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