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

Fw: Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads to error

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: Robert Baty Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:11 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:11 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads to error

      (Will DBWillis now admit to the truth of HIS "resurrection" argument's major premise?)

      DBWillis' posting of that note (following my name below) is further demonstration of his willingness to be less than open and honest in dealing with issues he raises and then runs off from; his "resurrection" argument in particular.

      So, to try and get him back on track and work step by step to help him deal with HIS problem and HIS argument, I am reposting the following to HIS thread:

      DBWillis' "Resurrection" argument:

      > Major Premise

      >> IF the text of God's word is
      >> interpreted by some to mean
      >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
      >> there is empirical evidence that
      >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
      >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
      >> the interpretation of the text
      >> by some is wrong.

      > Minor Premise:

      >> The text of God's word is
      >> interpreted by some to mean
      >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
      >> there is empirical evidence that
      >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
      >> able to rise from the dead.

      > Conclusion:

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

      While DBWillis has proposed that his argument is analogous to the "Goliath of GRAS", that claim is false.

      This study is designed to show why, in a step by step fashion to insure an understanding of the argument and why it is not analogous to the "Goliath of GRAS".

      To save a little time, various undisputed steps will not be here recited.

      DBWillis wrote, regarding his above argument:

      > Note (it is) in exactly the same
      > structure as Baty's ("Goliath of
      > GRAS")...and uses the exact same
      > meaning for "empirical evidence."

      As applied to DBWillis' argument, that meaning would be as follows:

      > No one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
      > able to rise from the dead and
      > we can so determine from the
      > evidence independent of any
      > interpretation of a religious
      > text.

      Given that definition of terms as stipulated to by DBWIllis, I asked the question:

      > Is the following major premise true?

      >> IF the text of God's word is
      >> interpreted by some to mean
      >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
      >> there is empirical evidence that
      >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
      >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
      >> the interpretation of the text
      >> by some is wrong.

      I have proposed that the correct answer to that question is

      > "YES"!

      DBWillis has yet to clearly and unequivocally state whether he believes the major premise of his own argument is true!

      Agreement on the truth of DBWillis' own major premise would allow DBWillis and I to proceed to consideration of DBWillis' minor premise and, hopefully, come to an agreement as to why DBWillis' minor premise is false and why DBWillis' minor premise is to be distinguished from the properly constructed minor premise in my "Goliath of GRAS".

      DBWillis has most recently indicated that, after now proposing his "Resurrection" argument had some relevance to the discussion of my "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the history of the popular, public debate over young-earth creation-science, he, DBWillis, is simply not up to dealing with his own "Resurrection" argument, much less my "Goliath of GRAS".

      However, I remain ready to assist DBWillis or others in seriously considering these important public matters.

      My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

      Still no "David"!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty


      -----Original Message-----
      From: DBWILLIS@...
      Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 3:57 PM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] naturalistic approach to evidence leads to error

      David W. here,

      What is the naturalist's answer to this question?:

      "The evidence supports the idea that no human including Jesus ever rose from
      the dead."

      A purely naturalistic approach to evidence used by a theist will give the
      same answer an atheist gives. It may NOT give a correct answer as to what
      actually happened. If I said, "that approach is the same approach an atheist
      uses" I am NOT saying the theist is an atheist. By saying such I certainly am
      not saying all AE's are atheists.





      **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
      challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
      calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


      [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]
    • Robert Baty
      ... From: Terry W. Benton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:40 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Terry W. Benton
        Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:40 PM
        To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads to error

        This is nice to know:
        Robert said:
        Given that definition of terms as stipulated to by DBWIllis, I asked
        the
        question:

        > Is the following major premise true?

        >> IF the text of God's word is
        >> interpreted by some to mean
        >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
        >> there is empirical evidence that
        >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
        >> the interpretation of the text
        >> by some is wrong.

        I have proposed that the correct answer to that question is

        > "YES"!

        TB: So on the same basis that Robert rejects God's word regarding the
        miraculous origin of man and then the woman at the creation, he also
        on the same basis rejects the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is
        nice for us to know. -Terry



        --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        > (Will DBWillis now admit to the truth of HIS "resurrection"
        argument's major premise?)
        >
        > DBWillis' posting of that note (following my name below) is further
        demonstration of his willingness to be less than open and honest in
        dealing with issues he raises and then runs off from;
        his "resurrection" argument in particular.
        >
        > So, to try and get him back on track and work step by step to help
        him deal with HIS problem and HIS argument, I am reposting the
        following to HIS thread:
        >
        > DBWillis' "Resurrection" argument:
        >
        > > Major Premise
        >
        > >> IF the text of God's word is
        > >> interpreted by some to mean
        > >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
        > >> there is empirical evidence that
        > >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        > >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
        > >> the interpretation of the text
        > >> by some is wrong.
        >
        > > Minor Premise:
        >
        > >> The text of God's word is
        > >> interpreted by some to mean
        > >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
        > >> there is empirical evidence that
        > >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        > >> able to rise from the dead.
        >
        > > Conclusion:
        >
        > >> The interpretation of the text
        > >> by some is wrong.
        >
        > While DBWillis has proposed that his argument is analogous to
        the "Goliath of GRAS", that claim is false.
        >
        > This study is designed to show why, in a step by step fashion to
        insure an understanding of the argument and why it is not analogous
        to the "Goliath of GRAS".
        >
        > To save a little time, various undisputed steps will not be here
        recited.
        >
        > DBWillis wrote, regarding his above argument:
        >
        > > Note (it is) in exactly the same
        > > structure as Baty's ("Goliath of
        > > GRAS")...and uses the exact same
        > > meaning for "empirical evidence."
        >
        > As applied to DBWillis' argument, that meaning would be as follows:
        >
        > > No one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        > > able to rise from the dead and
        > > we can so determine from the
        > > evidence independent of any
        > > interpretation of a religious
        > > text.
        >
        > Given that definition of terms as stipulated to by DBWIllis, I
        asked the question:
        >
        > > Is the following major premise true?
        >
        > >> IF the text of God's word is
        > >> interpreted by some to mean
        > >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
        > >> there is empirical evidence that
        > >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
        > >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
        > >> the interpretation of the text
        > >> by some is wrong.
        >
        > I have proposed that the correct answer to that question is
        >
        > > "YES"!
        >
        > DBWillis has yet to clearly and unequivocally state whether he
        believes the major premise of his own argument is true!
        >
        > Agreement on the truth of DBWillis' own major premise would allow
        DBWillis and I to proceed to consideration of DBWillis' minor premise
        and, hopefully, come to an agreement as to why DBWillis' minor
        premise is false and why DBWillis' minor premise is to be
        distinguished from the properly constructed minor premise in
        my "Goliath of GRAS".
        >
        > DBWillis has most recently indicated that, after now proposing
        his "Resurrection" argument had some relevance to the discussion of
        my "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the history of the popular,
        public debate over young-earth creation-science, he, DBWillis, is
        simply not up to dealing with his own "Resurrection" argument, much
        less my "Goliath of GRAS".
        >
        > However, I remain ready to assist DBWillis or others in seriously
        considering these important public matters.
        >
        > My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!
        >
        > Still no "David"!
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: DBWILLIS@...
        > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 3:57 PM
        > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [coCBanned] naturalistic approach to evidence leads to
        error
        >
        > David W. here,
        >
        > What is the naturalist's answer to this question?:
        >
        > "The evidence supports the idea that no human including Jesus ever
        rose from
        > the dead."
        >
        > A purely naturalistic approach to evidence used by a theist will
        give the
        > same answer an atheist gives. It may NOT give a correct answer as
        to what
        > actually happened. If I said, "that approach is the same approach
        an atheist
        > uses" I am NOT saying the theist is an atheist. By saying such I
        certainly am
        > not saying all AE's are atheists.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life
        financial
        > challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
        information, tips and
        > calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?
        NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
        >
        >
        > [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]
      • Robert Baty
        ... From: Robert Baty Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:27 PM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Robert Baty
          Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:27 PM
          To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads to error

          (Terry's message follows my name below.)

          That is Terry W. Benton again demonstrating a lack of understanding regarding the issues in dispute. He would do well to take up where DBWillis ran off regarding the "resurrection" argument of DBWillis.

          I am willing to help Terry deal with his problems, step by step, in order that he be provided the opportunity to demonstrate an understanding instead of continually MISunderstanding and MISrepresenting things.

          (I note that Pi is now realizing such problems on his own issues and is expressing his willingness to take DBWillis by the hand and lead him, step by step, through the problems DBWillis is having on that "heat" thing. Neato!)

          Terry wrote:

          > So on the same basis that Robert
          > rejects God's word regarding the
          > miraculous origin of man and then
          > the woman at the creation, he also
          > on the same basis rejects the
          > resurrection of Jesus Christ.

          Terry demonstrates a MISunderstanding and is being less than open and honest in stating "succinctly" whether or not he believes the hypothetical major premise of DBWillis' argument is true, based on DBWillis' stipulated definition of its relevant terms.

          Terry implies that he believes that the hypothetical major premise is false!

          DBWillis still needs to check in on that!

          Is DBWillis proposing that HIS OWN "Resurrection" ARGUMENT has false major premise?

          Perhaps DBWillis and Terry W. Benton can get their act together, since they have shown an interest in this important public issue, and come back when they agree as to the truth of DBWillis' major premise.

          I am willing to take them step by step through the argument in order that they might understand their problems related thereto and how DBWillis' argument is quite unlike my "Goliath of GRAS".

          Will DBWillis and Terry W. Benton now be open and honest in dealing with their problems related to issues they sought to pursue against me?

          We will see!

          I would here also remind Terry that he's got more unfinished business regarding HIS OWN "Adam2" ARGUMENT.

          Here's what I recently posted about that that Terry W. Benton has run off from dealing with:

          Terry W. Benton's "Adam2" argument:

          > Major Premise:

          >> If the empirical evidence says
          >> that there were millions of years
          >> of pre-Adamic races, and is
          >> interpreted to mean that Adam
          >> had earthly fathers and mothers,
          >> and God's word says that Adam
          >> was the first man and had no
          >> earthly father or mother, then
          >> the interpretation of the
          >> empirical evidence by some is
          >> wrong.

          > Minor Premise:

          >> The empirical evidence says
          >> that there were millions of years
          >> of pre-Adamic races, and is
          >> interpreted to mean that Adam
          >> had earthly fathers and mothers,
          >> and God's word says that Adam
          >> was the first man and had no
          >> earthly father or mother.

          > Conclusion:

          >> Therefore, the interpretation of the
          >> empirical evidence by some is
          >> wrong.

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

          Terry W. Benton has raised the following question regarding his "Adam2" argument:

          > Is the major premise of the
          > "Goliath of ADAM2" true,

          >> where the reference to
          >> empirical evidence means
          >> that there really were
          >> pre-Adamic races that gave
          >> birth to him and the text
          >> of God's word is misinterpreted
          >> to mean Adam was the first
          >> man without a father or mother,
          >> and that only the empirical
          >> evidence should be
          >> considered independently of any
          >> interpretation of a religious text?

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

          Based on Terry's stipulated definition, as noted above, it can be readily determined that the correct answer to his question is,

          > NO, the major premise is NOT TRUE!

          Will Terry W. Benton join me in accepting that answer, based on his own stipulated definition of terms?

          That the major premise is false, and can be so determined based on the stipulated definition of terms and the simple force and effect of sound reasoning and common sense, it is hoped that Terry's effort to promote his "Adam2" argument as a rival to my "Goliath of GRAS" will now come to an appropriate end.

          For further consideration and ease of understanding the nature of the problem Terry has created with his "Adam2", I have prepared the following which provides a more "succinct" major premise for Terry's argument:

          > Major Premise as restated by Robert:

          >> If there is empirical evidence
          >> of something and that is
          >> interpreted contrary to what
          >> Terry W. Benton says God's
          >> word teaches, then the
          >> interpretation of the
          >> empirical evidence is wrong!

          The above simplified version of Terry's premise may further help demonstrate why it is that Terry's premise is wrong.

          My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

          Still no "David"!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Terry W. Benton
          Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:40 PM
          To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [coCBanned] Re: naturalistic approach to evidence leads to error

          This is nice to know:
          Robert said:
          Given that definition of terms as stipulated to by DBWIllis, I asked
          the
          question:

          > Is the following major premise true?

          >> IF the text of God's word is
          >> interpreted by some to mean
          >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
          >> there is empirical evidence that
          >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
          >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
          >> the interpretation of the text
          >> by some is wrong.

          I have proposed that the correct answer to that question is

          > "YES"!

          TB: So on the same basis that Robert rejects God's word regarding the
          miraculous origin of man and then the woman at the creation, he also
          on the same basis rejects the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is
          nice for us to know. -Terry



          --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
          >
          > (Will DBWillis now admit to the truth of HIS "resurrection"
          argument's major premise?)
          >
          > DBWillis' posting of that note (following my name below) is further
          demonstration of his willingness to be less than open and honest in
          dealing with issues he raises and then runs off from;
          his "resurrection" argument in particular.
          >
          > So, to try and get him back on track and work step by step to help
          him deal with HIS problem and HIS argument, I am reposting the
          following to HIS thread:
          >
          > DBWillis' "Resurrection" argument:
          >
          > > Major Premise
          >
          > >> IF the text of God's word is
          > >> interpreted by some to mean
          > >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
          > >> there is empirical evidence that
          > >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
          > >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
          > >> the interpretation of the text
          > >> by some is wrong.
          >
          > > Minor Premise:
          >
          > >> The text of God's word is
          > >> interpreted by some to mean
          > >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
          > >> there is empirical evidence that
          > >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
          > >> able to rise from the dead.
          >
          > > Conclusion:
          >
          > >> The interpretation of the text
          > >> by some is wrong.
          >
          > While DBWillis has proposed that his argument is analogous to
          the "Goliath of GRAS", that claim is false.
          >
          > This study is designed to show why, in a step by step fashion to
          insure an understanding of the argument and why it is not analogous
          to the "Goliath of GRAS".
          >
          > To save a little time, various undisputed steps will not be here
          recited.
          >
          > DBWillis wrote, regarding his above argument:
          >
          > > Note (it is) in exactly the same
          > > structure as Baty's ("Goliath of
          > > GRAS")...and uses the exact same
          > > meaning for "empirical evidence."
          >
          > As applied to DBWillis' argument, that meaning would be as follows:
          >
          > > No one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
          > > able to rise from the dead and
          > > we can so determine from the
          > > evidence independent of any
          > > interpretation of a religious
          > > text.
          >
          > Given that definition of terms as stipulated to by DBWIllis, I
          asked the question:
          >
          > > Is the following major premise true?
          >
          > >> IF the text of God's word is
          > >> interpreted by some to mean
          > >> Jesus rose from the dead, and
          > >> there is empirical evidence that
          > >> no one is (or ever was-RLBaty)
          > >> able to rise from the dead, THEN
          > >> the interpretation of the text
          > >> by some is wrong.
          >
          > I have proposed that the correct answer to that question is
          >
          > > "YES"!
          >
          > DBWillis has yet to clearly and unequivocally state whether he
          believes the major premise of his own argument is true!
          >
          > Agreement on the truth of DBWillis' own major premise would allow
          DBWillis and I to proceed to consideration of DBWillis' minor premise
          and, hopefully, come to an agreement as to why DBWillis' minor
          premise is false and why DBWillis' minor premise is to be
          distinguished from the properly constructed minor premise in
          my "Goliath of GRAS".
          >
          > DBWillis has most recently indicated that, after now proposing
          his "Resurrection" argument had some relevance to the discussion of
          my "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the history of the popular,
          public debate over young-earth creation-science, he, DBWillis, is
          simply not up to dealing with his own "Resurrection" argument, much
          less my "Goliath of GRAS".
          >
          > However, I remain ready to assist DBWillis or others in seriously
          considering these important public matters.
          >
          > My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!
          >
          > Still no "David"!
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Robert Baty
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: DBWILLIS@...
          > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 3:57 PM
          > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [coCBanned] naturalistic approach to evidence leads to
          error
          >
          > David W. here,
          >
          > What is the naturalist's answer to this question?:
          >
          > "The evidence supports the idea that no human including Jesus ever
          rose from
          > the dead."
          >
          > A purely naturalistic approach to evidence used by a theist will
          give the
          > same answer an atheist gives. It may NOT give a correct answer as
          to what
          > actually happened. If I said, "that approach is the same approach
          an atheist
          > uses" I am NOT saying the theist is an atheist. By saying such I
          certainly am
          > not saying all AE's are atheists.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life
          financial
          > challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
          information, tips and
          > calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?
          NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
          >
          >
          > [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]




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