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

Re: Jared F. Bennatt v. Robert Baty: Critical Thinking Exercises!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... The Goliath of GRAS Argument with Stipulations ... The Atheism Argument
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      For ready reference and for those who may not be familiar with the two arguments that anchor the two exercises, here they are:

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

      The "Goliath of GRAS" Argument with Stipulations

      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.

      Basic Stipulations:

      > "God's word" - communication from
      > God in words that are not wrong.

      > "Interpreted by some" - what some
      > folks think it means and what thinking
      > might be wrong.

      > "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".

      > "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

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

      The Atheism Argument

      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.

      -------------------------------------------------
      -------------------------------------------------
    • tunombreaqui
      ... It would be a sound argument if you changed C): ... The problem is that your premise C1) is loaded and in fact is stating: if there is empirical evidence
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        > Step #1:
        >
        > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so
        > constructed that if its premises are
        > true its conclusion will follow as
        > true therefrom (e.g., is it logically
        > valid)?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - no (I have already proved this)

        It would be a sound argument if you changed C):

        Original:
        > IF (C1); there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a
        > few thousand years,

        Corrected:
        > IF (C2); some thing is
        > actually much older than a
        > few thousand years,

        The problem is that your premise C1) is loaded and in fact is stating:

        if there is empirical evidence for C2, then C2

        I showed that this statement cannot be proved to be true, and thus accepting C1, does not entail C2 (which is necessary to prove "Goliath of GRAS" argument is sound).


        >
        > Step #2:
        >
        > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument major
        > premise, given the stipulations and the
        > force and effect of sound, biblical,
        > common-sense reasoning, true?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - no

        I do not see how this is different from Step #1. If the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then your Major Premise is indeed true. However, I showed that GoGRAS is not true previously.


        > Step #3:
        >
        > Is the truth of the "Goliath of GRAS"
        > minor premise rejected by young-earth
        > creation-science promoters like Ken
        > Ham and Kent Hovind because they
        > have their interpretation of the Bible
        > regarding the age of stuff and that
        > trumps any other evidence and its
        > interpretation to the contrary?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - not exactly

        YEC's do not deny that empirical evidence exists. They deny that this indeed means the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. This is the difference between C1 (original) and C2 (corrected). If you changed C to C2, then I would be agreeing with you on all counts.

        >
        > Atheism Critical Thinking Exercise:
        >
        > Step #1:
        >
        > Do you think the argument is so constructed that
        > if its premises are true its conclusion will follow
        > as true therefrom (i.e., that it is logically valid)?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - no

        You cannot prove this statement to be true and, in fact, I have given a counterexample in a previous post.

        >
        > Step #2:
        >
        > Do you think that you can take the minor premise
        > and conclusion of a logically valid modus ponens
        > argument and construct the major premise therefrom?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - yes???

        This seems to be an acceptance of MP. But you state that it must be from a logically valid MP. I take this to mean you have proved the original conditional before attempting to use MP, in which case I agree. I do not really understand what you are asking here.

        >
        > Step #3:
        >
        > Do you think that the major premise of the above
        > argument is properly inferred and properly constructed
        > from the minor premise and conclusion of the argument?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - ???


        >
        > Step #4:
        >
        > Do you think that atheism implies the truth of the
        > conclusion and that atheists implicitly and/or
        > explicitly believe the conclusion to be true?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - yes and no

        First, this question asks about atheists for which I cannot answer as it would be an opinion held depending on the atheist (so I'm not addressing the second question posed here). However, the first part, that atheism implies the truth of the conclusion is not exactly true.

        In fact, many Christians hold that they believe because they DO have evidence. So, now one asks, does atheism assume that their evidence is imagined? The problem here is we need to clearly define what we mean by "imagine". This is extremely subjective and if you go down this rabbit hole, the final conclusion will be that all of man's thoughts, perceptions, and things they take to be true are due to his imagination.

        (incidentally I agree with this view, but I doubt many atheists would say they do, so it's hard for me to claim this is a necessary view for atheism, although maybe it is)

        >
        > Step #5:
        >
        > Do you think that atheism implies the truth of the
        > minor premise and that atheists implicitly and/or
        > explicitly believe the minor premise to be true?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - yes
        >
        > Step #6:
        >
        > Do you think that atheism implies that the major
        > premise is true and that atheists implicitly and/or
        > explicitly believe the major premise to be true?
        >
        > > Robert Baty - Yes
        > > Jared F. Bennatt - no

        This seems to be a restatement of #4.
      • rlbaty50
        ... So, let s just stop there and deal with the problem you are exhibiting on that fundamental matter. You have NOT proved what you claim, Jared! I say the
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          "tunombreaqui" wrote:

          > Step #1:
          >
          > Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so
          > constructed that if its premises are
          > true its conclusion will follow as
          > true therefrom (e.g., is it logically
          > valid)?
          >
          >> Robert Baty - Yes
          >> Jared F. Bennatt - no (I have already proved this)

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

          You have NOT proved what you claim, Jared!

          I say the consequent follows from the hypothetical antecedent, 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.

          So, the major premise is established as true and if the minor premise is also true, then the conclusion will follow as true from the truth of the premises.

          Whether or not the premises are actually true is a separate issue, Jared.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • tunombreaqui
          ... This is not correct, it is possible for A, B, and C to all be simultaneously true. Your argument relies on the idea that B and C are contradictory, but
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > I say the consequent follows from the hypothetical antecedent, 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.

            This is not correct, it is possible for A, B, and C to all be simultaneously true. Your argument relies on the idea that B and C are contradictory, but they aren't.

            I wish you had actually responded to my previous explanation of this, but here it is again:

            It would be a sound argument if you changed C:

            Original:
            > IF (C1); there is empirical
            > evidence that some thing is
            > actually much older than a
            > few thousand years,

            Corrected:
            > IF (C2); some thing is
            > actually much older than a
            > few thousand years,

            The problem is that your premise C1 is loaded and in fact is stating:

            if there is empirical evidence for C2, then C2

            I showed that this statement cannot be proved to be true, and thus accepting C1, does not entail C2 (which is necessary to prove "Goliath of GRAS" argument is sound).


            This is further illustrated by YEC's response to empirical evidence that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old (which undeniably exists):

            YEC's do not deny that empirical evidence exists. They deny that this indeed means the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. This is the difference between C1 (original) and C2 (corrected). If you changed C to C2, then I would be agreeing with you on all counts.
          • rlbaty50
            ... Let me try again to be clearer. A, B, and C may, indeed be true. If I misstated that, I am sorry. However, B being true, it contradicts the truth of A and
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              "tunombreaqui" wrote:

              > It is possible for A, B, and C to all be
              > simultaneously true.
              >
              > Your argument relies on the idea that B and
              > C are contradictory, but they aren't.

              Let me try again to be clearer.

              A, B, and C may, indeed be true.

              If I misstated that, I am sorry.

              However, B being true, it contradicts the truth of A and C and while some may, indeed, hold to that interpretation, that interpretation would be wrong; as is so claimed in D.

              So, the conclusion is not that there is no B, but that the position of those identified in B have a wrong interpretation.

              Also, please carefully reconsider the stipulations. I think you are failing to properly grasp their relevance, particularly as to C.

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