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

"Goliath of GRAS" family of arguments!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Following are the logically valid arguments that have been developed to properly set forth the fundamental issues in dispute regarding the young-earth,
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 2, 2007
      Following are the logically valid arguments that have been developed to properly set forth the fundamental issues in dispute regarding the young-earth, creation-science movement and, as David P. Brown, editor of Contending for the Faith magazine and owner/operator of the ContendingFTF discussionlist, and his boys suppose, the existence of the young-earth, creation-science God.

      It is proposed that serious (i.e., not anonymous) contenders decide which argument they wish to take up and then we will proceed to negotiate the details of the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion.

      Here are those arguments:

      - - - - - - - - - -

      David P. Brown's Argument #1

      Major Premise:

      > If some thing really is more
      > than a few thousand years
      > old, then the God David P.
      > Brown and his boys believe
      > in, as represented in the
      > Bible, does not exist.

      Minor Premise:

      > Some thing really
      > is more than a few
      > thousand years old.

      Conclusion:

      > Therefore, the God David
      > P. Brown and his boys
      > believe in, as represented
      > in the Bible, does not exist.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      David P. Brown's Argument #2

      Major Premise:

      > If some thing really is more
      > than a few thousand years
      > old, then the God we believe
      > in, as represented in the
      > Bible, does not exist.

      Minor Premise:

      > The God we believe in,
      > as represented in the
      > Bible, does exist.

      Conclusion:

      > Therefore, nothing is
      > more than a few
      > thousand years old.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Robert Baty's Argument #3

      Major premise:

      > If God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years, then the
      > interpretation of the text by
      > some is wrong.

      Minor premise:

      > God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      - - - - - - - - - -


      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      Following are the logically valid arguments that have been developed to properly set forth the fundamental issues in dispute regarding the young-earth,
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 10, 2007
        Following are the logically valid arguments that have been developed to properly set forth the fundamental issues in dispute regarding the young-earth, creation-science movement and, as David P. Brown, editor of Contending for the Faith magazine and owner/operator of the ContendingFTF discussionlist, and his boys suppose, the existence of the young-earth, creation-science God.

        It is proposed that serious (i.e., not anonymous) contenders decide which argument they wish to take up and then we will proceed to negotiate the details of the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion.

        Here are those arguments:

        - - - - - - - - - -

        David P. Brown's Argument #1

        Major Premise:

        > If some thing really is more
        > than a few thousand years
        > old, then the God David P.
        > Brown and his boys believe
        > in, as represented in the
        > Bible, does not exist.

        Minor Premise:

        > Some thing really
        > is more than a few
        > thousand years old.

        Conclusion:

        > Therefore, the God David
        > P. Brown and his boys
        > believe in, as represented
        > in the Bible, does not exist.

        - - - - - - - - - -

        David P. Brown's Argument #2

        Major Premise:

        > If some thing really is more
        > than a few thousand years
        > old, then the God we believe
        > in, as represented in the
        > Bible, does not exist.

        Minor Premise:

        > The God we believe in,
        > as represented in the
        > Bible, does exist.

        Conclusion:

        > Therefore, nothing is
        > more than a few
        > thousand years old.

        - - - - - - - - - -

        Robert Baty's Argument #3

        Major premise:

        > If God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years, then the
        > interpretation of the text by
        > some is wrong.

        Minor premise:

        > God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years.

        Conclusion:

        > The interpretation of the text
        > by some is wrong.

        - - - - - - - - - -

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • rlbaty50
        The list has been updated to inlcude Jerry McDonald s argument. The list follows my name below. You will notice that the only real point to be disputed as far
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 14, 2007
          The list has been updated to inlcude Jerry McDonald's argument. The
          list follows my name below.

          You will notice that the only real point to be disputed as far as the
          recent discussions are concerned is whether or not some thing is more
          than a few thousand years old and whether we can so determine such to
          be the case from the real world evidence independent of what "the
          text" says or is alleged to say.

          That, "they say", is the issue to be discussed in the proposed
          formal, for the record discussion between Todd S. Greene and David P.
          Brown and/or Jerry McDonald.

          I've just proposed that it would be helpful if David and/or Jerry
          would formally endorse one or more of the arguments below so as to
          add purpose and consequence to a discussion of the real world
          evidence and whether or not some thing is more than a few thousand
          years old.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

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

          Jerry McDonald's Argument:

          Major premise:

          > If the Bible (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, it really means
          > that it was six 24-hour days
          > occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years, then the
          > Bible is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          > The Bible (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, it really means
          > that it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          > The Bible is wrong.

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

          David P. Brown's Argument #1

          Major Premise:

          > If some thing really is more
          > than a few thousand years
          > old, then the God David P.
          > Brown and his boys believe
          > in, as represented in the
          > Bible, does not exist.

          Minor Premise:

          > Some thing really
          > is more than a few
          > thousand years old.

          Conclusion:

          > Therefore, the God David
          > P. Brown and his boys
          > believe in, as represented
          > in the Bible, does not exist.

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

          David P. Brown's Argument #2

          Major Premise:

          > If some thing really is more
          > than a few thousand years
          > old, then the God we believe
          > in, as represented in the
          > Bible, does not exist.

          Minor Premise:

          > The God we believe in,
          > as represented in the
          > Bible, does exist.

          Conclusion:

          > Therefore, nothing is
          > more than a few
          > thousand years old.

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

          Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS" Argument:

          Major premise:

          > If God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years, then the
          > interpretation of the text by
          > some is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          > God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, is interpreted by
          > some to mean it was six 24-hour
          > days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago, and there is empirical
          > evidence that some thing is
          > actually much older than a few
          > thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          > The interpretation of the text
          > by some is wrong.

          -----------------------------------
        • Robert Baty
          Realizing that the Goliath of GRAS does not actually cover all the possible issues related to the consequences that might result from their actually being
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 29, 2007
            Realizing that the "Goliath of GRAS" does not actually cover all the possible issues related to the consequences that might result from their actually being some thing more than a few thousand years old, a number of similar arguments have been developed as a result of recent discussions.

            They follow, including the "Goliath of GRAS":

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

            Jerry McDonald's Argument:

            Major premise:

            > If the Bible (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, it really means
            > that it was six 24-hour days
            > occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years, then the
            > Bible is wrong.

            Minor premise:

            > The Bible (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, it really means
            > that it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years.

            Conclusion:

            > The Bible is wrong.

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

            David P. Brown's Argument #1

            Major Premise:

            > If some thing really is more
            > than a few thousand years
            > old, then the God David P.
            > Brown and his boys believe
            > in, as represented in the
            > Bible, does not exist.

            Minor Premise:

            > Some thing really
            > is more than a few
            > thousand years old.

            Conclusion:

            > Therefore, the God David
            > P. Brown and his boys
            > believe in, as represented
            > in the Bible, does not exist.

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

            David P. Brown's Argument #2

            Major Premise:

            > If some thing really is more
            > than a few thousand years
            > old, then the God we believe
            > in, as represented in the
            > Bible, does not exist.

            Minor Premise:

            > The God we believe in,
            > as represented in the
            > Bible, does exist.

            Conclusion:

            > Therefore, nothing is
            > more than a few
            > thousand years old.

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

            Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS" Argument:

            Major premise:

            > If God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years, then the
            > interpretation of the text by
            > some is wrong.

            Minor premise:

            > God's word (the text) says
            > everything began over a period
            > of six days, is interpreted by
            > some to mean it was six 24-hour
            > days occurring a few thousand
            > years ago, and there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a few
            > thousand years.

            Conclusion:

            > The interpretation of the text
            > by some is wrong.

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

            My further comments:

            In essence, the only real issue in dispute, for dispute, is whether or not the real world evidence indicates that some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

            The proposal for a formal, for the record discussion regarding that issue remains outstanding.

            As to the consequences of such a claim, if it can be sustained, one is free to choose whichever argument might be deemed appropriate, propose another, or simply reject any such arguments, preferring instead of invoke "apparent age" and/or the "Dr. Fox" defense.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.