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

The Atheism 101 Major Premise Can NOT Be Shown to Be True!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    That s the position I took in posting a debate challenge after the anonymous, whiny, sniping bladerunner060 . No one showed up to legitimately try to
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
      That's the position I took in posting a debate challenge after the anonymous, whiny, sniping "bladerunner060".

      No one showed up to legitimately try to establish otherwise, though one other pop-off popped-off with some irrelevant commentary and that brought that debate challenge to an end.

      There were, however, some interesting comments posted in the comments section of that debate challenge and I post them below. The first 2 were previously posted and are repeated here in order to present the full context for consideration of the comments. The most recent exchange just took place.

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

      http://www.debate.org/debates/The-major-premise-can-be-shown-to-be-true./1/


      (1)

      From: Noumena
      Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013
      Time: About 11:30 AM MT

      Has anyone ever actually used this argument?

      (2)

      From: RLBaty
      Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013
      Time: About 12:40 PM MT

      I use it all the time when the subject comes up; to make one or more fundamental
      points about the state of atheism and critical thinking skills.

      Of course, atheists can't use it because even they, when push comes to shove,
      recognize that they believe premises to be true but they can't establish as
      true.

      Alas, that argument is the argument that "bold" atheists are stuck with despite
      all the whining seen here on the Debate.Org pages in an effort to escape it and
      its implications.

      Something to think about the next time you see a wannabe "bold" atheist proclaim
      that man created God.

      (3)

      From: Noumena
      Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

      I'm asking if you've ever seen an atheist assert that

      > SINCE God as an idea could have been imagined by someone,
      > THEN that is the case?

      (4)

      From: RLBaty
      Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

      Noumena,

      I think I got what you were asking, although the specific
      premise is worded as follows:

      - 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.

      Your stated premise is a little weaker than the above premise;
      an important distinction to make, in my opinion.

      As to the actual argument I set forth, as I note in my
      discussion, the argument is implicit whenever a "bold"
      atheist proclaims "man created God".

      Once the veil is taken away and the argument exposed, as my experience here and elsewhere has indicated, you can't find
      a "bold" atheist to try and affirm the truth of the premises;
      though the "bold" atheist position implies they are believed
      to be true.

      Get it?

      Atheists don't believe there is a God and
      "bold" atheists believe the premises are true.

      Theists do believe there is a God and
      don't believe those premises are true.

      (5)

      From: Noumena
      Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

      So you're saying that affirming that man created God
      implies the premises in this debate?

      Some warped logic we got here.

      (6)

      From: RLBaty
      Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

      Logic, but not warped, as has been previously, repeatedly
      and simply explained; that is, when a "bold" atheist
      claims that "man created God" as their conclusion, the
      premises leading to that conclusion, as proposed here,
      are implied:

      1.

      > Minor premise;
      > man had the imaginative power to do so.

      2.

      > Major premise;
      > given the power, that power accounts for man's
      > creation of God.

      Some people can handle it.
      Some can't.

      For those that can't, their demonstrations make a valuable contribution to the popular public debate over these important
      issues.

      (7)

      From: likespeace
      Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
      Time: About 2:10 PM MT

      > Atheists don't believe there is a God and
      > "bold" atheists believe the premises are true.

      RLBaty has not shown his argument to be representative of
      atheists (who don't believe "God exists."), nor even the
      subset of atheists who claim "God does not exist.".

      I can affirm I do not personally know any atheists who use
      the argument he's given.

      The more customary arguments are the Argument from Non-Belief
      or the Argument of Evil, which are used to argue against the existance of certain classes of gods, such as the ones we might consider worthy of worship.

      (8)

      From: RLBaty
      Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
      Time: About 2:20 PM MT

      likespeace,

      You have headed off into the weeds.

      Of course, as I have repeatedly stated, you are going to
      have a hard time finding any wannabe "bold" atheist, and
      there are many that can be found claiming that "man created
      God", who actually attempts to use the argument I have
      presented.

      That's one of the points to be made in the exercise.

      The argument is, in fact, implied by the "bold" claim that
      "man created God", as opposed to the weaker atheist claim
      that "I think man just might have created God".

      Even atheists, when coming face to face with the argument
      implied by the "bold" claim are forced to admit their
      position has premises they at least implicitly believe to
      be true but which they cannot establish based on their
      typical and much touted preference for "evidence".

      It's not about the arguments you might want to set up and
      fuss about the theist position. That's a whole other matter.

      This exercise has to do with the state of atheism and what
      atheists "believe" or "think", implicitly or explicitly,
      is true and which "believing" and "thinking" reaches beyond
      the evidence.

      So, if anyone wants to "boldly" affirm that "man created God",
      then they have my argument to deal with and implicitly or
      explicitly admit they can only "believe" or "think" the premises
      are true because their standard of "evidence" falls short of demonstrating the truth of the premises.

      Atheists don't believe there is a God.
      Theists do.

      --------------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      For ready reference, I guess I ought to post the argument, that is the subject under consideration, here in this thread. So, here is the argument, properly
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
        For ready reference, I guess I ought to post the argument, that is the subject under consideration, here in this thread.

        So, here is the argument, properly inferred from the "bold" atheist claim that "man created God":

        THE ATHEISM 101 ARGUMENT

        Major Premise (inferred from minor premise & conclusion):

        - 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.

        Minor Premise (inferred from "bold" atheist affirmation):

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

        Conclusion (the "bold" atheist affirmation):

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

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty


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

        That's the position I took in posting a debate challenge after the anonymous,
        whiny, sniping "bladerunner060".

        No one showed up to legitimately try to establish otherwise, though one other
        pop-off popped-off with some irrelevant commentary and that brought that debate
        challenge to an end.

        There were, however, some interesting comments posted in the comments section of
        that debate challenge and I post them below. The first 2 were previously posted
        and are repeated here in order to present the full context for consideration of
        the comments. The most recent exchange just took place.

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

        http://www.debate.org/debates/The-major-premise-can-be-shown-to-be-true./1/


        (1)

        From: Noumena
        Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013
        Time: About 11:30 AM MT

        Has anyone ever actually used this argument?

        (2)

        From: RLBaty
        Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013
        Time: About 12:40 PM MT

        I use it all the time when the subject comes up; to make one or more fundamental
        points about the state of atheism and critical thinking skills.

        Of course, atheists can't use it because even they, when push comes to shove,
        recognize that they believe premises to be true but they can't establish as
        true.

        Alas, that argument is the argument that "bold" atheists are stuck with despite
        all the whining seen here on the Debate.Org pages in an effort to escape it and
        its implications.

        Something to think about the next time you see a wannabe "bold" atheist proclaim
        that man created God.

        (3)

        From: Noumena
        Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

        I'm asking if you've ever seen an atheist assert that

        > SINCE God as an idea could have been imagined by someone,
        > THEN that is the case?

        (4)

        From: RLBaty
        Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

        Noumena,

        I think I got what you were asking, although the specific
        premise is worded as follows:

        - 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.

        Your stated premise is a little weaker than the above premise;
        an important distinction to make, in my opinion.

        As to the actual argument I set forth, as I note in my
        discussion, the argument is implicit whenever a "bold"
        atheist proclaims "man created God".

        Once the veil is taken away and the argument exposed, as my experience here and
        elsewhere has indicated, you can't find
        a "bold" atheist to try and affirm the truth of the premises;
        though the "bold" atheist position implies they are believed
        to be true.

        Get it?

        Atheists don't believe there is a God and
        "bold" atheists believe the premises are true.

        Theists do believe there is a God and
        don't believe those premises are true.

        (5)

        From: Noumena
        Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

        So you're saying that affirming that man created God
        implies the premises in this debate?

        Some warped logic we got here.

        (6)

        From: RLBaty
        Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013

        Logic, but not warped, as has been previously, repeatedly
        and simply explained; that is, when a "bold" atheist
        claims that "man created God" as their conclusion, the
        premises leading to that conclusion, as proposed here,
        are implied:

        1.

        > Minor premise;
        > man had the imaginative power to do so.

        2.

        > Major premise;
        > given the power, that power accounts for man's
        > creation of God.

        Some people can handle it.
        Some can't.

        For those that can't, their demonstrations make a valuable contribution to the
        popular public debate over these important
        issues.

        (7)

        From: likespeace
        Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
        Time: About 2:10 PM MT

        > Atheists don't believe there is a God and
        > "bold" atheists believe the premises are true.

        RLBaty has not shown his argument to be representative of
        atheists (who don't believe "God exists."), nor even the
        subset of atheists who claim "God does not exist.".

        I can affirm I do not personally know any atheists who use
        the argument he's given.

        The more customary arguments are the Argument from Non-Belief
        or the Argument of Evil, which are used to argue against the existance of
        certain classes of gods, such as the ones we might consider worthy of worship.

        (8)

        From: RLBaty
        Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
        Time: About 2:20 PM MT

        likespeace,

        You have headed off into the weeds.

        Of course, as I have repeatedly stated, you are going to
        have a hard time finding any wannabe "bold" atheist, and
        there are many that can be found claiming that "man created
        God", who actually attempts to use the argument I have
        presented.

        That's one of the points to be made in the exercise.

        The argument is, in fact, implied by the "bold" claim that
        "man created God", as opposed to the weaker atheist claim
        that "I think man just might have created God".

        Even atheists, when coming face to face with the argument
        implied by the "bold" claim are forced to admit their
        position has premises they at least implicitly believe to
        be true but which they cannot establish based on their
        typical and much touted preference for "evidence".

        It's not about the arguments you might want to set up and
        fuss about the theist position. That's a whole other matter.

        This exercise has to do with the state of atheism and what
        atheists "believe" or "think", implicitly or explicitly,
        is true and which "believing" and "thinking" reaches beyond
        the evidence.

        So, if anyone wants to "boldly" affirm that "man created God",
        then they have my argument to deal with and implicitly or
        explicitly admit they can only "believe" or "think" the premises
        are true because their standard of "evidence" falls short of demonstrating the
        truth of the premises.

        Atheists don't believe there is a God.
        Theists do.

        --------------------------------------------
        --------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        I think the following exchange which has now just taken place adds quite a bit of substance to the discussion:
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
          I think the following exchange which has now just taken place adds quite a bit of substance to the discussion:

          http://www.debate.org/debates/The-major-premise-can-be-shown-to-be-true./1/comments/

          (9)

          From: likespeace
          Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
          Time: About 4:15 PM MT

          > The argument is, in fact, implied by the
          > "bold" claim that "man created God", as
          > opposed to the weaker atheist claim that
          > "I think man just might have created God".

          Catholics define a weak atheist as one who doesn't claim "God exists", and a strong atheist as one who claims "God does not exist."

          This "bold atheist" of yours goes a bit further, claiming "Man created God."

          The major premise you give "bold atheists" is farcial and in no way implied.

          Here is an alternative argument for the "bold atheist" position--

          > If (P1) God does not exist
          >
          > And
          >
          > (P2) Human ideas/concepts that are
          > imaginary are created by man.
          >
          > (C): The Human idea/concept of God
          > was created by man.

          P1 is supported by the Argument from Evil and Argument from Nonbelief.

          The last debate on the problem of evil went almost 50/50.

          Reasonable people disagree.

          P2 would mostly follow from first principles such as the
          universe exists, knowledge exists, and all descriptive
          models have greater value than any non-descriptive model.

          God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Imaginary is defined as an idea/concept that does not wholly correspond to reality.

          (10)

          From: RLBaty
          Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
          Time: About 5:55 PM MT

          likespeace,

          While it may be possible to formulate more than one argument
          that attempts to simplify the fundamental issue that results
          from the claim that "man created God", I think mine works best
          for getting to the point regarding the implied, if not explicit, belief on the part of atheists regarding their position.

          Your formulation appears a little awkward to me.

          I would recommend that you put it into what you consider a
          "logically valid" and complete form for clarity.

          For instance, I could turn your statement back on you in
          support of my argument:

          Your major premise which is all you give:

          - IF (P1); God does not exist, and
          - IF (P2); human ideas/concepts that are imaginary are created by man,
          -
          - THEN (C); the Human idea/concept of God was created by man.

          Minor Premise (modus tollens):

          - (NOT C); the human idea/concept of God was NOT created by man.

          Conclusion:

          - (NOT P1); God exists.

          (Note: P2 is not really necessary to be stated in either argument.)

          I think I "gotcha" on that!
          LOL!
          I'll take it!

          In any case, I think I see what you are getting at and,
          if so, your preference for that approach does nothing to
          impeach my argument or the claims I make for my argument.

          I think your argument, when properly stated and understood,
          actually does tend to support the claims I make for my argument.

          I think mine is simpler and more direct as to the fundamental affirmation that "man created God".

          That you might think "bold" atheists would embrace your argument while trying to run from mine just goes to make mine the more valuable in getting down to the fundamental issue and the state
          of atheism and atheistic "beliefs".

          - "Reasonable people disagree."

          I like that observation which, I think, tends to acknowledge
          that your "evil" and "nonbelief" arguments fall short of
          establishing P1.

          Atheists don't believe there is a God.
          Theists do.

          Thanks for coming up with that contribution to the discussion;
          it does adds some substance to the conversation.

          ---------------------------------------
          ---------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          Here s an important addendum from me to the messages #9 and #10: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-major-premise-can-be-shown-to-be-true./1/comments/ (11)
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
            Here's an important addendum from me to the messages #9 and #10:

            http://www.debate.org/debates/The-major-premise-can-be-shown-to-be-true./1/comments/

            (11)

            From: RLBaty
            Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
            Time: About 6:20 PM MT

            Let's see if I can show where it is not possible to turn my
            argument back on me like I was able to do with that argument "likespeace" presented for consideration.

            Could be fun!

            Here's my argument, the implicit "bold" atheist argument that
            puts the atheist in the box of believing beyond his evidence;
            in modus ponens form:

            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.

            Minor Premise:

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

            Conclusion:

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

            Here's what it looks in modus tollens form:

            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.

            Minor Premise:

            - (NOT B); man did not originate the
            - idea/concept of God through the
            - power of imagination.

            Conclusion:

            - (NOT A); man was NOT able to originate the
            - idea/concept of God through the power
            - of imagination.

            I win again, and the advantage is mine for showing how simply
            the fundamental claim from the "bold" atheist claim that "man
            created God" may be logically dealt with and its shortcomings
            be easily identified.

            I do not think either argument is sound (i.e., valid with both premises true), but that's what atheist are locked into, by implication, when they affirm that "man created God", right?

            I think so!

            (end addendum)

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

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

            I think the following exchange which has now just taken place adds quite a bit
            of substance to the discussion:

            http://www.debate.org/debates/The-major-premise-can-be-shown-to-be-true./1/comme\
            nts/

            (9)

            From: likespeace
            Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
            Time: About 4:15 PM MT

            > The argument is, in fact, implied by the
            > "bold" claim that "man created God", as
            > opposed to the weaker atheist claim that
            > "I think man just might have created God".

            Catholics define a weak atheist as one who doesn't claim "God exists", and a
            strong atheist as one who claims "God does not exist."

            This "bold atheist" of yours goes a bit further, claiming "Man created God."

            The major premise you give "bold atheists" is farcial and in no way implied.

            Here is an alternative argument for the "bold atheist" position--

            > If (P1) God does not exist
            >
            > And
            >
            > (P2) Human ideas/concepts that are
            > imaginary are created by man.
            >
            > (C): The Human idea/concept of God
            > was created by man.

            P1 is supported by the Argument from Evil and Argument from Nonbelief.

            The last debate on the problem of evil went almost 50/50.

            Reasonable people disagree.

            P2 would mostly follow from first principles such as the
            universe exists, knowledge exists, and all descriptive
            models have greater value than any non-descriptive model.

            God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Imaginary is
            defined as an idea/concept that does not wholly correspond to reality.

            (10)

            From: RLBaty
            Date: Friday, January 25, 2013
            Time: About 5:55 PM MT

            likespeace,

            While it may be possible to formulate more than one argument
            that attempts to simplify the fundamental issue that results
            from the claim that "man created God", I think mine works best
            for getting to the point regarding the implied, if not explicit, belief on the
            part of atheists regarding their position.

            Your formulation appears a little awkward to me.

            I would recommend that you put it into what you consider a
            "logically valid" and complete form for clarity.

            For instance, I could turn your statement back on you in
            support of my argument:

            Your major premise which is all you give:

            - IF (P1); God does not exist, and
            - IF (P2); human ideas/concepts that are imaginary are created by man,
            -
            - THEN (C); the Human idea/concept of God was created by man.

            Minor Premise (modus tollens):

            - (NOT C); the human idea/concept of God was NOT created by man.

            Conclusion:

            - (NOT P1); God exists.

            (Note: P2 is not really necessary to be stated in either argument.)

            I think I "gotcha" on that!
            LOL!
            I'll take it!

            In any case, I think I see what you are getting at and,
            if so, your preference for that approach does nothing to
            impeach my argument or the claims I make for my argument.

            I think your argument, when properly stated and understood,
            actually does tend to support the claims I make for my argument.

            I think mine is simpler and more direct as to the fundamental affirmation that
            "man created God".

            That you might think "bold" atheists would embrace your argument while trying to
            run from mine just goes to make mine the more valuable in getting down to the
            fundamental issue and the state
            of atheism and atheistic "beliefs".

            - "Reasonable people disagree."

            I like that observation which, I think, tends to acknowledge
            that your "evil" and "nonbelief" arguments fall short of
            establishing P1.

            Atheists don't believe there is a God.
            Theists do.

            Thanks for coming up with that contribution to the discussion;
            it does adds some substance to the conversation.

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