Watch for Updates

Originally Posted October 13, 2020
by Robert Baty

Arne’s Personal FaceBook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/arne.verster.9

Second Personal FaceBook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/arne.verster

Arne’s Organization’s FaceBook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/apologeticscentral

Arne’s Organization’s Website:

https://www.apologeticscentral.org/

My exchange with Arne Verster, up and coming Presuppositional preacher in South Africa, took place in the comments section of one of Eli Ayala’s recent videos which is found at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpN5ThMA7SU

The issue in dispute is reflected in the following graphic taken from the video referenced above:

After other comments under the above-referenced video, Arne Verster entered the discussion and addressed his comments to me, and I responded.

From Robert Baty

Eli’s argument, simplified:
Premise #1
If God did not exist, then no fact could be understood.
Premise #2
Facts can be understood.
Conclusion:
God exists.
So, why is it there are still atheists? (I know, I know, Eli doesn’t believe there are any real atheists, right; but that’s a different issue).
Eli presupposes Premise #1.
That’s why it’s called Presuppositionalism.
Grant Eli his presupposition and he wins.
Deny his presupposition and he loses.
Eli believes it, presupposes it.
That’s as close as he gets.
Just some of my thoughts on all of that.
See also:
http://kehvrlb.com/eli-ayala-v-robert-baty-presuppositionalism

From Arne Verster

So I’ve read this article of yours on Eli, and wow.
Friend, you have an obsession.
Anyway, it seems you’re implying that we believe that
“if God did not exist no fact can be understood”
on pure abritray faith, which is not the case.
We believe it first and foremost because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Deny it, and no fact can be properly understood (in a consistent non-Christian fashion, that is).
Rather, you take it on pure arbitrary faith that you can properly understand facts by making yourself the final and ultimate reference point in all facts.
Hence, you’re stuck in the egocentric predicament and you destroy the foundation for all knowledge.
Quick and easy!
Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ who died for your sins on the cross, and rose in the third day defeating death.
The invitation is open.
You too can share in the riches of the Christian worldview.

From Robert Baty

It’s not about me.
It’s about Presuppositionalism and why it fails to provide any “proof that God exists” as is commonly claimed by such as Sye Ten Bruggencate, one of Eli’s featured Presuppositionalists.
I think you have confirmed my claims in my earlier comments with your added presuppositional beliefs.
I like to keep things simple, so let’s try this.
Proposition:
If God did not exist, then no fact could be understood.
Eli Ayala: Affirm
Arne Verster: Affirm
Robert Baty: Deny
And the support for the affirmative of the proposition is…………..?

From Arne Verster

Impossibility of the contrary (like I said).
The Triune God of the Bible is the precondition if intelligibility.
You either regard Him as ultimate, or yourself.
The latter reduces you to absurdity.
There are multiple lines we could follow to demonstrate this, for now I’m genuinely interested in your answer the following:
You seem quite keen to engage in logical argumentation.
Care to provide a justification / grounding for your continued reliance on the universal, unchanging, immaterial and transcendent laws of logic?
Do you just arbitrarily presuppose them on blind faith?
Where are they located?
Why ought I argue in a logical and coherent fashion?

From Robert Baty

Your further appeal to presupposed assertions is so noted, as is your lack of anything more in support of Eli’s and your proposition.
You, Eli (Presuppositionalism) has nothing but presuppositions to support your claim that:
If God did not exist, then no fact could be understood.
I get it.
You don’t need to quiz me.
No questions are necessary.
You either have something more than presuppositions to support your proposition, or you don’t.
If you’ve got, feel free to present it.
I’ll either accept it, if you’ve got it, or try to explain why your effort fails to establish the proposition.

From Arne Verster

Ok at this point you’ve exposed that you have no interest in actually understanding what is being said.
Cheers man.

From Robert Baty

Cheers, Arne!
You have taken the unfortunate course of many before you. It is my understanding of the failure of Presuppositionalism to offer any “proof God exists” that you and others can’t stand.
You’ve got nothing.
I do, however, thank you for your demonstration and vindication of my criticism of Presuppositionalism and Presuppositionalists.
Eli’s and your proposition remains as a testament to his and your failure to overcome/rebut my criticism.
Proposition
If God did not exist, then no fact could be understood.
 Eli Ayala: Affirm
Arne Verster: Affirm
Robert Baty: Deny
Grant Eli’s and Arne’s presupposition and they win.
Deny it and they lose.
I deny it.
They lose.

.

Related Articles on This Web Site

http://kehvrlb.com/eli-ayala-v-robert-baty-presuppositionalism

http://kehvrlb.com/sye-ten-bruggencate-v-robert-baty-presuppositionalism

http://kehvrlb.com/atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise

http://kehvrlb.com/robert-baty-v-presuppositionalism

.


 


 


Comments

Arne Verster v. Robert Baty – Presuppositionalism — No Comments

Leave a Reply