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

Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty - Presupp Update!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate Subject: Presuppositionalism - Romans 1 Claim This debate was started some time ago and Robert Baty posted his first
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 6, 2014
    • 0 Attachment

      Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate

      Subject: Presuppositionalism - Romans 1 Claim

      This debate was started some time ago and Robert Baty posted his first affirmative.  Jason Petersen quickly posted a draft of his first negative and then just as quickly deleted it as it was posted in error.  Jason has since neglected to post his final draft of his negative.  When he was seen producing and posting a video on July 5, 2014 Jason was asked about the status of his negative and replied as follows:

      - "I (Jason Petersen) will get to it when I get to it.
      -
      - In fact, since you are continuing to stalk me 
      - relentlessly, I'm just going to block you."
      -
      -- Jason Petersen
      -- Sunday, July 6, 2014
      -- 1:06 PM

      For some reason, the original debate thread with the first affirmative has disappeared from this FaceBook page.  At least I can not access it.

      So, in this posting I will try to reconstruct the set up for the debate, a following post of the first affirmative, followed by a post of the deleted draft of Petersen's first negative.  I will not respond to the deleted draft.  I will wait to see if Petersen posts his final draft and official first negative before making a response.

      Set Up

      Jason Petersen, Presuppositionalism promoter, contacted me regarding the prospects of having another go at a debate regarding Presuppositionalism.

      After some negotiations, we were able to agree to make a go of it, and I wound up in the affirmative.

      Negotiations Thread:

      https://www.facebook.com/JasonPetersenvRobertBaty/posts/797205963646565

      Jason Petersen (Presuppositionalist):
      https://www.facebook.com/jason.petersen.3994
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism-on-the-Slide/194801873982784
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Answers-for-Hope/351238011651048
      http://answersforhope.org/

      Robert Baty (Non-Presuppositionalist)
      https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1
      https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty
      https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE
      https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Maury_and_Baty/info

      The Proposition for Discussion

      - Given the stipulations, 
      - the following statement is true:
      -
      - IF (A) God's Word says something,
      - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
      - some to mean that everyone
      - knows that God exists, and
      - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
      - that some people do not know
      - that God exists,
      - THEN (D) the interpretation of
      - God's Word by some is wrong.
      -
      -- Robert Baty: Affirm
      -- Jason Petersen: Deny
      -
      - Affirm = I believe that to be the case.
      - Deny = I do not believe that to be the case.

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

    • Robert Baty
      Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate Subject: Presuppositionalism - Romans 1 Claim Robert Baty s First Affirmative The Proposition for Discussion- Given the
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 6, 2014
      • 0 Attachment

        Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate

        Subject: Presuppositionalism - Romans 1 Claim

        Robert Baty's First Affirmative

        The Proposition for Discussion

        - Given the stipulations, 
        - the following statement is true:
        -
        - IF (A) God's Word says something,
        - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
        - some to mean that everyone
        - knows that God exists, and
        - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
        - that some people do not know
        - that God exists,
        - THEN (D) the interpretation of
        - God's Word by some is wrong.
        -
        -- Robert Baty: Affirm
        -- Jason Petersen: Deny
        -
        - Affirm = I believe that to be the case.
        - Deny = I do not believe that to be the case.

        In considering the prospects for a somewhat formal discussion of some disputed matter of mutual interest and fundamental to what is commonly known as Presuppositionalism, Jason Petersen wrote:

        - "I (Jason Peteresen) agree that
        - if it is the case that not everyone
        - knows that God exists, then the
        - presuppositional interpretation
        - of Romans 1 is incorrect."

        Jason thinks the Presuppositional interpretation is correct.
        I do not.

        We both agree that if not everyone knows that God exists then the interpretation is wrong.

        A reasonable next step would be to construct an argument that would allow one to actually reach the conclusion, a true conclusion, that the interpretation is wrong. 

        There are a number of ways this might be done.

        I have endeavored to formulate a modus ponens form argument that would allow interested folks to test the Presuppositional interpretation.  The modus ponens form consists of a mixed hypothetical major premise, a categorical minor premise and a categorical conclusion.  It is generally believed to be of such form that if its premises are true it's conclusion will follow as true from the truth of the premises. 

        In somewhat symbolic detail, the form looks like this:

        - If p is true, then q is true.
        - p is true.
        - Therefore, q is true.

        I don't believe there is any dispute between Jason and me regarding the form of my argument.

        With no dispute as to the form of the argument, a next reasonable step would be to consider the truth of the major premise, the "if p, then q" premise.  That is the point in dispute in this discussion.  I think my major premise is true and Jason disputes that claim.

        If I am correct in my conclusion that the major premise is true, then the next step would be to consider the truth of the minor premise.  The minor premise is not under consideration in this discussion.

        If Jason is correct in claiming the major premise is not true, then I need not give further consideration to my argument and must look for another one in order to reach the possible conclusion that Jason's interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong. 

        The proposition in dispute, I propose, is so constructed that it is either true or not true. 

        By true, I mean that it has the attribute of asserting what is really the case.  That is, if the conditions in the antecedent of the major premise are actually the case, are true in and of themselves, then the consequent will follow as a true consequence of the truth of the antecedent conditions and we will have the justification for concluding that the Presuppositional interpretation of Romans 1, that everyone knows God exists, is wrong.

        For purposes of this discussion, it is not necessary to decide whether, in fact, each of the conditional parts of the antecedent are true.  For this discussion, it is only necessary to consider whether or not the consequent will follow from the conditionals if they are true.

        Whether or not propositions are true can involve a variety of considerations depending on the nature of the claim being asserted by the proposition.  In this case, I propose, the truth of the proposition in dispute can be determined logically, as a matter of simply considering the claim, the stipulations, and the force and effect of our ability to reason as to the truth of such a statement.

        Here are the stipulative definitions of the substantive terms used in the proposition:

        Stipulative Definitions:

        (A)

        - "God's Word" - communication from
        - God in words that are not wrong in
        - their intended meaning.

        (B)

        - "Interpretation" - what someone thinks
        - something means and which thinking
        - may be wrong.

        (C)

        - "Empirical evidence that some people
        - do not know that God exists" - some
        - people do not know that God exists
        - and we can so determine such from
        - evidence independent of the text
        - of God's Word/Bible and its
        - interpretation.

        Each of those stipulative definitions deals with one aspect of the conditional part of the proposition in dispute. 

        Conditional (A) by definition cannot be wrong.

        The interpretation referenced in conditional
        (B) by definition may be wrong.

        Conditional (C) by definition cannot be wrong.

        So, in formulating the proposition, the question asked is what might reasonably be concluded if all three conditions, (A), (B), (C) exist and are what is actually the case, are true.

        If we can conclude that the interpretation in the (B) conditional is wrong, then my position is correct and we can conclude that the Presuppositional Romans 1 claim that "everyone knows God exists" is wrong.

        Here is how I arrive at the conclusion that the proposition is true:

        (A) by definition, cannot be wrong.
        (C) by definition, cannot be wrong.

        The interpretation in (B) may be wrong and contradicts (C).

        The interpretation in (B) and (C) cannot both be correct.

        The contradiction between the interpretation of (B) and (C) can only be resolved by concluding that the interpretation in (B) is wrong because it cannot be the case that (C) is wrong.

        And so I propose that it is the case, it is true, that:

        - Given the stipulations, 
        -
        - IF (A) God's Word says something,
        -
        - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
        - some to mean that everyone
        - knows that God exists, and
        -
        - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
        - that some people do not know
        - that God exists,
        -
        - THEN (D) the interpretation of

        - God's Word by some is wrong.

        That concludes my first affirmative.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ---------------------------------------------------------------
      • Robert Baty
        Jason Petersen s First Negative Draft I d like to start by thanking Robert for allowing me this opportunity to debate. I will be defending two main
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 6, 2014
        • 0 Attachment

          Jason Petersen's First Negative Draft

          I'd like to start by thanking Robert for allowing me this opportunity to debate.

          I will be defending two main contentions:

          In Greg Bahnsen's famous debate with Gordon Stein, Greg Bahnsen correctly remarked that not all claims are resolved in the same way.

          Since both Robert and I profess to believe in scripture, we must come up with the best method to test scripture.

          When Robert states that the presuppositionalist interpretation of scripture is wrong, he is referring to presuppositionalists stating that all know that God exists.

          Robert has proposed that the issue be resolved empirically, but this is not the correct approach. Empiricism is unable to produce knowledge of what is in the minds of men.

          Empiricism also cannot reveal how to properly interpret scripture.

          In fact, empiricism is unable to lead to any knowledge at all.

          Some of the issues regarding empiricism will be covered later.

          Let us begin by going to the scriptures.

          Since both Robert and I profess to believe in scripture, we should use scripture to resolve the contention in this debate.

          Empiricism cannot tell us the proper interpretation of scripture, only scripture can. The Bible teaches that we should use scripture for correction, teaching, and instruction.(2 Timothy 3:16)

          In fact, Peter held scripture in higher regard than the eye-witness testimony he had of Jesus Christ being the son of God.(2 Peter 1:16-21) Thus, scripture should be held in higher authority than an empirical standard.Scripture clearly teaches that God has revealed himself to all men.

          The first passage that I will turn to is Romans 1:18-25:

          "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

          Take particular note of Romans:1:18,19, and 21.

          The text clearly teaches that no one has any excuse for rejecting God.

          Why would they not have an excuse?

          Verse 18 teaches that all know of God's wrath against the unrighteous. Verse 19 teaches that God has revealed himself to all. Verse 21 says that some of those who know God reject him despite their knowledge of him for the sake of their unrighteous desires.

          Another passage worthy of note is Psalm 19:1-4:

          "1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun."

          The heavens, the sky, day, night, all of these things reveal the glory of God. All humans know of nature, and nature testifies to everyone the glory of God.

          Certainly, nature could not declare the glory of God without revealing God to all of us.

          There are other passages as well, such as Acts 14:15-17

          “15 Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

          In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas was at Lystra. Paul looked upon a man and saw that he had faith, but the man could not walk. Paul healed the man and told him to walk. When the citizens saw these things they were proclaiming that Barnabas was Zeus and that Paul was Hermes. Paul told them that they should be worshiping the living God, the God that has made the world. Paul told them that they know of the Christian God because nature testifies the glory of God and his presence.


          (That concludes Petersen's first negative draft - RLBaty.)

          ---------------------------------------------------------------
        • Robert Baty
          Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate Update I don t know why Jason Petersen never mentioned to me that he had filed his negative to my first affirmative. I
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 20, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate Update

            I don't know why Jason Petersen never mentioned to me that he had filed his negative to my first affirmative.

            I just happened to run across it on my FaceBook page at:

            https://www.facebook.com/JasonPetersenvRobertBaty/posts/805456019488226

            Since Jason still has me blocked I did not get a notice of his having filed the negative (in two separate postings).

            So, I guess I will try to get to work on my second affirmative and try to get it posted as soon as possible.

            My apologies for the any confusion and for erroneously reporting that Jason had not filed his negative.  The dates on Jason's postings indicate they have been sitting there for quite some time.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • Robert Baty
            Part I of Jason Petersen s First Negative Jason Petersen I d like to start by thanking Robert for allowing me this opportunity to debate. In anticipation of
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 20, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              Part I of Jason Petersen's First Negative

              • Jason Petersen I'd like to start by thanking Robert for allowing me this opportunity to debate. In anticipation of Robert's empirical approach to the thesis of this debate, I will be defending two main contentions:

                1. The Bible teaches that God has revealed himself to all men.

                2. Empiricism cannot reveal what a man believes concerning the existence of God.

                The Resolution of the Thesis

                In Greg Bahnsen's famous debate with Gordon Stein, Greg Bahnsen correctly remarked that not all claims are resolved in the same way. Since both Robert and I profess belief in scripture, we must come up with the best method to test scripture. When Robert states that the presuppositionalist interpretation of scripture is wrong, he is referring to presuppositionalists stating that all know that God exists. It is clear that Robert has adopted empricism as his approach for meeting his burden of proof. Robert has proposed that the issue be resolved empirically, but this is not the correct approach. Empiricism is unable to produce knowledge of what is in the minds of men. Empiricism also cannot reveal how to properly interpret scripture. In fact, empiricism is unable to lead to any knowledge at all. Some of the issues regarding empiricism will be covered later. Let us begin by going to the scriptures.

                Since both Robert and I profess to belief in scripture, we should use scripture to resolve the contention in this debate. Empiricism cannot tell us the proper interpretation of scripture, only scripture can. The Bible teaches that we should use scripture for correction, teaching, and instruction (2 Timothy 3:16). In fact, Peter held scripture in higher regard than the eye-witness testimony he had of Jesus Christ being the son of God.(2 Peter 1:16-21) Thus, scripture should be held in higher authority than an empirical standard.

                Scripture clearly teaches that God has revealed himself to all men. The first passage that I will turn to is Romans 1:18-25:

                "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

                Take particular note of Romans:1:18,19, and 21. The text clearly teaches that no one has any excuse for rejecting God. Why would they not have an excuse? Verse 18 teaches that all know of God's wrath against the unrighteous. Verse 19 teaches that God has revealed himself to all. Verse 21 says that some of those who know God reject him despite their knowledge of him for the sake of their unrighteous desires. Clearly, God has revealed himself so clearly that no one has an excuse for denying him.

                Another passage worthy of note is Psalm 19:1-4:

                "1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
                and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
                whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,"

                The heavens, the sky, day, night, all of these things reveal the glory of God. All humans know of nature, and nature testifies to everyone the glory of God. Certainly, nature could not declare the glory of God without revealing God to all of us.

                There are other passages as well, such as Acts 14:15-17

                “15 Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

                In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas was at Lystra. Paul looked upon a man and saw that he had faith, but the man could not walk. Paul healed the man and told him to walk. When the citizens saw these things they were proclaiming that Barnabas was Zeus and that Paul was Hermes. Paul told them that they should be worshiping the living God, the God that has made the world. Paul told them that they know of the Christian God because nature testifies the glory of God and his presence.

            • Robert Baty
              Part II of Jason Petersen s First Negative Jason Petersen Let us examine Robert s premises: - IF (A) God s Word says something,-- IF (B) God s Word is
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 20, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                Part II of Jason Petersen's First Negative

                Jason Petersen Let us examine Robert's premises:

                "- IF (A) God's Word says something,
                -
                - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                - some to mean that everyone
                - knows that God exists, and
                -
                - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                - that some people do not know
                - that God exists,
                -
                - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                - God's Word by some is wrong."

                The two premises that are suspect are premises C and D. Premise C assumes that empiricism, which is defined as sense perception and experience, can somehow determine what other people believe. Unfortunately for Robert, what other people believe is outside of the realm of inquiry for both sense perception and experience. Someone may tell you that they do not believe in God, but the truth of this claim cannot be verified by personal experience or by sense perception. Premise D assumes that interpretation of God's Word should be validated by sense perception and experience. This, of course, goes against what scripture teaches in 2 Peter 1.

                An empirical approach can lead to no knowledge whatsoever. Sensation cannot lead to the development of concepts, and experience cannot lead to the truth or falsity of universal propositions. If empiricism cannot lead to knowledge, then it certainly is not a viable method for testing the scriptures. Empircism starts with sense perception, but how can the correct interpretation of scripture be determined from the five senses? What does the correct interpretation of scripture look like? How much does the correct interpretation weigh? What does the correct interpretation of scripture taste like? What does the correct interpretation of scripture sound like? As we can see, interpretation is not a material object that is detectable by the senses. Thus, we can determine that interpretation is not testable by sense perception.

                What about experience? This is, of course, another approach that advocates of empiricism put forth to test claims of truth. In the context of this discussion, Robert is proposing a proposition that leaves the realm of personal experience. Experience, by definition, must be internalistic. One cannot have an experience from another individual. Thus, Robert's attempt to show that there is empirical evidence that there are people who do not believe in God goes outside the realm of his own experience. Thus, Robert cannot rationally appeal to experience in an attempt to show there is empirical evidence that some do not believe in God.

                Conclusion

                Robert has proposed an empirical test of scripture in order to demonstrate that there are some that do not believe in God. This, of course, is a dangerous position to take and is doomed to failure. Scripture is more authorative than the senses or our reasoning capablities. It is scripture that lights our path (Psalms 119:105). Robert's approach is contrary to what scripture clearly teaches, and Robert should take care to not fall into vain and deceptive philosophy.(Col. 2:8) Robert, despite proposing that the issue be resolved empirically, has not put any "empirical evidence" forward to his position. Although this issue cannot be rationally resovled empirically, it would be of benefit if Robert would put some sort of empirical evidence. If he does so, I will have the opportunity to demonstrate through his examples of where empiricism falls short in resolving the thesis of this debate in Robert's favor.

              • Robert Baty
                ... Robert Baty s Second Affirmative Proposition: The Proposition for Discussion - Given the stipulations, - the following statement is true: - - IF (A) God s
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 20, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  ---

                  Robert Baty's Second Affirmative

                  Proposition:

                  The Proposition for Discussion


                  - Given the stipulations, 
                  - the following statement is true:
                  -
                  - IF (A) God's Word says something,
                  - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                  - some to mean that everyone
                  - knows that God exists, and
                  - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                  - that some people do not know
                  - that God exists,
                  - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                  - God's Word by some is wrong.
                  -
                  -- Robert Baty: Affirm
                  -- Jason Petersen: Deny


                  Jason Petersen has taken the position, which I also take, that if it is the case that not everyone knows that God exists, then the popular Presuppositional interpretation of the Bible is wrong.


                  The proposition set forth in this discussion is the first/major premise of a logically valid argument that illustrates how one might reach the conclusion that the Presuppositional interpretation is wrong.


                  If the first premise is not true, the rest of the argument doesn't matter.  So, in this discussion the proposition sets up the first premise for consideration and possible agreement as to whether or not it is, given the stipulations, true. 


                  In my first affirmative I explained in some detail why it is I conclude that the proposition, given the stipulations, is, logically true.  So, in this second affirmative I will attempt to explain why Jason's first negative presents no successful rebuttal to my explanation and justification for concluding that it is true.


                  Jason Petersen begins his first negative with:


                   - I will be defending two main contentions:
                  -
                  - 1.

                  -

                  - The Bible teaches that God has revealed

                  - himself to all men.
                  -
                  - 2.

                  -

                  - Empiricism cannot reveal what a man

                  - believes concerning the existence of God.


                  Neither of those issues addresses the proposition at issue in this debate.  Therefore, what Jason has to say about those items is of no consequence to the matter of attempting to reach an agreement on the proposition before us.


                  Jason claims:


                  - It is clear that Robert has adopted empricism

                  - as his approach for meeting his burden of proof.


                  My burden as to this debate is simply to show why one should accept the proposition as true.  As I explained in my first affirmative, that can be accomplished through a process of reasoning, logically, and given the stipulations.  I think I have met my burden.


                  In trying to actually address the proposition, Jason writes, in part:


                  - The two premises that are suspect

                  - are premises C and D.


                  If one considers that D is the conclusion, the only premise Jason proposes to dispute is C.


                  Regarding C, Jason writes, in part:


                  - Premise C assumes that empiricism,

                  - which is defined as sense perception

                  - and experience, can somehow determine

                  - what other people believe.


                  That's simply false. 


                  The proposition in dispute in this discussion is a hypothetical.  Jason is simply putting on a demonstration that he does not understand the proposition before us and the significance, with a popular biblical example for analogy, of that little two letter word "if".


                  In my years of Internet activism and debate, formal and informal, I have found that many an adversary blunder over the simpler matters regarding the form of arguments and truth claims made for hypothetical conditional statements involving stipulated definitions.  It is most enlightening to realize such things and Jason's example adds to that history.


                  The issue Jason wants to talk about may be relevant to a later debate or discussion if we happen to have a mutual interest in pursuing such matters.


                  Since disposing of Jason's negative does not appear to have taken much space, I will repeat the following from my first affirmative in conclusion:


                  Here is how I arrive at the conclusion that the proposition is true:

                  (A) by definition, cannot be wrong.
                  (C) by definition, cannot be wrong.

                  The interpretation in (B) may be wrong and contradicts (C).

                  The interpretation in (B) and (C) cannot both be correct.

                  The contradiction between the interpretation in (B) and (C) can only be resolved by concluding that the interpretation in (B) is wrong because it cannot be the case that (C) is wrong.


                  And so concludes my second affirmative.


                  Sincerely,

                  Robert Baty


                  -----------------------------------------------------
                • Robert Baty
                  ... Jason Petersen s Second Negative Jason Petersen Jason Petersen s Second NegativeIn my opening statement, I gave two main contentions that I will be
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 20, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----

                    Jason Petersen's Second Negative


                      • Jason Petersen Jason Petersen's Second Negative

                        In my opening statement, I gave two main contentions that I will be defending:


                        1. The Bible teaches that God has revealed himself to all men.

                        2. Empiricism cannot reveal what a man believes concerning the existence of God.

                        In order to defend my first contention, I appealed to scripture to explain that The Bible clearly says that God has revealed himself to all men in such a way that those that deny him are without excuse. I then went on to explain some of the issues concerning attempts to resolve the truth of propositions empirically. Unfortunately, Robert has not given a response to my appeal to scripture nor has he given a response to the arguments I raised against his empiricist approach to the resolution of the debate thesis. The topic of this debate is whether or not the interpretation of Romans 1 that states that all men know that God exists is true. 

                        The two contentions that I have laid out, contrary to Robert's claims, are completely relevant. If empiricism cannot lead to any justified-true belief whatsoever, then Robert cannot logically appeal to empiricism to make his case concerning whether or not the interpretation I have laid out concerning Romans 1 is correct. Robert also claims to be a Christian that believes in scripture. I laid out multiple verses that support the interpretation of Romans 1 that I hold to. Therefore, if Robert is a Christian that accepts the authority of scripture, then he ought to believe scripture when it clearly says that all men know that God exists and are without excuse for denying him.

                        Let us look at one of Robert's remarks:

                        "My burden as to this debate is simply to show why one should accept the proposition as true. As I explained in my first affirmative, that can be accomplished through a process of reasoning, logically, and given the stipulations. I think I have met my burden."

                        Robert, unfortunately, has not been able to give a logically cogent reason why anyone should accept his proposition on the basis of empiricism. He has asserted that empiricism is the answer but has not explained the empirical process to "prove" that the interpretation of Romans 1 that I gave is incorrect. Nevertheless, I clearly explained in my opening statement that Robert's attempt to empirically prove that some people don't know that God exists goes outside of the realm of empiricism. Empiricism relies on personal experience, yet Robert is attempting to prove someone else's experience concerning whether or not they suppress the truth of God's existence. Therefore, the argument that Robert is putting forth contradicts his own empiricist epistemology. This clearly destroys Robert's entire argument.

                        Robert then says:

                        "Regarding C, Jason writes, in part:

                        - Premise C assumes that empiricism,
                        - which is defined as sense perception
                        - and experience, can somehow determine
                        - what other people believe.

                        That's simply false. 

                        The proposition in dispute in this discussion is a hypothetical. Jason is simply putting on a demonstration that he does not understand the proposition before us and the significance, with a popular biblical example for analogy, of that little two letter word "if"."

                        Robert claims that my statement is false, yet he has not given a reason for anyone to believe his assertion. He then attempts to appeal to the fact that the proposition he is putting forth concerning is hypothetical. If it is merely hypothetical and not Robert's actual contention, then why is he attempting to argue with me on this topic? Let us look at the entire position that Robert is defending:

                        "- IF (A) God's Word says something,
                        - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                        - some to mean that everyone
                        - knows that God exists, and
                        - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                        - that some people do not know
                        - that God exists,
                        - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                        - God's Word by some is wrong."

                        The main portion of Robert's position that I have attacked is (C). Notice the conclusion that Robert is arguing for rests on whether or not (C) is true. Robert should not be arguing that (C) is hypothetical, rather, he should be attempting to argue for the truth of (C). So far, Robert has not given any attempt to defend (C). If Robert is unable to defend (C), then his argument does not hold. That being said, if Robert wishes to prove his point, he needs to defend the proposition that he put forth rather than attempting to say that (C) is nothing more than hypothetical. Robert must answer, does he believe that (C) is true or not? If so, why? If not, then why are we debating this topic in the first place?

                        Robert then moves on with giving inappropriate remarks and prejudicial conjecture. The remarks are ironic because he does not understand the philosophical implications of his approach to the resolution of the thesis of this debate. Robert then concludes that we can only resolve the contention by negating (B); however, Robert gives no reason for anyone to reject (B) except for asserting that (C) is correct. Since this is a debate, Robert needs to give an argument for (C). As I have already soundly refuted (C), the proper way to resolve the debate issue is to reject (C).

                    --------------------------------
                  • Robert Baty
                    ... Robert Baty s Third Affirmative The Proposition for Discussion- Given the stipulations, - the following statement is true:-- IF (A) God s Word says
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 20, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ---

                      Robert Baty's Third Affirmative

                      The Proposition for Discussion

                      - Given the stipulations, 
                      - the following statement is true:
                      -
                      - IF (A) God's Word says something,
                      - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                      - some to mean that everyone
                      - knows that God exists, and
                      - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                      - that some people do not know
                      - that God exists,
                      - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                      - God's Word by some is wrong.
                      -
                      -- Robert Baty: Affirm
                      -- Jason Petersen: Deny

                      In his second negative, Jason Petersen writes, in part:

                      - The two contentions that I have laid out, contrary to Robert's
                      - claims, are completely relevant. If empiricism cannot lead to
                      - any justified-true belief whatsoever, then Robert cannot logically
                      - appeal to empiricism to make his case concerning whether
                      - or not the interpretation I have laid out concerning Romans
                      - 1 is correct.


                      Those "two contentions" of Jason's are:

                      - 1.
                      -
                      - The Bible teaches that God has
                      - revealed himself to all men.


                      - 2.
                      -
                      - Empiricism cannot reveal what a
                      - man believes concerning the existence
                      - of God.


                      I again refer folks to the above proposition and note that those contentions are not relevant in this debate.  They may become relevant at some point should Jason and I be able to advance the conversation, but for now they are quite irrelevant.

                      Jason writes:

                      - Robert, unfortunately, has not been able to give
                      - a logically cogent reason why anyone should
                      - accept his proposition on the basis of empiricism.


                      The proposition I have proposed is true, not based on empiricism, but on the force and effect of sound, biblical, common sense reasoning; given the stipulations.  I have explained that in both my affirmatives without any rebuttal from Jason who has demonstrated very well he is not dealing with the proposition but with other matters of interest to him.

                      Regarding my justified claim that Jason's statement regarding the C segment of the proposition, Jason writes:

                      - If it is merely hypothetical and not Robert's
                      - actual contention, then why is he attempting
                      - to argue with me on this topic?


                      This seems to be an implicit admission by Jason that he is not dealing with the proposition in this debate but it wanting to run ahead and deal with other matters; which we might get to if we can properly advance the conversation to that level at some later date.

                      The proposition for this debate does involve a "mere hypothetical" and, as Jason demonstrates, his inability to properly address it and decide if he really wants to accept it as true; he certainly hasn't offered any reason to reject my analysis and conclusion that it is true.

                      Regarding the proposition, Jason writes:

                      - The main portion of Robert's position that I
                      - have attacked is (C). Notice the conclusion
                      - that Robert is arguing for rests on whether
                      - or not (C) is true.


                      I am going to have to improve my references to what we are talking about.  I earlier mentioned that D might be considered a conclusion.  In this debate, D is not a conclusion, though it may form a conclusion depending on what argument might be constructed from the hypothetical statement.  Since we are only dealing with the hypothetical, D is more properly referred to as the consequent and A, B & C constitute the antecedent.

                      Jason goes on to write:

                      - So far, Robert has not given any attempt to
                      - defend (C). If Robert is unable to defend (C),
                      - then his argument does not hold.


                      As far as this debate is concerned, C is hypothetical and what it refers to is stipulated.  Those are facts which don't need to be defended.  They just need to be recognized by Jason and dealt with.  Jason's comment is another implicit admission that he's simply not dealing with the issue set forth in this debate.

                      In conclusion of his second negative, Jason writes:

                      - (1) Robert gives no reason for anyone to reject (B)
                      - except for asserting that (C) is correct.
                      -
                      - (2) Since this is a debate, Robert needs to give
                      - an argument for (C).
                      -
                      - (3) As I have already soundly refuted (C), the
                      - proper way to resolve the debate issue is to reject
                      - (C).


                      False, false, and false.

                      C is not asserted. 
                      It is stipulated and hypothetical in this debate.

                      No "argument" for C is required in this debate.

                      It's premature to even consider whether or not Jason has refuted C as that is not at issue in this debate.

                      Jason, as they say, has not touched top, side nor bottom of my argument as to why the truth of the hypothetical statement should be accepted.

                      And so concludes my third affirmative

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty

                      --------------------------
                    • Robert Baty
                      I have just noticed that Jason Petersen has filed his third negative. I think he filed it yesterday, but I didn t notice it until a few minutes ago. Because
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 6 9:38 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I have just noticed that Jason Petersen has filed his third negative.  I think he filed it yesterday, but I didn't notice it until a few minutes ago.  Because he continues to have me blocked on FaceBook, I don't get notices of when he posts; I have to keep looking for his posts to appear.

                        Jason Petersen's Third Negative

                        Let me begin my final negative by apologizing to those who have read this debate with the expectation that the issues raised by Robert would actually be discussed. For some reason unbeknownst to me, Robert has not been willing to discussion why he takes the affirmative on the thesis of this debate. I do hope, at least, that the arguments I have raised against his approach to be edifying.

                        I am afraid that, at this point, there will not be much more to say. Robert begin his final affirmative by reiterating a point that I refuted previously, that is, that the contentions I am defending have nothing to do with the debate topic. I already explained in my second negative why the contentions I am defending are relevant to the topic at hand. Robert has not provided a response, but has instead chosen to repeat what he said previously. I will not waste time repeating what I have already said in my second negative.

                        Robert responded to my accusations of not defending his position by stating that the premises are hypothetical. Well, yes they are, but Robert has not put forth any reason whatsoever why anyone should accept his contention that he is supposed to be defending in this debate.

                        Unfortunately, Robert has failed to respond to the arguments that I gave in my second negative, thus, I will conclude my third negative.

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


                      • Robert Baty
                        Robert Baty Reply To Jason Petersen s Third & Final Negative The Proposition for Discussion- Given the stipulations, - the following statement is true:-- IF
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 6 10:00 PM
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Robert Baty Reply To Jason Petersen's Third & Final Negative

                          The Proposition for Discussion

                          - Given the stipulations, 
                          - the following statement is true:
                          -
                          - IF (A) God's Word says something,
                          - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                          - some to mean that everyone
                          - knows that God exists, and
                          - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                          - that some people do not know
                          - that God exists,
                          - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                          - God's Word by some is wrong.
                          -
                          -- Robert Baty: Affirm
                          -- Jason Petersen: Deny
                          -
                          - Affirm = I believe that to be the case.
                          - Deny = I do not believe that to be the case.

                          Jason wrote in his third negative:

                          - Let me begin my final negative by apologizing
                          - to those who have read this debate with the
                          - expectation that the issues raised by Robert
                          - would actually be discussed.

                          What Jason might have more appropriately apologized for is his failure to actually address the issue presented in this debate, the simple, logical truth claim made for the above conditional statement.

                          Jason goes on with:

                          - For some reason unbeknownst to me, Robert
                          - has not been willing to discussion why he takes
                          - the affirmative on the thesis of this debate.

                          I repeatedly explained why Jason should join me in accepting the conditional statement above as true.  Jason has spent all of his time pursuing other matters not presently before us for discussion.

                          Jason continued with

                          - I will not waste time repeating what I have
                          - already said in my second negative.


                          That is good, for what Jason has done in the time he has taken to post his comments failed to actually address the reasons I gave as to why he should join with me in accepting the truth of the conditional statement above.  As I have repeatedly noted, Jason has simply chosen to spend his time discussing matters not presently before us for discussion.

                          Jason added:

                          - Robert responded to my accusations of not defending
                          - his position by stating that the premises are hypothetical.

                          This discussion does not involve a premise, though the conditional statement may be used as a premise.  It is a singular conditional statement or premise when used in an argument. 

                          Jason has been unable to demonstrate his understanding of conditional statements as they relate to the formulation of arguments and make application of such understanding to the conditional statement above which is the subject of this debate.

                          On that point, Jason states:

                          - Well, yes they are, but Robert has not put forth any
                          - reason whatsoever why anyone should accept his
                          - contention that he is supposed to be defending in
                          - this debate.


                          The contention I am, I did, defend, without rebuttal, in this debate is that the conditional statement, given the stipulations, should be accepted as true.  Jason is the one who has not put forth any reason why such should be rejected; preferring to spend all of his time on other matters not before us for purposes of this discussion.

                          In conclusion, Jason wrote:

                          - Unfortunately, Robert has failed to respond to the
                          - arguments that I gave in my second negative, thus,
                          - I will conclude my third negative.


                          Jason may do as he wishes, even misrepresent what has transpired in this debate and what this debate was about, and so he has.

                          I have responded to Jason's misguided commentaries on unrelated matters.  We might actually debate such things at a later date.

                          For now, the record clearly shows that Jason failed to measure up to his responsibilities to address the issue in this debate, the truth claim made for the conditional statement above, and offer some semblance of a rebuttal to my justification for my position, if he could muster a rebuttal. 

                          This will conclude my reply to Jason Petersen's third and final negative.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty

                          ----------------------------------------------
                        • Robert Baty
                          Jason Petersen s Closing Statement From: Jason Petersen Date: Thursday, August 7, 2014 Typically, closing remarks are not a reply to the previous section of
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 7 4:31 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jason Petersen's Closing Statement

                            From: Jason Petersen
                            Date: Thursday, August 7, 2014

                            Typically, closing remarks are not a reply to the previous section of the debate.

                            Since Robert chose to respond to my 3rd negative rather than give a closing statement, I shall respond to some of his complaints and then reiterate my case.

                            Besides the demonstrated shortcomings of an empiricist view of validating the interpretation of Romans 1, Robert made another big mistake.

                            Instead of focusing on defending whether or not the propositions he put forth were sound, he instead tried to focus on the logical validity of the argument.

                            Unfortunately for Robert, in order for an a conclusion to be considered true, the argument must not only be logically valid in form, but also sound.

                            An argument can only be sound when all of the premises and propositions within the argument that are presented are true.

                            Robert made no effort to defend the soundness of his empirical approach, and instead attempted to focus on saying that IF all of the propositions are true, then the "presuppositionalist interpretation" of Romans 1 is incorrect.

                            Unfortunately for Robert, I have demonstrated that proposition D(also known as Robert's conclusion) cannot follow from proposition C because empirical evidence is unable to produce any knowledge concerning the interpretation of scripture. Robert has offered no response to this devastating blow to his case.

                            Robert then went on to say that I didn't understand the form of the argument, and made some rude and unprofessional comments along the way.

                            Unfortunately, the problem is that Robert doesn't understand that he must show that the propositions within his argument are actually true; he forgets that logically valid arguments can still be unsound, and therefore, false.

                            Now that "pleasantries" can be cast aside, I shall reiterate my case.

                            I began by giving relevant Bible verses to show that the interpretation of Romans 1,

                            "That God has revealed himself to such a degree that all that reject him are without excuse and our suppressing the truth of God in their unrighteousness."

                            Unfortunately, Robert did not respond to any of these verses.

                            I then laid out a case against Robert's empirical approach that shows that empiricism cannot produce any knowledge at all, and thus, cannot produce any knowledge concerning the interpretation of scripture.

                            Robert offered no response to this argument either.

                            I also pointed out that Robert, despite his assertion that he made concerning empirical evidence of some people not knowing that God exists, did not attempt to provide any empirical evidence whatsoever to support proposition C.

                            I also pointed out to Robert that empiricism has no way of determining what other people are experiencing. In fact, empiricism is unable to prove that two people had the same experience.

                            Since empiricism is based on sense perception and personal experience, empiricism's epistemological limits, even if empiricism is granted, prevents the empiricist from being able to justifiably claim knowledge of any proposition that is independent of his own experience.

                            Thus, yet another portion of Robert's case, or lack thereof, falls into shambles.

                            As far as I am concerned, the thesis of this debate is resolved.

                            The "presuppositional interpretation of scripture," as Robert calls it, is correct, whereas Robert's interpretation, whatever the heck that may be, is false.

                            -----------------------------------------------------------
                          • Robert Baty
                            Robert Baty Responds to Jason Petersen s Closing Statement As with our earlier effort at debate, Jason and I did not complete any negotiations regarding how
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 7 5:05 PM
                            • 0 Attachment


                              Robert Baty Responds to Jason Petersen's "Closing Statement"

                              As with our earlier effort at debate, Jason and I did not complete any negotiations regarding how this debate should be conducted.  It has been rather informal and, in my opinion, Jason Petersen conceded this debate, and has conceded this debate, by his utter and complete failure to address the actual issue in dispute in this debate:

                              The Proposition for Discussion

                              - Given the stipulations, 
                              - the following statement is true:
                              -
                              - IF (A) God's Word says something,
                              - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                              - some to mean that everyone
                              - knows that God exists, and
                              - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                              - that some people do not know
                              - that God exists,
                              - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                              - God's Word by some is wrong.
                              -
                              -- Robert Baty: Affirm
                              -- Jason Petersen: Deny
                              -
                              - Affirm = I believe that to be the case.
                              - Deny = I do not believe that to be the case.

                              In his closing statement, Jason Petersen has again utter and completely evaded dealing with that issue and again went off to discuss issues not in contention in this debate.  Maybe Jason and I will debate his interests at some later date; maybe not.  For now, the issue is the truth claim I make for the above proposition.

                              Jason wrote:

                              - Robert made another big mistake.
                              -
                              Instead of focusing on defending whether
                              - or not the propositions he put forth were
                              - sound, he instead tried to focus on the logical
                              - validity of the argument.

                              Propositions, statements, premises are true or not true, arguments are sound or not sound.  This debate is about the truth claim made for the above proposition.  This debate is not about the logical validity of any argument that may be constructed from the above conditional statement.  If the above conditional statement is not true, given the stipulations, the rest doesn't matter.

                              And so, this debate has been over the truth claim made for the conditional statement; an issue that Jason Petersen continues to evade.

                              Jason wrote:

                              - An argument can only be sound when all of
                              - the premises and propositions within the
                              - argument that are presented are true.

                              That is not in dispute, and the matter at issue in the debate, the truth claim made for the above conditional statement, is a most reasonable starting point to determine how we might deal with Jason's concession that if not everyone knows God exists his Presuppositional interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

                              Jason gives lip service to the need to consider the truth of the propositions/premises/statements that form a logically valid argument, and, as he continues to demonstrate, he has refused to actually deal with the truth claim I make for the conditional statement above; a conditional statement which forms a foundation for a logically valid argument dealing with Jason's concession and the testing of his Presuppositional interpretation of the text.

                              Jason wrote:

                              - Robert made no effort to defend the
                              - soundness of his empirical approach...

                              See above.  That's for another segment of the debate over testing Jason's Presuppositional interpretation of the Bible.  My obligation was to explain and justify the truth claim made for the above conditional statement.  Jason has not dared to make any rebuttal thereto and instead has gone off into the weeds to speak of other things.

                              Jason wrote:

                              - Unfortunately for Robert, I have demonstrated
                              - that...

                              I deny that, but this is not the time or place to pursue that discussion.  This debate is about the truth claim made for the above conditional statement and Jason has, despite my efforts, simply refused to deal with that subject.

                              Jason wrote:

                              - Unfortunately, the problem is that Robert
                              - doesn't understand that he must show that
                              - the propositions within his argument are
                              - actually true; he forgets that logically valid
                              - arguments can still be unsound, and therefore,
                              - false.

                              That's false, and I think Jason knows or should know it is false.  This debate has only been about showing that the conditional statement above is true, a first, reasonable, logical step towards advancing the discussion regarding the testing of Jason's Presuppositional interpretation of the Bible.

                              Jason seems to imply he accepts that the argument that might be constructed from the conditional statement is logically valid, but Jason has steadfastly refused to consider the truth claim made for the conditional statement.

                              If Jason and I could agree that the conditional statement put forth for this debate is, given the stipulations, true, then we might consider advancing the conversation to other matters such as Jason has spent all his time writing about.

                              Jason proposes to "reiterate his case".

                              That's not necessary and is quite off-topic as to this debate.

                              What Jason needed to do, long ago, was actually address the truth claim made for the conditional statement which is the issue for this debate.

                              Jason writes:

                              - As far as I am concerned,
                              - the thesis of this debate is resolved.

                              Me too!

                              The thesis of this debate is that the conditional statement above is, given the stipulations, true.

                              Jason Petersen offered no rebuttal; preferring instead to spend all his time and effort on other matters.

                              Jason wraps up his closing statement with this ipse dixit:

                              - The "presuppositional interpretation of scripture is correct."

                              I disagree, but that is not the issue in this debate. 

                              Jason has agreed that if not everyone knows God exists then his Presuppositional interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

                              There's one or more logically valid arguments that may be used to test Jason's interpretation, and the conditional statement above can be used to construct one such argument.  This debate has been about the truth claim made for that conditional statement.

                              Jason Petersen has refused to openly, honestly engage the discussion of the issue set forth for consideration in this debate.

                              And so this debate appears to be concluding with Jason Petersen never having submitted one, legitimate rebuttal to my affirmative in this debate.

                              That doesn't mean I'm right, but it means Jason Petersen has offered no rebuttal to my affirmative and I happen to think he did as well as any and it is simply, logically true that, given the stipulations, the conditional statement above is true.

                              Why won't Jason, and other Presuppositionalists, admit to it.
                              Readers of this debate can form their own opinions about that.
                              I have mine.
                              You are welcome to yours.

                              SIncerely,
                              Robert Baty

                              -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            • Robert Baty
                              Message 14 of 17 , Aug 9 12:00 PM
                              • 0 Attachment


                                ----

                                On one of my other FaceBook pages, Jason popped in and posted the following:

                                https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty/posts/453425318127307

                                From: Jason Petersen
                                Date: Friday, August 8, 2014
                                Time: About 4:00 PM MT

                                Unfortunately, Robert deviated from the debate 
                                format by giving an additional statement that was 
                                not sanctioned in the format. 

                                This only confirms that Robert cannot be trusted 
                                to adhere to his own rules. 

                                I will be posting a transcript of the debate, but I 
                                will not be posting Robert's response to my 
                                closing statement because it was not sanctioned 
                                in the debate format that Robet and I agreed to.

                                ----------------------------------------------
                              • Robert Baty
                                One of my rules, that Jason seems to have missed, is that someone who has me blocked so that I am not notified when he sneaks in and posts his cheap shots,
                                Message 15 of 17 , Aug 9 12:23 PM
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  One of my rules, that Jason seems to have missed, is that someone who has me blocked so that I am not notified when he sneaks in and posts his cheap shots, even while continuing to evade dealing with the actual subject of the debate, has no platform upon which to stand and suggest any impropriety of my course in this present engagement.

                                  https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty/posts/453425318127307

                                  - From: Jason Petersen
                                  - Date: Friday, August 8, 2014
                                  - Time: About 4:00 PM MT
                                  -
                                  - Unfortunately, Robert deviated from the debate 
                                  - format by giving an additional statement that was 
                                  - not sanctioned in the format. 
                                  -
                                  - This only confirms that Robert cannot be trusted 
                                  - to adhere to his own rules. 
                                  -
                                  - I will be posting a transcript of the debate, but I 
                                  - will not be posting Robert's response to my 
                                  - closing statement because it was not sanctioned 
                                  - in the debate format that Robet and I agreed to.

                                  It will be interesting to see what documentation, if any, Jason might provide in his attempt to justify his complaint about my course in the debate as to "format".

                                  Had Jason Peteresen actually been up to negotiating complete details as to the format of the debate and discussion which may follow, a discussion he does not appear willing to openly and honestly engage, then we might properly appeal to the moderator(s) for a ruling instead of Jason just going off and whining because he simply lost the debate.

                                  It appears Jason thinks that there is some impropriety in my continuing the discussion even while he thinks his closing statement was the end of the matter regarding his utter failure to address the actual issue in our debate.

                                  As for not being able to be trusted, it might be interesting to see if Jason even posts a link to the more complete record of our engagement and what discussion he might allow on his page(s) where he has typically not allowed me to post.

                                  I don't know where Jason is going to be posting his account of our engagement.  It might be somewhere he hides from me or where neither he or anyone else let's me know.

                                  It's an interesting evasion by Jason, but such as has been seen to by typical of my Presuppositional adversaries.

                                  The substance of the matter, however, is that Jason Petersen never showed up to actually offer a response, a bonafide rebuttal, to my affirmative presentation regarding the following:

                                  The Proposition for Discussion

                                  - Given the stipulations, 
                                  - the following statement is true:
                                  -
                                  - IF (A) God's Word says something,
                                  - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                                  - some to mean that everyone
                                  - knows that God exists, and
                                  - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                                  - that some people do not know
                                  - that God exists,
                                  - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                                  - God's Word by some is wrong.
                                  -
                                  -- Robert Baty: Affirm
                                  -- Jason Petersen: Deny
                                  -
                                  - Affirm = I believe that to be the case.
                                  - Deny = I do not believe that to be the case.

                                  I am more than willing to continue the discussion of that proposition, Jason's utter failure to meet his obligations and responsibilities in the debate, and Jason's antics after coming out on the losing end of the discussion; here or elsewhere.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty

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

                                • Robert Baty
                                  Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate Commentary https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=639492819492231&id=351238011651048 - From: Jason Petersen -
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Aug 11 3:58 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Jason Petersen v. Robert Baty Debate Commentary

                                    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=639492819492231&id=351238011651048

                                    - From: Jason Petersen
                                    - Date: Monday, August 11, 2014
                                    - Time: About 9:00 AM MT
                                    -

                                    - Robert Baty and I's debate transcript will

                                    - be posted tomorrow.

                                    -

                                    - The debate thesis was "Does Roman 1

                                    - say that everyone knows that God Exists?"

                                    -

                                    - In the debate, Robert Baty claimed that this

                                    - implication of Romans 1 can be rejected on

                                    - empirical grounds.

                                    -

                                    - I argued that empiricism can lead to no

                                    - knowledge whatsoever, and, therefore,

                                    - cannot lead to knowledge concerning the

                                    - proper interpretation of scripture.

                                    -


                                    -- ~Jason



                                    It appears to me that Jason Petersen is demonstrating further an inability to understand, to comprehend the issue in the debate and to accept his utter and complete failure to offer any rebuttal to my affirmative.

                                    The Proposition for Discussion

                                    - Given the stipulations, 
                                    - the following statement is true:
                                    -
                                    - IF (A) God's Word says something,
                                    - IF (B) God's Word is interpreted by
                                    - some to mean that everyone
                                    - knows that God exists, and
                                    - IF (C) there is empirical evidence
                                    - that some people do not know
                                    - that God exists,
                                    - THEN (D) the interpretation of
                                    - God's Word by some is wrong.
                                    -
                                    -- Robert Baty: Affirm
                                    -- Jason Petersen: Deny
                                    -
                                    - Affirm = I believe that to be the case.
                                    - Deny = I do not believe that to be the case.

                                    It might be interesting to follow the discussion, if any, after Jason posts his transcript of the debate.  Maybe some of his own people will help Jason to see the folly of his false and/or misleading claims about the debate and his performance therein.

                                    For those interested, the debate can be reviewed now at:

                                    https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty/posts/453425318127307


                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty

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


                                  • Robert Baty
                                    Did Jason Petersen lie? I report, you can decide for yourself! Jason has posted our recent debate at:
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Aug 11 8:26 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Did Jason Petersen lie?
                                      I report, you can decide for yourself!

                                      Jason has posted our recent debate at:

                                      http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/does-everyone-know-that-god-exists/

                                      Jason added the following introductory comments:

                                      - Unfortunately, Robert Baty broke the rules by
                                      - adding an additional post after the debate was
                                      - supposed to be over. That additional post will
                                      - not be included in this transcript, as it was a
                                      - violation of the agreed-upon debate format.
                                      -
                                      - This kind of behavior is the reason why I am
                                      - hesitant to do formal debates on pages that
                                      - antagonize my position because many of its
                                      - members do not hesitate to break the rules.
                                      -
                                      - Once the readers reads this debate, the reason
                                      - Robert deviated from the rules will likely become
                                      - evident; his position was in shambles.

                                      As for me, I think Jason Petersen lied.  Jason Petersen never got around to offering a rebuttal to my affirmative on the issue in controversy in the debate.

                                      Shame on Jason Petersen!

                                      And then, in introducing his account of the debate, Jason wrote:

                                      - Background:
                                      -
                                      - Robert Baty is an interesting fellow. He spends
                                      - a lot of time seeking out presuppositional apologists
                                      - and then attempts to document everything they say
                                      - online. He does so in a Yahoo Group. Ever since we
                                      - met, Robert Baty has documented whatever he can
                                      - find me saying concerning presuppositional apologetics
                                      - or related topics. He claims to be a Christian and to
                                      - hold to scripture, but I have had some tell me that he
                                      - is a part of a cult.(The name of the cult escapes me.)
                                      - I debated Robert one other time before I became a
                                      - Clarkian Presuppositionalist.(I actually identify myself
                                      - as a Christian Rationalist, just as Clark did when he
                                      - was alive.) The debate topic that was proposed between
                                      - Robert and I debated concerning the Romans 1
                                      - interpretation. Robert calls my interpretation the
                                      - “presuppositionalist interpretation,” However,
                                      - presuppositionalists are not the only one that holds to
                                      - what Romans 1 says concerning that no one is justified
                                      - in saying there is no God, for God has revealed himself
                                      - to such an extent that any denial of God is suppression
                                      - of the truth in unrighteousness. Be that as it may, I was
                                      - defending this interpretation of Romans 1, that God has
                                      - revealed himself to all, and therefore, all men that deny
                                      - him suppress the truth in unrighteous. Robert never
                                      - stated what he thought Romans 1 said. He only gave
                                      - a set of propositions in an attempt to argue that “the
                                      - interpretation by some is wrong.” This, unfortunately,
                                      - had nothing to do with the original topic that was agreed
                                      - upon, which was the proper interpretation of Romans 1.
                                      -
                                      - So, what was Robert really defending? Who knows?
                                      -
                                      - Despite Robert’s shortcomings regarding not only the
                                      - agreed upon topic, but also the arguments (or lack
                                      - thereof) he gave, I hope that this debate will be edifying
                                      - for anyone that reads it.

                                      Yes, I think Jason Petersen lied!
                                      And Jason also demonstrates himself to be quite the hypocrite!

                                      My reporting of the debate can be found at the following link and elsewhere:

                                      https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty/posts/453425318127307

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