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

Re: Jose Sanchez v. Robert Baty: Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jds485 (Jose) (21) From: Jose Sanchez Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013 Time: About 1:00
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)
      https://www.facebook.com/jds485 (Jose)

      (21)

      From: Jose Sanchez
      Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013
      Time: About 1:00 PM MT

      I just have to add this before I forget,
      perhaps you can elaborate tomorrow.

      - "I also consider that you a demonstrating
      - an unwillingness to posit a world without
      - God or even entertain how it might be in
      - such a "possible world" for the folks there
      - to know stuff, prove stuff and expect the
      - sun to rise."
      -
      - My transcendental on that is also, according
      - to Bahnsen, not falsifiable."

      The reason I am unwilling to entertain such
      a possible world is because according to my
      worldview, only GOD is capable of creating
      worlds.

      If there is no God, then there is no world.

      If there is no world, there are not people on this world.

      If there are no people then there is no questioning and
      thinking, if there is no questioning and thinking then
      there is nothing to know, nothing to prove and nothing
      to expect.

      But in order to hypothesize, lets assume there is a possibility
      to create a world without God being involved.

      Lets assume that NOGOD was the creator of the world.

      Then I would need a reason as to why there are humans in that
      world. Lets assume that NOGOD created humans. Then I would need
      to know what those humans are questioning and thinking. Lets
      assume that NOGOD created the faculties of the mind to question
      and to think.

      Then I would have to assume that there must be some form of
      absolute truth in order to determine if what people claim to
      know is right or wrong, if proofs are valid or invalid or that expectations are realistic or unrealistic.

      Lets assume that NOGOD is the absolute standard of right and
      wrong, NOGOD determines what is valid or invalid, and NOGOD
      reveals what is realistic or unrealistic.

      Then I would ask myself, in this world, why does something
      called "the bible" even exist? In this possible world that
      we assumed, where NOGOD exists, why would there be a bible
      claiming that NOGOD is false? that GOD is true?

      According to this Hypothetical world it is clearly valid to
      claim that this "bible" is patently false and wrong.

      Do you see what kind of "trickery" is going on?

      You tell me to ponder why I claim that the categorical
      consequent is True, as if I placed myself in a self-defeating
      hole because I admitted that the bible could be false... Which
      would only be self-defeating if I claim the bible is false in
      MY World where GOD exists!

      Yet you want me to remain in YOUR Hypothetical World.

      You claim that Sye Ten Bruggencate needs to repent.

      However, you need to repent from YOUR Gamesmanship.

      Your methodology is clearly unethical and immoral.

      You create a straw-man world, and beg me to entertain it,
      and when I do, you accuse me of self-defeat because I
      chose (A) "the Bible is wrong" instead of
      (B) "Presuppositional interpretation of the bible is wrong."

      If I, a common layman according to the skills needed to apply
      formal logic, can observe your trickery and call it out, what
      does that say about you?

      What does that say about your cause, or your opponents?

      Or why your opponents do not want to engage you and your
      unethical tactics?

      There is only One God.
      Beside God there is NOGOD.

      The Burden of proof will always be upon those who must Prove
      that there is NOGOD.

      God Exists by default.

      To claim any other way is to make yourself out to be a
      Practical Atheist.

      Your Hypothetical World is not "Hypothetical".

      It is the real point of view of people who not only believe
      in NOGOD, but hate's the idea that there is a GOD.

      Who's side are you on?

      If you are on the wrong side, I ask you to repent.

      But who am I?

      I'm just a random kid that came out of no where.

      The real question should be, why am I here?
      Why is this young kid engaging you like this?

      I'll give you a hint: It's impossible to use Empirical
      Evidence to know the answer to this...

      As a matter of fact, Go and ask NOGOD, I'm sure you'll
      get NOANSWER. Or you can ask GOD, but by then you might
      already Know the Answer.

      (22)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013
      Time: About 7:05 AM MT

      Jose,

      I notice you have now added a third message to which I have not responded. I'll start with your last one since I think it might have the most substantive comments.

      In that message, immediately preceding this one, you admit that you are not willing to posit a world where we are but God is not; a world where folks know stuff, prove stuff and expect the sun to rise.

      You indicate some agreement with me on that matter, stating:

      - If there is no God,
      - then there is no world.

      Ta da!
      I think that's it!

      No God, no world, no nothin'.

      It's not about knowing or proving or sun rises; those are red herring issues preferred by Presuppositionalists who, to use to use their language, become self-refuting and walking contradictions.

      Despite the implications of the claim popularized by Sye Ten Bruggencate, you, as his surrogate, admit that you have no intention of positing a world where we are and God is not; where folks just might be able to know stuff, prove stuff and expect the sun to rise.

      So, we don't really have to quibble about knowing, proving and sun rises; do we?

      As I mentioned earlier, your problem with the "argument from ignorance" is further manifest in the way you struggle to posit a world like ours without God as if you would admit to such a "possible world" when you don't. Because you can't imagine such a "possible world", you will not admit to such a world where folks like us know stuff, prove stuff and expect the sun to rise.

      You ask, Jose:

      - Do you see what kind of
      - "trickery" is going on?

      I'm not sure about the kind of "trickery", but it is coming from the Presuppositional theology you are claiming and from its promoters who exploit the gimmick; perhaps having "tricked" you into believing the sophistry of it all.

      Jose, presupposing God provides no "proof God exists" and that is the substance of Presuppositionalism. They call it Presuppositionalism for a reason, and one reason is to evade having to "prove" anything.

      Think about.

      Jose, if you are the "common layman", "random kid" you claim, you have learned the Presuppositional trade very well and are quite competent in copying and pasting its script; verbosity and all.

      Also, I note that you did not provide an introduction as I requested earlier and you did not explain how you came to make your appearance here.

      "Unethical tactics"?

      Readers and those familiar with Presuppositionalism can make their own judgments as to what side of the monitor such is manifest.

      You, Jose, have been demonstrating that you struggle with even the fundamentals of critical thinking skills. Such demonstration says a lot about the prospects of resolving the "weightier matters" with you (and whoever may be behind your appearances here).

      Now, about some of your earlier comments. I'll try to be brief in an effort to return you to the simpler, fundamental matters:

      Jose, you write, in part:

      - Premise (C) states that
      -
      -- "there is empirical evidence
      -- that we can know some things
      -- without God's existence."
      -
      - This is false.
      -
      - This is not a "Hypothetical"
      - premise.

      Despite my warning and recommendation, Jose, you again demonstrate the common problem in failing to recognize and appreciate the nature of a hypothetical which can be true without regard to whether or not the hypothesized element(s) are, in fact, true.

      Here's the major premise again, with the added "ifs" to try and clarify and identify the issue you are struggling with:

      - IF (A) the Bible states
      - something,
      - IF (B) means that there could
      - be no knowledge without
      - God's existence, and
      - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
      - that we can know some things
      - without God's existence,
      - THEN (D), the Bible is wrong.

      In evaluating the truth claim made for that statement, it is not relevant whether or not (A), (B), or (C) is, in fact, true.

      Jose, do you see the "IF", "IF", and "IF".

      Those operate to make the statement hypothetical.

      If you are still interested, Jose, do a little more homework and try again to understand and demonstrate your understanding of the significance of the "IF", "IF", and "IF".

      Jose, you add:

      - If this response is inadequate,
      - then I will do more research
      - about your Aristotelian methods
      - of logic so that I can
      - communicate in your language.

      I don't think I am using Aristotelian methods, but you can work on that as a side issue. I think the form of my argument is not the form common to Aristotelian methods.

      To summarize where we are at, Jose, and try to get back on track, I propose we have 2 UNfalsifiable transcendentals for consideration:

      (1)

      - "The proof God exists is that
      - without Him we could not
      - prove anything,
      - know anything, or
      - expect the sun to rise."
      -
      -- Affirm: Sye Ten Bruggencate

      (2)

      - "Without God we could
      - prove something,
      - know something, and
      - expect the sun to rise."
      -
      -- Affirm: Robert Baty

      Given the Bahnsen rule, neither is falsifiable and, by implication, neither can be proved.

      That's why I don't get worked up over "proving" #2. It doesn't really matter. The main point is simply to note how Presuppositionalists have NO "proof" as to #1; they just presuppose it is true and try to change the subject and, as a result of their argument from ignorance, claim a false victory.

      You, Jose, don't really accept the hypothetical of your own claim; "without God we...".

      Presuppositionalists presuppose the truth of #1 and believe it to be true.

      Others don't.

      Using the Bahnsen rule, I don't propose to prove #2; that would be futile because to prove #2 would falsify #1 and the Bahnsen rule prevents any falsification of #1.

      My simple request remains most appropriate:

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate, repent,
      - and quit trying to make a
      - career out of promoting a
      - "proof God exists" that does
      - NOT provide a "proof God exists.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ------------
      ------------
    • rlbaty50
      https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue) https://www.facebook.com/jds485 (Jose) (23) From: Jose Sanchez Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013 Time: About 8:30
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty (venue)
        https://www.facebook.com/jds485 (Jose)

        (23)

        From: Jose Sanchez
        Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013
        Time: About 8:30 AM MT

        (Y)ou state that I

        - "admit that [I] have no intention of
        - positing a world where we are and God
        - is not; where folks just might be able
        - to know stuff, prove stuff and expect
        - the sun to rise."

        That statement is correct.

        I also agree with the following:

        - "If there is no God,
        - then there is no world.
        -
        - No God, no world, no [anything]."

        I have a presupposition that only GOD can create a world.

        Only God can create humans that rationalize.

        However, you are not willing to posit such a supposition.

        You want to hypothesize that God might not be needed to
        create a world, God might not be needed to create humans
        that rationalize.

        I'm guessing your issue with presuppositional apologetics
        is as follows

        Something can exist with or without knowledge of God.

        The World and Humans exist.

        Therefore, a World with Humans exists with or without knowledge
        of God.

        Transcendental argument #1 states:

        - If God did not exist,
        - then you could not
        - prove anything,
        - know anything,
        - expect the sun to rise.

        Transcendental argument #2 states:

        - If God did not exist,
        - then you could
        - prove something,
        - know something,
        - expect the sun to rise.

        Greg Bahnsen states:

        - Transcendentals are NOT
        - falsifiable.

        Therefore

        Inverted Transcendental #1 states:

        - If God did exist
        - Then you could
        - prove anything,
        - know anything,
        - expect the sun to rise.

        Must also be true.

        and

        Inverted Transcendental #2 states:

        - If God did exist
        - Then you could not
        - prove anything,
        - know anything,
        - expect the sun to rise.

        Must also be true.

        If Transcendental argument #2 is falsified then this will
        not disqualify Transcendental #1

        The Bible states that

        - People are destroyed from lack
        - of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)
        -
        - Knowledge begins with the instruction
        - that there is a God (Proverbs 1:7)
        -
        - Foolish instruction begins with the
        - premise that there is no God (Psalms 14:1)

        To claim that God doesn't exist is to claim that one does not have knowledge

        - Therefore

        (A) the bible states that there could be no knowledge without God's existence.

        - IF (A) the Bible states
        - something,
        - (B) means that there could
        - be no knowledge without
        - God's existence, and
        - (C) there is empirical evidence
        - that we can know some things
        - without God's existence,

        Would you conclude that:

        (D) the Bible is wrong.

        or

        (E) using empirical evidence to know some things is wrong.

        Or how about your exercise:

        - If it is possible in this
        - world or in any possible
        - world to know something without
        - such knowledge being founded
        - upon the [presupposition] that
        - God exists, would you conclude
        -
        -- (a) the Bible is wrong,
        -
        - or
        -
        -- (b) using anything other than
        -- God to know something is wrong.

        Jose Sanchez: (B)
        Robert Baty: ?????

        (24)

        From: Jose Sanchez
        Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013
        Time: About 11:00 AM MT

        (A)

        Something can exist with or
        without knowledge of God

        (B)

        a world with humans is something

        (C)

        a world with humans can exist with
        or without knowledge of God

        (D)

        the bible states a world with humans
        perish without knowledge of God.

        (E)

        the bible states a world with humans
        flourish with knowledge of God.

        (F)

        the presuppositional interpretation
        of the bible concludes that

        (F1)

        without knowledge of God a world with
        humans cannot exist

        and

        (F2)

        with knowledge of God a world with humans
        can exist.

        (G)

        in order to achieve this conclusion
        presuppositional interpretation must
        confirm that (D) and (E) are true.

        (H)

        empirical interpretation of the bible
        concludes that

        (H1)

        without knowledge of God a world with
        humans can exist

        and

        (H2)

        with knowledge of God a world with
        humans cannot exist.

        (I)

        in order to achieve these conclusions
        empirical interpretation must confirm
        that (D) and (E) are false.

        the Bible (D) and (E) is true

        Jose Sanchez: Affirms
        Robert Baty: ?????

        (J)

        according to the law of noncontradiction
        either (F) is true or (H) is true but not
        both.

        (F2)

        a world with humans can exist with knowledge
        of God

        Jose Sanchez: Affirms
        Robert Baty: ?????

        (H1)

        a world with humans can exist without knowledge
        of God

        Jose Sanchez: Denies
        Robert Baty: ?????

        (K)

        If a world with humans can exist with Knowledge
        of God then the presuppositional interpretation
        of the Bible is true.

        Jose Sanchez: Affirms
        Robert Baty: ?????

        (L)

        If a world with humans can exist without knowledge
        of God then the Empirical interpretation of the bible
        is true.

        Jose Sanchez: Denies
        Robert Baty: ?????

        Which do you conclude?

        (M): premise (C) is invalid because
        Premise (J) makes (C) self-contradictory

        Or

        (N): premise (C) is valid because
        premise (F) is false making (C) non-contradictory.

        Jose Sanchez: (M)
        Robert Baty: ?????

        (25)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013
        Time: About 1:35 PM MT

        ---

        Jose,

        It appears you have clearly gone off the rails, but I will try to get you back on the tracks.

        There are numerous issues that might be explored according to our time, talent and interest, but we need to work on the fundamentals and see if you can improve your performance before considering the secondary and tertiary issues that might be interesting to consider.

        If we can not resolve your problems with the fundamentals, the prospect of successfully dealing with your "weightier" problems is in considerable doubt.

        Sye Ten Bruggencate has claimed a "proof God exists" which I have proposed he cannot demonstrate is a "proof God exists".

        Sye's claim:

        - The proof God exists is that
        - without Him you could not
        - prove anything,
        - know anything, or
        - expect the sun to rise.
        -
        -- Affirm: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        -- Affirm: Jose Sanchez
        -- Deny: Robert Baty

        That translates to the affirmation of the proposition/premise that,

        - IF God did not exist,
        - THEN you could not
        - prove anything,
        - know anything, or
        - expect the sun to rise.
        -
        -- Affirm: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        -- Affirm: Jose Sanchez
        -- Deny: Robert Baty

        The Bahnsen rule states that Sye's and your claim is NOT falsifiable and I am not disputing that.

        That being the case, my role in the Exercise is to show why it is the case that you have failed to establish the truth of your "proof God exists" claim.

        Post all the presuppositions you want, such as you have been doing; none of them establish the proof of your claim.

        I think I have shown you have failed in your task and why that is the case.

        Fundamentally, your position on that issue may be summarized as being:

        - We, Sye Ten Bruggencate and Jose Sanchez,
        - have our interpretation of the Bible
        - regarding knowledge, proof and the sun
        - rising, and that trumps any other evidence
        - and its interpretation to the contrary.
        -
        -- Affirm: Sye Ten Bruggencate
        -- Affirm: Jose Sanchez

        I get that.
        You believe it.
        You think that settles it.

        For all you know, Jose, it is possible to know stuff, prove stuff, and expect the sun to rise without reference to God in this world or some other "possible world".

        Jose, you have chosen to put the veracity of the Bible at risk over such a spurious interpretation of the text. I'm sticking with the Bible and declaring the problem is with the Presuppositional interpretation of the Bible.

        Besides your failure to provide a legitimate definition for the term "transcendental", as applicable in this discussion, you have yet to demonstrate your understanding of how hypothetical statements can be true without reference to the truth of its components.

        Jose, your proposition implies a possible world where we are and God is not.

        However, you, Jose, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not willing to posit such a "possible world", a world where it just may be possible to know stuff, prove stuff, and expect the sun to rise.

        That's typical, for to posit a world without God where we are is to effectively concede your claim.

        And refusing to actually consider a world where we are and God is not puts you into a self-refuting contradiction that illustrates the hypocrisy of your "proof God exists" claim.

        Jose, you and Sye and your Presuppositional allies are more than welcome to believe what you want; what you believe is just not synonymous with "proof".

        That's why my petition will remain appropriate:

        Sye Ten Bruggencate, repent, and
        quit trying to make a career out
        of proposing a "proof God exists"
        which provides NO "proof God exists".

        Jose, you are way behind in dealing with your problems on these simple, fundamental matters.

        If you think it will help, we can start over and step by reasonable step work you through my Presuppositionalism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise in order to see how competent you might be to consider one or more of the "weightier matters".

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

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