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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Feb 6, 2013
    • 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 2 of 6 , Feb 6, 2013
      • 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 3 of 6 , Feb 6, 2013
        • 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.