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

Re: Terry W. Benton turns on logic as logic turns on him;...

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Here s a quick additional note: ... I did actually happen to be wrong once. I recognized my error and corrected it. Then, after my error had been corrected,
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's a quick additional note:

      Terry W. Benton wrote, in part:

      > Robert is simply wrong and
      > refuses to admit his error
      > and correct it.

      > He (Robert Baty) is a different
      > kind of fool.

      I did actually happen to be wrong once. I recognized my error and corrected it.

      Then, after my error had been corrected, Terry W. Benton came forth and proposed that my making that mistake was proof (i.e., logically), that I was a fool.

      That is something that Terry W. Benton was wrong on and has been refusing to admit, explain, and correct.

      Terry W. Benton's "fool" argument about me and my rebuttal thereto:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8550
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8553
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8558

      Looks like another Matthew 7:1,2 / James 3:1 situation where Terry W. Benton condemns himself with his fallacious, false and misleading claims. There's just been way too many such situations with Terry in these discussions.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      -----------Terry's Message (edited)-------

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Focus_On_Truth/message/25378

      From: Terry W. Benton
      To: Focus_On_Truth@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, September 8, 2008 7:26 PM

      Subject: [Focus_On_Truth] Re: Necessity of Hermeneutics: Valentine Blog Psalm 14 and atheists

      (excerpts)

      I will not indulge his (Robert Baty's) "logic" and his focus on what is "valid" as a strict form of a formal logic argument.

      A conclusion is valid when the conclusion is based upon well-grounded statements of God's word (God does not have to state things to fit the rules of formal logic).

      "Valid" does not have to have just one meaning or usage.

      (T)here are ways for an argument to be sound, correct, convincing, and telling, without it having to meet the recently invented rules of FORMAL LOGIC.

      If Robert wants to say that a particular argument is not worded according to the rules of formal logic theory, he can be my guest.

      However, the conclusion is still correct:

      > All atheists are fools because
      > they cannot see or refuse to
      > see the obvious, that God is,
      > and have chosen the path of
      > foolish disobedience to Him,
      > and have chosen an outlook
      > that will never be able to interpret
      > the world and the universe correctly
      > or live life in the correct way with
      > the good end intended for his
      > eternal destiny.

      > He is a fool regardless of whether
      > an argument is stated according
      > to the strict rules of FORMAL Logic.

      Psalm 14:1 states what a fool says.

      It does not matter if it states that all atheists are fools, it states the truth of what the fool says.

      Anytime someone states what the fool says, he identifies himself as the fool of which Psalm 14:1 describes.

      The fool says

      > "there is no God".

      All atheists say

      > "there is no God".

      So, regardless of the strict rules for formal logic formula, common sense tells us all that we are always correct that

      > every atheist is a fool that says
      > in his heart "there is no God".

      This issue I raise here is whether we are obligated to analyze every statement of scripture as to whether it is stated according to the strict STRUCTURE of formal science rules?

      Can we learn how to apply the scriptures without taking a formal logic course in proper structure?

      I say that we can.

      If Robert Baty is hung up on proper scientific and mathematical STRUCTURE, and wants to argue that something is not stated correctly according to said rules of logic structure, then let him state the proper way.

      Let us show again that no matter what he tries to argue about proper form and structure in formal logic, he cannot escape the fact that every atheist is a fool.

      I challenged him to debate that issue and he ran from it and started grandstanding on the issue of whether some of my logical statements met the strict rules of formal logic structure.

      Let us look at the fallacy of his arguments:

      > My thanks again to Terry W. Benton
      > who further demonstrates the common > problem with some amongst us who
      > insist on using INVALID reasoning as
      > shown below:

      >> The fool sayeth in his heart
      >> there is no God.
      >> A says B

      >> The atheist says in his heart
      >> there is no God.
      >> C says B

      >> Therefore, the atheist is a
      >> fool.
      >> C is A

      > Terry is well aware that the fallacy
      > in the reasoning in the above
      > argument and that it has to do
      > with its form, not its content.

      That argument is at least SOMETIMES VALID as to its' form and content..

      Here is a case where the content is true and all the statements and conclusions are true.

      > VALIDITY, as has been noted without
      > controversy, has to do with form, not
      > content.

      Validity according to the science of FORMAL Logic invented in recent centuries, may only concern itself with FORM.

      I am using "validity" as to content being "well-grounded" and "justifiable".

      It is correct as to each statement and as to the conclusion drawn. Now, some FORMS include content that does not lead to a proper conclusion, such as Robert mentions below.

      That will mean that some "forms" of formal logic cannot reach proper conclusions.

      > The "form" of Terry's argument
      > is INVALID.

      Robert is wanting the argument to be stated according to the formal rules that have recently developed.

      The argument is correct in every part, but he wants to make a point that it is not valid according to the formal structure it takes.

      He seems to be admitting that it is correct in conclusion. though he will never boldly say so, because he chums around with atheists all the time in some of their discussion groups designed to undermine Biblical creationists.

      So, he tries to show an angle that rescues him from taking the position that not all atheists are fools.

      > The INVALID form above is the
      > same INVALID form as in the
      > following argument:

      >> The atheist says the earth
      >> moves around the sun.
      >> A says B

      >> The Christian says the earth
      >> moves around the sun.
      >> C says B

      >> Therefore, the Christian is
      >> an atheist.
      >> C is A

      This is not correct.

      Here Robert has suggested TWO classes of people who say the same thing: "the earth moves around the sun". In my argument, there is only one class of people: The fool. The fool says "there is no God".

      My argument properly lists that the atheist is the only person who says "there is no God". Who else says such a thing? Nobody! Whether it is a temporal atheist or a long devoted atheist, all atheists say "there is no God" and no believer ever says such a thing. A former believer (now atheist, at least for the moment) may say such a thing, but the very words are atheistic in content.

      Therefore, my argument is proper as to content and form.

      There may be a better way of nailing it down for the sake of formal logicians, but the truth is still expressed in a correct way.

      > That Terry's premises may be true
      > as well as his conclusion does not
      > mean that you can prove his conclusion > from his premises; as the above example > shows. I've added a little symbolism for
      > further clarity.

      This is the closest I have ever gotten Robert to admitting that my argument is TRUE that all atheists are fools. He just wants to argue so as to justify his behavior in never admitting that he has been chumming with fools in some of his Ancient Earth arguments.

      > While Terry W. Benton has been
      > provided with a number of legitimate
      > authorities testifying to his fallacy, it
      > is not to be overlooked that Terry W.
      > Benton has been unable to find one
      > competent authority that will
      > provide any testimony in support of
      > Terry's claim that his argument above
      > is VALID (i.e., that the premises, if true,
      > lead to the conclusion).

      I care not what "authorities" outside the Bible say as to the truth of my statements.

      I have reworded my arguments in various ways to meet the scriptural evidences and then on the basis of scriptural evidence formed a logical structure (according to the rules of formal logic) to show the soundness of my arguments.

      When formal logicians do not admit to the final authority of God's word, it should not be surprising that I would not appeal to formal logicians as a legitimate authority to me.

      Why would Baty want such?

      > I propose that the matter is so
      > fundamental to the rules of sound
      > reasoning that all legitimate
      > authorities will readily testify to
      > the fact that Terry's argument is
      > simply INVALID.

      > Terry writes, in part:

      >> (T)hose who say "there is
      >> no God" are by definition
      >> "atheists", then who else
      >> but atheists say "there is
      >> no God"?

      > Alas, Terry's argument is not
      > designed to simply show that,
      > as Terry says,

      >> atheists are atheists!

      How foolish on Robert's part.

      My argument is designed to give an example of who says "there is no God".

      Atheists say that.

      Nobody else says that.

      My argument is not designed to show that atheists are atheists, but that atheists are such fools as say "there is no God".

      > Terry's claim/argument is that the
      > statement in Psalm 14:1 "the fool
      > sayeth in his heart there is no God"
      > means/is properly interpreted to
      > mean that "all atheists are fools".

      > That is simply not what "the fool
      > sayeth in his heart there is no God"
      > means or is properly interpreted to
      > mean.

      Well it does too.

      What other person says "there is no God"?

      The statement identifies the fool, and all we have to do is listen out for who makes such a statement.

      The atheist does.

      He may be a temporal atheist or a committed atheist, but nobody but atheists ever say "there is no God".

      The word "atheist" means "no God".

      So, Robert continues his endless display of his striving about words to no profit.

      Is his effort to prove to us that SOME atheists are not fools?

      Can he tell us of one atheist who is not a fool?

      Let him tell us of one person who says "there is no God" who is not a fool.

      If he fails, then count his endless jargon as totally worthless.

      > You simply can't, using the principles
      > of sound reasoning, conclude that
      > because Psalm 14:1 says the "fool
      > sayeth in his heart there is no God"
      > that "all atheists are fools".

      Well, there is no way around it.

      Atheists are not the only fools there are, but atheists (whether temporal or committed) are the only ones who ever say there is no God".

      Every one of them say this, or they are not atheists.

      Therefore, Robert is simply wrong and refuses to admit his error and correct it.

      He is a different kind of fool.

      > Again, I challenge interested members
      > of this list to consider this important
      > public issue and try your own hands
      > at helping Terry out of his error and
      > getting him to admit, explain and
      > correct his error (i.e., I think Sam
      > Stinson recently posted an article
      > dealing with just such a subject).

      I welcome the effort as long as the Bible, God's word, is respected as the final authority on the issue of whether all atheists are fools.

      If you think there is an atheist who is not a fool, and you can use the Bible to prove it, we will be happen to listen to the biblical evidence for that conclusion.

      > Alternatively, if any wish to defend
      > what I have identified as Terry's
      > INVALID form of reasoning, feel
      > free to do so, with proper authorities
      > for reference.

      > Matthew 7:1,2 / James 3:1

      Here is a formal structure that is valid:

      > The Bible teaches that all who
      > deny God are fools.(Rom.1:20-22;
      > Psalm 14:1).

      > All Atheists deny God.

      > Therefore, all atheists are identified
      > by the Bible as fools.

      Here is another:

      > All who say in their hearts
      > "there is no God" are atheists
      > by definition and profession.

      > The Bible says that those who
      > say "there is no God" are fools.

      > Therefore, all atheists are fools
      > according to the Bible.

      Let Robert play his games about logical form all he wants.

      He needs to make it clear that he believes the Bible is true and that all atheists are fools regardless of logical formulas that have to meet a certain criteria to be put into proper form.

      He needs to tell us what is the truth of God's word about the issue and if it is really important to him to state that truth in a proper formal logic form, then let him clearly do so.

      Otherwise, he is simply showing that there is more than one way to be a fool, and we all know that anyway.

      Terry W. Benton
      http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

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



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