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

Re: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise: Open Invitation!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Karl, ... Do you agree with that definition? That does not characterize my Atheism 101 argument. Neither premise of my Atheism 101 argument assumes the
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Karl,

      Circular Argument Defined:

      > A fallacious argument in which the
      > conclusion is assumed in one of
      > the premises; begging the question.

      Do you agree with that definition?

      That does not characterize my Atheism 101 argument.

      Neither premise of my Atheism 101 argument assumes the conclusion.

      Now, are your ready to get serious about trying to successfully complete the exercise, beginning with Question #1?

      The Atheism 101 Argument for Karl Todd

      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.

      The Atheism 101 Questions for Karl Todd:

      Question #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
      >
      > Karl Todd - ???

      Question #2:

      Do you think that you can take the minor premise
      and conclusion of a logically valid modus ponens
      form argument and construct the major premise
      therefrom?

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      >
      > Karl Todd - ???

      Question #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
      >
      > Karl Todd - ???

      Question #4:

      Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
      explicitly believe the conclusion to be true?

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      >
      > Karl Todd - ???

      Question #5:

      Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
      explicitly believe the minor premise to be true?

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      >
      > Karl Todd - ???

      Question #6:

      Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
      explicitly believe the major premise to be true?

      > Robert Baty - Yes
      >
      > Karl Todd - ???

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

      > I'll delete the common words for you.
      >
      > MAJOR PREMISE:
      >
      >> IF A,
      >>
      >> THEN (B)
      >
      > MINOR PREMISE:
      >
      >> (A)
      >
      > Now that the common words are removed
      > the relation can be determined.
      >
      > Clearly It is circular reasoning.

      ----------------------------------------
      ----------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      ... https://www.facebook.com/ncgadmin (1) From: Michael W. Jones (aka Kaine Diatheke) Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 Time: About 9:30 AM MT (excerpts) IF
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 12, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        My recent exchange with Michael W. Jones (aka Kaine Diatheke) regarding my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise:

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

        https://www.facebook.com/ncgadmin

        (1)

        From: Michael W. Jones (aka Kaine Diatheke)
        Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013
        Time: About 9:30 AM MT

        (excerpts)

        IF Jesus...,
        THEN...

        IF He...,
        THEN...

        IF He...,
        THEN...

        So, IF His...,
        THEN...

        ~michael w. jones

        (2)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013
        Time: About 10:20 AM MT

        I like that "if..., then..." formulation!

        I have a critical thinking (logic) exercise
        dealing with just such a construction.

        There's an open invitation if any should care
        to join the class; the current student, Karl
        Todd, has not returned for his latest lesson:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31210

        -----------------------------------
        -----------------------------------
      • Karl T
        ... No. It is when the conclusion IS the premise. Not assumed from it. I clearly demonstrated that is what you are doing. MAJOR PREMISE: IF (A) man was able to
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 12, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
          >
          > Karl,
          >
          > Circular Argument Defined:
          >
          > > A fallacious argument in which the
          > > conclusion is assumed in one of
          > > the premises; begging the question.
          >
          > Do you agree with that definition?

          No. It is when the conclusion IS the premise. Not assumed from it.
          I clearly demonstrated that is what you are doing.

          MAJOR PREMISE:
          IF (A) man was able to
          THEN (B) man did .

          MINOR PREMISE:
          (A) Man was able to originate

          CONCLUSION:
          (B) Man did

          I learned long ago that you must remove repeated word to highlight your argument. You do not have one. This way you do not confuse yourself.

          >
          > That does not characterize my Atheism 101 argument.
          >
          > Neither premise of my Atheism 101 argument assumes the conclusion.
          >
          Your premise is your conclusion. As I demonstrated.



          I still think this is an elaborate troll

          > The Atheism 101 Argument for Karl Todd
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > The Atheism 101 Questions for Karl Todd:
          >
          > Question #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
          > >

          Karl Todd - As I demonstrated it is not logically valid.

          > Question #2:
          >
          > Do you think that you can take the minor premise
          > and conclusion of a logically valid modus ponens
          > form argument and construct the major premise
          > therefrom?
          >
          > > Robert Baty - Yes
          > >
          Karl Todd - No. from a modus ponens view you are assuming I agree with your definition of God. If a definition of God includes perfection. Then you are claiming that imperfection can create perfection, which is absurd.

          > Question #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

          Karl Todd - No read the above.

          > Question #4:
          >
          > Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
          > explicitly believe the conclusion to be true?
          >
          > > Robert Baty - Yes

          Karl Todd - Yes

          > Question #5:
          >
          > Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
          > explicitly believe the minor premise to be true?
          >
          > > Robert Baty - Yes

          Karl Todd - Yes

          > Question #6:
          >
          > Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
          > explicitly believe the major premise to be true?
          >
          > > Robert Baty - Yes

          Karl Todd - Yes

          I think you are confusing yourself here or you are trolling. But this type of troll would catch both sides.
        • rlbaty50
          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256 ... OK, I don t agree with you regarding your definition of circular reasoning. Stalemate? ...
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 12, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            > "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:
            >
            >> Circular Argument Defined:
            >>
            >> A fallacious argument in which the
            >> conclusion is assumed in one of
            >> the premises; begging the question.
            >>
            >> Do you agree with that definition?
            >
            > No.

            OK, I don't agree with you regarding your definition of circular reasoning.

            Stalemate?

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            > It is when the conclusion IS the premise.
            > Not assumed from it.
            > I clearly demonstrated that is what you are doing.

            No you didn't.
            That's not what my argument, a standard form, non-circular argument is doing.

            Perhaps you also do not appreciate how the term "premise" is used in this exercise.

            In symbolic terms, the major premise is:

            > If (A), then B.

            The major premise is NOT (B).

            The major premise is:

            > If (A), then B.

            The minor premise is:

            > (A)

            You don't seem to have a problem with the minor premise, Karl.

            The conclusion of my argument is neither of the premises.

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            > I learned long ago that you must remove
            > repeated word to highlight your argument.
            >
            > You do not have one.
            >
            > This way you do not confuse yourself.

            You, Karl, are the one demonstrating confusion regarding the simplest of critical thinking skills.

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part, as to Question #1:

            > As I demonstrated it is not logically valid.

            Nope!

            It is constructed so that if the premises are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., logically valid by definition).

            You, Karl, haven't said anything to rebut my claim on that score. Changing the meaning of "valid", according to your own misunderstandings of the issue does nothing to challenge or impeach my claim about the construction of the argument.

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            >> Question #2:
            >>
            >> Do you think that you can take the minor premise
            >> and conclusion of a logically valid modus ponens
            >> form argument and construct the major premise
            >> therefrom?
            >>
            >>> Robert Baty - Yes
            >
            > Karl Todd - No. from a modus ponens view you are
            > assuming I agree with your definition of God.
            >
            > If a definition of God includes perfection.
            >
            > Then you are claiming that imperfection can create
            > perfection, which is absurd.

            Question #2 does not deal with the content of the argument and I do not assume that you agree with any definition of God.

            Question #2, like #1, relates to critical thinking skills and is unrelated to any atheism/theism claims.

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            >> Question #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
            >
            > Karl Todd - No read the above.

            OK, I also have the same answer, which you can read above.

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            >> Question #4:
            >>
            >> Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
            >> explicitly believe the conclusion to be true?
            >>
            >>> Robert Baty - Yes
            >
            > Karl Todd - Yes

            Yippee! We agree!

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            >> Question #5:
            >>
            >> Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
            >> explicitly believe the minor premise to be true?
            >>
            >>> Robert Baty - Yes
            >
            > Karl Todd - Yes

            Another milestone! We agree!

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31256
            "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

            >> Question #6:
            >>
            >> Do you think that atheists implicitly and/or
            >> explicitly believe the major premise to be true?
            >>
            >>> Robert Baty - Yes
            >
            > Karl Todd - Yes
            >
            > I think you are confusing yourself here
            > or you are trolling. But this type of
            > troll would catch both sides.

            A final point of agreement.

            Neato!

            I am, however, not confused at all; just having trouble getting folks to openly and honestly discuss a fundamental problem with "bold" atheism/atheists (i.e., that in affirming the conclusion and minor premise explicitly they implicitly, if not explicitly, affirm the major premise and that both major and minor premises involve beliefs that go beyond the reach of the evidence).

            "Bold" atheists believe it.
            Theists don't.

            Simple, simple stuff.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty50
            I ran across this recently. It may have some application to what we see Karl doing. I don t vouch for the truth of the claim, just how curious it is that the
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 12, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I ran across this recently.

              It may have some application to what we see Karl doing.

              I don't vouch for the truth of the claim, just how curious it is that the notion does seem to have some application to Karl's antics in this exercise.

              Here's the comment:

              > "Schopenhauer once said that if you're debating
              > someone who offers an argument whose conclusion
              > follows so inescapably from its premises that
              > you have no way of refuting it, the only thing
              > left to do is accuse the other person of begging
              > the question (i.e., is circular).

              In the present case, I think my argument does have a conclusion that so inescapably follows from the premises that you have no way of refuting it if the premises are true.

              The problem is simply that "bold" atheists believe the premises to be true, implicitly and/or explicitly, beyond the reach of the sort of evidence that they so dearly love.

              They don't like for that to be pointed out; in my opinion and experience.

              Theists don't believe the premises to be true.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • Karl T
              While is is your forum, That does not give you the ability to create your own reality. So please stop misquoting my statements. ... This is not stalemate.
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 14, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                While is is your forum, That does not give you the ability to create your own reality.

                So please stop misquoting my statements.

                >> Circular Argument Defined:
                >>
                >> A fallacious argument in which the
                >> conclusion is assumed in one of
                >> the premises; begging the question.
                >>
                >> Do you agree with that definition?
                >
                > No.

                This is not stalemate.

                Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.

                That is exactly what you are doing.

                Only it you use a false reality does your argument work.

                Your argument missing the repeating words.

                MAJOR PREMISE:

                IF (A) man was able to
                THEN (B) man did .

                MINOR PREMISE:

                (A) Man was able to originate

                CONCLUSION:

                (B) Man did

                This is the reality of your statement.
                It is circular.

                We both agree that this is the the simplest of critical thinking skills.

                Yet you are struggling.

                Do you really believe you found something new in logic?

                There goes your alternative reality again.

                On Truth:

                When the definition of God involves perfection, The truth of your argument becomes imperfection can originate perfection.

                Do you really believe that is true?

                Please define your reality if you think it is.
                You are assuming (unstated)we agree on the definition of God

                > Question #2 does not deal with the
                > content of the argument and I do not
                > assume that you agree with any definition
                > of God.

                But, you are.

                A simple clarification of a word invalidates your argument.

                > 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?

                Proper construction does not equal truth.

                Unless once again in your reality it does.

                > I am, however, not confused at all;
                > just having trouble getting folks to
                > openly and honestly discuss a fundamental
                > problem with "bold" atheism/atheists
                > (i.e., that in affirming the conclusion
                > and minor premise explicitly they implicitly,
                > if not explicitly, affirm the major premise
                > and that both major and minor premises
                > involve beliefs that go beyond the reach of
                > the evidence).

                "beyond the reach of the evidence" again you are implying truth here.

                To save you, both sides are going beyond any evidence.

                Aka: They both have faith.
              • rlbaty50
                ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268 ... You provided no instance of where I did not properly represent your words. ...
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 14, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > Please stop misquoting my statements.

                  You provided no instance of where I did not properly represent your words.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > Circular reasoning is an attempt to
                  > support a statement by simply repeating
                  > the statement in different or stronger
                  > terms.
                  >
                  > That is exactly what you are doing.

                  That's not what I am doing.

                  Also, we have yet to agree on a definition to use regarding circular reasoning and its relevance to the exercise.

                  Do you have a suggestion as to how we might resolve that difficulty; apart from you accepting my stipulative defintion for use in this exercise?

                  Do you admit that, according to my stipulative definition, my Atheism 101 Argument does NOT involve circular reasoning?

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > Your argument missing the repeating words.
                  >
                  > MAJOR PREMISE:
                  >
                  > IF (A) man was able to
                  > THEN (B) man did .
                  >
                  > MINOR PREMISE:
                  >
                  > (A) Man was able to
                  >
                  > CONCLUSION:
                  >
                  > (B) Man did
                  >
                  > This is the reality of your statement.
                  > It is circular.

                  Let's put it like this:

                  > If (A),
                  > Then (B).

                  > (A).

                  > (B).

                  By stipulative definition, that is NOT circular reasoning; not a circular argument!

                  It's not even circular by your contrivance regarding the meaning of circular reasoning/circular argument.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > Yet you are struggling.

                  Not me!

                  I marvel at your demonstrations!

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > Do you really believe you found
                  > something new in logic?

                  NO!

                  That's the beauty of the exercise.

                  It deals with the simplest of fundamental, mostly uncontroversial matters regarding critical thinking skills.

                  As your demonstrations show, Karl, a lot of people have trouble with even the simplest, otherwise uncontroversial matters.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > When the definition of God involves
                  > perfection, The truth of your argument
                  > becomes imperfection can originate perfection.
                  >
                  > Do you really believe that is true?
                  >
                  > Please define your reality if you think it is.
                  > You are assuming (unstated)we agree on the
                  > definition of God

                  In this exercise, arguments are considered valid, not valid, sound, or not sound.

                  It's premises and conclusion (i.e., propositions/statements) that are considered as true or not true.

                  I don't think the premises of the argument are true, and I think atheists implicity and/or explicitly believe them to be true; which is part of the purpose of the exercise.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  >> Question #2 does not deal with the
                  >> content of the argument and I do not
                  >> assume that you agree with any definition
                  >> of God.
                  >
                  > But, you are.

                  No, I am not.

                  I don't know and don't really care how you define God. In this exercise, it doesn't matter.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > A simple clarification of a word invalidates your argument.
                  >
                  >> 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?
                  >
                  > Proper construction does not equal truth.

                  I know that!

                  However, in this exercise, if the argument is not properly constructed, the rest doesn't really matter.

                  An argument not properly constructed cannot be used to reach the conclusion proposed even if the premises are true.

                  And try to remember, in this exercise, arguments are not true or not true; they are valid, not valid, sound, or not sound.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/31268
                  "Karl T" <ktodd@...> wrote, in part:

                  > To save you,
                  > both sides are going beyond any evidence.
                  >
                  > Aka: They both have faith.

                  I don't need saving in this exercise, and theism is not at issue in this exercise.

                  That's why it is called Atheism 101; it's about atheism, not theism.

                  Also, as noted above, one of the purposes of this exercise is to distinguish between the not-so-bold atheists who like to say something like "I just don't believe in any God, period" and the BOLD atheist who claim "there is no God" and "God is an invention of man".

                  That is, the exercise when successfully completed and understood highlights the proposition that allegedly BOLD atheists believe beyond the evidence that "man created God" by the exercise of the imagination in the mind of some ancient savage.

                  That doesn't mean it's not true; it just means the BOLD atheists' affirmations are matters of belief.

                  In essence, wannabe BOLD atheists are not any bolder than the not-so-bold "I just don't believe in God, period" atheists.

                  My experience is they don't like that being demonstrated.

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