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

Re: The reasoning of "GSB1952" on The Christian Post!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-god-created-humans-survey-finds-75946/ From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty) Time/Date: 8:05
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.christianpost.com/news/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-god-created-humans-survey-finds-75946/

      From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty)
      Time/Date: 8:05 PM EDT on June 02, 2012

      > From: gsb1952
      > Time/Date: 7:56 PM EDT on June 02, 2012
      >
      > To Wolf Nelson -
      >
      > I believe that God created everything
      > in six days...

      According to the reasoning previously proposed by "gsb1952", the argument would look like this, right:

      Major Premise:

      > IF the evidence is so convincing
      > that everything was created over
      > a period of six days,
      > THEN everyone should believe that
      > everything was created over a
      > period of six days.

      Minor Premise:

      > Everyone does not believe that
      > everything was created over a
      > period of six days.

      Conclusion:

      > The evidence IS NOT so convincing
      > that everything was created over
      > a period of six days.

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

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      http://www.christianpost.com/news/creation-museum-celebrates-anniversary-with-ho\
      lographic-lucy-exhibit-75782/

      (1)

      From: MandBGroupOwner (aka Robert Baty)
      Time/Date: 5:27 PM EDT on May 30, 2012

      "Goliath of GRAS" v. "GSB1952"

      > From: gsb1952
      > Time/Date: 5:15 PM EDT on May 30, 2012
      >
      > To agentorange20 -
      >
      > If the evidence was so convincing,
      > then everyone should be an evolutionist.

      I like the form.

      Here's the more complete version suggested by gsb1952:

      Major Premise:

      > If the evidence was so convincing,
      > then everyone should be an evolutionist.

      Minor Premise:

      > Everyone is not an evolutionist.

      Conclusion:

      > The evidence was NOT so convincing.

      Is that so constructed that if its premises are true
      its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (e.g.,
      is it logically valid)?

      > Agree(2)
      > Disagree(0)
      > Report abuse(2)

      (2)

      From: MandBGroupOwner (aka Robert Baty)
      Time/Date: 6:41 PM EDT on May 30, 2012

      Anybody else catch any of the problems "gsb1952"
      has with his argument??

      Compare his argument to another similar sort:

      The "GSB1952" Argument:

      Major Premise:

      > If the evidence was so convincing,
      > then everyone should be an evolutionist.

      Minor Premise:

      > Everyone is not an evolutionist.

      Conclusion:

      > The evidence was NOT so convincing.

      The "GSB1952" Analogous Argument:

      Major Premise:

      > If the evidence was so convincing,
      > then everyone should be a Christian.

      Minor Premise:

      > Everyone is not a Christian.

      Conclusion:

      > The evidence was NOT so convincing.

      Is that really the sort of reasoning "gsb1952" wants
      to prosecute?????

      > Agree(3)
      > Disagree(0)
      > Report abuse(1)

      (3)

      From: MandBGroupOwner (aka Robert Baty)
      Time/Date: 7:12 PM EDT on May 30, 2012

      Thanks for the indicated support.

      Looks like some appreciate some critical thinking
      exercises; even while others think I have been abusive.

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