I'll go with "Mathewmaury" on this one!
- After again browsing the field in reference to all those rabbits James
set loose, I found one I thought I missed earlier and could respond to.
> Robert, would you support thisI think I saw something in my critical thinking textbook that pointed
> VALID ARGUMENT as SOUND???
> (A) The Holy Ghost descended upon
> the people after the gospel was
> (B) I am preaching tomorrow.
> (C) The Holy Ghost will descend
> upon the people after I preach.
> Robert, the argument is valid, its
> form is good, WILL YOU SUPPORT
> THIS AS A SOUND ARGUMENT????
out the clever fault in James' question. I think the textbook example
is of a prosecuting attorney asking the suspect whether or not he
dropped a certain object as he was leaving the scene of the crime. You
see the problem there?
Anyway, I think James is wrong in his assumption that the argument is
valid. To be valid the conclusion has to follow if the premises are
In the above case, the conclusion is not demanded by the truth of the
That is what "mathewmaury" pointed out when he wrote to James:
> Sorry, but this argument is notSo, I guess that puts me and "mathewmaury" in the same boat on that
> valid. The conclusion does not
> follow the premises.
Fortunately, it appears that "mathewmaury" has been trying to privately
help James and I look forward to James' return to clean up the mess he
has left behind.
Now, by way of refresher, there is a distinct difference between the
invalid exercise of James and the "Goliath of GRAS" which is copied
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 things are
actually much older than a few thousand years, then the interpretation
of the text by some is wrong.
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 things are
actually much older than a few thousand years.
The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
Now, there is a valid (no successful challenge to date) argument and one
in which the only possible point of contention is over the existence of
empirical evidence of an ancient order of things.
Michael and Todd are inclined to consider that for our benefit and I
look forward to their discussion.
Others have declined to pursue that so, for all they know, we may
consider "GRAS" as both valid and sound.