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

Re: [M & B] Re: Baty is an atheist

Expand Messages
  • Jerry McDonald
    Look, Hartzog I don t have to prove nothing. Remember the cow jumping over the moon. Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon, then the moon is made of
    Message 1 of 107 , Jan 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Look, Hartzog

      I don't have to prove nothing. Remember the cow jumping over the moon.

      Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon, then the moon is made of cream cheese.

      Minor Premise: The cow jumped over the moon.

      Conclusion: The moon is made of cream cheese.

      As Cohen said, it is absurd, but if you could say that the cow jumped over the moon, then you could say that moon is made of cream cheese.

      You can't have it both ways. Now you are demanding that I produce relevance between the antecedent and the consequent (something I have argued for all along), but Cohen argued that I don't. So, by this method of validity, I can say that Robert is an atheist.

      In Christ Jesus
      Jerry D. McDonald

      All I have to do is to show the truthfulness of the antecedent and the conclusion will automatically and logically follow.


      w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

      Look, McDonald:

      WHICH "premise" is true?

      BOTH premises must be true statements. You have to prove,
      for instance, that the following statement is true:

      "If Baty moderates for Todd, then Baty is an atheist."

      How do you ever hope to prove that to be a true major
      premise? You do understand, don't you, that BOTH the
      major premise AND the minor premise MUST be true for
      the conclusion to follow, PROVIDED the argument is in
      valid form? Has anyone ever explained that to you
      before?

      You didn't answer my question: are you doing this on
      purpose or do you really really truly not know any
      better than this?

      Rick

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
      <jerry@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, Rick, he did. But the problem is that my premise is true.
      Cohen said that if the premise is true, the conclusion will
      irrefutably be true. There doesn't have to be ANY relevance between
      the premise and the conclusion. All you have to do is to have them
      in the correct format and the argument is valid. My argument is
      valid, and that is something that you cannot deny. Since my premise
      is true (Robert did agree to moderate for Todd) then my conclusion
      (according to your method of validity) is also true. Therefore
      Robert is an atheist.
      >
      > In Christ Jesus
      > Jerry D. McDonald
      >
      > P.S. Choke on it.
      >
      > w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
      >
      > I was afraid that this would turn out to be the case.
      >
      > Jerry, you still have some serious misconceptions about
      > logic. You say that Cohen convinced you that any
      > argument that is in the 'if p, then q' format is logically
      > valid. Actually, Cohen tried to straighten you out about
      > this and it apparently went right over your head.
      >
      > Cohen also tried to explain to you that not all valid
      > arguments have true premises or conclusions, and he told
      > you to read about the difference between validity and
      > truth in the early chapters of *Introduction to Logic*.
      >
      > Your reply to that was to basically tell Cohen that you
      > had been studying logic for 27 years.
      >
      > Now look, as Cohen told you plainly, just like Robert
      > and Todd and I have told you plainly, and repeatedly,
      > a valid argument simply means that IF the premises are
      > true -- note this, McDonald, and note it well -- IF the
      > premises are true -- that is, BOTH premises, the major
      > premise AND the minor premise -- THEN the conclusion,
      > of logical necessity, will follow.
      >
      > I say that in both of these (valid) arguments you have
      > presented here -- the McDavid of McDonald and the
      > Fitzdonald Atheist Test -- the major premise is false.
      >
      > And, if you'll think back, try to remember when we might
      > have mentioned at some point or another that BOTH of
      > the premises must be true statements for the conclusion
      > of the argument to be logically assured.
      >
      > So here is another valid argument, one which I say has
      > a true major premise and a true minor premise:
      >
      > P1: If both of your arguments have a false major premise,
      > then in both arguments the conclusion you have attempted
      > to prove does not follow logically from the argument's
      > premiseS.
      >
      > P2: Both of your arguments have a false major premise.
      >
      > Conclusion: In both arguments, the conclusion you have
      > attempted to prove does not follow logically from the
      > argument's premiseS.
      >
      > Now, Jerry McDonald, why don't you see if you can tell
      > us the truth about something: are you doing this on
      > purpose or do you really really truly not know any
      > better?
      >
      > Jerry, what are we ever going to do with you?
      >
      > Rick Hartzog
      > Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      >
      >
      > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
      > <jerry@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Major Premise: If Robert Baty agreed to moderate for Todd Greene
      > in the McDonald-Greene debate on the antiquity of the universe (in
      > which Greene is an atheist and Jerry McDonald is a Christian) then
      > Robert Baty is an atheist.
      > >
      > > Minor Premise: Robert Baty did agree to moderate for Todd Greene
      > in the McDonald-Greene debate on the antiquity of the universe (in
      > which Greene is an atheist and Jerry McDonald is a Christian).
      > >
      > > Conclusion: Therefore Robert Baty is an atheist.
      > >
      > > The premise is true! Baty did agree to moderate with Todd
      > Greene. Since prof. Cohen has convinced me that there does not have
      > to be relevance between the premise and the conclusion, and that
      all
      > that has to be done is to put the argument in a valid format "If p,
      > then q", then the argument is valid.
      > >
      > > Since the premise is true, then the conclusion is irrefutably
      > true. Therefore Robert Baty is an atheist.
      > >
      > > In Christ Jesus
      > > Jerry D. McDonald
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Todd S. Greene
      Take a look at post #13696 by Jerry McDonald (and consider the comments by Jerry that led up to it) in which he reiterated his false claim that Stellar
      Message 107 of 107 , Jan 21, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Take a look at post #13696 by Jerry McDonald (and consider the
        comments by Jerry that led up to it) in which he reiterated his false
        claim that "Stellar evolution teaches that the universe is three
        billion years old."

        Note that the error of this claim (which demonstrates ignorance of
        grade school level astronomy) was pointed out to Jerry (by both Rick
        and me) a number of times, yet Jerry has not yet corrected his error.

        Jerry made that false claim in connection with his making the
        irrational argument that SN1987A is used to support the idea that the
        universe is three billion years old. Of course, SN1987A was never
        brought up in support of that idea (which is a false idea in the first
        place), and additionally the irrationality of this argument by Jerry
        has been pointed out to him, but he has not corrected this one either,
        again demonstrating his failure to comprehend aspects of basic logic.

        Note also that Jerry has compounded his problems by using false
        rhetoric to portray his problems of failure to correct basic science
        errors and failure to explain how 168,000 years and 3 billion years
        are supposed to be the same thing as being somehow magically some kind
        of evasion by Rick Hartzog!!!

        Thank you again, Jerry, for showing just how horribly incompetent
        young earth creationists really are. We appreciate it.

        - Todd Greene
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.