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

I'll go with "Mathewmaury" on this one!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    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. ... I think I
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      James wrote:

      > Robert, would you support this
      > VALID ARGUMENT as SOUND???

      > (A) The Holy Ghost descended upon
      > the people after the gospel was
      > preached.

      > (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????

      I think I saw something in my critical thinking textbook that pointed
      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
      true.

      In the above case, the conclusion is not demanded by the truth of the
      premises.

      That is what "mathewmaury" pointed out when he wrote to James:

      > Sorry, but this argument is not
      > valid. The conclusion does not
      > follow the premises.

      So, I guess that puts me and "mathewmaury" in the same boat on that
      score.

      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
      below:

      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 things are
      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 things are
      actually much older than a few thousand years.

      Conclusion:

      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.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.