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

Re: Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty - Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.