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

Robert Baty versus Presupper 101 - Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... Robert Baty v. Presupper 101 Subject: Presuppositionalism When Fanghur FreeThinker was booted by the Presupper 101 management, I took up the matter and at
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 7, 2013

      Robert Baty


      Presupper 101

      Subject: Presuppositionalism

      When Fanghur FreeThinker was booted by the Presupper 101 management, I took up the matter and at the time of this writing the discussion ended as indicated below. One or more of Fanghur's postings was deleted by the Presupper 101 management.

      https://www.facebook.com/Presuppositionalism101/posts/582390761811670 (venue)

      https://www.facebook.com/Presuppositionalism101 (Presupp 101)
      http://presupp101.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1241 (About Presupp 101)
      https://www.facebook.com/andrew.youngblood.5 (Andrew)
      https://www.facebook.com/fanghur.freethinker (Fanghur)


      From: Fanghur Freethinker
      Date: August 16, 2013

      Presuppositional apologetic, synonym of circular reasoning mixed with special pleading and refusal to debate honestly.

      Presuppositionalism in a nutshell.


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 5, 2013

      Unlike pages you might be used to, this purpose of this one is not for debates.

      So, rather than ignore, in response, I will offer an abundance of resources below which provide answers to your objection:









      As can be seen upon reading the articles above, your objection is neither original nor valid.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 5, 2013

      Another Presuppositionalism 101 Reference:


      Sye Ten Bruggencate v. Robert Baty - Presuppositionalism

      Critical Thinking Exercise


      From: Presuppositionalism 101

      The fact of the matter is that every worldview, Christian and non, consists of circularity at heart. How did you come to your conclusion?

      Using principals of reasoning, logic, and how do you prove it, with logic...you use logic to prove logic which is itself circular.

      - "Metaphysical presuppositions are
      - implicit in every epistemology,
      - and epistemological presuppositions
      - are implicit in every metaphysics."
      - It is therefore impossible to
      - separate epistemological assumptions
      - from metaphysical ones.
      - The assumption that the mind can
      - perceive reality, for example, is
      - an assumption about reality, that
      - is, a metaphysical assumption."
      -- Boa & Bowman Faith Has Its Reasons


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      The inability of Mr. "Freethinker" to be neutral is obvious from the initial post, and it is from those colored glasses he responded.

      The arbitrariness of "there is a type of cicularity at the herat of naturalism, however it is not fallacious circularity" reveals this.

      Especially considering that God is self-revealing, Scripture is self-attesting, and Christ is self-attesting, but all of these Mr. "Freethinker" would neither embrace, nor say "I guess you have a point".

      Freethinker is not thinking very freely, rather it is guided by his nature, and presuppositions which he is unwilling to acknowledge as such.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013


      A Presuppositionalist trying to complain about a non-Presuppositionalist not being "neutral".

      I thought one of the fundamentals of the Bahnsen/Van Til/ Bruggencate brand of Presuppositionalism was to never play on a neutral field.


      From: Andrew Youngblood
      Date: September 6, 2013

      Ah yes, but you see, it is those who oppose presuppositionalists making the claim of an ability to be neutral.

      I don't expect neutrality from anyone, doesn't mean I won't call a duck a duck.



      From: Andrew Youngblood
      Date: September 6, 2013

      I banned the other two, but not you because so far you have been respectful.

      I can deal with respectful disagreement, but as arbitrary owner of the page, will not tolerate haters.

      If I wanted that kind of engagement I would seek it on forums like CARM, Theologyweb, Christian Forums, etc.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      I suppose "neutral" is one of the many words that, in such conversations, requires a bit of negotiation as to what is intended as to its meaning.


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      I spent two solid years debating atheists/agnostics/etc. on CARM many years ago as an Arminian and using the methodology of rationalism/evidentialism and part of what led me to become a Calvinist and Van Tillian, is that I took the criticisms objections seriously.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      Presupp 101, I guess that is a bit of a testimony to the proposition I set forth that Presuppositionalism, as popularized by the likes of Bahsen, Van Til, and Bruggencate; that is, that it is a conversational gimmick that offers no substantive way to resolve the fundamental issue in dispute with reference to atheism.

      Rather, the Presuppositionalist simply proposes to presuppose such things as God exists, everyone knows it, and you can't beat that starting point.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      For those that didn't look and seriously consider my Presuppositionalism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise previously mentioned, here is the question asked to get things started:


      - If it is the case that
      - not everyone knows that
      - God exists, would you
      - conclude that:
      -- (a) the Bible is wrong,
      - or
      -- (b) the Presuppositional
      -- interpretation of the
      -- Bible is wrong?


      - Robert Baty: (b)
      - Presuppositionalist: ???
      - Other: ???

      Many different Presupp issues could be substitued for the "knowledge of God" issue.

      I like the "knowledge of God" issue.

      Anyone here want to venture their answer?


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      That is quite a claim, "a conversational gimmick", all things considered.

      The answer of substance is the Gospel of Christ, that all have sinned and are in need of repentance to God which only comes by regeneration.

      That all are in need of forgiveness, and the only means of forgiveness with God is in the atonement of the Son of God.

      The "presupposing to presuppose" charge is not only a strawman, but it really misses the whole picture.

      Quite frankly it comes off as ignorance, not only of Van Til, but philosophy.

      Further the fundamental flaw of atheism is autonomy which is subjectivism and cannot escape probability nor relativism.

      If you understood what is behind Descartes when he wrote "I think, therefore I am" as opposed to Van Til, "I think, therefore I AM" and the difference, you wouldn't delight in such empty smokescreens.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013


      It's not really much of a claim ("a conversational gimmick").

      It is simply a justified belief that comes from my own empirical observation of many Presuppositionalists' antics over the last few months.

      Another common gimmick I have identified being used by Presuppositionalists, and as evidenced in your message, is the claim that I have some certain misunderstanding of the fundamental issues involving Presuppositionalism.

      I deny that, and in most cases my opposition declines the invitation to negotiate for a proper discussion of one of more specific issues related to my claims regarding Presuppositionalism and its promoters.

      I don't think you even answered my question to try and get started in the critical thinking exercise where we might find out something about each of us reasons.


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      Your question is built on a faulty premise from the start.

      People here are Bible believing Christians, and Scripture tells us man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), His law written on hearts (Ro 2:14-15), and "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse".


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      My question is not built on a faulty premise.

      Care to try again?

      You can answer it.

      For instance, if it is the case that some folks do not know there is a God, then if you would not give up the Bible your answer would be that you would give up your interpretation of the Bible.


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      Further you present a false dilemma, neither the Bible is wrong, nor is the presupp interpretation of the passage non-presupp love to hate.


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      You probably wouldn't see the compatibility between Van Til and Alvin Plantinga...no surprise there.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      I don't start with a faulty premise, and I present no false dilemma.

      Perhaps you, like so many before you, simply do not appreciate and comprehend the significance of a hypothetical statement/question.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      I have some awareness of Platinga's work; particularly his Ontological thing that ties into Presuppositionalism rather well.

      Another neat philosophical/conversational gimmick.


      From: Presuppositionalism 101
      Date: September 6, 2013

      So far you have yet to prove the bald assertion of "conversational gimmick", sorry but you have yet to provide epistemological justification for the assertion, and we know what opinions are like, everyone has one.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: September 6, 2013

      Presuppositionalists refer to their opinions as presuppositions.

      I get that.

      As far as my opinion about Presuppositionalism, as I have experienced it, being a conversational gimmick, you are welcome to your own opinion about that and the merits of my claim.

      If you wish to try and negotiate for a serious discussion about some fundamental issue involving Presuppositionalism, I am open to trying to agree on an issue and how we might craft a discussion.

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