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

Benton's Second Negative - Second Post!

Expand Messages
  • Terry W. Benton
    Benton s Second Negative - Second Post! Robert s GRAS argument is clearly unsound, and we will continue to show that to be the case. The Goliath of GRAS ...
    Message 1 of 1 , May 3, 2010
      Benton's Second Negative - Second Post!

      Robert's GRAS argument is clearly unsound, and we will continue to show that to be the case.

      The "Goliath of GRAS"

      Major premise:

      > If (A) God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and

      TB: If God's word does NOT say that, then obviously Robert's argument is unsound.

      > if (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and

      TB: If the first part is erroneous then this part is immaterial, and therefore part of a false argument.

      > if (C) there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a
      > few thousand years,

      TB: This part fails to mention that empirical evidence is also "interpreted" according to premises used, and may also be interpreted incorrectly. Thus, this part
      is subject to error and should be worded to reflecct a true statement like: "if (C) there is interpretation by some of empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years". But, that would not accomplish what Robert wants to accomplish. Again, there is serious flaw in Robert's "C".

      > then (D) the interpretation of
      > the text by some is wrong.

      TB: Since the premises were not altogether true and fair in all three points, the the conclusion does not follow as true.

      Minor premise:

      > (A) God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, and

      TB: I say that Robert cannot prove this is true.

      > (B) God's word is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and

      TB: Without the A being true B becomes immaterial.

      > (C) there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      TB: There is "interpretation" that something is actually much older than a few thousand years, but that interpretation is subject to questions about the premises from which they judged and interpreted that piece of empirical evidence.


      > (D) The interpretation of the
      > text by some is wrong.

      TB: The error of Robert's GRAS has been clearly demonstrated. His conclusion is wrong because his premises are wrong. I have made my ADAM2 argument like Robert's GRAS to show that anybody can construct a "valid" argument in form that is unsound and untrue in parts. The conclusion of the argument can only be true if each part of the premise is true.

      RB: My first affirmative was:

      > The "Goliath of GRAS" is a logically valid argument!

      Stipulated definition:

      > Valid - If the premises are true,
      > the conclusion follows.

      Terry has indicated that he joins with me in accepting the fact that if the premises of the "Goliath of GRAS" are true, its conclusion will follow as true as a necessary consequence of the truth of the premises.

      TB: By extension, I have also shown that if (since) the premises are not true, the conclusion does not follow. Robert has already said that the premises do not have to be true for the argument to be valid. Gras is one of those cases. It is valid in form, but untrue in premise. Therefore, is is an unsound modus ponens argument.

      RB: Using the term "valid" saves time, if one understands how that term is used in describing a formal argument such as the "Goliath of GRAS".

      TB: We understand you to be saying that your form is valid. We got that. We also know your premise content is not true. Therefore the argument is unsound and worthless.

      RB: Terry has indicated that he may be inclined to equivocate in his use of the term "valid".

      TB: No, I have said that I will use the term in other valid ways if I see a need to, especially if you do not hold strictly to the logician jargon.

      RB: Therefore, if Terry does not identify his equivocation by noting his intent that it have a different meaning as he uses the term (we all realize words can have different meanings in different contexts), I would suggest that readers consider whether Terry is using the term as stipulated above or in some other way.

      TB: Well, that has always been what is expected even if Robert is the one who is being unclear and has used logician jargon inappropriately.

      My second affirmative:

      > The "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true.

      TB: Readers are make note here that Robert affirmed his GRAS argument was "valid", but is now going to determine if his premise is true. Valid form is one thing, true premises is another thing. He admits that a valid form can contain untrue premises. The major premise is declared true by the minor premise. So, whatever he says in the major premise has to be true if the minor premise is going to truly affirm the truth of the antecedent of the major premise. Robert is here declaring his major premise is true. He say that even though he knows it is false. But, let us watch him carefully.

      RB: Before proceeding with an analysis of that claim, it is necessary that there be an agreement as to certain, relevant terms/phrases which might otherwise be easily misunderstood (as we have already noticed that the term "valid" might be easily misunderstood) as they relate to the "Goliath of GRAS" and the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.

      TB: We find this part of Robert's presentations to be faulty because of the incompleteness of his definitions.

      RB: Here are the stipulated definitions:

      God's word - communication from God
      in words that cannot be wrong.

      TB: Problem: Robert does not believe there IS communication from God that can't be wrong. He does not believe it exists in any obtainable form today. He doesn't have God's word (according to his own point of view), and he cannot know if it says anything, much less if it says "everything began over a period of six days". When he affirms in his minor premise that "God's word" actually says "everything began over a period of six days", then he has to be able to both prove his source actually is "God's word" and not some corrupted and misrepresentation of God's word, and he must show that God's word says or necessarily implies that everything, not just physical things, began to exist in six days. Robert has a huge task ahead of him, and he has already set up for failure. We need him to further stipulate and define his terms so that we know what he is calling "God's word" and where it says "everything began over a period of six days".

      RB: Says - taking God's word at face
      value, God's word can be reasonably
      determined to literally mean that...

      TB: Robert said on his M&B list: "What men have delivered to me regarding the Bible may be wrong". (Message 18750). So, Robert cannot include the Bible in his stipulated definitions of "God's word" and "what it supposedly says" that "can't be wrong". Before we can know what "God's word" is, that is "not something delivered by men that may be wrong", then we cannot take it "at face value" because Robert has not told us where it is so that we can read it and take it "at face vaue". He must show us WHAT the word of God is, and what it says, before we can "take it at face value" for what it supposedly says. Robert seems to have ruled out the Bible as something that "can't be wrong". He says the Bible "may be wrong". So, we still need Robert to tell us WHAT God's word is, and give us the reference to what it says that "can't be wrong". If he does not identify the text, we cannot know whether it really "says" what Robert says it says, and then we cannot understand why Robert says something that he says "can't be wrong" actually "may be wrong".

      So, we need further information from Robert before we can grant that his "stipulated defintions" are adequate at all.

      RB: Everything - all things of our
      physical reality (e.g., universe,
      earth, moon, stars, plants,
      animals, man)

      TB: We cannot grant, without seeing a "text that can't be wrong", whether it says "everything", and whether it means only the physical things of our physical reality.
      Further, Robert's premise says "everything began" in six days. We need to see the "text that cannot be wrong" saying "everything began in six days". If Robert cannot show us the "text that cannot be wrong" showing that it does indeed say "everything began in six days", then we cannot grant Robert to have give us addequate stipulated definitions.

      "Began" is another term he needs to define. Did everything "begin to exist" in six days? And, does is say and mean "everything" only of a physical nature began to exist in six days? Robert needs to clarify all these matters for us before we can grant that his premise is true.

      RB: Interpreted - a belief as to the
      meaning, which meaning may be

      TB: Now, if there really is a text that cannot be wrong that actually says everything began in six days, that means that man himself began in six days of the matter and light that came into existence. There is no scientist who is going to grant Robert the privilege of saying the "text cannot be wrong" on this matter. Thus, no matter how the text is interpreted as to how long ago (6 thousand or 6 billion years ago), Robert has said it "can't be wrong on this one matter at least: "the text can't be wrong that everything BEGAN in six days". None will agree that life began in six days of the big bang. They will quickly be at odds with Robert's premise that there is a "Text" of "God's word" that "can't be wrong" that says "everything began in six days". So, Robert will be at odds with the very people that tell him something really is much older than a few thousand years.

      Robert also has a faulty premise because it assumes that there is no faulty interpretation of empirical evidence, just faulty interpretation of a text that can't be wrong as to how long ago "everything began in six days". Robert is already in a pickle. He needs to take responsibility and further define his terms.

      RB: Few thousand - not more than 100,000.

      TB: That is relative. But, this part is really irrelevant until Robert shows us the "text that cannot be wrong" that says "everything began in six days".

      RB: Empirical evidence that... - some
      thing really is more than a few
      thousand years old and we can so
      determine from the evidence
      independent from the text.

      TB: Here Robert did not define "empirical evidence". We need to know what is considered empirical evidence, and with what assumptions was/is it to be examined in order to have absolute truth as to what it says or necessarily implies.

      He needs to define "really is". Is it "really is" according naturalistic assumption? Is it only "really is" as to perception and interpretation?

      He needs to show that what "really is" does not conflict with the "text that cannot be wrong" and how what "really is" and "cannot be wrong" are in agreement that "everything began in six days". If he does not do so, then his GRAS argument is "really" wrong and worthless.

      RB: If there are additonal terms/phrases that are shown to be subject to some misunderstanding, additional stipulated definitions will be provided.

      TB: We hope so. We gave you a lot of work to do in the above section. Get busy giving those further stipulated definitions.

      RB: Those are the stipulated definitions and, I propose, they are more than adequate for the intended purpose of considering the merits of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its historic place in the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.

      TB: I propose that your defintions are far less than adequate in showing the truth of your GRAS argument. I further propose that you go step by step with each of my questions above so that we can discover the "merits", if is really has any, of your "Goliath of GRAS" that seems already to be down on the ground with a smooth stone in it's forehead.

      RB: Based on the previous discussion, it may be that Terry, as with his intended use of the term "valid", has some notions regarding some other definitions. Terry is welcome to whatever definitions he might prefer, but where they might substantively alter the stipulated definitions above, he will be changing the subject to a different argument which is not the subject of this discussion.

      TB: Robert has enough problems getting through the "stipulated definitions" problems he already has. He need not worry about whether I may use the word "valid" in another way as common language allows. I have no intent to use it deceptively. I think I have been very clear. In strict logician jargon, a "valid" argument can be valid in form whether the content is actually true or not. But, it is not "valid" in common non-logician jargon to consider an unsound and untrue premise to be a "valid" or sound argument to make.

      RB: If Terry does not accept the stipulated definitions, further explanations may be given in hopes of "resolving" any problem Terry might have in accepting the above stipulated definitions.

      TB: Robert should know from previous discussion that I have had serious problems with his "stipulated definitions". I've asked him to clarify before, and he refused. What we need to see now is Robert repenting of his decision to side-step my plea for "further explanations" and actually begin answering my plea for clarification step by step as is asked for above for the umpteenth time.

      RB: However, it is my position that for purposes of discussing the merits of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its historic place in the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science, the stipulated definitions are sufficient.

      TB: That means that Robert's purpose has always been to be very vague and annoying in his vagueness so that he can keep from feeling trapped by his own words. He can leave enough undefined and refuse to define it so that he can always say "that is not what I meant". Robert has no excuse for not answering the questions that have repeatedly been asked of him in the past and now in the present. We hope Robert will bring forth the clarity asked for.

      RB: Therefore, in this second affirmative, I am asking Terry to accept the stipulated definitions before proceeding to further discuss the "Goliath of GRAS" and its historic place in the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.

      TB: I do not accept Robert's very limited "stipulated definitions". Therefore, we need to stay right here until I can get the definitions needed. Until then, GRAS is just a pile of garbage. It lacks in so many ways. We are here to show Robert that his GRAS is not what he thinks it is. We are here to show Robert that it can never be anything but a wordy and meaningless piece of junk that is easily neutered by standing my ADAM2 argument right up against it.

      RB: Terry, do you accept the stipulated definitions above?

      TB: Nope. I need all the answers I asked for above and earler. Get busy.

      RB: If yes, I will proceed with my third affirmative.

      TB: See above. Stay with your first and second affirmatives. You've got lots of work to do.

      RB: If no, I will consider your problems related thereto before considering proceeding with my third affirmative.

      TB: Let's hope you really do this time.

      Terry W. Benton
      (Submitted 12:44PM to GAGdebate and Maury&Baty)

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