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

Re: Atheism 101 - Debate.Org: "Meyer" v. Robert Baty!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/ (1) Posted by bladerunner060 30
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      From the comments section associated with the debate comes the following exchange:

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

      http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

      (1)

      Posted by bladerunner060 30 minutes ago
      bladerunner060

      @RLBaty:

      Continuing from the other debate you were commenting on
      @ http://www.debate.org...:

      You clearly have a different definition of "concise"
      than the rest of us. You typed 592 words, of which only
      97 were actually relevant to the debate. The rest was
      long-winded background, formatted in a way to make it
      difficult to read.

      As has already been explained to you in your debate by
      the one who finally took it, it is quite obviously and
      trivially a Modus ponens. IF P, then Q, P, therefore Q

      You asked a stupid question, and you claimed elsewhere
      that the lack of takers was because atheists "don't want
      to go there". The reason nobody wants to "come out, come
      clean and openly, honestly and successfully complete the
      exercise" is because you've been an insulting blowhard
      who thinks that the atheist denizens of this site owe
      him something. Nobody owes you your "exercise".

      This website has ranks, W/L statistics; it's ridiculous
      of you to post this, knowing full well that the Con
      position would be arguing against the very foundation
      of logic.

      For you to act as though it's a failing of your
      philosophical opponents to not take you up on it is
      disingenuous.

      But someone eventually took you up on it.

      Your opponent pointed out that the argument is valid
      from a propositional logic sense, so valid that arguing
      against it within the same framework is a hopeless
      exercise.

      I give him props for the smart-alecky-ness of his
      response, in point of fact.

      (2)

      Posted by bladerunner060 21 minutes ago
      bladerunner060

      Having read your entire debate (you finally got me
      to do it), I see where you're attempting to find the
      problem.

      You're reading it one way, and your opponent read
      the premise another.

      Few atheists would agree with the premise if it were
      formulated this way:

      > "IF man was able to originate the idea/concept
      > of God through the power of imagination, as
      > opposed to reason and/or revelation, THEN man
      > NECESSARILY did originate the idea/concept of
      > God through the power of imagination."

      That argument says that if we CAN originate the idea
      or concept of God that therefore WE MUST HAVE.

      This is clearly false, and I think most atheists
      would agree that it is false. After all, we can
      imagine all sorts of true things. Doesn't mean our
      imagination originates the thing; perhaps on some
      other planet there really are unicorns.

      However, most atheists would agree with the premise
      if it was formulated this way:

      > "IF man was able to originate the idea/concept
      > of God through the power of imagination, as
      > opposed to reason and/or revelation, THEN man
      > POSSIBLY did originate the idea/concept of God
      > through the power of imagination."

      Of course, you never really gave reasons that you
      disagreed with the premise in that other debate.

      (3)

      Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
      RLBaty

      Anybody else see the humor in "bladerunner060's"
      demonstration.

      He must have typed a 1,000 words or so when he
      could have just posted, as is relevant to this debate:

      > I, "bladerunner060" think that the argument
      > is so constructed that if its premises are
      > true its conclusion will follow as true
      > therefrom.

      I'll take that for what it may be worth.


      -----------------------------------------------
      -----------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      More comments independent of the formal exchange:
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        More comments independent of the formal exchange:

        http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

        (4)

        Posted by Meyer 3 hours ago
        Meyer

        Out of curiosity, I did skim through those other threads
        to see where this was leading. I think you would have
        been better off presenting all of your steps to be debated
        at once. There are places where I would dispute your line
        of reasoning, but it would be inappropriate to draw those
        issues in at Step 1.

        From what I can tell, you expect people to agree with you
        on Step 1 - and rightly so in most cases - but this is a
        format where people must argue against your claim. Nobody
        is going to accept the role of "Con" and simply say, "I
        agree. Modus ponens. You win! Let's proceed to Step 2 in
        another debate."

        As it stands, I noticed a technical vulnerability in your
        position, so my responses revolve around that. I didn't
        mean to sound like a smart alec (at least not so overtly
        that it would be noticed :) ).

        (5)

        Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
        RLBaty
        "Meyer",

        I don't think I sound like what I am accused of either.

        I guess we have something in common there.

        I also think there are good reasons for taking the
        exercise one reasonable step at a time and my experience
        in presenting my exercise has established the appropriateness
        of my thinking on that.

        I don't expect the "con" to just come on and agree with me.

        If there are no legitimate "cons" to come forth to present
        legitimate efforts to rebut my claim regarding Step #1, that's
        fine with me.

        Absent the debate format, it would be reasonable to expect
        many, perhaps most, to simply engage the exercise and agree
        with me as to Step #1. If you review the history of my efforts,
        you will notice that most have refused to admit their agreement
        with me as to Step #1.

        I'll certainly consider your perceived technical vulnerability
        and try to respond in my final affirmative effort.

        As I have previously and repeatedly announced, if you wanted
        to chat about some other aspect of my exercise, my list is
        open to you at:

        http://groups.yahoo.com...

        You don't have to be a member to post and posting should be as
        easy as simple as addressing an email to:

        Maury_and_Baty (at) yahoogroups.com - change (at) to @

        See you there, or not (I am trying to preserve a copy of this
        record there).

        ---------------------------
        ---------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        Following is Meyer s second negative and my final affirmative:
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Following is "Meyer's" second negative and my final affirmative:

          http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

          ISSUE:

          Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise - Is The Argument Logically Valid?

          For: RLBaty
          Against: "Meyer"

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

          ROUND TWO:

          Second Negative from "Meyer"

          If I may digress briefly, suppose the subject of debate were "Show that 1+1=2 is wrong". Anyone accepting the role of "Con" could take various approaches, e.g.:

          1. Attempt to show, using common arithmetic, that 1+1=2 is false, and fail miserably, or
          2. Choose to relax some unstated assumptions and show that 1+1 does not necessarily equal 2. For example, one could argue that 1+1=0 in binary modular artithmetic, which is common in computer science though not in the average everyday life.

          Since the particular system of logic was not stated, I went with Approach 2 and suggested a system where the argument would be invalid. Admittedly, my example was contrived.

          Although "for use in our real world" wasn't stipulated in the original challenge, I think I can show that it is possible for the proposed argument to be invalid in some logical systems without leaving the comfort of the real world.

          Consider the the supposed "counterexample" to modus ponens proposed by Vann McGee:
          http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca...

          Major premise: If a Republican wins the [1980] election, then if it's not Reagan who wins it will be Anderson.
          Minor premise: A Republican will win the election.
          Conclusion: If it's not Reagan who wins, it will be Anderson.

          McGee found that people believed a Republican would win the 1980 election, and they also agreed with the major premise, but they had trouble accepting the conclusion that followed directly from the two premises and modus ponens. They instead believed the conclusion:

          If it's not Reagan who wins, it will be Carter.

          McGee gave this example to show that modus ponens is not necessarily appropriate to model how people reason in the real world. Personally, I think people should be able to keep the premises in mind while evaluating the conclusion, but apparently there are cases where they overwhelmingly don't, so we can envision systems of logic designed to take this practical caveat into account when performing inference.

          One could also attempt to provide "real world" logic in various other ways that don't necessarily admit modus ponens in its strictest form:

          1. Fuzzy logic, with varying levels of truth.
          2. Logic incorporating probability theory, based on the likelihood of truth.
          3. A logic in which the truth of the major premise is evaluated in conjunction with the structural form of the argument.

          In the context of (3) above, consider:

          Major premise: If Socrates was a man, then mosquitoes can fly.
          Minor premise: Socratese was a man.
          Conclusion: Mosquitoes can fly.

          Here, the argument is consistent with modus ponens, but the the argument would still fail by the non sequitur fallacy in a real-world debate.

          I recognize that you specifically exluded system (3):

          It is proposed that Step #1 has to do with the "form" of the argument and not its "content".

          I use it only to show that is is possible to use a system of logic in which the argument is invalid without abandoning practicality in the real world: Simply require truth of the premises instead of considering the issue separately.

          Remember, my own claim is not that the argument is invalid in a particular system of logic where it would be valid (which would be a losing battle), but only that it can be considered invalid in some systems of logic. Moreover, the chosen alternative system of logic is not necessarily restricted to contrived examples such as the one I provided in the first round.

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

          ROUND THREE

          Third (final) Affirmative from RLBaty:

          Meyer may wish to digress, but I'm not going to chase that rabbit. This debate is not about his digression.

          Similarly, Van McGee's argument has been much discussed and shown not to do what Meyer tries to propose for it in this debate. That's for another time and place (my place, perhaps), if there is interest.

          Meyer's own claim is, in part:

          > "not that the argument is invalid in a particular system
          > of logic where it would be valid..."

          That also is a different debate as is Meyer's effort to suggest, only suggest, that there may be some legitimate logical system in which my argument would be considered INvalid. If he finds one, I will be glad to consider it.

          The exercise is not about quibbling over "logical systems" or whether or not my argument is valid in one or all legitimate, real world logical systems. That my argument may be valid, by definition, according to the rules of one or all legitimate, real world logical systems is incidental/coincidental to the issue before us here.

          Atheists make the affirmative claim, reach the conclusion, that the idea/concept of God was a product of the imaginative powers of the mind of man.

          I have presented one argument which, if its premises are true, allows the atheist to reach that conclusion. I propose that atheists cannot, successfully, divorce their affirmative claim from my argument and its implications.

          I don't recall any of my opposition offering any better argument that supports the conclusion, the atheists' affirmation, though many imaginative stories have been offered as to how the idea/concept originated.

          The discussion is about reason, not logical systems.

          In affirming "imagination" as the conclusion, the atheist implies the belief that man was possessed of such a power so as to have accomplished the feat; the minor premise.

          Some even are so bold as to affirmatively, explicitly, claim that the minor premise is true.

          Given that the conclusion is affirmed and that the minor premise is affirmed, we can easily construct the major premise necessary to complete the reasoning that would, if true, support the atheists' conclusion.

          My argument is constructed in such a manner that if its premises are true, then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom. To save a little time and effort, we have been referring to such a construction as being "logically valid".

          In closing, I will state my opinion as to why so many have fought so hard against simply, successfully completing the exercise; so much so that they have, historically, refused to take the simplest Step #1 and deal openly, honestly with it.

          My argument fairly and reasonably reflects a fundamental position of atheists.

          Atheists implicitly and/or explicitly believe one or both premises to be true.
          It is undisputed that atheists believe the conclusion to be true.

          Atheists don't like to admit "believing" such things.

          They "believe" the premises and conclusion of my argument, implicitly and/or explicitly. Such beliefs go beyond the evidence upon which their beliefs are based, and some have been open and honest enough to admit that such is the case by noting that one or both of the premises are lacking in evidence and may, in fact, not be true.

          No tricks.
          No traps.
          Just the way it is; in my opinion.

          It's nice to know as one considers the popular public debate over such things.

          Atheists don't believe there is any "God".

          OK!
          I get it!

          Meyer, I thank you for offering what is probably as good as any opposition may have to my claim regarding Step #1 of the exercise.

          Hopefully, your final submission will allow us to bring the formal discussion, such as it has been, to a reasonable and cordial conclusion. I look forward to it and thank you for your time, talent and attention.

          Folks should be able to find me at my place if they wish to pursue these matters, or maybe there will be some additional banter in the comments section here.

          -------------------------------
          -------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          Now that I have completed my part in the formal debate, and while awaiting the final submission from Meyer , some additional comments have been posted:
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Now that I have completed my part in the formal debate, and while awaiting the final submission from "Meyer", some additional comments have been posted:

            http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

            (6)

            Posted by bladerunner060 1 hour ago
            bladerunner060

            @RLBaty:

            YOU are the one who claimed to be concise.
            I claimed no such thing.

            (7)

            Posted by bladerunner060 31 minutes ago
            bladerunner060

            Further, RLBaty,

            You said

            > "My argument fairly and reasonably reflects
            > a fundamental position of atheists."

            I disagree, if only because I know of not a single
            atheist that says that IF we can have imagined
            something, THEN we must have necessarily imagined it.

            I think a fundamental position of atheists would be
            more reasonably reflected by the following:

            Major premises:

            A.)

            > If a thing is being discussed,
            > then it is conceiveable in some fashion.

            B.)

            > If it is conceivable in some fashion,
            > then it either exists or it does not exist.

            C.)

            > If a thing either exists or does not exist,
            > then it must have positive evidence of its existence,
            > or it should be assumed to not exist.

            Minor premise 1:

            > God is being discussed.

            Conclusion:

            > God is conceivable, and
            > either exists or does not exist.

            Minor premise 2:

            > There is no evidence of God's existence.

            Conclusion:

            > God must be assumed to not exist.

            (8)

            Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
            RLBaty

            "Bladerunner" wrote, in relevant part:

            > I know of not a single atheist that says that
            >
            >> IF we can have imagined something,
            >> THEN we must have necessarily imagined it.

            That's one reason why it is so important to work
            through the exercise step by reasonable step.

            I guess references to "implication" are lost on
            "Bladerunner".

            Consider:

            http://www.facebook.com/alotisaphrase?ref=stream

            > God is a creation of man.
            > That too is a fact.

            That's one site I made reference to earlier where my
            misguided adversaries spent a lot of time refusing to
            simply admit that they had the critical thinking skills
            to recognize the simple, logical validity of my argument.

            And, remember, part of the context of the exercise is
            the oft-noted claim from atheists that they possess the
            superior critical thinking skills.

            Atheist affirmations:

            > God is a creation of man.
            > That too is a fact.

            Implication:

            > IF (A) man was able to originate the
            > idea/concept of God through the power
            > of imagination,
            >
            > THEN (B) man did originate the
            > idea/concept of God through the power
            > of imagination.

            Really, do y'all atheists have so much trouble
            understanding the fundamentals here!

            -------------------------------------------
            -------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            More banter in the comments section: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/ (9) Posted
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              More banter in the comments section:

              http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

              (9)

              Posted by bladerunner060 16 minutes ago
              bladerunner060

              Actually, no, "we" do not have a problem with the
              fundamentals. Your example is NOT an example of an
              atheist making claims based on your premises.

              It's an example of someone making a statement.
              You have no idea what their premises were, clearly.

              Your argument fails because of the necessity implied
              within it.

              While

              > "If god is capable of being only in the imagination,
              > THEN god might have been only in the imagination"

              is essentially a tautology (if it's possible, it's possible),

              > "If god is capable of being only in the imagination,
              > THEN god MUST have been only in the imagination"

              is an entirely different claim.

              You set this debate up that no one can argue the validity
              of that premise; undoubtedly you'd get many takers on that.

              Instead you set it up on the premise that

              > "If you accept the premise,
              > is it logically valid".

              Of course it is.

              But that doesn't make the premise valid, or make it
              what atheists use as their justification for why atheism
              is valid.

              Perhaps your random facebook person came to the conclusion
              that God is a creation of man because of other premises,
              as well; your assumption that there is no more to the
              argument is, frankly, dishonest of you, because I can see
              that you're perfectly capable of knowing better.

              It's a straw man argument.

              Nobody but you has ever said that's the chain of reasoning
              by which a person gets to atheism, and when you debated
              someone on the subject they admitted they misread it and
              missed the implied necessity contained within the premise.

              (10)

              Posted by RLBaty 1 minute ago
              RLBaty

              We do have "Bladerunner", among others, to thank for the demonstrations and further establishing one or more of
              the points of the exercise.

              "Bladerunner" now opines:

              > You set this debate up that no one can argue the
              > validity of that premise; undoubtedly you'd get
              > many takers on that. Instead you set it up on
              > the premise that "If you accept the premise,
              > is it logically valid".

              I set up this debate in consequence of running across
              references to Debate.Org recently and to see if there
              be any legitimate claims that my argument is not so
              constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion
              will follow as true therefrom.

              That's just Step #1.

              "Bladerunner", like those before him, just can't stand the proposition that he and others might benefit from openly,
              honestly completing the exercise and dealing with his
              problems as they become relevant to the exercise.

              When such discussions are proposed, "it's like a box of
              chocolates". In hindsight, we might have resolved numerous
              other matters in order to refine the issue to be discussed.

              Alas, you have to take them as you find them and try to help
              them with their problems.

              For instance, "Bladerunner" is whining about the "validity" of premises.

              In my exercise, and in standard reference works, "validity"
              refers to the character of arguments, not premises.

              Premises are considered either true or not true.
              Arguments are considered valid or not valid.

              For reasons previously presented, I think my argument is
              logically valid and folks here have probably put up the best
              they've got and there is no legitimate rebuttal to my claim.

              It's just that the opposition is, as has been the case
              historically, a little stiffnecked when it comes to
              admitting it and demonstrating the degree to which they
              might possess the requisite critical thinking skills to
              make their completion of the exercise even more historic
              and meaningful.

              Thanks again to "Bladerunner" and others who have made my
              effort here so successful.

              ------------------------------
              ------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              Yet more banter: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/ (12) Posted by bladerunner060
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Yet more banter:

                http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

                (12)

                Posted by bladerunner060 11 minutes ago
                bladerunner060

                I concede that I should have used "false" rather
                than invalid.

                Have you anything other than a nitpick on terminology?

                As much fun as ad hominem, stereotyping, strawmaning,
                and nitpicking are, RLBaty, you haven't addressed the
                fact that NO ONE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH YOU that if
                the premises are true, the conclusion follows.

                While, at the same time, several have disagreed with
                you that that formulation "fairly and reasonably
                reflects a fundamental position of atheists."

                It doesn't.

                I've already answered your "Step #1", though I didn't
                take it up in the debate section for reasons as noted.

                Why don't you move on to your Step #2, if you think
                it actually does anything useful?

                If I recollect, your step #2 was

                "Atheists believe it has true premises."

                I certainly do NOT believe it has true premises.

                Because the premises are NOT true, for the reasons
                as noted previously.

                (13)

                Posted by RLBaty 11 seconds ago
                RLBaty

                "Bladerunner" has a credibility problem, but I do appreciate
                his desire to further add to demonstrating one or more of
                the points of the exercise.

                The non-fallacious use of ad hominem, for example, is quite appropriate in many of my engagements, and certainly finds application here, if you wish to label something or 'nother
                I have proposed regarding my opposition as ad hominem.

                We needn't quibble over whether anyone has ever disagreed
                with me that the argument is so constructed that if the
                premises are true the conclusion will follow as true
                therefrom.

                I will let others interested in such statistical data to
                review the historical record, provide the references, and
                list how many have responded to the exercise, by ID/Name,
                and how many have simply been able to state their agreement
                with me and the basis for their agreement, and how many have
                then asked to proceed to Step #2.

                Further regarding "ad hominem" as it relates to the anonymous
                whining from "Bladerunner".

                I have no good reason to give his allegations much, if any, consideration. If there is any good reason for doing so,
                and he is deserving of my serious consideration, he or someone
                else is going to have to explain why that is the case.

                It is certainly one of many who have demonstrated a degree
                of bad faith by a continuing refusal to come out, come clean
                and make their appearance at my place for a serious
                consideration of their problems; if they are actually
                interested in a serious consideration of their problems,
                step by reasonable step.

                -------------------------------------
                -------------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                Thought I would try this and see what happens: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thought I would try this and see what happens:

                  http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

                  (14)

                  Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                  RLBaty

                  Speaking of "ad hominem" and its non-fallacious use,
                  does anybody here know who my opponent "meyer" is
                  and what, if any, special credentials he may have
                  regarding the field of "logic/critical thinking".

                  I noticed he just joined, apparently to face me,
                  and provided no identifying information (like so
                  many here).

                  The rules indicate that members here should not
                  have more than one account, so I am wondering about
                  his mysterious, anonymous appearance.

                  Maybe he will say something about that in his final
                  presentation, if he returns to present it.

                  -------------------------------------
                  -------------------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  Meyer presents his final submission: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/ ISSUE:
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Meyer" presents his final submission:

                    http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

                    ISSUE:

                    Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise - Is The Argument Logically Valid?

                    For: RLBaty
                    Against: "Meyer"

                    ROUND THREE

                    Third Negative from "Meyer":

                    I feel like the goal post has moved a couple of times here.

                    First the question was whether the Atheism 101 Critical
                    Thinking Exercise argument is logically valid in the sense
                    that the conclusion follows from the premises if the premises
                    are true.

                    I showed that this is not always so.

                    Then it was added that the question should only be limited
                    to the context of a real-world logical system and/or one
                    that agrees with common sense. I showed that the Atheism 101
                    argument is not necessarily in a valid form in all of of
                    those cases, either.

                    Now "the exercise is not about quibbling over 'logical
                    systems' or whether or not my argument is valid in one
                    or all legitimate, real world logical systems."

                    At this point, I can't continue to play along.

                    The choice of logical system is crucial in evaluating
                    whether a statement is valid or not.

                    RLBaty successfully showed that the argument fits a
                    particular form of modus ponens that is an axiom of
                    propositional logic.

                    As such, he claims the argument is valid. Sure, if
                    one assumes a system where the form is valid by
                    definition, it is obviously valid.

                    Because the system of logic was not actually specified,
                    my position was that while the Atheism 101 argument
                    can be valid in some cases, it is not valid in all of
                    them.

                    This is easy to prove: Simply choose an arbitrary system
                    of logic where the construction is axiomatically invalid,
                    in which case it is obviously invalid. This is no worse
                    than choosing a system (such as propositional logic) where
                    the construction is axiomatically valid, and then making
                    the obvious assertion that it is valid.

                    I consider that to be a justifiable approach for this
                    debate; my digression in Round 2 explains why, and no
                    disagreement was given.

                    RLBaty did not accept my trivial example because is not
                    useful in the real world and/or it isn't based on common
                    sense.

                    Although it really wasn't necessary, I tried to address
                    both the "real world" and "common sense" aspects of the
                    objection:

                    The McGee counterexample shows that logical inference from
                    modus ponens does not always agree with people's common sense.

                    Acknowledged, RLBaty did claim that my interpretation of
                    McGee was refuted somewhere, but he didn't specify where.

                    I think, at the least, I got the gist of it right.

                    If we are to discard a logical system because it doesn't
                    always match common sense, and modus ponens doesn't always
                    match common sense, then we should discard any system where
                    modus ponens is considered valid.

                    That leaves us with only systems where the form of the
                    Atheism 101 argument is not valid.

                    I don't take this to mean propositional logic should be
                    discarded, but rather that "common sense" is an unreasonable requirement.

                    Regardless, the real world also uses systems of logic in
                    which the analogue of modus ponens takes a different form.

                    The Atheist 101 construction is not necessarily valid in
                    those contexts.

                    Two of the possibilities that I proposed were:

                    1.

                    Fuzzy logic, which deals with degrees of truth.
                    (The Atheist 101 argument does not specify degrees
                    of truth. Is it valid for use in fuzzy logic?)

                    2.

                    Probabilistic logic, which deals with the probability
                    of truth. (The Atheist 101 argument does not specify
                    any probabilities.

                    Is it valid in probabilistic logic without this
                    information?)

                    There was no effert taken to show that the Atheism
                    101 argument, as worded, would be valid in fuzzy and
                    probabilistic logic.

                    I doubt the effort would be fruitful without relying
                    on yet more unstated assumptions, perhaps "default
                    values of truth" in this case, to fill in the
                    missing requirements for those systems. Suffice it
                    to say, there are legitimate, real-world logical
                    systems where the classical modus ponens form is
                    potentially invalid.

                    So in trying to accommodate the objections about
                    practicality, my original position has expanded
                    in scope:

                    Not only is it trivial to demonstrate that the
                    Atheism 101 arguement is invalid in some contexts,
                    but we are not necessarily even restricted to the
                    ad hoc type of example that I originally proposed.

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

                    From: alerts@...
                    To: Robert Baty
                    Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 22:24:04 -0600

                    Subject: Debate.org - Voting Period

                    Dear RLBaty,

                    Your debate has ended and is now in the voting period.

                    ----------------------------------------------
                    ----------------------------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    And a couple of what may be parting comments: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jan 14, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      And a couple of what may be parting comments:

                      http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

                      (15)

                      Posted by Meyer 2 hours ago
                      Meyer

                      I have no credentials other than a computer science degree.
                      We had some classes on Boolean logic and such. And I had
                      to churn out a lot of pseudointellectual BS to meet the
                      liberal arts requirements. :)

                      I stumbled onto a debate here while searching for information
                      about time dilation at the Big Bang. The format looked like
                      fun, so I looked for an open challenge and found yours.

                      It's nothing personal, I assure you.

                      (16)

                      Posted by RLBaty 1 hour ago
                      RLBaty

                      "Meyer",

                      Thanks for the added details.

                      If you wish to engage in a less formal chat about the
                      problems with your last submission as it relates to
                      Step #1 of the exercise, you are welcome to come around
                      my place where I have been mirroring the debate and
                      comments.

                      "Bladerunner" wrote, in part:

                      > NO ONE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH YOU that
                      > if the premises are true, the conclusion follows.

                      He's got this thing about being concise, and I wonder
                      if you just might give him a concise answer to the
                      question (yes or no) as to whether you disagree with
                      me on that.

                      ---------------------------------------
                      ---------------------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      Still a little more banter in the comments following the debate!
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Still a little more banter in the comments following the debate!

                        http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                        (17)

                        Posted by bladerunner060 6 hours ago
                        bladerunner060

                        RLBaty:

                        > "Bladerunner", like those before him,
                        > just can't stand the proposition that
                        > he and others might benefit from openly,
                        > honestly completing the exercise and
                        > dealing with his problems as they become
                        > relevant to the exercise"

                        That is an ad hominem.

                        You have yet to address several of the points I brought up,
                        instead accusing me of being unable to "stand the proposition
                        that I might benefit".

                        You have been quite dishonest.

                        (18)

                        Posted by Meyer 2 hours ago
                        Meyer

                        Well, I was playing devil's advocate here (no pun intended)
                        so my half-hearted "disagreement" shouldn't count.

                        But yes, SOMEONE probably has disagreed with Step 1.

                        I say that because I've known enough people who would not
                        be able to get past "but the premise IS false, a logical
                        fallacy."

                        I expect most people (atheist or theist or other) will
                        agree with Step 1, but later say your major premise is
                        false and minor premise is true.

                        My own disagreement comes in later steps when you make
                        hasty generalizations about the beliefs of atheists and
                        theists, and because of stuff like this:

                        > "Given that the conclusion is affirmed
                        > and that the minor premise is affirmed,
                        > we can easily construct the major premise
                        > necessary to complete the reasoning that
                        > would, if true, support the atheists' conclusion."

                        The leap from (minor premise AND conclusion) to (minor premise IMPLIES conclusion) is essentially the "correlation does not
                        imply causation" fallacy.

                        Maybe it has another name in this case.

                        (19)

                        Posted by RLBaty 5 minutes ago
                        RLBaty

                        "Bladerunner"

                        > "That is an ad hominem. You have yet to address
                        > several of the points I brought up, instead accusing
                        > me of being unable to "stand the proposition that I
                        > might benefit".
                        >
                        > You have been quite dishonest.

                        I previously proposed, and reaffirm, that any ad hominem
                        I have set forth, to which "Bladerunner" may be referring
                        is of the non-fallacious type and quite appropriate for
                        the circumstances.

                        If there be any dishonesty present in these discussions,
                        it is from my anonymous, sniping adversaries who have
                        demonstrated an unwillingness to engage the exercise step
                        by reasonable step and deal with their assorted problems
                        as they become relevant in the exercise.

                        If "Bladerunner" wishes to concisely and unequivocally
                        indicate his agreement with me as to Step #1, I will be
                        more than willing to take him to Step #2 at my place where
                        he has yet to make his appearance in a demonstration of
                        good faith.

                        See you at my place, "Bladerunner"!
                        Come out, come out....or not!

                        (20)

                        Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                        RLBaty

                        "Meyer",

                        It looks like your "pseudontellectual BS" has the voters
                        here bamboozled. I give you points for that as well. As
                        I previously noted, it's probably the best that any
                        opposition to my little exercise can offer.

                        You also wrote, in part:

                        > The leap from (minor premise AND conclusion) to
                        > (minor premise IMPLIES conclusion) is essentially
                        > the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.
                        >
                        > Maybe it has another name in this case.

                        No fallacy!

                        No leap!

                        I am not proposing, as you falsely claim, that the minor
                        premise implies the conclusion.

                        I proposed that the conclusion implies the minor premise,
                        and even without regard to the implication, atheists
                        explicitly affirm the minor premise.

                        Also, even without resort to "logical systems", one can
                        reasonably figure out, as has been done in one or more
                        logical systems, that given the minor premise and conclusion
                        such as is proposed in the exercise, one can construct the
                        major premise.

                        The name, I have been told, is "enthymeme".

                        ------------------------------------------
                        ------------------------------------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        An effort to clarify a point! http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/ (21)
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          An effort to clarify a point!

                          http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                          (21)

                          Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                          RLBaty

                          "Meyer",

                          Perhaps a little clarification may be helpful.

                          I noted that you had written:

                          > The leap from (minor premise AND conclusion) to
                          > (minor premise IMPLIES conclusion) is essentially
                          > the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.

                          If, with such "pseudointellectual BS", you were simply
                          noting that you agree with me in thinking the major
                          premise is not true, that's fine.

                          However, as I noted earlier, atheists who affirm the
                          conclusion are locked in to the argument and cannot
                          escape its "implications". I have yet to find any who
                          have been able to find any key that might allow their
                          escape.

                          They explicitly and/or implicitly believe one or both
                          premises to be true in affirming the conclusion.

                          As you and I appear to agree, however, such beliefs are
                          beyond the reach of the evidence; a major reason why,
                          in my opinion, so many atheists have been unwilling to
                          successfully complete the exercise step by reasonable
                          step.

                          ------------------------------------------------
                          ------------------------------------------------
                        • rlbaty50
                          More banter yet! http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/ (22) Posted by
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            More banter yet!

                            http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                            (22)

                            Posted by bladerunner060 5 minutes ago
                            bladerunner060

                            RLBaty:

                            I have no "good faith" obligation to leave this
                            website to go to yours.

                            Pretending otherwise is either foolish or disingenuous.

                            If you have a step 2 you'd like to post here, go ahead.

                            I am under the impression I already addressed it,
                            although you ignored it. You could create a debate,
                            or you could create a forum post, but demanding I
                            go to some other website is not reasonable.


                            (23)

                            Posted by likespeace 3 minutes ago
                            likespeace

                            RLBaty >

                            > "It looks like your 'pseudontellectual BS'
                            > has the voters here bamboozled"

                            Poor sportsmanship?

                            You proposed a debate on a topic akin to "1+1=2",
                            where the majority of people on this site would've
                            outright agreed either immediately upon recognizing
                            modus ponens or as soon as you linked to its definition
                            on Wikipedia.

                            Your opponent, while first noting its obvious validity,
                            mounted a spectacular attack against it, in both a
                            theoretical and a practical form.

                            Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how a debate works,
                            but merely stating that McGee has been refuted
                            "somewhere", is not enough to actually refute the point.

                            You need to either present why it's wrong, or cite a
                            source that says why it's wrong. Also, your opponent
                            is unlikely to agree with you in a debate.

                            It's like a trial where you are the prosecutor, he is
                            the defense, and we are the jury.

                            Maybe these misunderstandings of how a debate works is
                            what caused trouble for you in the past as well.

                            I won't deduct conduct points for the above since it's
                            outside the context of the debate, but I will deduct
                            conduct points for attempting to change the terms after
                            the debate started.

                            (24)

                            Posted by bladerunner060 55 seconds ago
                            bladerunner060

                            RLBaty:

                            > "atheists who affirm the conclusion are
                            > locked in to the argument and cannot
                            > escape its "implications""

                            You created premises that you claim atheists believe,
                            and act like there is no other argument that could
                            possibly be valid. That is a straw-man at its finest.

                            That it is POSSIBLE for man to have conceived of god
                            wholesale does not mean it is therefore NECESSARY for
                            man to have conceived of god wholesale.

                            (25)

                            Posted by RLBaty 15 seconds ago
                            RLBaty

                            "Bladerunner",

                            I am the one who proposed that if you want to claim you
                            are operating in good faith you can demonstrate such by
                            making your appearance at my place.

                            Simple, simple, stuff.

                            You don't have to do anything, and I am justified in my
                            opinions in proposing, with a little non-fallacious
                            ad-hominem flair, that you are lacking in good faith
                            which is reflected, in part, in your unwillingness to
                            level the playing field and make your appearance at my
                            place.

                            As for Step #2 as to the exercise tailored for presentation
                            here, your guess at what it is indicates you further failings.

                            (26)

                            Posted by RLBaty 6 minutes ago
                            RLBaty

                            "Likespeace",

                            > Poor sportsmanship?

                            Not at all. I am and have enjoyed the sport here, though
                            I would have preferred a different result.

                            I will take my win, though, which is independent of any
                            contrived voting scheme which operates here.

                            I don't claim to possess the requisite technical, debating
                            skills that might be preferred, but what I have browsed, I
                            do fare better than the folks bantering about.

                            The substance of my presentation here, Step #1 of a 6-step
                            exercise, is that my argument is so constructed that if its
                            premises are true its conclusion will be true.

                            You indicate that there no substantive rebuttal to my claim.
                            I knew that.
                            No one had to take up the negative.

                            Otherwise, you like others have an open invitation to take
                            up your problems for discussion at my place.

                            ----------------------------------
                            ----------------------------------
                          • rlbaty50
                            Just a little more for now: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/ (27) Posted by
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Just a little more for now:

                              http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

                              (27)

                              Posted by likespeace 7 minutes ago
                              likespeace

                              RLBaty

                              > "I will take my win, though, which is independent
                              > of any contrived voting scheme which operates here."

                              "A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat." --- Wikipedia, "Sportsmanship"

                              RLBaty

                              > "I do fare better than the folks bantering about."

                              Your debate ELO is lower than 80% of those who voted in this debate. Also, your opponent's convincing victory is evidence he is stronger than you as well.

                              RLBaty

                              > "you like others have an open invitation to
                              take up your problems for discussion at my place."

                              I will decline, but thank you for the offer.

                              (28)

                              Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                              RLBaty

                              "Likespace",

                              Look up "sour grapes".

                              That's what I use to describe and characterize such opposition as I have encountered here.

                              My opponent's "convincing victory".
                              That's funny.

                              The truth of the matter is that there was no successful rebuttal to my simple claim that my argument is so constructed that if its premises are true then the conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

                              Even "Bladerunner" seemed to admit that in claiming that no one ever denied my claim.

                              Maybe if y'all ever get an open, honest participant willing to come out, come clean and level the playing field, that person will be able to quickly and efficiently complete the exercise and resolve any problems he may have as they become relevant.

                              Simple, simple stuff.

                              If y'all find some one, you know the to my place so that his/her appearance can be made and we can work through the exercise.

                              Gotta go now.

                              See y'all at my place, or not!

                              --------------------------------
                              --------------------------------
                            • rlbaty50
                              http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/ (29) Posted by Meyer 3 hours ago Meyer ... You
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/

                                (29)

                                Posted by Meyer 3 hours ago
                                Meyer

                                > "I am not proposing, as you falsely claim,
                                > that the minor premise implies the conclusion."

                                You proposed that agreement with the minor premise
                                and conclusion is enough to construct the major premise.

                                Let's try it:

                                > Minor premise: Socrates was a man. (Agreed.)
                                > Conclusion: Mosquitoes can fly. (Agreed.)

                                > From this, you want to construct
                                >
                                > Major premise: Socrates being a man
                                > IMPLIES mosquitoes can fly.

                                I suppose you CAN do that, and agreement on the first
                                two is CONSISTENT WITH the major premise, but the major
                                premise is still flawed by modus tollens, so you're not
                                cleverly forcing anyone into a corner.

                                (30)

                                Posted by CIIReligion 3 hours ago
                                CIIReligion

                                Robert, remember when I told you your cocky attitude
                                would get the better of you? Well this is what happens.

                                Take it like a man and use it to your benefit.
                                Stop crying like a whiny baby and grow up.

                                (31)

                                Posted by bladerunner060 3 hours ago
                                bladerunner060

                                @RLBaty:

                                > "I am the one who proposed that if you
                                > want to claim you are operating in good
                                > faith you can demonstrate such by making
                                > your appearance at my place."

                                Does that mean that if I propose that if YOU want to
                                claim you are operating in good faith you can demonstrate
                                such by giving me a million dollars, I can dismiss anyone
                                who rejects that as being a legitimate proposal?

                                (32)

                                Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                                RLBaty

                                (1)

                                "Meyer",

                                According to your set up, your argument would look like this:

                                > If Socrates was a man, then mosquitos can fly.
                                >
                                > Socrates was a man.
                                >
                                > Mosquitos can fly.

                                I don't know what books you've been reading, but mine don't
                                reflect that there is any modus tollens flaw in that.

                                You do further imply your agreement with me that atheists
                                have a problem with the argument they are locked in to in
                                affirming that "God is a creation of man". Thank you for
                                the further support.

                                Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

                                (2)

                                Daniel (aka CIR),

                                I am the one taking it like a man, and you know that I am
                                man and not like my whiney, anonymous opposition to come
                                across as actually being children instead of just playing
                                like children on Debate.Org.

                                I come to their playground.
                                I played their games.
                                I beat them at their own games.

                                Let me know, Daniel, if you ever decide that we can work
                                together to get your successfully through the exercise;
                                dealing with your particular problems, if any, step by
                                reasonable step.

                                (3)

                                "Bladerunner",

                                You are welcome to your own opinion regarding what
                                might constitute a show of good faith in circumstances
                                such as this.

                                I have mine.

                                I kinda like what is reportedly associated with Richard
                                Dawkins (see my response to Daniel also).

                                That is, these exercises look good on my resume; not
                                so much on the resumes of my opposition; one reason
                                why, it is supposed, so many of them insist on anonymity.

                                Thanks again to all for the demonstration, and let me
                                know when I can be of further assistance.

                                ------------------------------------------------
                                ------------------------------------------------
                              • rlbaty50
                                A little more clarification: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/ (33)
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  A little more clarification:

                                  http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                                  (33)

                                  Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                                  RLBaty

                                  "Meyer",

                                  Here's another clarification regarding one of your
                                  problems which others here apparently share with you.

                                  You wrote, in part:

                                  > You (RLBaty) proposed that agreement
                                  > with the minor premise and conclusion
                                  > is enough to construct the major premise.

                                  Here's what I was proposing:

                                  > Arguments in everyday discourse very often rely
                                  > on some proposition that is understood but not
                                  > stated. Such arguments are called enthymemes.
                                  >
                                  > First Order Enthymeme: An incompletely stated
                                  > syllogism in which the proposition that is
                                  > taken for granted but not stated is the
                                  > major premise.
                                  >
                                  >> Introduction to Logic
                                  >> Copi, Cohen, McMahon

                                  Application:

                                  Conclusion:

                                  > (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
                                  > of God through the power of imagination.

                                  Minor Premise:

                                  > (A) Man was able to originate the
                                  > idea/concept of God through the power
                                  > of imagination.

                                  Ta Da - Major Premise:

                                  > IF (A) man was able to originate the
                                  > idea/concept of God through the power
                                  > of imagination,
                                  >
                                  > THEN (B) man did originate the
                                  > idea/concept of God through the power
                                  > of imagination.

                                  Of course, you don't need a "logical system" or Copi,
                                  et al, to figure that out.

                                  I'm glad to have been able to help identify some y'all's
                                  problems so you could work on them if you are so inclined.

                                  Let me know if I can do more.

                                  ------------------------------------
                                  ------------------------------------
                                • rlbaty50
                                  Some is really ticked off on Debate.Org, and it ain t me! :o)
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Some is really ticked off on Debate.Org, and it ain't me! :o)

                                    http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                                    (34)

                                    Posted by bladerunner060 23 minutes ago
                                    bladerunner060

                                    @RLBaty:

                                    You are, frankly, a dishonest debater.

                                    Rather than asking an atheist what their logical premises
                                    are, you construct your own, then attempt to show how they
                                    are wrong.

                                    That is the very definition of a straw man, and because I
                                    believe you KNOW that, I believe you are dishonest.

                                    It's why you have to retreat into ad hominem attacks and
                                    empty claims of victory.

                                    (35)

                                    Posted by bladerunner060 7 minutes ago
                                    bladerunner060

                                    Also:

                                    > "As for Step #2 as to the exercise tailored
                                    > for presentation here, your guess at what it
                                    > is indicates you further failings."

                                    And yet you don't state what it is. Your attempt at
                                    insult falls flat on the face of your own hubris.

                                    YOU came HERE, and set this debate up. Members of
                                    this community have engaged with you based on that.
                                    Now you demand we follow you elsewhere to show "good faith"?

                                    It is a ridiculous demand, as ridiculous as your ad hominem,
                                    your straw-manning, and your unwillingness to engage with
                                    YOUR OWN EXERCISES. If what I thought Step 2 was was not
                                    correct (even though it was the next thing listed under
                                    propositions in the area you linked to), then what was the
                                    correct one?

                                    (36)

                                    Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                                    RLBaty

                                    "Bladerunner", the one lacking credibility:

                                    I have documented that atheists affirm the conclusion
                                    and minor premise of my argument.

                                    My experience is, as you and others have further demonstrated
                                    here, that you cannot trust atheist opponents to be open and
                                    honest in dealing with the substantive, fundamental, simplest
                                    of issues.

                                    I get it! And I think I've got some pretty good ideas as to
                                    why atheists don't want to openly, honestly deal with the
                                    argument they lock themselves into when they affirm that
                                    "Man created God".

                                    My argument is what I claim for it and no one has come forth
                                    to offer a legitimate rebuttal for my claims as to the 6
                                    simple steps involved in a critical thinking analysis thereof.

                                    Come around my place, fella, and we can work on your
                                    continuing problems.

                                    -----------------------------
                                    -----------------------------
                                  • rlbaty50
                                    A little addendum: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/ (38) Posted by
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      A little addendum:

                                      http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                                      (38)

                                      Posted by RLBaty 8 seconds ago
                                      RLBaty

                                      I will also add:

                                      "Bladerunner" wrote, in part:

                                      > You (RLBaty) have to retreat
                                      > into empty claims of victory.

                                      What a hoot!

                                      The anonymous whiner who claimed that:

                                      > NO ONE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH YOU
                                      > that
                                      > if the premises are true,
                                      > the conclusion follows.

                                      now whines as if my taking note that no one has
                                      successfully rebutted my claim is a retreat or empty.

                                      Sore losers!

                                      I have now found that they possess the Debate.Org website.

                                      Come out, come out, if there be any open, honest
                                      correspondent within the view of my keyboarding who
                                      wish to try their hand at successfully completing a
                                      simple critical thinking exercise with emphasis on
                                      atheism; step by reasonable step.

                                      ----------------------------------------------
                                      ----------------------------------------------
                                    • rlbaty50
                                      Can you believe this! My victory all the more solid after the continuing blundering of Bladerunner :
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Can you believe this! My victory all the more solid after the continuing blundering of "Bladerunner":

                                        http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                                        (39)

                                        Posted by bladerunner060 9 minutes ago
                                        bladerunner060

                                        @RLBaty:

                                        > "I have documented that atheists affirm the
                                        > conclusion and minor premise of my argument."

                                        Is meaningless.

                                        I also affirm the conclusion, and the minor premise.

                                        But the Major Premise is INSUFFICIENT.
                                        It is FALSE.

                                        It states a necessity that no rational atheist would
                                        agree with. I have already pointed this out to you;
                                        you chose to ignore it, instead retreating into further
                                        ad hominem and straw-manning.

                                        I'm sure you have great fun arguing with your own vision
                                        of what those around are saying; but don't pretend you're
                                        being in any sense honest.

                                        Why don't you post your step #2?

                                        (40)

                                        Posted by RLBaty 4 minutes ago
                                        RLBaty

                                        Rant on, "Bladerunner", rant on!

                                        It's the truth that's important regarding these fundamental,
                                        critical thinking issues, not the childish voting antics of
                                        folks who populate this place.

                                        That you think such antics are relevant to the substantive
                                        issues involving disputes between theists and atheists is
                                        quite laughable.

                                        Well, they are relevant at some level I guess. That the
                                        childish score might be 100 to 1 against me just illustrates
                                        the need for some open, honest, preferably atheist correspondents
                                        to come out, come clean and successfully complete the exercise.

                                        As I said before and have been demonstrating, despite the
                                        ranting of "Bladerunner" otherwise.

                                        No tricks.
                                        No traps.

                                        It's just the way things are regarding my argument and the
                                        claims I make regarding it.

                                        We are not discussing "propositional logic"; we are talking
                                        about "reason" and whether my opposition can demonstrate what,
                                        if any, basic skills they possess.

                                        And there "Bladerunner" goes again talking about arguments
                                        being true instead of valid.

                                        Y'all won't even agree to speak the same language with me.

                                        It's false that any legitimate attack has been mounted as
                                        to my claim that if the premises are true the conclusion
                                        will follow!

                                        I'm not whining about the anonymity of my opponents. I'm
                                        just noting that anonymous whiners have little or no
                                        credibility when they misbehave, are unreasonable, and
                                        are found to be on the losing end of a discussion.....uh,
                                        like "Bladerunner".

                                        Rant on, "Bladerunner", rant on!

                                        (41)

                                        Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                                        RLBaty

                                        "Bladerunner", now admits:

                                        > I "Bladerunner" also affirm the conclusion,
                                        > and the minor premise.
                                        >
                                        > But the Major Premise is INSUFFICIENT.
                                        > It is FALSE.

                                        Hey, that's my position. Thanks for endorsing my position
                                        on that.

                                        However, it is the premise that the atheists are stuck
                                        with in affirming the conclusion and minor premise.

                                        Of course, to understand such things, you have to have
                                        some basic, critical thinking skills.

                                        Like I have tried to show you.

                                        As I have said, it is reasonable for me to conclude that
                                        one reason why atheists don't want to go there is just
                                        such as "Bladerunner" has demonstrated. He can't stand
                                        the reasonableness of my observations about his problem.

                                        Atheists explicitly and/or implicitly believe the premises
                                        to be true, but their belief goes beyond the evidence and
                                        when faced with the simple, logical presentation of that,
                                        even they can recognize that their major premise fails them.

                                        Thanks, "Bladerunne", for allowing such a concise conclusion
                                        to be proposed regarding the matter.

                                        You are welcome, and let me know if I can be of further
                                        assistance.

                                        (42)

                                        Posted by bladerunner060 7 minutes ago
                                        bladerunner060

                                        RLBaty:

                                        No.

                                        I maintain that the minor premise is insufficient to get
                                        to the conclusion. The fact that I agree with the minor
                                        premise does not mean that I agree it is is the final
                                        premise necessary to get to the conclusion. Therefore
                                        I am NOT "stuck with in affirming the conclusion and
                                        minor premise."

                                        Would you like me to construct the premises for you that
                                        specifically include the minor premise and conclusion,
                                        or would you like to keep refuting the positions you've
                                        made up? Because I already created a different argument
                                        that gets to essentially the same conclusion, but I concede
                                        it didn't specifically include the specific premise or
                                        formulation of conclusion you used.

                                        (43)

                                        Posted by bladerunner060 6 minutes ago
                                        bladerunner060

                                        Of course, you keep declaring victories you haven't
                                        established, then claiming that there's more to your
                                        exercise without ever showing it. So I'm guessing you'll
                                        just have a new ad hominem and/or unreasonable demand to
                                        lay down.

                                        (44)

                                        Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                                        RLBaty

                                        "Bladerunner",

                                        Of course the minor premise is insufficient to get to
                                        the conclusion.

                                        You need a major premise to precede it.

                                        You already said that you accept the minor premise and
                                        conclusion as true. You are stuck with that, but feel
                                        free to modify your position in light of "reason"; that
                                        would be appropriate.

                                        You are also stuck with the implication that follows
                                        from your concessions.

                                        That's the major premise.

                                        You are stuck with it, by implication, and I am glad
                                        to see you at least recognize that you've got problems
                                        with that.

                                        Play on, "Bladerunner"!

                                        Construct your three line syllogism using the following form:

                                        > If (A)..., then (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
                                        > of God through the power of imagination.
                                        >
                                        > (A)...
                                        >
                                        > Therefore, (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
                                        > of God through the power of imagination.

                                        Mine logically follows from your own concessions.

                                        If you've got another one, feel free to present it for
                                        consideration. I might have somewhat to say about it.


                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                      • rlbaty50
                                        Another added note about my victories: http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jan 15, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Another added note about my victories:

                                          http://www.debate.org/debates/Step-1-Atheism-101-Critical-Thinking-Exercise-Is-The-Argument-Logically-Valid/1/comments/

                                          (45)

                                          Posted by RLBaty 0 seconds ago
                                          RLBaty

                                          By the way, "Bladerunner", my victories here are established
                                          whether or not there be any here open and honest enough to
                                          admit to it.

                                          That's just the way some of these things work.

                                          They may be even established in greater degree in a calmer,
                                          later time when reviewers are able to more carefully consider
                                          the extent to which I have prevailed over my adversaries here.

                                          You are, however, welcome to my efforts, and if I can be of
                                          further assistance, let me know.

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