            - Time: About 12:30 PM MT
                            -
                            - I am making a new thread for Jason
                            - Petersen vs Robert Baty:
                            -
                            - Proposition:
                            -
                            - The proof that God exists is
                            - that without Him you could not
                            - know anything.
                            -
                            -- Affirm: Jason Petersen
                            -- Deny: Robert Baty
                            -
                            - I ask that no one post in this thread except
                            - Jason Petersen and Robert Baty. He will be
                            - mirroring the debate on his page here as well:
                            -
                            - https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty?fref=ts

                            (17)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                            Time: About 1:05 PM MT

                            Jason,

                            I will post a starter message here to match your
                            presentation at your place. As agreed, I will then
                            follow you in producing the discussion such as it may
                            develop according to the format you proposed.

                            Give me a little time to get it set up.

                            We might have taken up many other logistical matters
                            first, but I am willing to let the games begin and we'll
                            try to resolve any problems that might arise as they
                            come up.

                            I would here, however, like to note my strong exception
                            to your comment that:

                            - "It appears that you (Robert Baty)
                            - are trying to make this more
                            - difficult than it should be."

                            I have given a few weeks now to trying to get Sye Ten
                            Bruggencate to come out to me and openly and honestly
                            negotiate for and produce a discussion of the merits
                            of my exception to his affirmation regarding his "proof
                            of God".

                            I am NOT the one making it more difficult than it should be.

                            Even you, Jason Petersen, did not take up Sye's affirmation
                            and failed to properly post the proposition for discussion
                            in your first attempt.

                            What you originally posted did not appear to me to represent
                            my position in the matter.

                            Now that you have accepted the corrected proposition, maybe
                            the cause of my concern about this simple matter will become
                            manifest as the discussion might proceed; maybe not.

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty

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













                            -------------------------------------
                            -------------------------------------
                          • rlbaty50
                            https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (18) From: Jason Petersen Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                              https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                              (18)

                              From: Jason Petersen
                              Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                              Time: About 1:10 PM MT

                              Robert,

                              I overlooked our conversation and I made one error.

                              I assumed that you were agreeing that my argument
                              for presuppositional apologetics was reasonable,
                              but you were actually agreeing with the debate
                              format.

                              I apologize for the misunderstanding.

                              -----------------------------------
                              -----------------------------------
                            • rlbaty50
                              ... Jason s job, as I see it, is to affirm/ prove his position; not falsify my position. We ll have to wait and see how that plays out in the exchange.
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                                > (9)
                                >
                                > From: Jason Petersen
                                > Date: Sunday, May 26, 2013
                                > Time: About 10:40 PM MT
                                >
                                > My form of the argument is a bit
                                > different than Sye's but it does
                                > have the same implication.
                                >
                                > Premise #1:
                                >
                                > Without God,
                                > knowledge is not possible.
                                >
                                > Premise #2:
                                >
                                > Knowledge is possible.
                                >
                                > Conclusion:
                                >
                                > Therefore, it is not the
                                > case that God does not exist.
                                >
                                > Other than that, I have no issue
                                > with the challenge so far.
                                >
                                > I have not read your material yet
                                > but I assure you I will start reading
                                > it tonight.
                                >
                                > I hope to get back to you by tomorrow
                                > and we'll go from there.

                                I just noticed that Jason had made some substantive edits to that message. It now reads:

                                > My form of the argument is a bit
                                > different than Sye's but it does
                                > have the same implication.
                                >
                                > Premise #1:
                                >
                                > Without God,
                                > knowledge is not possible.
                                >
                                > Premise #2:
                                >
                                > Knowledge is possible.
                                >
                                > Conclusion:
                                >
                                > Therefore, it is not the
                                > case that God does not exist.
                                >
                                > I have 4 other arguments that I
                                > also use to support this argument
                                > as well, but I'll save those for
                                > the debate.
                                >
                                > (I normally don't have to use all
                                > 4 because I usually only have to
                                > use one in order to falsify my
                                > opponent's position.)
                                >
                                > Other than that, I have no issue
                                > with the challenge so far.
                                >
                                > I have not read your material yet
                                > but I assure you I will start reading
                                > it tonight.
                                >
                                > I hope to get back to you by tomorrow
                                > and we'll go from there.

                                Here's what caught my attention in re-reading the preliminary messages and noting the edit addition:

                                > I (Jason) usually only have to
                                > use one in order to falsify my
                                > opponent's position.

                                Jason's job, as I see it, is to affirm/"prove" his position; not falsify my position.

                                We'll have to wait and see how that plays out in the exchange.

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty
                              • rlbaty50
                                https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (19) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday, May 27, 2013 Time:
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                                  https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                                  (19)

                                  From: Robert Baty
                                  Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                                  Time: About 5:15 PM MT

                                  Jason,

                                  Earlier you proposed the following format which I did not dispute:

                                  1.

                                  - Opening statements.

                                  2.

                                  - 2 rebuttals.
                                  -
                                  - The first rebuttal would be
                                  - pertaining to only the opening
                                  - statement.
                                  -
                                  - The second rebuttal would be
                                  - pertaining to the opening
                                  - statement.

                                  3.

                                  - Closing statements.

                                  Jason, you then accused me of trying to make this
                                  discussion more difficult than it should be.

                                  I previously noted my strong objection to your
                                  assertion about me being the one trying to make
                                  this more difficult than it should be.

                                  You have demonstrated the propriety of my complaint
                                  by posting the following unilateral embellishment
                                  regarding the proposed format:

                                  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism-on-the-Slide/194801873982784

                                  - From: Atheism on the Slide (Jason)
                                  - Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                                  - Time: About 4:00 PM MT
                                  -
                                  - Atheism on the Slide Format of
                                  - the debate:
                                  -
                                  - Jason goes first,
                                  - Robert goes second.
                                  -
                                  - Jason gives an opening statement.
                                  -
                                  - Robert gives an opening Statement.
                                  -
                                  - Opening statements can not address
                                  - your opponents opening statements.
                                  -
                                  - Jason gives his first rebuttal to
                                  - Robert's opening statement.
                                  -
                                  - Robert gives his first rebuttal to
                                  - Jason's opening statement.
                                  -
                                  - This means that he should only
                                  - reference Jason's opening statement
                                  - and not his first rebuttal.
                                  -
                                  - Jason gives his rebuttal to Roberts
                                  - first rebuttal.
                                  -
                                  - Robert gives his rebuttal to Jason's
                                  - first rebuttal but is not permitted
                                  - to address anything in Jason's
                                  - rebuttal.
                                  -
                                  - Jason gives his closing statement.
                                  -
                                  - Jason can not respond to Robert's
                                  - second rebuttal.
                                  -
                                  - Jason can not bring up any new
                                  - arguments in his closing statement.
                                  -
                                  - Closing statements are meant to be
                                  - a summary of arguments for the
                                  - contention and against your opponent.
                                  -
                                  - Robert gives his closing statement.
                                  -
                                  - Robert can not respond to (Jason's)
                                  - second rebuttal.
                                  -
                                  - Robert can not bring up any new
                                  - arguments in his closing statement.
                                  -
                                  - Robert also can not respond to
                                  - Jason's closing statement.
                                  -
                                  - Closing statements are meant to be
                                  - a summary of arguments for the
                                  - contention and against your opponent.

                                  Jason,

                                  I may have to get help in understanding what you
                                  are proposing with all of that.

                                  If you insist, I will try to follow your lead.

                                  Otherwise, I think it might be preferable to simply
                                  scrap that format, whatever it may mean, and work
                                  together to come up with something simpler and more
                                  appropriate to the issue under consideration.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty

                                  ------------------------
                                  ------------------------
                                • rlbaty50
                                  https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason) (20) From: Jason Petersen Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 27, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)

                                    https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994 (Jason)

                                    (20)

                                    From: Jason Petersen
                                    Date: Monday, May 27, 2013
                                    Time: About 5:40 PM MT

                                    If you have any questions about the format let me
                                    know, it's rather typically of formal debates.

                                    It entails that your opening statements are used
                                    to build your case for your affirmation or denial
                                    of the proposition.

                                    The first rebuttals responds to only the opening
                                    statement, the second rebuttal only responds to
                                    the first rebuttal, and the closing statements
                                    don't respond anything, rather, we just make a
                                    summary of our case.

                                    In any event I have posted my opening statement
                                    on both this page as well as Atheism on the Slide.

                                    ----------------------------------
                                    ----------------------------------
                                  • w_w_c_l
                                    ... Oh, it looks to me like you have things well in hand: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31983 ... Yep. Pretty neat. You did say you
                                    Message 17 of 18 , May 29, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Rick, thanks for letting me know your are still out there.
                                      >
                                      > Maybe you can act as my moderator, or at least a mentor.
                                      >
                                      > I may be able to use some of your help if things start
                                      > really percolating.
                                      >

                                      Oh, it looks to me like you have things well in hand:

                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31983

                                      At one point in that message you asked:

                                      > Get it!
                                      >
                                      > Neat, huh?

                                      Yep. Pretty neat.

                                      You did say you like to keep things simple.
                                    • rlbaty50
                                      ... Thanks Rick, I really do appreciate the feedback and especially on that point. I didn t know if it would work, and I m interested in the feedback that some
                                      Message 18 of 18 , May 29, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                        "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote, in part:

                                        > Oh, it looks to me like you have
                                        > things well in hand:
                                        >
                                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31983
                                        >
                                        > At one point in that message you asked:
                                        >
                                        >> Get it!
                                        >>
                                        >> Neat, huh?
                                        >
                                        > Yep.
                                        > Pretty neat.
                                        >
                                        > You did say you like
                                        > to keep things simple.

                                        Thanks Rick,

                                        I really do appreciate the feedback and especially on that point.

                                        I didn't know if it would work, and I'm interested in the feedback that some might offer on the specific points.

                                        Can it be that simple?
                                        Will Presuppositional apologists recognize it?

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Robert Baty
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.