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

Re: Jared's Debate.Org Debate Challenge - Cancelled!

Expand Messages
  • tunombreaqui
    It really doesn t matter anymore to me (not that it really ever mattered to me) and I really see no further reason to continue this discussion as you refuse to
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 3 9:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      It really doesn't matter anymore to me (not that it really ever mattered to me) and I really see no further reason to continue this discussion as you refuse to actually address my concerns.

      You have failed to convince me that your argument is sound and I have failed to convince you that it is unsound.  There is a very simple reason for this and I have stated it extremely clearly and you have never actually addressed it.

      Our problem is a difference of opinion.  You hold that empirical evidence can be used to assert a claim and I hold that it cannot.

      If you would like to have this debate, then we can.  But you don't seem to want to have this debate, so without it, we will just have to agree to disagree.  Until I convince you that empirical evidence cannot be used to assert a claim you will not see that your argument is not sound and until you can convince me that empirical evidence can be used to assert a claim, I will not agree that your argument is sound.

      I feel like your assertion is the following: Empirical evidence is a sound way to assert a claim.

      I feel that to disprove your assertion all I need to do is present a single counterexample and I think I can come up with many.  Note that this is really a universal (which is what will necessitate it being false).  If you argue that there is a way to determine when empirical evidence can be sound and when it cannot, then I would enjoy that discussion.

      -Jared F. Bennatt

      p.s. As stated, there are many other problems with GRAS.  One, it's not sound on exactly the claim Todd Greene just made (your conclusion is not exhaustive).  In fact, if you actually made it exhaustive you would see exactly why you can reach no conclusion (but I would forego that).  Secondly, the semantics of what you are saying are quite unclear.  What you mean to say is not that "the interpretation of some is wrong", what you actually mean to say is "some thing is more than a few thousand years old" (which further illustrates that the only substance to your argument is whether or not the empirical evidence is convincing).

      Here is an example of an argument that is unsound that is very similar to yours:

      If "The Lord of the Rings" (the text) states that the First Age lasted about 590 years, is interpreted by some to mean it was 590 calendar years (earth years), and "The Lord of the Rings" is a work of fiction, then the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

      Now surely you agree that this statement is not correct.  Readers who interpret the 590 years to be earth years do not actually believe this First Age happened (as proved by the fact that it's accepted to be fiction).  However, just because they accept it as fiction and don't actually believe it happened, doesn't make their interpretation of the book incorrect.

      (really cannot wait to see how this is "blundering" through your argument without actually explaining my mistakes)
    • rlbaty50
      Jared, You seem to be the ultimate sore loser. Your failed in trying to impeach the claims I make for my Goliath of GRAS and failed. Now you are trying to
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 3 10:39 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jared,

        You seem to be the ultimate sore loser.

        Your failed in trying to impeach the claims I make for my "Goliath of GRAS" and failed.

        Now you are trying to cover up for your blundering.

        You did finally admit my argument was so constructed that if its premises were true then its conclusion would follow as true therefrom.

        Then you turned your attention and blundering to trying to impeach the simple, logically determinable truth of the major premise; given the stipulations which you continued over and over and over again to ignore.

        Even Todd tried to tell you that, given the stipulations, the major premise is true.

        Some folks believe the minor premise is true, some don't.

        There are no problems with my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I make for it, Jared. You, however, are the one with a variety of problems and openness and honesty regarding your blundering are two problem areas your return for some cheap shots at me and my argument further demonstrate.

        Convincing you that the argument is sound was never an issue. That is just something you cooked up to try and impress yourself and the audience you were trying to reach.

        Our difference is not a matter of opinion.

        You are just wrong regarding the truth claim I make for the major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" argument; given the stipulations which you have over and over and over again ignored.

        I am more than willing to negotiate with you the logistical details necessary to produce an appropriate discussion of your problems with the "Goliath of GRAS", and the issue now pending, after resolving Step #1, is Step #2:

        > Do you think the "Goliath of GRAS"
        > major premise, given the stipulations
        > and the force and effect of common-
        > sense reasoning, is true?
        >
        >> Affirm: Robert Baty
        >> Deny: Jared F. Bennatt

        I think that clearly sets forth where we are at, Jared, and if you are interested in dealing with your problem with that, we can discuss the further details for producing a discussion of your problem.

        If successful, we can move on to the final step of the exercise and my claim regarding the minor premise.

        From there, we can discuss the implications of a successful completion of the exercise.

        You are more than welcome to your "Last Thursday" philosophy, Jared.

        You and Todd both reject the minor premise for the same reason; you both reject the A condition.

        I have told more than once, Jared, the argument and exercise is not designed for you. There are other arguments for your side of the issue regarding the age of stuff and young-earth creation-science promoters.

        The "Goliath of GRAS" argument is what I claim for it and the exercise does what I claim it does; in addition to having the utilitarian purpose of showing how even smart-alecks like you have problems with fundamental, critical thinking skills.

        Maybe you should try something simpler, but with 6 steps; my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise!

        That might be fun!

        You seem to have stum-bumbled your way through that exercise and maybe we can pick up on that exercise and see if you fare any better as I try to help you to understand your problems in dealing with that similarly simple exercise.

        I'll set it up for you and you can sleep on it and get back to me tomorrow if you are interested in testing your fundamental, critical thinking skills.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30879
        "tunombreaqui" wrote:

        > It really doesn't matter anymore to me (not that
        > it really ever mattered to me) and I really see
        > no further reason to continue this discussion as
        > you refuse to actually address my concerns.
        >
        > You have failed to convince me that your argument
        > is sound and I have failed to convince you that
        > it is unsound.  
        >
        > There is a very simple reason for this and I have
        > stated it extremely clearly and you have never
        > actually addressed it.
        >
        > Our problem is a difference of opinion.  
        >
        > You hold that empirical evidence can be used to
        > assert a claim and I hold that it cannot.
        >
        > If you would like to have this debate, then we can.  
        >
        > But you don't seem to want to have this debate,
        > so without it, we will just have to agree to disagree.  
        >
        > Until I convince you that empirical evidence cannot
        > be used to assert a claim you will not see that your
        > argument is not sound and until you can convince me
        > that empirical evidence can be used to assert a claim,
        > I will not agree that your argument is sound.
        >
        > I feel like your assertion is the following:
        >
        >> Empirical evidence is a sound
        >> way to assert a claim.
        >
        > I feel that to disprove your assertion all I need
        > to do is present a single counterexample and I
        > think I can come up with many.  
        >
        > Note that this is really a universal (which is what
        > will necessitate it being false).  
        >
        > If you argue that there is a way to determine when
        > empirical evidence can be sound and when it cannot,
        > then I would enjoy that discussion.
        >
        > -Jared F. Bennatt
        >
        > p.s. As stated, there are many other problems with
        > GRAS.  One, it's not sound on exactly the claim
        > Todd Greene just made (your conclusion is not
        > exhaustive).  In fact, if you actually made it
        > exhaustive you would see exactly why you can reach
        > no conclusion (but I would forego that).  Secondly,
        > the semantics of what you are saying are quite
        > unclear.  What you mean to say is not that
        >
        >> "the interpretation of some is wrong",
        >
        > what you actually mean to say is
        >
        >> "some thing is more than a few thousand
        >> years old"
        >
        > (which further illustrates that the only
        > substance to your argument is whether or not
        > the empirical evidence is convincing).
        >
        > Here is an example of an argument that is
        > unsound that is very similar to yours:
        >
        >> If "The Lord of the Rings" (the text)
        >> states that the First Age lasted
        >> about 590 years,
        >
        >> is interpreted by some to mean it was
        >> 590 calendar years (earth years),
        >
        > and
        >
        >> "The Lord of the Rings" is a work
        >> of fiction,
        >
        >> then the interpretation of the text
        >> by some is wrong.
        >
        > Now surely you agree that this statement
        > is not correct.  Readers who interpret
        > the 590 years to be earth years do not
        > actually believe this First Age happened
        > (as proved by the fact that it's accepted
        > to be fiction).  However, just because
        > they accept it as fiction and don't
        > actually believe it happened, doesn't make
        > their interpretation of the book incorrect.
        >
        > (really cannot wait to see how this is
        > "blundering" through your argument without
        > actually explaining my mistakes).

        -------------------------------------------
        -------------------------------------------
      • tunombreaqui
        (Moderator s Note: Jared writes, in part, I (Jared) don t even understand... He should have stated that at the beginning of his message because his messages
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 6 12:13 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          (Moderator's Note: Jared writes, in part, "I (Jared) don't even understand..." He should have stated that at the beginning of his message because his messages appears to be a demonstration of so much that he doesn't understand about my arguments and exercises. Alas, he indicates he is not back to engage in a further discussion of his problems but rather just take some pot shots and then be gone...again, also writing in part, "I (Jared) just would like to state one last thing before I stop coming here at all.". - RLBaty)


          > You did finally admit my argument was so constructed
          > that if its premises were true then its conclusion
          > would follow as true therefrom.

          I just would like to state one last thing before I stop coming here at all.

          I will admit, that I did not quite understand your definition of "valid" versus "sound" in the beginning and, in fact, I even admit that this is a fault on my part (as your definition of valid and sound is correct).

          Ultimately, this was a semantics debate, as I had a different (although incorrect) meaning in mind.

          However, your argument of validity is essentially a circular argument.

          Your argument, that GRAS is valid is equivalent to the following statement being valid:

          > Major Premise: If false, then unicorns exist.

          > Minor Premise: False is true.

          > Conclusion: unicorns exist.

          This argument is PERFECTLY valid.

          If you accept both the major and minor premise, then indeed you can conclude that unicorns exist.

          Furthermore, it's DEFINITELY correct that the major premise is true, but it's DEFINITELY correct that the minor premise is FALSE!

          Therefore, this argument is clearly not sound.

          Your actual argument is the following:

          > 1) God's word (the text) says everything began
          > over a period of six days

          > 2) The text is interpreted by some to mean it
          > was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand
          > years ago

          > 3) There is empirical evidence that some thing
          > is actually much older than a few thousand years.

          > Conclusion: The interpretation of the text by
          > some is wrong.

          Now this argument is not valid, which is equivalent to saying your major premise is not true and thus your original argument is not sound.

          Again, the invalidity of the above argument rests in the fact that empirical evidence does not logically prove that there does exist some things more than a few thousand years old.

          Whether I argue that the argument stated as I have is invalid or the argument you originally stated is unsound is irrelevant, as they mean the same thing.

          At no point do I criticize the empirical evidence nor do you support the empirical evidence and, as such, your argument is unsound (or as I have stated it, invalid).

          At best, all you can do is attempt to convince people that the empirical evidence proves ITS conclusion (i.e. that there exists some thing that is more than a few thousand years old).

          I don't even understand the whole trolling you have done against me.

          Considering I am an atheist arguing that your argument to prove creationists wrong is not sound, it would logically follow that I would agree that the exercise for atheists proves essentially the same thing (although it doesn't because just like the YEC exercise, the atheist exercise is ill-written).

          I already agree with you that, neither atheists nor theists can logically prove their point. This is why I am arguing on the theist's side, because I do NOT see their argument as logically incorrect.

          As an atheist, I DO see their argument as lacking any empirical evidence to suggest it is correct. Therefore, I have to make a judgement call on the evidence.

          As such, the evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old seems more convincing than the lack of evidence/argument that this is incorrect.

          -Jared
        • rlbaty50
          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30895 ... Interestingly, Todd, a member here and also an atheist, has just posted to his FaceBook page
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 6 6:36 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30895
            "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

            > (E)mpirical evidence does not logically prove
            > that there does exist some things more than a
            > few thousand years old.

            Interestingly, Todd, a member here and also an atheist, has just posted to his FaceBook page the following statements:

            http://www.facebook.com/realityzen

            > Notice the beginning of this article:
            >
            > "The further away you look,
            > the further back in time you see."
            >
            > That's a principle that becomes especially important
            > in astronomical science because of the basic fact
            > that in astronomy we're looking out into the universe
            > and thus looking into great distances. And, thus,
            > the farther we look, the farther into the past we're
            > looking.
            >
            > *It is this one basic fact that proves
            > beyond all shadow of a doubt that young
            > earth creationists are either horribly
            > ignorant, or lying through their teeth.*

            I've invited Todd to consider replying to Jared on that point.

            I may have more to say about Jared's "sore loser" message, later.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • Todd Greene
            Hi, Jared. You wrote, Again, the invalidity of the above argument rests in the fact that empirical evidence does not logically prove that there does exist
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 6 6:51 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, Jared. You wrote, "Again, the invalidity of the above argument rests in the fact that empirical evidence does not logically prove that there does exist some things more than a few thousand years old."

              As I discussed briefly in a preceding post, that's not why GRAS is an unsound argument.

              Additionally, I would note that the statement "empirical evidence does not logically prove that there does exist some things more than a few thousand years old" is a red herring. In regard to reality, logic doesn't prove anything. When you make empirical claims (i.e., claims about reality), naked logic will get you nowhere fast. This is precisely why empirical evidence is necessary in the first place, because logic alone can't get you there. That there does exist some things more than several thousand years old is indeed proved by relevant empirical evidence (which requires the efforts of empirical investigation and analysis; note that logic is, of course, used as part of analysis), not arm chair philosophy. The component of the GRAS argument referring to empirical evidence of antiquity is not where its weakness lies.

              - Todd Greene


              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "tunombreaqui" wrote:
              >
              > (Moderator's Note: Jared writes, in part, "I (Jared) don't even understand..." He should have stated that at the beginning of his message because his messages appears to be a demonstration of so much that he doesn't understand about my arguments and exercises. Alas, he indicates he is not back to engage in a further discussion of his problems but rather just take some pot shots and then be gone...again, also writing in part, "I (Jared) just would like to state one last thing before I stop coming here at all.". - RLBaty)
              >
              >
              > > You did finally admit my argument was so constructed
              > > that if its premises were true then its conclusion
              > > would follow as true therefrom.
              >
              > I just would like to state one last thing before I stop coming here at all.
              >
              > I will admit, that I did not quite understand your definition of "valid" versus "sound" in the beginning and, in fact, I even admit that this is a fault on my part (as your definition of valid and sound is correct).
              >
              > Ultimately, this was a semantics debate, as I had a different (although incorrect) meaning in mind.
              >
              > However, your argument of validity is essentially a circular argument.
              >
              > Your argument, that GRAS is valid is equivalent to the following statement being valid:
              >
              > > Major Premise: If false, then unicorns exist.
              >
              > > Minor Premise: False is true.
              >
              > > Conclusion: unicorns exist.
              >
              > This argument is PERFECTLY valid.
              >
              > If you accept both the major and minor premise, then indeed you can conclude that unicorns exist.
              >
              > Furthermore, it's DEFINITELY correct that the major premise is true, but it's DEFINITELY correct that the minor premise is FALSE!
              >
              > Therefore, this argument is clearly not sound.
              >
              > Your actual argument is the following:
              >
              > > 1) God's word (the text) says everything began
              > > over a period of six days
              >
              > > 2) The text is interpreted by some to mean it
              > > was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand
              > > years ago
              >
              > > 3) There is empirical evidence that some thing
              > > is actually much older than a few thousand years.
              >
              > > Conclusion: The interpretation of the text by
              > > some is wrong.
              >
              > Now this argument is not valid, which is equivalent to saying your major premise is not true and thus your original argument is not sound.
              >
              > Again, the invalidity of the above argument rests in the fact that empirical evidence does not logically prove that there does exist some things more than a few thousand years old.
              >
              > Whether I argue that the argument stated as I have is invalid or the argument you originally stated is unsound is irrelevant, as they mean the same thing.
              >
              > At no point do I criticize the empirical evidence nor do you support the empirical evidence and, as such, your argument is unsound (or as I have stated it, invalid).
              >
              > At best, all you can do is attempt to convince people that the empirical evidence proves ITS conclusion (i.e. that there exists some thing that is more than a few thousand years old).
              >
              > I don't even understand the whole trolling you have done against me.
              >
              > Considering I am an atheist arguing that your argument to prove creationists wrong is not sound, it would logically follow that I would agree that the exercise for atheists proves essentially the same thing (although it doesn't because just like the YEC exercise, the atheist exercise is ill-written).
              >
              > I already agree with you that, neither atheists nor theists can logically prove their point. This is why I am arguing on the theist's side, because I do NOT see their argument as logically incorrect.
              >
              > As an atheist, I DO see their argument as lacking any empirical evidence to suggest it is correct. Therefore, I have to make a judgement call on the evidence.
              >
              > As such, the evidence that some things are more than a few thousand years old seems more convincing than the lack of evidence/argument that this is incorrect.
              >
              > -Jared
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.