Watch for Updates

Originally posted June 1, 2020
by Robert Baty

Link to May 28, 2020 YouTube interview of Sye Ten Bruggencate by Eli Ayala:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYGbHwi1JhM

Link to my FaceBook pages specializing in Presuppositionalism with emphasis on Sye Ten Bruggencate and Jason Petersen in particular:

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

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

Between the broadcast date of May 28, 2020 and July 14, 2020, the following posts were made in the comments section under the posted YouTube interview noted above.

From Sylvester Palys

I feel like Sye is turning into a Ray Comfort. People have shown him the arguments he pedals are unadulterated nonsense and yet he keeps using them on people who don’t know any better. I’d say that was bearing false witness.

From Ken Shiloh

Hi. You say Sye is using false arguments. Do you have an example of one? Thanks!

From Sylvester Palys

@Ken Shiloh Yes, that you need God to make sense of reality. That one’s pretty easy to debunk.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh Logically, I think it more appropriate to consider arguments valid and/or sound, not true or false. Here’s an example of one of Sye’s arguments that is valid, but not sound (i.e., he can’t prove up his first premise).

If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.

You can have peanut brittle.

Therefore, God exists.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hi Robert. Thanks for writing.

I did not hear Sye’s argument concerning peanut brittle.

However, what do you think of his main argument: that, without God, you cannot know anything?

For example, do you agree that some people believe they think rationally, but, in reality, they do not?

How can you know that you are not one of those people?

The fact of the matter is that, the only way to verify your reasoning – is by using your reasoning! It is an absurdity.

After listening to hours of Sye’s debates, I have yet to hear even one opponent answer it honestly. Atheists blow more smoke than the Fourth of July. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh Thanks for the reply.

In my experience with a number of Presuppositional types, including Sye and Jason Petersen, I came to the conclusion that they like to use such things as “knowledge”, “rationality”, “logic”, and “uniformity of nature” to disguise their fundamental problem and to try to look smart and philosophical in fussing about those issues.

The reality as to understanding their argument(s) is that you can, indeed, substitute “peanute brittle” for any of those more lofty notions.

I’ve been using the analogy for years, and no one has ever challenged me as to it being just the argument Sye and others of his ilk use, only when you use “peanut brittle”, in my opinion, it is a lot easier to deal with the fundamental flaw in Sye’s (and his ilk’s) argument(s) as far as their claiming they have “proved God exists”.

I have a couple of FaceBook pages archiving my experiences with Sye and Jason and related matters:

1. https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty/

2. https://www.facebook.com/JasonPetersenvRobertBaty/

Sye never would face me, man to man, and deal openly and honestly with his problems.

I had a couple of debates with Jason Petersen. Presuppers haven’t bothered me much in some time, and I’m a little rusty on some details.

You mention Sye’s main argument as:

– “If God did not exist, then you could not know anything.”

Sye presupposes that is true, but cannot but believe it to be true. He cannot show it to be true.

He and “they” boast about “us” not being able to show it is false.

That is not necessary in such a case.

The argument fails for admitted lack of proof that such is true; except that they are welcome to believe it without such proof.

Isn’t that why they call it Presuppositionalism.

Grant the presupposition and he wins.

Deny it and he loses.

I deny it, whether the issue be “knowledge”, “logic”, “rationality”, “uniformity of nature”, or “peanut brittle”.

Jason Petersen eventually got to where he actually refused to consider, as suggested by the logical analysis proposed, any possible world where God was not.

That was pretty much a concession of the fundamental Presuppositional claim and supporting theology; in my opinion.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hi. Thanks for writing.

Sye’s position is that a person cannot reason without God.

In your post, you showed this thesis, included none of his arguments, contradicted the thesis, then started running victory laps.

Yet, here is the argument:

Do you know people who think they are rational, but in reality, they are not?

How do you know you are not one of those people?

At this point, in every debate I have seen, the atheist starts blowing major league smoke.

The reason is that they cannot accept the obvious: the only way to verify your reasoning – is by using your own reasoning! It is an absurdity. Atheism is absurd. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh Well, why not take a victory lap after a win! Don’t play the hypocrite and deny that Sye isn’t one to take his own victory laps when he thinks he’s won a point.

Sye’s position is that:

– If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.

I don’t think you can get him to deny my representation of his position. Give it a try and let me know what he says. He refuses to talk to me about his problem with that.

However, I will humor you further in hopes your sight will improve.

You want to represent Sye’s position as being:

– If God did not exist, then a person could not reason.

“Reason”, “logic”, “know”, “uniformity of nature”, “peanut brittle”; doesn’t matter. I prefer peanut brittle because it allows the Presuppositional fallacy to be seen more easily.

What argument do you think Sye has, apart from his presupposition which I reject, that:

– If God did not exist, then a person could not reason.

There is no legitimate argument in support of that claim.

Sye presupposes it.

Sye believes it.

I reject it.

Sye’s argument fails for lack of “proof”.

Sye has not, as he likes to boast, “proved God exists” with such silliness.

Are you seeing any better now? Think about it. Seriously, think about it.

Also, ask Sye if I have misrepresented him and let me know what he says. That might give us something further to consider.

From Ken Shiloh

@Sylvester Palys (He may have meant Robert Baty) Hi.

You say it is easy to debunk Sye’s argument, then don’t debunk it!

It goes like this:

Do you agree that there are people who think they are rational, but, in reality, they are not?

How do you know you are not one of those people?

Is it not true that, in order to check the validity of your own reasoning – you have to use your own reasoning?

It is an absurdity! Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh I don’t think you understand what an “argument” is in this context.

It’s not asking silly questions.

They talked of the Presuppositional “script” in the video. You demonstrate that there is good reason why that is an issue. You seem to be following the script instead of dealing openly and honestly with me and Sye’s (the Presup) problem.

Sye’s argument actually “goes like this”:

Premise #1

If God did not exist, then you could not reason.

Premise #2

You can reason.

Conclusion:

Therefore, God exists.

No questions necessary.

Sye can either establish his first premise or not. The second premise is accepted. Sye cannot establish his first premise, for reasons I have already explained.

That’s why they call it Presuppositionalism.

Accept Sye’s presupposition and he wins.

Sye cannot “prove” it, but he can presuppose it, and believe it.

I deny Sye’s presupposition which he cannot establish.

Sye loses.

I take another victory lap.

Have you yet asked Sye whether or not I am misrepresenting the fundamental matter in this case? I am quite interested to see if he will claim I have misrepresented him and his Presuppositionalism. I don’t think I have. I think that is why he won’t face me. He knows I am right and he, and you, are wrong.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hi Robert. Thanks again for writing.

Why did you ignore my argument, causing me to type it again?

It is a reinforcement of my view that an atheist cannot be honest without forsaking their atheism.

Here is Sye’s line of reasoning (again):

A. Do you agree that some people believe they think rationally, yet, in reality, they do not?

B. How do you know you are not one those people?

C. If you answer is based on your power of reason, see ‘B’ again!

That is, the only way an atheist can verify their own logic – is by using their own logic. It is an absurdity! I write this in the hope that you will find eternal life in Jesus Christ.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh I am not ignoring what you have written.

I am trying to get you to understand a more fundamental matter/problem regarding Presuppositionalism of the Sye kind.

What you call “Sye’s line of reasoning” is not an argument and it does nothing to establish his first premise which can be represented as being:

– If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.

My answers to silly questions are not relevant to the simple fact that neither Sye, nor you, or any other Presuppositionalist can establish that premise to be true.

You presuppose it.

You believe it.

I get that.

Sye can’t stand that I’ve figured out his problem with that.

That’s why Sye won’t face me and deal openly and honestly with it.

Have you contacted Sye yet? Please document your efforts. Sye knows. You don’t seem to know yet.

I write this in hopes that you will realize that Presuppositionalism is a failed theology as far as providing any “proof God exists”.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Instead of calling these questions ‘silly,’ how about using terms such as ‘irrelevant’?

Then, show how the questions are irrelevant.

That is how a debate works.

However, you want me to set up a debate with you and Sye, yet refuse to answer questions? So far, your debating skills are way below par.

Answer the questions.

Are you going to ignore Sye’s questions if I line up a debate?

What kind of debater are you?

Atheists run from a revealing question, but those who are of the truth are as bold as lions. I hope you will become bold! The way is in Jesus Christ.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh I think you are demonstrating that you are the one not understanding how a debate works.

We seem to have different interests in these important public issues and you have consistently refused to deal with my criticisms of Sye’s Presuppositionalism which is, quite appropriately, briefly represented in the claim that the following is true:

– If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.

I am quite a successful debater.

That’s another reason why Sye refuses to face me.

Sye is the one on the run because he knows I am right and he is wrong.

He’s found a theological gimmick and has been exploiting it for years.

He doesn’t like that I’ve got him and his Presuppositionalism figured out.

I don’t think I asked you to line up a debate between me and Sye, though that might be an option if Sye repents and decides to face me openly and honestly.

Here is how a debate works (in part), a real debate, unlike the performances Sye is used to engaging:

1. We have Sye’s affirmative proposition.

2. He has the burden of establishing it’s truth, convincing me I should accept it as true.

3. He can’t do that.

4. He knows he can’t do that.

5. He wants me to believe it because he believes it.

6. He wants me to presuppose it because he presupposes it.

7. Sye loses.

8. I win by default.

9. I take my victory lap.

10. Sye has NOT “proved God exists” because of peanut brittle, knowledge, reason, logic, uniformity of nature, ad nauseum.

Sye can’t do it.

You can’t do it.

You nor Sye knows anyone who can do it.

As to questions, that’s a matter to be negotiated if we were to set up a more formal arrangement to deal with the matter. In such a case as this, where the proposition is clear enough and understood, no questions should be necessary.

Sye can either meet his burden and try to establish a good reason to accept his premise as true, or not; no questions asked.

If such an attempt is made, I will be obligated to accept his reasoning in support of his claim or explain why his effort failed to convince me; no questions asked.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty OK. Forget Sye. Debate me. Answer my questions.

From Robert Baty

@Ken ShilohNow, now, Ken, you are showing further you don’t know much about debating.

I’m interested in Sye’s fundamental claim that he has “proved God exists”, and that with the following argument:

Premise #1

If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.

Premise #2

You can have peanut brittle.

Conclusion

God exists.

If you are abandoning Sye’s argument, that’s fine. I’ll take that and my victory lap.

If there is some other relevant proposition you want to affirm and that you think I might have an interest in debating, let me know what it is and I’ll let you know if I have any interest in formally debating your claim.

We can then, if we agree to a debate, work out the appropriate and reasonable logistical details to affect such an event.

.

Update June 2, 2020

From Sylvester Palys

@Ken Shiloh Hmmmm, just wondering which way to approach this that doesn’t turn into a misunderstanding of antecedent and consequent (as frequently happens) …

Ok, I do agree there are people in this world who think they are rational but are not. I know I am not one of them if my properly basic beliefs (PPBs) are true. I can explain PPBs if you want but for now Ill just keep it short and assume you know what those are.

Reliable reasoning is one of my PPBs so it is assumed at the outset. Also, validity is not reason so using reason to check for validity is not circular.

Edit: I didn’t debunk it in my first message because what typically happens is I spend 10-15 minutes writing it out only for the person engaging never to be heard from again.

If you want I can lay out the debunking argument or we can continue with your line of questioning. Up to you.

From Robert Baty

@Sylvester Palys

“Properly Basic Beliefs” – Wouldn’t that be (PBB) and not (PPB)!

My apologies for possibly having “run off” Ken Shiloh.

Maybe he will return to engage you on matters of mutual interest and maybe you will have a productive exchange.

I note that you and Ken seem to agree that:

1. One can think he is rational when he is not.

2. One can know he is not of that sort.

What you and Ken Shiloh seem to disagree on, as far as his line of questioning is:

3. How can one know he is not one who thinks he is rational when he is not.

I don’t think Ken Shiloh, to show his good faith, answered that question; his own question.

He just proposed an atheist answer and claimed it was absurd.

Maybe I missed his answer to his own question.

While I think I know how Ken might answer his own question, I will wait and see if he returns and attempts a “rational” answer that does not require the acceptance of his disputed, proposed presupposition in alleged contrast to what he claims is an “absurdity”.

From Sylvester Palys

@Robert Baty Haha, yes PBB not PPB, quite right.

It’s hard to say what we disagree on, I’ve only got one response from him so far.

He’s under the impression that only through God can you know that you’re not one of those delusional people while I say there are a myriad of belief systems that can do that. I just don’t know which one is right and he says he does.

I like PBBs because it seems the most coherent system to me but the PBBs are not indubitable, just like any other claim about the bottom level features of reality.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t know stuff.

Anyway, ill slap him around for a bit until one of us gets bored and stops responding. It’s how these things usually end.

From Robert Baty

@Sylvester Palys

I thought if Ken Shiloh wanted to engage you on those questions that he might have returned by now to engage you.

Since he hasn’t, I thought I would offer some additional comments.

You wrote, in part:

– (Ken Shiloh) “is under the impression that only

– through God can you know you are not one of

– those delusional people” who think they are

– rational but are not.

There are, of course, different ways of trying to explain the problem with Presuppositionalism such as Ken and Sye and others commonly promote.

I would state the above issue this way:

– If God did not exist,

– then you could not know you are not

– one of those delusional people who

– think they are rational but are not.

— Ken Shiloh: Affirm

Instead of hazard an effort, lame as it would be, to actually establish the truth of that claim, Ken, and others, as Ken has demonstrated, would rather run off into the weeds and fuss about “how” one might know that they are not delusional about their own rationality.

I don’t care to run off into the weeds, but rather simply point out in asking the question and, explicitly or implicitly, affirming the proposition, the burden is on them to prove up their claim.

For all they know, in a world without God, there are rational people that know they are not delusional about their rationality regardless of whether or not Ken knows how that is the case.

Sye claims on his website that you have to “assume (presuppose) God to argue against Him”.

In pointing out the failure of Presuppositionalism and Sye’s claim to have “proved that God exists”, one is not “arguing against Him”.

At least when I do it I am simply pointing out the Presuppositionalist has a burden that cannot be met.

That’s why they call it Presuppositionalism.

It’s just a conversational gimmick that showmen like Sye have been able to exploit very well. Sye even admits he’s got nothing, just as I have proposed and tried to explain.

Sye, interestingly, claims his “proof” is “valid”, but no one needs it.

Get it. It’s “valid”.

I get it. It’s “valid”, but fails for lack of Sye’s ability to establish it is “sound”.

So, Sye’s default position upon having been found out is to retreat and claim that no one needs it because everyone knows that God exists.

That’s a different issue (does everyone know God exists).

That came up in my jousting with Jason Petersen.

“Everyone knows God exists” is just another Presuppositional point that they cannot establish except by presupposing their interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Accept their presuppositions and they win.

Deny their presuppositions and they lose.

That’s my further word on all of that, for what it’s worth.

Sye’s website for reference is at:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Discussion Picks Back Up June 9, 2020

From Ken Shiloh

@Sylvester Palys Hi. Thanks for writing. Let’s leave PBB’s aside (btw, they are ‘PBB’s’, not ‘PPB’s’. Do not worry about it, I have been dyslexic for ‘have’ my life!). I have already conceded in life that I am a brain in a vat (jk)!

I asked you how you know your reasoning (presumably about the Bible?) is sound. For example, you are at variance with other people; how do you know you are right and others wrong? Again, is it not true that the only way you can verify the soundness of your reasoning – is by your own reasoning? It is an absurdity!

Yet, I claim that I know Jesus Christ personally, that He bears witness that the Bible is true. My faith is logically cogent. However, to verify my premise that I do know Christ, it is important on two levels that you must meet Him for yourself. First, I am a fallible human being, so it is foolish to believe my experience as wholesale truth. Secondly, even if I convince you that the Bible is true, it is meaningless unless you get saved.

Atheism is a walk in the dark, claiming ‘reason’ in the midst of uncertainty. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hi Robert. Sure. I do not mind you posting our discourse. I think anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty can see that you refused to answer my question. I lost count. Did I ask it more than 5 times? More than 10? Let me see…

The questions were,

“Do you agree that some people believe they are

thinking rationally, but, in reality, they are not?”

“How do you know you are not one of those people?”

Your first reply was,

“In my experience with a number of

Presuppositional types… (Dodge!).

I asked the question again:

“Sye’s position is that:… (Dodge!)”

Third helping (same question):

“They talked of the Presuppositional “script”

in the video…. (Dodge!)”

Is the fourth time a charm?

Same question!

Your answer,

“I am not ignoring what you have written.

I am trying to get you to understand a more

fundamental matter/problem regarding

Presuppositionalism of the Sye kind….

(Note: Thanks for not ignoring me! Dodge!)”

Five times.

Five times.

I guess I do not have much else to do during the pandemic.

Number 5.

Number 5.

Same question.

Here is your answer:

“I think you are demonstrating that you are

the one not understanding how a debate works.

We seem to have different interests in these

important public issues and you have consistently

refused to deal with my criticisms of Sye’s

Presuppositionalism….(Dodge!)”

Six! Ken is getting desparate now! He is losing sleep over this (jk).

I plead that Robert would forget Sye Ten Bruggencate.

I disown him.

He was like my own brother, but now I will have absolutely nothing to do with him! I will return his Christimas cards – unopened!

Now, Pleeeeeeze just give me an answer! (Just kidding. Absolutely love Sye. Hope I can buy him lunch sometime). Am I in luck?

Here is the response:

“Now, now, Ken, you are showing further you

don’t know much about debating. I’m interested

in Sye’s (There’s that name again!!!!) fundamental

claim that he has ‘proved God exists’…(Dodge!)”

Well, I guess you are right. I do not know much about debating.

I thought we were supposed to answer the other person’s question….

Then, on the same thread, Sylvester Palys says he is going to ‘slap me around a while.’

Now I get it! Robert is not really debating. He is simply ‘slapping me around.’ Well, I am a Christian. Jesus said that, when someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other to him as well.

Here goes.

I guess I will go back for some more….

So Robert, do you agree that some people believe they are thinking rationally, but, in reality, they are not?

How do you know you are not one of those people?

I think Robert has amply demonstrated the folly of his position.

Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world!

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hi Robert. Will you post my last rejoinder on your site as well? Either way, thanks!

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty PS. All the best to you and yours!

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

Busy elsewhere today, but I’ll work on catching up with your latest and trying to respond thereto where deemed appropriate.

From Robert Baty

 @Ken Shiloh 

You wrote regarding debating, in relevant part:

– “I thought we were supposed to answer

– the other person’s question(s).”

Questions, like other relevant matters, what to do about them, how many, answering them, etc., is just one of numerous logistical details that typically should be worked out prior to the debate so that it might progress reasonably and in a most productive manner.

Ken, we haven’t begun to negotiate for the production of a proper debate on some disputed matter of mutual interest that might be worthy of a debate. I might be inclined to do so, but you, like Sye and others of that kind I have met, seem not to want to do so; it’s more about the performance than seriously considering a fundamental issue and airing 2 sides.

We can’t seem to even agree on the proposition for you to affirm as far as what you have been getting at fundamentally, as opposed to just Presup Showmanship.

Here’s what I consider where you are at at the “reasoning” claim:

If God did not exist,

then you could not know you are not

one of those delusional people who

think they are rational but are not.

– Ken Shiloh: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

I would have preferred the consequent be “peanut brittle”, but you seem determined to talk about “reasoning”.

So be it.

No questions necessary.

You can either present a convincing case for your claim, or not, no questions asked.

If your justification is convincing, I will accept it.

If not, I will explain to you why your effort failed, no questions asked.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

Others have noted that Presuppositionalism seems to hold a special affection for those adhering to Calvinistic Theology. I think your last message to Sylvester is reflective of that as is Sye’s exhibitions.

One of Sye’s demonstrations I find particularly insightful on that point is his address to Franco which can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEybs_WV9U

Sye says like a good Calvinist:

“How do you change your mind about God?

You can’t.

Repentance is the gift of God.

Beg God to change your mind about Him.

The Bible talks about sheep, and it talks about goats.

One thing it never says is that goats become sheep.

If you are a goat, then this is not good for you.

You are only being fattened up for the slaughter.”

Skipping some messages, my exchange with Ken picked up again – Update June 13, 2020!

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hi Robert. Thank you for your offer of a debate. Of a truth, the only thing I know about debates is from watching possibly hundreds of them. In fact, I did not realize that you viewed our correspondence as a debate. I thought we were simply two people discussing a matter. Is that OK?

Are you comfortable simply corresponding, expressing ideas and opinions?

Remember that ‘knowledge puffs up, but wisdom builds up.’ I think, depending on your opponents, you could win every debate – yet, lose eternal life through Jesus Christ.

I know why I share the gospel with you; I hope to see you in heaven. Yet, to what purpose does an atheist debate? Is it to negate the impact of the Bible on our culture? Perhaps the atheist is happy that, at a public middle school, I saw “The Darwin Awards” on the bookshelf. If it had been a Bible, there would be such a hue and cry! Yet, they are happy – or at least complacent – that the kids are reading a book on how a woman, walking too many dogs, was killed by hitting her head on a stump. I am sure the woman had a grieving mother, maybe a sorrowing husband and kids. Yet, the students are told that the race is better off without this woman! Hmmm. Maybe some of them think the world would be better without their teacher….? But you will have to read that chapter – in your local newspaper! Sadly, concluding the chapter on the woman killed by dogs was the line, “I guess she was barking up the wrong tree!” Ha ha ha! Isn’t atheism making the world a better place? Yet, God is furious at all lawless. You are playing a part in perverting what is true, causing untold suffering.

Knowing the terror of the Lord, I urge you to find a new vocation! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

OK, I’ll try again, but it may not be as good as the first effort that went I don’t know where.

Ken, we can make our efforts as formal or casual as you care, but I would suggest it best we deal with the fundamentals and not go chasing all the rabbits Presuppers typically like others to chase.

I think it interesting that you seem to have classed me as an atheist simply for daring to disagree with you and challenge Sye’s alleged “proof God exists” which you explicitly and/or implicitly are promoting. I get that a lot.

You told Sylvester most recently that you didn’t think it possible to know anything without God.

That suggests the typical Presuppositional argument shown below:

First Premise:

If God did not exist, then we could not know anything.

Second Premise:

We can know things.

Conclusion:

God exists.

We could wrap this up and shake hands in agreement if you would admit you cannot, apart from your presupposition(s) which are disputed, establish your first premise.

That’s my fundamental position and I’ve had some success with it in dealing with Presuppositionalists (i.e., Sye Ten Bruggencate and Jason Petersen).

.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty Hey Robert. What did you think about my request: no debate. Just a conversation.

I am still having a bit of fun trying to get you to answer that question.

Would you answer it if it is not a debate, simply a conversation?

If so, ….

Do you agree that there are people in this world who think they are thinking rationally, but, in reality, they are not? How do you know you are not one of those people?

Thanks!

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

We can’t seem to agree on what to converse about or how to converse about what we may agree to converse about or whether to even call what we have been doing a conversation.

I consider we have been having a conversation about disputed matters and you have yet to agree to my fundamental claim, which I think you cannot “reasonably” dispute.

That was that you cannot justify your fundamental “first premise” apart from your presupposition which is disputed:

First Premise:

If God did not exist, then we could not know anything.

You claim you are still trying to get me to “answer that question”.

Bwahahahahaha!

Then you ask 2 questions.

I think I answered the first one and we both agree on my answer, right? That is, we both agree that “there are people in this world who think they are thinking rationally, but, in reality, they are not”.

Your second question is:

– “How do you know you are not one of those people?”

Maybe if you ever provide a legitimate answer to your own question, I will follow you in that conversation and we’ll see if there is really any difference in our opinions about that question.

If you answered it earlier, I didn’t see it or consider it legitimate.

In any case, I answered your first question again even though I think I answered it earlier to yur denial.

So, be explicit, Ken, and tell us clearly:

– “How do you, Ken Shiloh, know you are not one of those people?”

Update June 16, 2020

Ken Shiloh seems to have moved on with his bantering with Sylvester in that venue, so I decided to post the following to mark the more formal conclusion of our engagement.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

It appears you have “moved on”, so I will try to conclude our conversation more formally and reasonably with this analysis.

You were keen on pushing 2 questions:

1. Do you agree that there are people in this world who think they are thinking rationally, but, in reality, they are not?

2. How do you know you are not one of those people?

As I have tried to impress upon you and our audience, the handling of questions is an important matter that should not be taken lightly. That is because, in part, Presuppositionalists like yourself like to use questions to bamboozle people and keep them from recognizing your failure regarding the more fundamental matter in dispute (i.e., “proof God exists”).

Your and Sye’s “proof God exists” provides no “proof God exists”.

That’s my story, and you have given me good reason to keep it.

Hidden behind your 2 questions, Ken, is your implied/explicit claim that:

If God did not exist,

then you could not know anything.

– Ken Shiloh: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

That’s where we pretty much started.

That’s where we end.

You’ve got nothing to offer to actually justify your claim. For all you do know, in a world without God, the folks could know stuff.

Atheists think that world is this world.

Theists don’t.

As you know, I would have preferred you stayed with my preference for having “peanut brittle” instead of “knowledge” in order to make the fundamental dispute more easily understood by our audience.

However, I am quite accommodating and with your insistence on “knowledge”, I can go with that.

You lost.

Presuppositionalism failed, but for being a popular conversational gimmick.

I won.

.

Picking it up again on June 23, 2020

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

…and you still never answered my two questions.

You say that I am trying to ‘bamboozle’ you, yet you won’t walk into the bamboozle? Why not go along with it, pointing out the ‘dishonesty’ of it?

Why not be ‘ensnared’ by it, only to extricate yourself, showing the ‘duplicity’ of my position?

No. Instead, you circumvent my questions, claiming them dishonest, without representative logic.

Congratulations on your ‘victory.’ I have never met an honest atheist. If an atheist were honest, it would lead them to the Light, which is Jesus Christ.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

I dealt with your questions in a most appropriate manner and you have failed, repeatedly, to provide any substantive response thereto.

The victory in these exchanges has, indeed, been mine.

I’ve been way ahead of you from the beginning as you have evaded dealing with fundamental matters of substance which I have addressed.

Maybe when you get over yourself and address the substance of what I have been saying, we can continue some sort of conversation about the abject failure of Presuppositionalism to offer an “proof God exists”.

I don’t think I have ever met an honest Presuppositionalist, and you seem to keep that experience going.

You wrote to Sylvester, in part, “the Bible says we all know God”.

I don’t think so, and we might put that on the list of things we might take up at such time as you might repent and bring forth works meet for such repentance (i.e., openly, honestly dealing with matters of substance such as I have addressed and you have evaded).

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

Hi Robert.

You wrote that you agreed with me on the first question. Great! That means we agree that there are people in this world who believe they are rational, but in reality they are not.

The second question is, how do you know you are not one of those people?

The fact is, you don’t have a good answer.

The reality is that the only verification you have of your own reason – is your own reason.

Hence, the smoke screen.

Hence, the obsfucation.

Hence, the ‘you answer my questions first’.

Hence, the false claims of ‘victory.’

In your last post, here is what you wrote,

“I might agree with your answer to the second

question if you would offer a legitimate answer.”

Oh. You want me to answer first? Right. Then we can move on and you won’t have to answer it. Good. Are you running for politics? You have been a natural at avoidance.

Then you offered this cop out:

“I don’t think you ever offered a legitimate

answer to your second question.”

That is because I am asking you. You won’t tell me how the question is illegitimate nor will you answer. Instead, you want me to answer it so you can try to pick apart my premise. Yet, the fact of the matter, you do not have a good answer.

You cannot keep your atheism and your sanity.

If you want to claim victory, feel that you are the superior intellect, be my guest. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

I thought we were through here as far as substance, Ken, and you have again shown that to be the case.

You won’t, can’t, provide a legitimate answer to your own question #2 while trying to make something of my not answering it.

You are just determined to continue your Presuppositional quibbling instead of dealing with the substance as to why Presuppositionalism fails miserably in trying to claim they have “proved God exists”.

I want to claim victory, Ken, and you have given me the grounds for doing so.

My offer remains outstanding.

Repent and bring forth your works meet for repentance, and we might have something to converse about.

Ken Shiloh Premise #1:

If God did not exist, then one could not know that he is not among those who believe they are rational but are not.

Ken Shiloh Premise #2:

One can know that he is not among those who believe they are rational but are not.

Conclusion:

God exists.

Premise #1

– Ken Shiloh: Affirms

– Robert Baty: Deny

Premise #2

– Ken Shiloh: Affirms

– Robert Baty: Affirms

There you go, Ken, on the substance of what you are getting at, we do agree.

On where we differ, premise #1, you just need to establish a legitimate basis for your claim, for my acceptance or rebuttal, or admit that you’ve got nothing but your presupposition.

My victory has been assured from the beginning, though as I have stated, I would have preferred we deal with the “peanut brittle”.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

This is funny. I asked you a question that you refuse to answer until I answer it. Why? Why the shuck and run? Why the hiding in some dark intellectual passageway? Why not simply answer a question? You gave me a really good clue.

You wrote,

“Maybe if you ever provide a legitimate answer

to your own question, I will follow you….”

I see. You need to see if I have a legitmate answer? I guess it is easier to pick apart another person’s assertion rather than to make one of your own?

Should I presume from this that you do not have a ‘legitimate answer’? If it walks like a duck…. I do wish all the best to you and yours!

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

Your Presuppositional gamesmanship is ever more evident, Ken, as you continue to pursue your losing strategy, refuse to repent, and refuse to bring forth any works meet for such repentance.

Your fundamental, disputed claim is clear enough:

If God did not exist, then one could not know that he is

not among those who believe they are rational but are not.

– Ken Shiloh: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

You got nothing, but if you ever do come up with anything, let me know.

Maybe I’ll agree with you.

Maybe not.

I hope others you and other Presupps try to “bamboozle” with your “flim-flam” can see Presuppositionalism as the theological failure it is as far as “proving God exists”.

Thanks, Ken, for your demonstration and for vindicating me and my claims on this important issue.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

Thanks for presenting my side of the debate. It so much more streamlined than that ‘back and forth’ kind of discussion.

That said, you definitely defeated your misrepresentation of my position!

Congratulations?

All the best to you and yours, Robert! By the way, I have ‘repented.’ I hope you will too!

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

You have NOT repented as is relevant to my use of the term, Ken.

I have not misrepresented your position, but thanks for admitting that the position I have presented, which really is yours, explicitly or implicitly, I did defeat.

However, I will be glad to reflect your claim about that more explicitly.

To get started, just let me know clearly and unequivocally, which position you hold with reference to the following proposition.

Is it #1:

If God did not exist, then one could not know that he is not

among those who believe they are rational but are not.

– Ken Shiloh: Affirm

Or, do you join with me in #2:

If God did not exist, then one could not know that he is not

among those who believe they are rational but are not.

– Ken Shiloh: Deny

This is how that works. If you can’t bring yourself to “affirm”, your default position is to “deny”.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

Hi Robert. Why do you keep saying that I should ‘repent’? I know and love the Lord Jesus. I base my life on what is written in the Word of God, the Bible. If you can see sin in my life, you will need to quote chapter and verse.

Otherwise, you are not making sense.

As I mentioned, I am not interested in a debate, but simply in having a conversation.

Moreover, I have not had training in formal debate and would like to know how a debate functions.

For example:

Proposition:

The sun is hot Ken: (for sake of argument) Deny

How would you proceed?

Thanks!

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

No, Ken, you have demonstrated you are not interested in an open, honest conversation regarding my unchallenged claims as to the failure of Presuppositionalists and their Presuppositionalism to “prove God exists”.

You have, after all this time, demonstrated you have not been paying attention to my use of the term “repent” and where it fits in to what I think is required of you should you want to demonstrate any serious interest in an open, honest conversation regarding these important public issues.

You have also failed to openly and honestly address other matters of substance I have presented for your consideration.

Most recently you claim I have misrepresented your position, and yet you again refused to be open and honest enough to clearly and explicitly give your position as to what is really behind what you have been talking about:

Option #1:

If God did not exist, then one could not know that he is not

among those who believe they are rational but are not.

– Ken Shiloh: Affirm

Or, do you join with me in Option #2:

If God did not exist, then one could not know that he is not

among those who believe they are rational but are not.

– Ken Shiloh: Deny

– Robert Baty: Deny

I am not interested in what position you might take “for sake of argument”. I am interested in whether you will repent and bring forth works meet for such repentance (i.e., indicate your position on the above proposition).

If you prefer, as I do, we can put it this way:

Option #1:

If God did not exist, then one could not have peanut brittle.

– Ken Shiloh: Affirm

Or, do you join with me in Option #2:

If God did not exist, then one could not have peanut brittle.

– Ken Shiloh: Deny

– Robert Baty: Deny

If you still think I have misrepresented your position, you need to spell out how you came to that conclusion. Maybe I will accept it and what position, contrary to my claim, you claim you take on matters fundamental to Presuppositionalism.

I don’t think you can do it because I haven’t misrepresented your or Presuppositionalism/ists, but I am willing to seriously consider that possibility.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

Alright. I will go along. I agree that,

without God,

you cannot have peanut brittle.

You deny that.

Is the debate over?

Thanks!

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

You mean “is the conversation over”, Ken!

Depends on you.

As I pointed out earlier, that just reflects the typical Presuppositional claim, which is the first premise of the typical Presuppositional “proof God exists” as shown below:

Premise #1:

If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.

Premise #2:

You can have peanut brittle.

Conclusion:

God exists.

The argument is valid, and we agree on the minor premise.

So, all that is necessary to “prove God exists” and change the world is for the Presuppositionalist to establish the disputed first premise.

That they cannot do.

So, the argument, not being shown to be sound, fails to “prove God exists”.

I win.

Presuppositionalism fails to “prove God exists” despite what Sye Ten Bruggencate claims.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

OK. That debate is over. How about a new premise.

Premise #1:

An atheist can know things for certain

Ken: Deny

Robert: Affirm

Can you establish that you know anything?

Hey, this is fun. Thanks for showing me ‘the ropes’ of this debate business!

Actually, I only write because, unlike you, I am concerned that you might miss eternity with Christ. You would not like it! You are like a fool, cutting the branch that he sits upon. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

You still have yet to repent, but maybe a little more “conversation” might help you get there and to bring forth your works meet for such repentance.

I have, before, tried to explain to you that your quibbles don’t get to the fundamental issues as far as the Presuppositionalism I am intererested in having a conversation about.

If you can know stuff for certain, I can know stuff for certain, atheists can know stuff for certain.

The evasion about “how” is noted.

I seem to recall you failed to give a legitimate answer to how you can know (for certain) you are not one of those who think they are rational but are not.

You have the same problem here if you want to try and jump ahead and talk about the “how” and how that is relevant to the fundamental Presuppositionalism problem/failure.

Your proposal, in substance, just returns you to the following:

Premise #1:

If God did not exist, then one could not know stuff for certain.

Premise #2:

One can know stuff for certain.

Conclusion:

God exists.

Your only claim, as far as I can tell, is as has been repeatedly stated: you presuppose God instead of actually attempting to “prove God exists”.

If you would admit to that, we could shake hands in agreement that Sye (Presuppositionalists) falsely claim to have “proved God exists” with their Presuppositionalism.

From Ken Shiloh

@Robert Baty

Hi Robert. Repent? I hope you do. Are you asking me to recant my friendship with Jesus? To bow to atheistic absurdity? Do you think I am being dishonest?

You are not the judge.

Yet, one day, you will stand before Him! The reason I take time for this foolish discourse is in the hope that you will be saved. I hope you will make peace with Jesus Christ. I truly do.

Concerning whether I am thinking rationally, I will limit the affirmation to my friendship with Jesus Christ. That is, the Spirit of God bears witness that the Word of God is true.

That I can know.

At other times, perhaps I am mistaken.

Yet, as an atheist, you have no basis for claiming knowledge of anything. For example, do you agree that if a person has only limited knowledge, then what they think they know may prove to be false – given the new information?

Have you not heard about the ‘self-correction’ of (so-called) ‘science’?

Science is ‘self-correcting,’ meaning that it is a shot in the dark. Moreover, the only way to verify your own validity of thought – is by your own reason. How else can you verify that you are thinking logically?

Atheism is an absurdity.

Jesus is the light of the world.

Thanks Robert.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh

As a matter of fact, Ken, I am your judge and I have judged that, among other things, you are/have been being dishonest.

I explained my use of the term repentance and you have failed to repent or even acknowledge my most appropriate use of the term which you seem to not understand well enough to discuss your problem.

The question you asked did not have to do with you thinking rationally, but how you can tell, if it be the case, you are not among the number thinking they are rational when they are not.

I repeatedly asked you to first answer your own question, with a legitimate answer, and you failed to do so. “God told me” is not a legitimate answer.

You believe it is possible to know.

I believe it is possible to know.

If you ever come up with a legitimate answer, I suspect it might be one I find acceptable, but the how is a diversion/evasion.

The “how” of that, however, is not relevant at this point.

Your position is that,

 “If God did not exist, then you could not know…”

— Ken Shiloh: Affirm

— Robert Baty: Deny

I also earlier challenged you insisting on referring to me as an atheist for no good reason.

Like many, you seem to think people who disagree with you must be atheists. You have yet to address my charge against you on that point, but you just go on repeating your unfounded claim.

Presuppositionalism is the absurdity in this conversation.

You, Ken, have demonstrated that quite adequately; having nothing to offer to actually back up the claim to have “proved God exists”.

Your only claim, as far as I can tell, is as has been repeatedly stated: you presuppose God instead of actually attempting to “prove God exists”.

If you would admit to that, we could shake hands in agreement that Sye and Presuppositionalists falsely claim to have “proved God exists” with their Presuppositionalism which provides NO, NO, NO “proof God exists”.

From Robert Baty

@Ken Shiloh 

@Sylvester Palys

I might have saved a lot of time had I reviewed Eli’s May interview with Presuppositional scholar James Anderson.

Time marked link to some of James’ comments:

James, in my opinion, admits to what I have been trying to get across, though he prefers “rabbits” to “peanut brittle” as far as the classic representation of what the Transcendental Argument is in simple terms. He even seems to admit, though buried under a lot of verbosity, that Presuppositionalists can’t prove up their first premise without presupposing/assuming God; admitting that Sye’s “proof God exists” doesn’t really provide any.

First Premise:

If God did not exist, then you could not have rabbits or peanut brittle.

Second Premise:

You can have rabbits and peanut brittle.

Conclusion:

God exists.

It’s valid.

If its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true.

The problem:

Presuppositionalists only believe that first premise.

They cannot demonstrate its truthfulness.

.

July 14, 2020 – “IcanFartLoud” Attempts to Cover for Ken/Sye

From “IcanFartLoud”

@Robert Baty

If God did not exist, then a person could not reason.

…nice strawman.

using God as subject matter in modus ponens or tollens violates the basis of that form of a syllogism.

You obviously haven’t set foot in a college-level logic course.

Sye’s worldview states…

“Without an outside source to ensure people of truth,

people whose worldviews don’t include that infallible

source use a worldview that is based on logically absurd

argumentation and reasoning.”

And Sye hasn’t been “ducking you”. You simply are dishonest and evasive. It is obvious your ignorance as to how to honestly engage others.

You said,

“I don’t think you understand what an ‘argument’

is in this context. :….It’s not asking silly questions.”

Bwhahahaha….look up Socratic Method.

From Robert Baty

@IcanFartLOUD

Seems one of us missed that “college-level logic course”, and it doesn’t appear to be me.

“God as a subject matter…violates the basis of that form…”

– IcanFartLoud

What was that you challenged Sylvester with? Oh, yeah, it was “prove it”!

I’m not going to hold my breath.

“Using God as subject matter in modus ponens or

tollens violates the basis of that form of a syllogism.

IcanFartLoud: Affirm

Robert Baty: Deny

Bwahahahahaha!

Eli Ayala’s Presuppositional scholar from the seminary recently claimed:

https://twitter.com/BatyvHovind/status/1282409091973869568/photo/1

 “If there is no God, then knowledge is impossible.

 Knowledge is possible.

 God exists.

That’s a simple summary of the Transcendental Argument.”

James Anderson

https://youtu.be/EguVuY5HVkA?t=2220

Thanks for the demonstration, Ican…

You lose.

.

(End of Ken Shiloh/Robert Baty Exchange as of 07/14/2020)

.

Additional Information

Sye’s “Proof That God Exists” Website

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

(Screenshot Excerpts)

In Other Words (RLBaty):

Premise #1

If God did not exist, you could not prove anything.

Premise #2

You can prove things.

Conclusion

God exists.

In Plainer English (RLBaty):

Premise #1

If God did not exist, you could not have peanut brittle.

Premise #2

You can have peanut brittle.

Conclusion

God exists.

.

Sye’s Calvinism Made Manifest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEybs_WV9U

.

Update July 6, 2020

Looks like Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana and their Reasons to Believe staffers may be adherents to Presuppositional Apologetics.

https://youtu.be/ojV7ptFsQH0?t=480

Fazale responds to my Twitter inquiry, and I respond to him:

https://twitter.com/RTB_FRana/status/1280308046418206720

.

Update July 7, 2020

The latest in that exchange with Fazale Rana, Vice President of Reasons to Believe:

.

Update July 10, 2020

James Anderson, Presuppositional scholar, vindicates and admits the propriety of my use of “peanut brittle” in illustrating the problem with Presuppositional arguments and their failure to establish any “proof God exists”.

https://youtu.be/EguVuY5HVkA?t=2220

.

Update July 12, 2020

Added this graphic from the Anderson/Ayala interview in May to further justify my criticisms of Presuppositionalism.

https://youtu.be/EguVuY5HVkA?t=2220

https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/learn-about-rts/mi/+1cbcac2

.

Update July 16, 2020

NEWS FLASH – A PRESUPPOSITIONAL BREAKTHROUGH!

Another exchange with Presuppers broke out in the comments section following the video at:

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

I had not thought the discussion would go very far and so have not yet archived the discussion.  You will, for now, have to go to the link above for the full discussion.  However, the following 2 screenshots reflect what I consider to be a breakthrough.  Maybe more progress will be made.  Maybe not.

A couple of more added to the above:

A little more in that exchange:

The alleged disclaimer:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/about-site/

Upon further reflection, I added the following:

Update July 17, 2020

Links to Sye’s pages from which graphic below was made:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/proof-intro/

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/the-proof/

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/about-site/

.

Update July 18, 2020

Time marked link to another recent Sye interview followed by graphic:

https://youtu.be/3Z_sU1bHcy0?t=1070

It is not necessary to “refute” Sye’s argument in order to defeat him and his underlying Presuppositionalism.  It is only necessary to note that Sye is unable to establish his fundamental claim that “if God did not exist, then there would be no knowledge”, or rabbits.

For all Sye knows, if God did not exist, then there could be knowledge, and rabbits.

Sye effectively admits to this because he makes no effort to establish his fundamental claim that “if God did not exist, then there would be no knowledge”, or rabbits.

Sye presupposes that “if God did not exist, then there would be no knowledge”, or rabbits.  That’s why they call it Presuppositionalism.

Sye also claims on his “proof God exists” website that no effort is made, in any way, to provide “proof God exists”.  Sye’s “proof God exists” provides NO “proof God exists”.  He simply Presupposes it in his theological gimmickry.

.

Update July 20, 2020

This is from my first debate with Jason Petersen and, I think, illustrates why Presuppositionalism fails as to offering any “proof God exists” and the dishonesty of its promoters in trying to propose an argument for the existence of God that begins with “If God did not exist…” which implies knowing how things would be in a possible world where we were but God was not.

https://www.facebook.com/BruggencatevBaty/posts/278154365654404

.

Update July 25, 2020

This was not directed at me.  I post it here to illustrate Sye’s hypocrisy in blocking me and refusing to face me to discuss his problems, his failed “proof that God exists” that provides NO “proof that God exists”.

https://twitter.com/LetruneInedil/status/1286783930142724096

.

Update July 30, 2020

Another interesting performance from Sye!

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

.

Update August 10, 2020

Sye has been getting a lot of press lately because of his notions about wearing masks in order to combat the Covid-19 virus.  Sye is against masks.  He recently indicated his Canadian church pastor agrees with him.

Link to Article

https://canadarevival.blogspot.com/2020/08/on-mask-wearing-and-obeying-civil.html

Feedback Posted to The Article

Link to Church Introduction and Text

https://www.sermonaudio.com/source_about.asp?sourceid=faithtillsonburg

Faith Presbyterian Church is a church plant in Tillsonburg Ontario committed to the proclamation of the gospel of the glory of Christ.

We are a congregation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod.

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) is a Reformed and Presbyterian denomination that has been serving North America since its beginnings in 1782. The ARP was formed when the Associate Presbyterians (a denomination which dates back to 1733 in Scotland) and the Reformed Presbyterians (a group whose beginnings date back to the covenanters in 17th century Scotland) joined together in Philadelphia.

 

 

.



 


Comments

Sye Ten Bruggencate v. Robert Baty – Presuppositionalism — No Comments

Leave a Reply