Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: KroneckerDelta v. RLBaty on Conditionals!

Expand Messages
• After reading through one of your gigantic and completely pointless debates ( Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise - Is The Argument Logically
Message 1 of 25 , Feb 1, 2013
After reading through one of your gigantic and completely pointless debates ("Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise - Is The Argument Logically Valid?"), I think you are extremely confused about the purpose of and, specifically, how to correctly use Modus Ponens.

You are using completely circular logic in this debate. You are basically saying, if you assume p --> q, then you can conclude p --> q. Think about that for a second...in plain English. If you assume that if p then q is true, then it is definitely the case that if p then q.

I suspect this comes from a lack of understanding of an axiomatic system (i.e. math). Here are two different examples of real-world (cannot refute) proper use of Modus Ponens.

1) Axiom - If a number is smaller (less than) 0, then it is negative. This is an axiom...a definition. We take this to be true without question or proof.

Using this axiom, if you tell me you have a number which is less than 0, then I can safely conclude that it is a negative number.

2) Theorem - Pythagorean theorem is a perfect example. The Pythagorean theorem is NOT an axiom!!! It CANNOT be taken true without proof. Indeed, you MUST construct of proof from axioms to show that the Pythagorean theorem is true. However, once you have proved the Pythagorean theorem to be true from more fundamental axioms, it is NOT necessary to prove it again (because it has already been logically proved to be a tautology, i.e. a theorem). Note that you can use the Pythagorean Theorem to construct OTHER theorems (an axiomatic system builds on itself)...as an example you can use the Pythagorean theorem to derive the distance formula between two points in Euclidean space.

Once the Pythagorean Theorem has been proved to be true, if you then give me me a right triangle, I can safely conclude that a² + b² = c².

An axiom is a fairly trivial example of Modus Ponens, however a theorem is a much more useful example. The entire purpose of Modus Ponens is that once something has been proved, it is not necessary to continually reprove it. I think you do not understand this aspect.

So, in relation to your original debate, "Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise - Is The Argument Logically Valid?", your Major Premise is far from proved to be true.

> 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.

First off, this premise, in my opinion is obviously false. It's almost not worth debate, but I will attempt to show it's false (although, one must understand that the closer one gets to an axiom, the harder it is to prove--since axioms, ultimately, cannot be proved).

You are trying to prove the following: if A, then B or more concisely: A --> B.

To prove a theorem is wrong (invalid or not true), all that one must do is present a counterexample. This is exceedingly easy to do:

Let's assume the following: 1) Yahweh is real and has revealed himself to Moses through the burning bush and 2) Hindu's have imagined their concept of their gods and thus their belief's are a result of their imagination. The crux of this counterexample relies on the axiom that if one human is capable of imagining a God that all others are thus also capable of imagining a God (which I assert is a reasonable assumption).

While your Major Premise is true for Hindus, it is false for Jews. Since Hindus are capable of imagining a God so too are Jews. Yet, under my assumptions, Jews' do not believe in God because they imagined him rather because of evidence--God showed himself to them.

Therefore, despite the fact that Jews are capable of imagining a God, this is NOT the reason for their belief in God. I have showed that it is not always the case that A --> B because I just gave you a counterexample. Your major premise is not true and therefore, although I agree with your hypothesis (that man CAN imagine God), this does not imply that this is why man believes in God.

Here is the specific argument you presented me with:

> > IF (A); God's word (the text) says
> > everything began over a period
> > of six days, and
> >
> > IF (B); God's word (the text) is
> > interpreted by some to mean it
> > was six 24-hour days occurring
> > a few thousand years ago, and
> >
> > IF (C); there is empirical
> > evidence that some thing is
> > actually much older than a
> > few thousand years,
> >
> > THEN (D); the interpretation of
> > the text by some is wrong.

First, I want to say that I agree that this argument is "correct". There are two major problems though with this statement. The first major problem is that you appear to assume the validity of this statement a priori without proof and I would argue that this is obviously unreasonable and thus one must prove this statement to be true before attempting to reach any kind of conclusion. You essentially have the following formula:

(A ∧ B ∧ C) --> D

This is simple to prove (with one major assumption that I will address in a little bit). You can prove this by contradiction:

Assume D is false: The interpretation of the text by some is correct and assume A, B, and C are true.

Assuming ¬D, one can conclude that B must be true (btw, A is redundant if you accept B). So if the interpretation is correct, then God did create the Earth in six 24 hour days a few thousand years ago. However, this directly contradicts C: that the Earth is much older than a few thousand year old.

Since assuming D is false leads to a contradiction (we assumed C was true but ¬D led to use concluding that C was false), the statement must be true: (A ∧ B ∧ C) --> D.

Now, I hope you caught the major problem. The problem is that I restated C as meaning "the Earth is much older than a few thousand year old." This was not the original proposition, in fact it stated NOT that the Earth definitely WAS more than a few thousand years old, but that there is empirical evidence showing that fact.

To accept that this statement is valid you must accept that empirical evidence proves that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. If you have studied philosophy (which you seem to have??), then you already know that empiricism is, ultimately, illogical. That is, that from a logical standpoint you cannot use empirical evidence to prove something to be true or false.

Criticism of logical positivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Criticisms

I would hope that I do not need to actually convince you that empirical evidence does not prove that a theory (or proposition if you will) is correct, but I can indeed present examples where empiricism has been shown to be incorrect.

The history of science is a shining testament to the fact that empiricism is a flawed logic. My favorite example is that of the Ancient Greeks' view of the universe.

The Ancient Greeks believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Their view was that there was The Earth, The sun (which orbited the Earth--ruled the day), the Moon (which also orbited the Earth--ruled the night), and the heavens which were "perfect" and static (never changed). Now, unfortunately, they were able to see Venus and Jupiter which they believed to be stars...however, these stars were NOT like all other stars--they moved! Hence the name planet which means "wandering star". These "stars" would wander around, sometimes they would orbit in one direction, then sometimes they would change direction and go backwards (retrograde orbits).

Ahh, but the Greeks were really good at math and geometry. Eventually they developed a theory of epicycles which thoroughly explained the orbits of the known planets.

Epicycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

The theory of these epicycles was consistent with their idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. It showed that planets orbit on circles within circles (look at the pictures on Wikipedia to get a better understanding). So here is empiricism at work:

If epicycles correctly predict the motion of the planets, then it is true that Earth is the center of the universe and planets orbit the Earth along the path defined by these epicycles.

So here is an example where empirical evidence supports a theory and yet, we know now that this theory is definitely false (in hindsight). OK, so now fast forward past Copernicus and Galileo to Newton. We know that the planets orbit the Sun in ellipses (governed by Kepler's laws). Furthermore, Newton explained these orbits using forces and showed that gravity exerts a force proportional to the two masses divided by the distance squared (between the two objects).

Again, empirical evidence agreed (mostly) with his theory and thus, this was taken to be true. Along comes Einstein who says that gravity is actually caused by the curvature of space-time. He showed that this theory reduces to Newton's theory if you have large distances or small masses. However, it deviated from Newton's theory if you were very close to a massive object. Again, empirical evidence of Mercury's orbit agreed with Einstein's prediction and thus we now accept General Relativity as the correct theory of gravity rather than Newton and certainly rather than epicycles.

These are wonderful examples of a two of things: 1) empiricism is logically flawed and 2) that science is capable of correcting its false claims (a quite wonderful aspect that religion does not share).

The whole point of this aside is that empirical evidence that shows the Earth is more than a few thousand years old cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt (or logically), that the Earth is indeed more than a few thousand years old. So while you could possibly dismiss Creationists' non-understanding of the empirical evidence (i.e. they do not accept C as being true, thus cannot conclude D), you cannot conclude, logically, that empirical evidence proves the true premise of C which is necessary to prove your major premise.

Without showing that C proves that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, the proof by contradiction that I went through WAY above, doesn't work. Without it, there is no contradiction and thus one cannot conclude that your major premise is indeed true (i.e. a theorem).

Since your theorem is not true, you cannot conclude D, even though there is no doubt that A, B, and C are definitely true.
• ... That s one reason why I proposed that you let me lead you through the exercise. You, like others, tend to think you are so smart you want to jump ahead
Message 2 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> After reading through one of your gigantic and
> completely pointless debates ("Step #1: Atheism
> 101 Critical Thinking Exercise - Is The Argument
> Logically Valid?"), I think you are extremely
> confused about the purpose of and, specifically,
> how to correctly use Modus Ponens.
>
> You are using completely circular logic in this
> debate. You are basically saying, if you assume
> p --> q, then you can conclude p --> q.

That's one reason why I proposed that you let me lead you through the exercise. You, like others, tend to think you are so smart you want to jump ahead and have things so well figured out, only to blunder about such as you have done.

I am not doing what you accuse me of.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> If you assume that if p then q is true,
> then it is definitely the case that if p then q.

I don't do that!

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I suspect this comes from a lack of understanding
> of an axiomatic system (i.e. math). Here are two
> different examples of real-world (cannot refute)
> proper use of Modus Ponens.
>
> 1) Axiom - If a number is smaller (less than) 0,
> then it is negative. This is an axiom...a definition.
> We take this to be true without question or proof.
>
> Using this axiom, if you tell me you have a number
> which is less than 0, then I can safely conclude
> that it is a negative number.

Forget the math, and try to see if you can agree with me regarding modus ponens. You propose:

> IF a number is smaller than 0,
> THEN it is negative.

> A number is smaller than 0.

> The number is negative.

Do you agree with me that that is an "argument" and that it is so constructed that IF its premises are true THEN its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is logically valid as to form)?

That's my position.
Do you agree with me?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> 2) Theorem -...once you have proved the Pythagorean
> theorem to be true from more fundamental axioms, it
> is NOT necessary to prove it again (because it has
> already been logically proved to be a tautology,
> i.e. a theorem). Note that you can use the Pythagorean
> Theorem to construct OTHER theorems (an axiomatic
> system builds on itself)...as an example you can use
> the Pythagorean theorem to derive the distance formula
> between two points in Euclidean space.

Let's substitute "modus ponens" for your continual referral to that. Will you agree with me that arguments that follow the modus ponens form are logically valid because the modus ponens form has been shown to be logically valid (i.e., being such a form that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom)?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> An axiom is a fairly trivial example of Modus Ponens,
> however a theorem is a much more useful example.

What you are calling an axiom is not modus ponens. What you are calling an axiom is a statement taken as true without proof.

Modus ponens is an argument "form", at least for purposes of what I am discussing, and one in which the premises are not taken as true but which, if true, will present a sound argument, being valid with true premises and a true conclusion.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> The entire purpose of Modus Ponens is that once
> something has been proved, it is not necessary to
> continually reprove it.
>
> I think you do not understand this aspect.

I think you are so hung up on your math wizardy that you are not yet able to properly relate that we are not discussing your math problems; at least I am not.

Modus ponens may be considered what is proved as to its logical "form" (i.e., a construction that guarantees the conclusion where the premises are true).

I am not interested in proving that modus ponens is a valid argument form. Others have done that for me and there's not much dispute about that.

I am concerned in using that form to address important public issues where the premises used may or may not be "axiomatic" as you like to say.

In the real world, we address issues where the truth of the premises are not axiomatic and may or may be accepted as true and we use a modus ponens argument form to help identify and discuss issues and the truth of our conclusions and the premises upon which they may be based, whether such premises are explicitly stated or "implied".

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> So, in relation to your original debate,
> "Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise
> - Is The Argument Logically Valid?", your Major
> Premise is far from proved to be true.
>
>> 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.
>
> First off, this premise,
> in my opinion is obviously false.

See, there you go demonstrating a lack of understanding and unwillingness to deal with these matters step by reasonable step as set out in my exercise.

Step #1 as you properly note is whether the argument is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

Did you agree with me on that?

Then you jump way ahead to claiming you know if the premise is actually true or not.

I happen to agree with you that the premise cannot be shown to be true.

If you read my analysis a little closer you would have seen where that conclusion (that the premise is believed to be true, implicitly and/or explicitly, but cannot be shown to be true) is one of the lessons to take home from the exercise.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> ...if one human is capable of imagining a God
> that all others are thus also capable of imagining
> a God (which I assert is a reasonable assumption).

Thanks for that admission. Atheists believe man capable of having originated the idea/concept of God by imagination and that he did, in fact, do so.

Thanks also for "implicitly" admitting that it's an assumption that goes beyond the reach of the evidence. That's another important point my exercise is designed to make.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I agree with your hypothesis (that man CAN imagine
> God), this does not imply that this is why man
> believes in God.

Thanks for additional concession, but let's be clear that in this exercise were are talking about imagination accounting for the origin of the idea/concept of God; not simply that folks with the idea can imagine all other things "god" after having already come in to possession of the idea.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Here is the specific argument you presented me with:
>
>> IF (A); God's word (the text) says
>> everything began over a period
>> of six days, and
>>
>> IF (B); God's word (the text) is
>> interpreted by some to mean it
>> was six 24-hour days occurring
>> a few thousand years ago, and
>>
>> IF (C); there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a
>> few thousand years,
>>
>> THEN (D); the interpretation of
>> the text by some is wrong.
>
> First, I want to say that I agree that this
> argument is "correct".

In this exercise, that is a premise, not an argument; a statement that is either true or not true, but I'll take you "correct" to be an indication in my language that it is "true".

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> There are two major problems though with this statement.
> The first major problem is that you appear to assume the
> validity of this statement a priori without proof and I
> would argue that this is obviously unreasonable and thus
> one must prove this statement to be true before attempting
> to reach any kind of conclusion.

That's better, it's a statement.

It does not, however, have the problems you allege.

And note, "validity" is the wrong term to use in this exercise.

Arguments, not statements, are to be considered valid or not.

Statements are true or not true.

The truth of the statement is not assumed without proof but the truth of the statement is determined because it can be demonstrated, through the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning that, given the stipulations, if the antecedent conditions are true the consequent conclusion logically follows as true therefrom.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Now, I hope you caught the major problem.

I caught your major problem. Maybe we can discuss it later if I can get you to step back work through the exercise step by reasonable step.

Teaser:

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> To accept that this statement is valid you must
> accept that empirical evidence proves that the
> Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

That's simply not true, and it is understood that your reference to "valid" should be to "true" in that were are talking about a conditional statement, the major premise, being either true or not true and that can be determined, logically, whether or not any one or all of the conditions in the statement are true.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I would hope that I do not need to actually convince
> you that empirical evidence does not prove that a theory
> (or proposition if you will) is correct, but I can indeed
> present examples where empiricism has been shown to be
> incorrect.

That might be an interesting subject not relevant to this exercise. Maybe we'll chat about that more if you can work your way, step by step through the exercise.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ... Robert, I worked my way step by agonizing step through the exercise--apparently the first Creationist yet to do so. But there hasn t been any chatting
Message 3 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" wrote:

> "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:
>
> > I would hope that I do not need to actually convince
> > you that empirical evidence does not prove that a theory
> > (or proposition if you will) is correct, but I can indeed
> > present examples where empiricism has been shown to be
> > incorrect.

> That might be an interesting subject not relevant to this exercise. Maybe we'll chat about that more if you can work your way, step by step through the exercise.<

Robert, I worked my way step by agonizing step through the exercise--apparently the first Creationist yet to do so. But there hasn't been any chatting between us over why so many people don't see any reason to complete it themselves.

Was I not clear in concluding that the GRAS argument is both valid and true, but not one I would ever use?

Daniel B.
• ... Daniel, I do so appreciate the effort you made regarding the exercise; really, I do. As your record shows, there was only a little agonizing because you,
Message 4 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"bucksburg" wrote:

> Robert, I worked my way step by agonizing step
> through the exercise--apparently the first
> Creationist yet to do so. But there hasn't
> been any chatting between us over why so many
> people don't see any reason to complete it
> themselves.
>
> Was I not clear in concluding that the GRAS
> argument is both valid and true, but not one
> I would ever use?

Daniel,

I do so appreciate the effort you made regarding the exercise; really, I do.

As your record shows, there was only a little agonizing because you, unlike so many others, were willing to put in the time to improve your critical thinking skills.

While you may not explicitly utilize the argument in your worldwide ventures, one of my unrebutted claims for the argument is that it present, implicitly and/or explicitly whereever the merits of young-earth creation-science is taken seriously.

For instance, every time Ken Ham mentions "worldview" my "Goliath of GRAS" argument is lurking "between the lines".

I also propose, as to both the creationism and atheism arguments, that people don't want to successfully complete the exercises, at least in part, because they don't want to come face to face with the implications of a successful completion of the exercises. I think the "empirical" history demonstrates that to be the case.

Let's see how that proposition plays out with regard to Jared.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30830 tunombreaqui wrote regarding my truth claim as to the ... Of course, I dealt with that same
Message 5 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30830
"tunombreaqui" wrote regarding my truth claim as to the
major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" argument, in part:

> You essentially have the following formula:
>
> (A ∧ B ∧ C) --> D
>
> This is simple to prove (with one major assumption
> that I will address in a little bit).
> You can prove this by contradiction:
>
> Assume D is false: The interpretation of the text
> by some is correct and assume A, B, and C are true.
>
> Since assuming D is false leads to a contradiction,
> the statement must be true:
>
> (A ∧ B ∧ C) --> D.

Of course, I dealt with that same issue in an earlier message before Jared showed up.

Pay close attention: Using Jared's own "truth by contradiction", Jared admits that the major premise is true, given the stipulations.

I prefer a different method, but for sake of this part of the conversation I am willing accept Jared's concession that the major premise is true, given the stipulations.

Ah, but Jared seems not to be able to stand the fact that it really is that simple, and even simpler the way I show it to be true, for he then turns right around and tries to deny it with the following in the same message:

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30830
"tunombreaqui" wrote regarding my truth claim as to the
major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" argument, in part:

> Without showing that C proves that the Earth
> is more than a few thousand years old, the
> proof by contradiction that I went through
> above, doesn't work.
>
> Without it, there is no contradiction and
> thus one cannot conclude that your major
> premise is indeed true.
>
> Since your theorem is not true, you cannot
> conclude D, even though there is no doubt
> that A, B, and C are definitely true.

It is false that C needs to be proved to establish the truth of the major premise.

It is true that Jared, who has yet to work step by reasonable step through the exercise in order to better demonstrate his basic critical thinking skills, demonstrates he lacks an understanding of the stipulations and their use in this argument and its analysis.

In any case, the very nature of a conditional statement is not that the condition(s) have to be proved in order for the statement to be true, but only that the consequent will follow IF the antecedent is true.

Now, Jared, are you now willing to first give a simple "yes" or "no" to those 9 steps in the two exercises so that we might zero in further on your problems, step by reasonable step?

See the following two messages for the steps for your simple answers and the two arguments upon which the exercises are based:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30832

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30835

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ... This is exactly what you are doing. You do not understand Modus Ponens and I see no need to go through the exercises of someone who does not understand
Message 6 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
> "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:
>
> > If you assume that if p then q is true,
> > then it is definitely the case that if p then q.
>
> I don't do that!

This is exactly what you are doing. You do not understand Modus Ponens and I see no need to go through the "exercises" of someone who does not understand logic.

You keep asking the question: well, if we assume the major premise, then isn't it true that if each condition is true, that the conclusion is true? Well yeah, but it doesn't prove the conclusion is true unless you can ALSO show that the original implication is also true. This is the definition of circular logic, you are using the truth of your argument as proof that your conclusion is true.

If you are saying, no, that's not what you are doing (ultimately), then your exercises make no sense. What is the purpose of having the student assume something that is wrong to reach a faulty conclusion? If you wanted to teach this, it would be better to merely explain to them what circular logic is.

> Let's substitute "modus ponens" for your continual referral to that.
> Will you agree with me that arguments that follow the modus ponens
> form are logically valid because the modus ponens form has been
> shown to be logically valid (i.e., being such a form that if its
> premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom)?

I do not agree that MP has been "logically shown to be valid". MP is an axiom, in my opinion or, at the very least very close to one. MP is nothing more than the definition of implication. Some will disagree with that, but it's a fairly trivial disagreement. I see two "proofs" of MP on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens#Explanation

However, they are using circular logic to prove MP. They are first assuming MP, then showing that MP follows from that assumption. Why do they do this? Because MP is an axiom that cannot be proved, rather something that is taken to be true.

This is further proof that you do not understand how to properly use MP.

> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
> "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:
>
> > An axiom is a fairly trivial example of Modus Ponens,
> > however a theorem is a much more useful example.
>
> What you are calling an axiom is not modus ponens. What you are
> calling an axiom is a statement taken as true without proof.

You misunderstood what I was saying (which was my fault). I was not saying that an axiom is the same thing as MP. I am saying that when you use MP via an axiom, it seems quite trivial: i.e. "all dogs are black" and then I conclude that your dog is black (no joke, that's what the axiom said).

> Modus ponens is an argument "form", at least for purposes of what I
> am discussing, and one in which the premises are not taken as true
> but which, if true, will present a sound argument, being valid with
> true premises and a true conclusion.

I do not agree with you here at all. This statement further illustrates that you do not understand how to use MP. If it was the case that your premise was true, then and ONLY then would MP present a sound argument for the conclusion. Because you do not show your premise to be true (and in fact I have showed it to be false) your argument is not sound.

I strongly encourage you to read and actually understand what the term sound means in relation to arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

> Modus ponens may be considered what is proved as to its logical
> "form" (i.e., a construction that guarantees the conclusion where
> the premises are true).

Another perfect example of your misunderstanding of MP. MP is NOT a construction that guarantees the conclusion where the premises are true. This argument relies not ONLY on MP, but ALSO on proving the original implication (or conditional or you have even called it a major premise). Without proving the original implication, MP cannot be used to form any kind of argument.

> In the real world, we address issues where the truth of the premises
> are not axiomatic and may or may be accepted as true and we use a
> modus ponens argument form to help identify and discuss issues and
> the truth of our conclusions and the premises upon which they may be
> based, whether such premises are explicitly stated or "implied".

This entire statement is completely incoherent...let me guess, I need to go through your exercises. You may use MP, but you do so incorrectly (as I have stated and explained numerous times).

>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
> "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:
>
> > So, in relation to your original debate,
> > "Step #1: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise
> > - Is The Argument Logically Valid?", your Major
> > Premise is far from proved to be true.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > First off, this premise,
> > in my opinion is obviously false.
>
> See, there you go demonstrating a lack of understanding and
> unwillingness to deal with these matters step by reasonable step as
> set out in my exercise.
>
> Step #1 as you properly note is whether the argument is so
> constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow
> as true therefrom.
>
> Did you agree with me on that?
>
> Then you jump way ahead to claiming you know if the premise is
> actually true or not.
>
> I happen to agree with you that the premise cannot be shown to be
> true.
>
> If you read my analysis a little closer you would have seen where
> that conclusion (that the premise is believed to be true,
> implicitly and/or explicitly, but cannot be shown to be true) is one
> of the lessons to take home from the exercise.

First you say I jump ahead and need to start from step #1, then at the end you say I already showed and understand the purpose of your exercises. This has to be about the worst use of the Socratic method I have ever seen. You are constantly obfuscating what your intention is in the hope that the student will figure things out for themselves (which is a good method and correct goal of a teacher). However, when a student (me) sees your intention, instead of saying, good, you get it let's move the discussion even further, you simply say, you are skipping steps--you need to go back to square 1. I suspect this is the reason nobody ever goes through your exercises. 1) They appear to be pointless and cause the reader to constantly use bad arguments to reach conclusions that the reader already knows to be invalid. 2) They are exhaustingly long (which makes the whole pointless part an even harder pill to swallow).

If your purpose is to show religious people reach a conclusion based on faulty logic, then I already knew that. Most religious beliefs can be disproved through proof of contradiction (i.e. their beliefs are NOT even internally consistent). Most religious folks get around this by constantly redefining what they mean by God.

Perfect example is Christians that believe in evolution. They reinterpret Genesis to be consistent with their belief that evolution is true. Another perfect example is that they believe God is all loving so they will say that parts of the Bible that show God to be a murderous maniac they say is just metaphorical. The worst of all are the pantheist Christians (because they do not even realize they are pantheists). They see that there are many different religions, so they now reinterpret God as being this all encompassing being who can be worshiped in many different ways. This is how they get around the fact that they know it's immoral to send a good Hindu to hell, yet their religion says this is the case.

Now, onto the atheists (like myself). Atheism does not need to disprove religion or explain it. We can explain religion, but like everything in science, it cannot be proved to be true. If you are trying to get atheists to admit that their views cannot be proved logically to be true either, then 1) I already know that and 2) most atheists are aware of this.

Most atheists are empiricists (actually everyone, whether they admit it or not is an empiricist). As I have shown empiricism to be logically flawed, this essentially proves that all humans have logically flawed views/beliefs.

Ultimately, if you want to have a debate about what is "real" (what is true) and what is not, you must accept at the beginning that nobody is going to be able to prove their point. When debating, the only really tool you have is to prove someone's argument is incorrect (this CAN be done). Ultimately, if neither side can show the other's arguments are incorrect, then it's merely going to be a matter of opinion who made stronger arguments. Generally, people use Occam's Razor in deciding which argument is better: the simpler argument is probably the more correct one. Obviously, this is not a logically sound way to determine who is right.

Incidentally, you keep attacking me because I use math. However, this is exactly why I use math as an example. MATH IS SIMPLE! Because math is based on axioms which we take to be true without question, you actually CAN logically prove things using math with sound arguments (i.e. Pythagorean Theorem can be logically proved to be true).

While I enjoy philosophical debates, the above reason is exactly why they also irritate me. Ultimately, philosophical debates are pointless because it is impossible to ever reach a conclusion (because neither side can ever actually prove their statements to be true). Instead, all you will have done is had a completely overly complicated lesson on logic, which if you wish to learn it correctly, math is a much better vehicle.

-Jared F. Bennatt
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837 ... That is not what I do, exactly or otherwise, and you have shown that you are unwilling to
Message 7 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

>> If you (RLBaty) assume that if p then q is true,
>> then it is definitely the case that if p then q.
>>
>>> I (RLBaty) don't do that!
>
> This is exactly what you are doing.
>
> You do not understand Modus Ponens and I
> see no need to go through the "exercises"
> of someone who does not understand logic.

That is not what I do, "exactly" or otherwise, and you have shown that you are unwilling to go through the simple exercises step by reasonable step in order that we might more appropriately identify and deal with your continuing problems.

You, Jared, are the one demonstrating a lack of understanding of modus ponens and how it finds application to my simple, critical thinking exercises.

I, unlike you, see the need for you to work with me to resolve your problems and the exercises are an ideal vehicle for helping you with your problems.

9 simple "yes" or "no" answers, Jared!
Are you up to it?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> You keep asking the question: well, if we
> assume the major premise, then isn't it
> true that if each condition is true, that
> the conclusion is true?

That's not the question I keep asking, Jared!

You further demonstration a lack of understanding regarding conditional statements.

By definition, the antecedent is assumed to be true and if it is true is it the case that the consequent will follow as true therefrom.

However, giving you a little credit, you do seem to admit in a confused sort of way that if the antecedent is deemed to be true, as stipulated, then the consequent will be true.

So, can you unequivocally state "yes" in answer to Step #2 of the creationism excercise, Jared!

Otherwise, Jared, the major premise is not assumed but reasonably inferred given the issue it is fundamentally designed to address.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> It doesn't prove the conclusion is true unless
> you can ALSO show that the original implication
> is also true.

Duh! That's sounds like something I would say, though you still express some confusion about the use of modus ponens, conditional statements, et al.

I don't propose that the argument or major premise "proves" anything.

The issue as to the truth of antecedent is an issue for the minor premise to deal with; for those who understand how modus ponens work and why it is they call it modus ponens.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> You are using the truth of your argument as
> proof that your conclusion is true.

Shame on you, Jared, and that after all of my effort to help you deal with your problems.

Arguments in these exercises are not to be considered true or not true, but valid or not valid.

It's the premises and conclusion that are considered to be true or not true and not valid or not valid.

I do not use the validity of the argument or the truth of the major premise to "prove" the conclusion.

The validity issue and major premise issue truth issue are what they are and they do help identify problems areas in otherwise smart folks like you. They do not, and I do not claim they do, establish the proof of the conclusion.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> If you are saying, no, that's not what you are doing
> (ultimately), then your exercises make no sense.
>
> What is the purpose of having the student assume
> something that is wrong to reach a faulty conclusion?
>
> If you wanted to teach this, it would be better to
> merely explain to them what circular logic is.

It's not circular reasoning and students who openly, honestly take part in the exercises step by reasonable step have an opportunity to demonstrate their critical thinking skills and/or learn some and understand why others, like you, Jared, think themselves so smart while blundering over the simple, fundamental issues so effectively dealt with in the exercises.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30837
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I do not agree that MP has been "logically shown
> to be valid".
>
> MP is an axiom, in my opinion or, at the very
> least very close to one.
>
> MP is nothing more than the definition of
> implication.

Ah, now I see. More problems, and I was so trying to be accommodative to your use of modus ponens. That came up early in my efforts on the Debate.Org site and I decided to not be drawn away from the exercises into quibbling over the legitimacy of "logical systems".

So, Jared, just forget modus ponens and concentrate on dealing with your own, independent, thinking skills.

OK!

Step #1:

Is my "Goliath of GRAS" so constructed that
if its premises are true its conclusion will
follow as true therefrom (i.e., we will call
that condition, if existing, logical validity)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> Jared F. Bennatt - No

I just noticed that you answered "no" to that issue in your just posted message and claimed to prove it was not so constructed.

So, let's just stop there and deal with the problem you are exhibiting on that fundamental matter.

I say the consequent is proved, given the stipulations because B cannot be true if A and C are true and the stipulations reflect the truth of A and C. Therefore, it follows logically that B cannot be true and hence D follows as true IF the conditions are true.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ... You, Jared, and others are the ones who demonstrate problems understanding soundness as it relates to my two exercises. For use in these exercises, sound
Message 8 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I strongly encourage you to read and actually
> understand what the term sound means in relation
> to arguments:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

You, Jared, and others are the ones who demonstrate problems understanding "soundness" as it relates to my two exercises.

For use in these exercises, sound refers to an argument that is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom and its premises are true.

Alas, you are still stuck denying that my "Goliath of GRAS" is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

You have demonstrated a misunderstanding of the argument, of conditional statements and the use of an argument form that looks like the following in symbolic terms:

> If p, then q.
> p.
> Therefore, q.

Don't call that modus ponens, Jared. We don't want to get sidetracked quibbling about your deeper problems with that.

If you think you have proved my "Goliath of GRAS" argument is not constructed so that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom, just lay out your proof again; clearly, concisely, unequivocally for all the world to see.

Just try to explain in as few a words as possible how the major and minor premises of my argument can be true and the conclusion not follow.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• The problem with the GoGRAS statement is that you use one of the premises to reach an unjustified conclusion, specifically premise C. I have explained this
Message 9 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
The problem with the GoGRAS statement is that you use one of the premises to reach an unjustified conclusion, specifically premise C. I have explained this twice now and you have yet to respond to my objections, so now I am stating it a 3rd time.

Please explain to me how the the existence of empirical evidence that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old contradicts the statement that the Earth was created in six 24 hour days a few thousand years ago.

You're equating empirical evidence that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old with the premise that the Earth actually is more than a few thousand years old. The two are far from equivalent and, furthermore, accepting that empirical evidence exists does not imply that the Earth actually is more than a few thousand years old.

Here is a simple example, please answer the following question:

Do you believe the following statement to be valid?

S1: If there exists empirical evidence that I am a police officer, then I am a police officer.

If you say this is invalid, then your argument for GoGRAS is not sound (since you are using the same type of reasoning to conclude that the Earth actually is more than a few thousand years old).
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844 ... I am still waiting for you to demonstrate you read the C stipulation and understand it as it
Message 10 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> The problem with the GoGRAS statement is that
> you use one of the premises to reach an unjustified
> conclusion, specifically premise C.
>
> I have explained this twice now and you have yet to
> respond to my objections, so now I am stating it a
> 3rd time.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate you read the C stipulation and understand it as it relates to my argument.

Otherwise, I have repeatedly, simply explained how the conclusion/consequent is reached by logical implication; if the antecedent conditions are true.

And yet you and others obfuscate the simplicity designed into the exercise and blame me for your problems with the exercise.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Please explain to me how the the existence of
> empirical evidence that the Earth is more than
> a few thousand years old contradicts the statement
> that the Earth was created in six 24 hour days a
> few thousand years ago.

Jared, please copy stipulation C and past it into a message and explain to me what you don't understand about it or what you think it means.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> You're equating empirical evidence that the
> Earth is more than a few thousand years old
> with the premise that the Earth actually is
> more than a few thousand years old.

See my above request to help you get your problem with that resolved.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Here is a simple example,
> please answer the following question:
>
> Do you believe the following statement
> to be valid?
>
> S1: If there exists empirical evidence
> that I am a police officer, then I am a
> police officer.

See my earlier request about trying to help you resolve your problem with this. Also, I consider statements to be either true or not true, not valid or not valid. Valid is a term I use to describe the construction of arguments; as I have explained over and over and over again consistent with generally accepted authorities and my own preferences.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> If you say this is invalid, then your argument
> for GoGRAS is not sound (since you are using
> the same type of reasoning to conclude that
> the Earth actually is more than a few thousand
> years old).

Again, Jared, please copy and past the stipulation as to C into a message to demonstrate you have actually found it and read it and then try to explain your problem with it or what you think it means in the context of this exercise.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• Jared, Nice guy that I am, I am going to save you the trouble of looking up the relevant stipulation that you are so struggling with. ... Now, please try to
Message 11 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
Jared,

Nice guy that I am, I am going to save you the trouble of looking up the relevant stipulation that you are so struggling with.

Here it is:

> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few thousand
> years" - some thing is more than a few
> thousand years old and we can so determine
> from evidence and its interpretation
> independent of "the text".

Now, please try to demonstrate you understand what the stipulation means and how it finds application to the truth claim I make for my major premise.

Remember, please remember, the issue at this point is not whether or not that the stipulation is true. That's an issue for the minor premise.

For purposes of considering the major premise truth claim, it is deemed to be true to evaluate what the implications of the antecedent might be, if such antecedent is true, and if we might properly infer at least one such implication; a logical implication.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• I have cited stipulation C numerous times. Furthermore, I cannot be anymore clear and you seem to refuse to answer MY questions, rather you seem to want to
Message 12 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
I have cited stipulation C numerous times. Furthermore, I cannot be anymore clear and you seem to refuse to answer MY questions, rather you seem to want to just have all of your arguments be considered valid when, in fact, I have shown them to be invalid and you have yet to actually address my contentions (which I do not believe are difficult to understand). You are completely avoiding my questions and your last two responses did absolutely nothing to move this discussion forward. So I will now make a final attempt to explain my objections (this will now be the 4th time I have stated my objections, 5th if you count the original long message) and if you are unwilling to respond to them, then I am afraid this discussion cannot continue.

> Jared, please copy stipulation C and past it into a message and
> explain to me what you don't understand about it or what you think
> it means.

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

I believe this stipulations means exactly what it says, but you seem to think it means something more. I do NOT believe that this stipulation means either one of a) "some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years" or b) that the Earth is "much older than a few thousand years".

Without assuming a) and/or b) are true, it is not contradictory to accept B) and C) together and thus not contradictory that A), B), and C) can all be true together. If A), B), and C) can all be true together then D) does not follow (D, may or may not be true).

For further explanation, I refer you to my following posts:

Large Post (relevant part is about halfway down): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30830
Response to Questions (objection to your argument is raised almost immediately): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30838
1st Post dealing solely with the problem with B) an C): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30841
Short Post addressing problems with again: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844

-Jared F. Bennatt
• ... I think what you have done, Jared, is cite C from the premise while ignoring the clear and unequivocal meaning of the stipulation as to C in the
Message 13 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I have cited stipulation C numerous times.

I think what you have done, Jared, is cite C from the premise while ignoring the clear and unequivocal meaning of the stipulation as to C in the argument/premise.

Let me try again. Here's the stipulation that corresponds to the C condition:

> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few thousand
> years" - some thing is more than a few
> thousand years old and we can so determine
> from evidence and its interpretation
> independent of "the text".

Try to convince me you understand what that means.

I am not asking if you agree that it is true. You have already indicated you don't think it is true.

That, however, is the stipulation as to what is meant by the C element of the conditional and minor premise.

Whether or not it is true is, as so often stated, an issue to take up if we get into a discussion of the minor premise.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> You seem to want to just have all of your
> arguments be considered valid when, in fact,
> I have shown them to be invalid and you have
> yet to actually address my contentions
> (which I do not believe are difficult to
> understand).

I have rebutted what little you have actually had to say about that, and I have no reason to believe that you should be given any special credit for your testimony. Your testimony reflects that you, like so many others, have trouble with the simple, fundamental, critical thinking skills.

Did you find the testimony in my archives where 16 professionals in the field have unanimously testified to the validity of my argument; including Carl Cohen, the co-author with Irwin Copi of that Introduction to Logic book I recommended you use for reference in these discussions?

Why should I put in stock in what you have to say on the validity issue when you are kicking against the pricks on the simplest of matters?

16 professionals on my side don't make it true, but it may be something you want to consider before continuing to be a reluctant, misbehavin' student.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> You are completely avoiding my questions and
> your last two responses did absolutely nothing
> to move this discussion forward.

Personally, I think you are doing an excellent job in proving one of my points; that even folks like you that should know better have trouble with the simplest of fundamental critical thinking skills.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> So I will now make a final attempt to explain
> my objections (this will now be the 4th time
> I have stated my objections, 5th if you count
> the original long message) and if you are
> unwilling to respond to them, then I am afraid
> this discussion cannot continue.

How long you are willing to engage the discussion is up to you. I am longsuffering and willing to stay with it a while longer to try and help you with your problems on these simple, fundamental matters.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

>> IF (C); there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a
>> few thousand years,
>
> I believe this stipulations means exactly what
> it says, but you seem to think it means something
> more.

Thanks for proving my point.

The condition is not the stipulation.

There is a stipulation that explains what that is intended to mean in the exercise.

Try again, Jared.

Read the stipulation that goes along with C, that has been over and over and over again referred to you for consideration and which you now demonstrate you have been ignoring.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ... You have added an explanation of the stipulation (based on things you have previously referenced, this is the first time I am seeing your interpretation of
Message 14 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
> > "Empirical evidence that some thing is
> > actually much older than a few thousand
> > years" - some thing is more than a few
> > thousand years old and we can so determine
> > from evidence and its interpretation
> > independent of "the text".
>
> Try to convince me you understand what that means.
>
> I am not asking if you agree that it is true. You have already indicated you don't think it is true.

You have added an explanation of the stipulation (based on things you have previously referenced, this is the first time I am seeing your interpretation of stipulation C). First, I do not agree at all that these two statements mean the same thing, however that's irrelevant. You can put any kind of gibberish you want and it can mean anything you like. So if you tell me this is how you are interpreting stipulation C) then I agree that your argument is sound.

I would just like to point out two things:

1) If you mean the second statement, you should use it as stipulation C, so I would strongly urge you to restate GoGRAS as the following so as to be more clear your meaning:

> IF (A); God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B); God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C); some thing is
> actually much older than a
> few thousand years,
>
> THEN (D); the interpretation of
> the text by some is wrong.

Do you see the difference in C?

2) Now, I no longer accept the minor premise and thus cannot conclude D). To accept the minor premise one has to prove C). You seem to think the empirical evidence does this and I have already shown that this is not a sound argument to accept stipulation C) from the minor premise.

-Jared F. Bennatt
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849 ... Like I said, Jared, you proved that you haven t been paying attention from the beginning. Go
Message 15 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

>> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a few thousand
>> years" - some thing is more than a few
>> thousand years old and we can so determine
>> from evidence and its interpretation
>> independent of "the text".
>>
>> Try to convince me you understand what
>> that means.
>>
>> I am not asking if you agree that it is
>> true. You have already indicated you don't
>> think it is true.
>
> You have added an explanation of the stipulation
> (based on things you have previously referenced,
> this is the first time I am seeing your interpretation
> of stipulation C).

Like I said, Jared, you proved that you haven't been paying attention from the beginning.

Go back and check the archives. References to that stipulation have been there a long, long time.

Maybe more later, but that is enough to explain a lot about your unresolved problems.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849 ... Thanks for that concession. However, it s not a matter of me interpreting the condition,
Message 16 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

>> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a few thousand
>> years" - some thing is more than a few
>> thousand years old and we can so determine
>> from evidence and its interpretation
>> independent of "the text".
>>
>> Try to convince me you understand what
>> that means.
>>
>> I am not asking if you agree that it is
>> true. You have already indicated you don't
>> think it is true.
>
> First, I do not agree at all that these two statements
> mean the same thing, however that's irrelevant.
>
> So if you tell me this is how you are interpreting
> stipulation C) then I agree that your argument is
> sound.

Thanks for that concession.

However, it's not a matter of me interpreting the condition, that you identify as the stipulation. It's a matter of me stipulating that that is what the condition is intended to refer to in this exercise.

You, and others, have had considerable trouble, among other things, understanding defining stipulations and how they relate to such exercises.

Were we to proceed, you would have an opportunity to find out how stipulations work in resolving the minor premise issue.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I would just like to point out two things:
>
> 1) If you mean the second statement, you should
> use it as stipulation C, so I would strongly urge
> you to restate GoGRAS as the following so as to
> be more clear your meaning:
>
>> IF (A); God's word (the text) says
>> everything began over a period
>> of six days, and
>>
>> IF (B); God's word (the text) is
>> interpreted by some to mean it
>> was six 24-hour days occurring
>> a few thousand years ago, and
>>
>> IF (C); some thing is
>> actually much older than a
>> few thousand years,
>>
>> THEN (D); the interpretation of
>> the text by some is wrong.
>
> Do you see the difference in C?

I have had a lot of suggestions over the years. The exercise has many utilitarian purposes and I think my framing of the argument and the use of the stipulation as to the C condition works out just fine.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> 2) Now, I no longer accept the minor premise and
> thus cannot conclude D).
>
> To accept the minor premise one has to prove C).
>
> You seem to think the empirical evidence does this
> and I have already shown that this is not a sound
> argument to accept stipulation C) from the minor
> premise.

Would you like to review the exercise and have me explain to you how the analysis of the minor premise works and how the exercise helps to demonstrate why it is that young-earth creation-science folks have failed in their scientific pretentions and legal challenges?

It really is quite simple and you may now be receptive to just how simple it is.

Nothing really profound.
No tricks.
No traps.

Just a simple exercise that folks like you and young-earth creation-science sorts have been quite diligent to blunder over and make it look like something really difficult.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• ...  many utilitarian purposes and I think my framing of the argument  and the use of the stipulation as to the C condition works out just  fine.
Message 17 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
> I have had a lot of suggestions over the years.  The exercise has
>  many utilitarian purposes and I think my framing of the argument
> and the use of the stipulation as to the C condition works out just
> fine.

Statement C) vs. what you actually mean, in my opinion is written poorly and, in fact, it makes no sense to state it like that, when what you mean is crystal clear: "some things are more than a few thousand years old".  Simple as that.

Furthermore, the fact that you would use C) as stated is actually dishonest in my opinion.  I know exactly what you are trying to do.  You are trying to swindle the reader into accepting the major premise because you very quickly say, well, if there are some things that are more than a few thousand years old, then it cannot be the case that the interpretation that the Earth was created in six 24 days a few thousand years ago, must be false and thus, this must be the wrong interpretation.  Here's the problem: stipulation C ) is not the bolded part--it says that empirical evidence exists that shows...  So why do you state C) in the way you do?  Well because it's undeniable that empirical evidence does exist!  So if you can lull the reader into accepting your unsound argument for why the major premise is true, then you have them trapped.  Unfortunately, you didn't trap me.  I know that accepting the stipulation that empirical evidence exists is not the same as some things exist...  This is dishonest because had you stated what you purport to actually mean, some things exist that are more than a few thousand years old, then while your argument for the major premise would be sound and thus the major premise is true, you know that YECs will immediately deny that the minor premise is true because they will say (rightfully so) that you cannot prove that C) is indeed true.  Indeed you cannot prove the following statement: some things exist that are more than a few thousand years old.

If you do not address the fact that I do not accept your argument that the existing empirical evidence for some things being more than a few thousand years old does not logically imply that indeed some things are more than a few thousand years old, then I will most likely stop responding.  I do not believe you have made any kind of honest attempt at addressing my concern.

-Jared F. Bennatt
• I should point out that the language may be a little confusing (although I think you know exactly what my arguments are--so, at best, you are basically arguing
Message 18 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
I should point out that the language may be a little confusing (although I think you know exactly what my arguments are--so, at best, you are basically arguing my semantics, not my actual argument).

First, I want to say that there are two ways to state your Goliath of GRAS argument.  In one case the argument is valid but not sound and in the other case the argument is simply invalid.  In neither case is the argument both sound and thus in neither case you can you logically show your conclusion.

First way (original): your argument is invalid.

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A); God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B); God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C); there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a
> few thousand years,
>
> THEN (D); the interpretation of
> the text by some is wrong.

MINOR PREMISE:

> (A); God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> (B); God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> (C); there is empirical evidence
> that some thing is actually much
> older than a few thousand years.

CONCLUSION:

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

The major premise is not showed to be true and thus this argument is invalid.  The major premise is not showed to be true because you cannot conclude from empirical evidence that indeed somethings actually do exist that are more than a few thousand years old.

2nd Form.  The argument is valid, by not sound because it cannot be showed that premises are indeed true (again, you cannot show that it is true that there are somethings that are actually older than a few thousand years).

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A); God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> IF (B); God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> IF (C); some thing is
> actually much older than a
> few thousand years,
>
> THEN (D); the interpretation of
> the text by some is wrong.

MINOR PREMISE:

> (A); God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, and
>
> (B); God's word (the text) is
> interpreted by some to mean it
> was six 24-hour days occurring
> a few thousand years ago, and
>
> (C); some thing is actually much
> older than a few thousand years.

CONCLUSION:

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

I have to say, that the way you have written this "argument", in my opinion is very strange.  You will notice that I have only really been attacking the major premise since I believe this is the only content of this so-called argument.  If you instead are actually making the following claim:

If you accept the major premise and the minor premise, then the conclusion is true.

Then, in either case, I agree that this argument is valid.  But in neither case is it sound.  Because in the first case, the major premise cannot be showed to be true and in the 2nd case, the minor premise cannot be showed to be true.

-Jared F. Bennatt
• ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855 ... I think you have done very well in demonstrating your opinions don t carry much weight as to
Message 19 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Statement C) vs. what you actually mean,
> in my opinion is written poorly....

I think you have done very well in demonstrating your opinions don't carry much weight as to these important, public issues.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> ...in fact, it makes no sense to state it like that,
> when what you mean is crystal clear:
>
>> "some things are more than
>> a few thousand years old".
>
> Simple as that.

See above comment.

In fact, what the argument reflects is clear enough for those with eyes to see and can demonstrate basic critical thinking skills. I have one or more very good reasons for not re-writing it to fit you misconceptions of the issues as they relate to young-earth creation-science promoters and the intent of the argument.

We might have gotten in to a further discussion of that if you were determined to continue in your misdirection instead of admitting your errors, explaining them, and correcting them.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Furthermore, the fact that you would use C)
> as stated is actually dishonest in my opinion.

Sounds like sour grapes to me; from a poor loser.

See above also.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I know exactly what you are trying to do.

I am tempted, after all my efforts with you, to say you are lying about that, but I figure it may yet be the case that you are just still blinded by being bested by the likes of little ol' me.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> You are trying to swindle the reader...

Between the two of us, I think there is only one swindler.

It isn't me.

I think the readers will be able to figure out from the record who has been trying to swindle us with his evasions and errors and stiff-necked, unreasonable approach to the little exercise.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

... into accepting the major premise...

It's a very simple, critical thinking exercise.

The argument is so constructed that if the premises are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

That some don't accept the major premise as true, given the stipulations and based on sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, is important feedback about the lack of basic critical thinking skills on the part of the student...such as you, Jared.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> ...if there are some things that are more
> than a few thousand years old, then it cannot
> be the case that the interpretation that the
> Earth was created in six 24 days a few
> thousand years ago, must be false and thus,
> this must be the wrong interpretation.

The way we say it around here, Jared, is that if some things are more than a few thousand years old, then either,

the young-earth creation-science interpretation is wrong,

or,

the text is wrong.

I have an argument for each issue, but the one we are dealing with now is the one that deals with the interpretation issue; and quite appropriately and simply so; for those who can demonstrate basic, critical thinking skills.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Here's the problem: stipulation C ) is not the
> bolded part--it says that empirical evidence exists
> that shows...  So why do you state C) in the way you do?

There's not a problem with C, and, as I recall, you indicated early own where the place for clarification comes in with conversations and communications.

To facilitate an understanding of EACH of the conditions stated in the argument, the meanings have been stipulated for clarity and relevance.

I get the distinct impression you are simply still reeling from your inadvertent or willful avoidance of the stipulations until just recently.

Really, Jared, I could not have scripted your blundering better.

Why not have some fun with the rest of us and laugh with us as we laugh at your blundering regarding the stipulations! :o)

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Well because it's undeniable that empirical
> evidence does exist!

Has Ken Ham likes to say, we all have access to the same evidence.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> So if you can lull the reader into accepting
> your unsound argument for why the major premise
> is true, then you have them trapped.

I try to get my students to open their eyes and not be lulled, like you have been, into thinking you can beat me at my game because you think you are sooooooooo smart.

There is no trap.

The argument for the truth of the major premise is clear, though I see you are still struggling to deny it.

The truth of the major premise does trap anyone into anything accept a course that leads to consideration of the minor premise where the truth of the conditions come in to play; assuming the student has also accepted the validity of the argument.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Unfortunately, you didn't trap me.

No, it wasn't a trap.

But you have blundered your way through the conversation with your errors and evasions and, LOL, your failure to consider the stipulative definitions given for the conditions.

You showed that even the high and mighty math wizards like you who pride themselves on their logical prowess can be shown not to be so clever when it comes to being able to demonstrate their ability to think properly regarding the simple stuff.

I certainly appreciate your contribution and you have earned a chapter all your own should that book ever get written.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I know that accepting the stipulation that
> empirical evidence exists is not the same
> as some things exist...  This is dishonest
> because had you stated what you purport to
> actually mean, some things exist that are
> more than a few thousand years old, then
> while your argument for the major premise
> would be sound and thus the major premise
> is true, you know that YECs will immediately
> deny that the minor premise is true because
> they will say (rightfully so) that you cannot
> prove that C) is indeed true.

There is some dishonesty going on in these conversations.

Readers will recognize that it is not coming from my keyboard.

Shame on you, Jared!
Shame on you!

We could have had a rational discussion about your problems in that area, Jared, but you refused to deal openly and honestly with your blundering and progress to a consideration of the minor premise and how it resolves itself in the exercise (though I made it clear in Step #3 how young-earth creation-science promoters deal with that issue as to C).

Will you never cease, Jared!

You failed.
You lost.

It's time to repent and start bringing forth your works for repentance instead of continue to whine because you are simply a sore loser trying to cover up your blundering.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> Indeed you cannot prove the following statement:
> some things exist that are more than a few thousand
> years old.

I was certainly prepared to discuss that with you as it relates to them minor premise, Jared.

Alas, you blundering continues.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> If you do not address the fact that I do not
> accept your argument that the existing empirical
> evidence for some things being more than a few
> thousand years old does not logically imply that
> indeed some things are more than a few thousand
> years old, then I will most likely stop responding.

What's to address!

As I have been since the beginning, Jared, I propose to deal with your problems as they become relevant and you haven't made it that far yet.

I get that you deny that C in the minor premise is true.
So!

We can discuss that after we resolve the other issues preliminary to taking up the minor premise.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I do not believe you have made any kind of honest
> attempt at addressing my concern.

Want to opine just how dishonest you have been coming across regarding the simplest of fundamental, critical thinking issues as they relate to my little exercise, Jared.

Here's your homework assignment:

Read real carefully the argument and the stipulations.

If you can't figure out where I am correct in proposing that the argument is so constructed that if the premises are true the conclusion will follow as true and that, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, the major premise is true, then come back with questions and not blundering evasions and obfuscations and I will try to bring you up to speed.

Once we, unequivocally, resolve those simple matters, we can move on to dealing with your problems regarding the minor premise.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
• Will you blundering never end, Jared! See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30857 for your homework assignment and get back to me tomorrow,
Message 20 of 25 , Feb 2, 2013
Will you blundering never end, Jared!

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30857 for your homework assignment and get back to me tomorrow, after you have seriously thought through your next move.

As to what you just posted:

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30856
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> First way (original):
> your argument is invalid.
>
> The major premise is not showed to be true
> and thus this argument is invalid.

That's why I have been trying to describe the argument instead of label it. In this exercise, validity has to do with form and is not contingent upon content.

In other words, the issue is whether or not, for purposes of validity as I define that term, the argument is so constructed that IF, IF, IF the premises are true the conclusion will follow.

In any case, as I explained in giving you that homework assignment, the original major premise is, given the stipulations, true; but that issue is secondary to the validity issue.

Jared, again, if you do your homework assignment properly, we just might get to dealing with your soundness problem.

A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises for purposes of this exercise.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30856
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> I have to say, that the way you have written
> this "argument", in my opinion is very strange.

Not really.

You are just having trouble with the fundamentals and are having trouble being open and honest in dealing with your problems.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30856
"tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

> If you instead are actually making the
> following claim:
>
> If you accept the major premise and the minor
> premise, then the conclusion is true.
>
> Then, in either case, I agree that this argument
> is valid. But in neither case is it sound.

Ah, there is still a glimmer of hope!

Do your homework tonight, Jared, and get back tomorrow if you can figure it all out.

Maybe then we'll take up the minor premise and soundness issues.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.