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

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise-FaceBook!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    My little Exercise now has its own FaceBook page: https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE We ll see how it holds up in that venue. Sincerely, Robert Baty
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 16, 2013

      My little Exercise now has its own FaceBook page:

      https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE

      We'll see how it holds up in that venue.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • Robert Baty
      Dave Foda & My Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 18, 2013
        Dave Foda & My Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise

        https://www.facebook.com/notes/dave-foda/robert-batys-atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise/238756122945768

        From: Dave Foda
        Date: Friday, October 18, 2013
        Time: About 9:55 AM MT

        My friend, Robert Baty, has developed a set of critical thinking exercises, which can be adapted to various situations. 

        With the atheism version, he’s taken a lot of flak for the argument, and that flak often stems from a misunderstanding of logic and logistical systems. 

        Here, I will provide my answers to the argument (something that Robert has been after me to do). 

        What it is important to note here is that this argument does NOT actually address the question of the existence of a god, but only addresses how Mankind came to activate a concept of a god.

        This argument has apparently been featured within JREF, among other places, but I have knowledge of it only from Robert himself. 

        As a disclaimer, Robert is, in fact, a Christian, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the logic necessary to assess the validity of the argument itself.

        The Atheism 101 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.

        The Atheism 101 Questions:

        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
        Dave Foda - Yes

        Dave Foda – It is only possible, but not foregone.  It’s even likely (with caveats).  However, if a god were to exist, then even if the minor premise is true, the conclusion would not necessarily follow. 

        In the case of this particular formulation, though – without addressing the actual existence of a god – I would answer “Yes.”

        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
        Dave Foda - Yes

        Dave Foda – Yes, but this question addresses “modus ponens” (mode that affirms) arguments generally, and not this argument specifically.

        Question #3:

        Do you think that the major premise of the above argument may be properly inferred and properly constructed from the minor premise and conclusion of the argument?

        Robert Baty - Yes
        Dave Foda - Yes

        Dave Foda - Yes.  However, my response deals only with the argument’s construction, and not the argument’s truth-value.

        Question #4:

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

        Robert Baty - Yes
        Dave Foda - Yes

        Question #5:

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

        Robert Baty - Yes
        Dave Foda - Yes

        Question #6:

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

        Robert Baty - Yes
        Dave Foda - Yes

        Now, for an explanation as to why I am in agreement with Robert (mostly):

        The questions Robert has asked are observant of the argument’s formulation (its validity, in the sense of logistical systems ONLY), and not its truth-value (whether or not the conclusion is unavoidably true in a practical sense). 

        Let’s look at a “modus ponens” argument with different parameters:

        MAJOR PREMISE:

        IF (A) you have a current password, THEN (B) you can log onto the network.

        MINOR PREMISE:

        (A) You have a current password.

        CONCLUSION:

        (B) You can log onto the network.

        Well, let’s say that I do have a current password, but I am NOT able to log onto the network. Obviously, there is something else that is affecting my ability to log onto the network.  Perhaps the Ethernet cable is disconnected.  Perhaps the authentication server is offline.  Perhaps I have no fingers with which to type in the password.

        However, none of those stand in the way of my possession of a current password, and all other things being supportive of my ability to achieve a successful logon, the password is the only variable that the argument addresses.

        The argument that Robert has put forth is logically valid, but the conclusion that the argument reaches is not foregone, as there are several other factors to consider. 

        To arrive at an answer, one must adopt an inductive line of reasoning, rather than a deductive line of reasoning, simply because the argument does not take into account some variables, the major one being the question of Man’s “motivation” to “create the concept of God.” 

        If this were taken into account, the argument would look like this:

        MAJOR PREMISE:

        IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination, and (B) had the motivation to do so, THEN (C) man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

        MINOR PREMISES:

        (A)  Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

        (B)  Man had the motivation to do so.

        CONCLUSION:

        (C) Man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

        With the addition of Minor Premise (B), it shifts the analytic system of the argument closer to a deductive line of reasoning, and further away from an inductive line.

        Of course, there would still be other factors to consider. 

        But what is important to note here is that a logical construction of a “modus ponens” argument does not mean that the argument’s truth-value is as simple as the argument attempts to present. 

        It’s vital to understand that logic is a process, and not a set of “conclusionary” practices.  In practical consideration of this argument, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, even though the logical consideration of the formulation of the argument does lend itself to the conclusion:  If God really did exist, the conclusion might be false, even if the minor premises were true.

        So, yes, the argument is logically constructed, and logically valid. 

        Separately, as far as the argument’s truth-value goes – and as long as one would be able to address the intrinsic variables – I find it true. 

        Simplistically, yes, Man did - and does - have the capacity to imagine a god; and, yes, Man did create the concept of a god.

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




        To: maury_and_baty@yahoogroups.com
        From: rlbaty@...
        Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:43:04 -0400
        Subject: [M & B] Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise-FaceBook!

        My little Exercise now has its own FaceBook page:

        https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE

        We'll see how it holds up in that venue.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

      • Robert Baty
        Dave Foda, Thanks for your contribution to the updating of the issue raised by Alexander Campbell when he contended with Robert Owen back in 1829. Considering
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 18, 2013
          Dave Foda,

          Thanks for your contribution to the updating of the issue raised by Alexander Campbell when he contended with Robert Owen back in 1829.

          Considering all the trouble your atheist fellows have had with the simplicity of the Exercise, it is refreshing to see an atheist, you, without much hesitation, agree with me as to the answers to the questions.

          As to the followup discussion, if there is a one or more points which you may wish to pursue, just let me know and I'll see what I can do with whatever there might be to fuss about.

          Dave, I have posted your response to my venues.  It is a great addition to the historical record of these important public issues.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

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


          To: maury_and_baty@yahoogroups.com
          From: rlbaty@...
          Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:52:47 -0400
          Subject: [M & B] Dave Foda v. Atheism 101 Exercise

           

          Dave Foda & My Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise

          https://www.facebook.com/notes/dave-foda/robert-batys-atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise/238756122945768

          From: Dave Foda
          Date: Friday, October 18, 2013
          Time: About 9:55 AM MT

          My friend, Robert Baty, has developed a set of critical thinking exercises, which can be adapted to various situations. 

          With the atheism version, he’s taken a lot of flak for the argument, and that flak often stems from a misunderstanding of logic and logistical systems. 

          Here, I will provide my answers to the argument (something that Robert has been after me to do). 

          What it is important to note here is that this argument does NOT actually address the question of the existence of a god, but only addresses how Mankind came to activate a concept of a god.

          This argument has apparently been featured within JREF, among other places, but I have knowledge of it only from Robert himself. 

          As a disclaimer, Robert is, in fact, a Christian, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the logic necessary to assess the validity of the argument itself.

          The Atheism 101 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.

          The Atheism 101 Questions:

          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
          Dave Foda - Yes

          Dave Foda – It is only possible, but not foregone.  It’s even likely (with caveats).  However, if a god were to exist, then even if the minor premise is true, the conclusion would not necessarily follow. 

          In the case of this particular formulation, though – without addressing the actual existence of a god – I would answer “Yes.”

          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
          Dave Foda - Yes

          Dave Foda – Yes, but this question addresses “modus ponens” (mode that affirms) arguments generally, and not this argument specifically.

          Question #3:

          Do you think that the major premise of the above argument may be properly inferred and properly constructed from the minor premise and conclusion of the argument?

          Robert Baty - Yes
          Dave Foda - Yes

          Dave Foda - Yes.  However, my response deals only with the argument’s construction, and not the argument’s truth-value.

          Question #4:

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

          Robert Baty - Yes
          Dave Foda - Yes

          Question #5:

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

          Robert Baty - Yes
          Dave Foda - Yes

          Question #6:

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

          Robert Baty - Yes
          Dave Foda - Yes

          Now, for an explanation as to why I am in agreement with Robert (mostly):

          The questions Robert has asked are observant of the argument’s formulation (its validity, in the sense of logistical systems ONLY), and not its truth-value (whether or not the conclusion is unavoidably true in a practical sense). 

          Let’s look at a “modus ponens” argument with different parameters:

          MAJOR PREMISE:

          IF (A) you have a current password, THEN (B) you can log onto the network.

          MINOR PREMISE:

          (A) You have a current password.

          CONCLUSION:

          (B) You can log onto the network.

          Well, let’s say that I do have a current password, but I am NOT able to log onto the network. Obviously, there is something else that is affecting my ability to log onto the network.  Perhaps the Ethernet cable is disconnected.  Perhaps the authentication server is offline.  Perhaps I have no fingers with which to type in the password.

          However, none of those stand in the way of my possession of a current password, and all other things being supportive of my ability to achieve a successful logon, the password is the only variable that the argument addresses.

          The argument that Robert has put forth is logically valid, but the conclusion that the argument reaches is not foregone, as there are several other factors to consider. 

          To arrive at an answer, one must adopt an inductive line of reasoning, rather than a deductive line of reasoning, simply because the argument does not take into account some variables, the major one being the question of Man’s “motivation” to “create the concept of God.” 

          If this were taken into account, the argument would look like this:

          MAJOR PREMISE:

          IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination, and (B) had the motivation to do so, THEN (C) man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

          MINOR PREMISES:

          (A)  Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

          (B)  Man had the motivation to do so.

          CONCLUSION:

          (C) Man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

          With the addition of Minor Premise (B), it shifts the analytic system of the argument closer to a deductive line of reasoning, and further away from an inductive line.

          Of course, there would still be other factors to consider. 

          But what is important to note here is that a logical construction of a “modus ponens” argument does not mean that the argument’s truth-value is as simple as the argument attempts to present. 

          It’s vital to understand that logic is a process, and not a set of “conclusionary” practices.  In practical consideration of this argument, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, even though the logical consideration of the formulation of the argument does lend itself to the conclusion:  If God really did exist, the conclusion might be false, even if the minor premises were true.

          So, yes, the argument is logically constructed, and logically valid. 

          Separately, as far as the argument’s truth-value goes – and as long as one would be able to address the intrinsic variables – I find it true. 

          Simplistically, yes, Man did - and does - have the capacity to imagine a god; and, yes, Man did create the concept of a god.

          ----------------------------------
          ----------------------------------
        • Robert Baty
          Dave, you wrote, in part: - The argument is logically - constructed, and logically valid. - - I find it true. In my class exercises I try to get my
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 18, 2013
            Dave, you wrote, in part:

            - "The argument is logically
            - constructed, and logically valid. 
            -
            - I find it true."

            In my class exercises I try to get my participants to agree with me that, at least for purposes of the critical thinking exercises, that we distinguish between statements/premises which are to be considered true or not true and arguments which are to be considered valid, not valid and/or sound or not sound.

            We've got past the validity issue in this case, and I will conclude that your finding the argument true has reference to its soundness; that is, that you believe it not only valid but that you also find it has true premises which lead to a true conclusion.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            ------------------------------------------------
          • Robert Baty
            Dave , I ll post this one further note and then try to restrain myself to wait and seeing if there is even any further interest in pursuing any mutual
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 18, 2013
              Dave ,

              I'll post this one further note and then try to restrain myself to wait and seeing if there is even any further interest in pursuing any mutual interests in the Exercise.

              You wrote, in part:

              - "With the addition of Minor
              - Premise (B) ("man had the
              - motivation to do so"), ...

              That whole line of discussion is not relevant at this point in the Exercise.

              The Exercise has been designed for use in addressing the simplest of critical thinking skills.  As I noted earlier, it has been simplified because of such problems as atheists had with the Dziubla version.  Let's not go back to complicating the issues.

              One does not have to change the argument in order to address your concern, Dave.  I would certainly stipulate that if man had such ability and it accounted for the idea/concept, then there was some kind of stimulus/motivation.

              It's an issue I have encountered numerous times in my promotion of my Exercises.  That is, the argument need not be modified.  Your concern, Dave, is simply something to account for should you endeavor to present the claimed proof as to the truth of the major premise which you affirm; if you claim (A) man had the power and (B) it accounted for the idea/concept, then something obviously accounted for the move from (A) to (B) - what you call "motivation".

              You also, somewhat cryptically wrote:

              - "If God really did exist,
              - the conclusion might be false,
              - even if the minor premises were true."

              A valid argument is one so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.  We have apparently agreed upon that and that my argument meets that requirement.

              A sound argument is one that is valid and does actually have true premises and the consequent true conclusion.

              Obviously, having a true minor premise will not insure a true conclusion.  The conclusion may not be true based solely on the argument having a true minor premise.

              In order to insure the the conclusion, both major AND minor premises need to be true if the argument is valid.

              In this case, as far as we have gotten, Dave, my argument is an argument that atheists are stuck with. 

              Atheists think the premises true;
              explicitly and/or implicitly.

              Theists don't.

              Makes it simple for tyros like me.

              I can live with that and the prospects that when all is said and done, that's as far as we can get.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              -----------------------------------------
            • Robert Baty
              Dave Foda is going to be the featured guest in an upcoming (Nov. 15) BlogTalk Internet broadcast:
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 18, 2013
                Dave Foda is going to be the featured guest in an upcoming (Nov. 15) BlogTalk Internet broadcast:

                https://www.facebook.com/events/229373197228124/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular&source=1

                Dave is an up and coming atheist/anti-theist.

                Among other things, Dave is a contributor/writer for the Atheist Survival Guide:

                https://www.facebook.com/AtheistSurvivalGuide
                http://blog.atheistsurvivalguide.org/

                You might keep an eye out for him as his celebrity grows; some of which I may have had a small part in creating.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • Robert Baty
                The opening post in this thread has Dave s article being posted as follows: - Date: Friday, October 18, 2013 - Time: About 9:55 AM MT That should be: - Date:
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 18, 2013

                  The opening post in this thread has Dave's article being posted as follows:

                  - Date: Friday, October 18, 2013
                  - Time: About 9:55 AM MT


                  That should be:

                  - Date: Thursday, October 17, 2013
                  - Time: About 9:55 PM MT

                  My apologies for any confusion.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

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


                  To: maury_and_baty@yahoogroups.com
                  From: rlbaty@...
                  Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:52:47 -0400
                  Subject: [M & B] Dave Foda v. Atheism 101 Exercise

                   

                  Dave Foda & My Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise

                  https://www.facebook.com/notes/dave-foda/robert-batys-atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise/238756122945768

                  From: Dave Foda
                  Date: Friday, October 18, 2013
                  Time: About 9:55 AM MT

                  My friend, Robert Baty, has developed a set of critical thinking exercises, which can be adapted to various situations. 

                  With the atheism version, he’s taken a lot of flak for the argument, and that flak often stems from a misunderstanding of logic and logistical systems. 

                  Here, I will provide my answers to the argument (something that Robert has been after me to do). 

                  What it is important to note here is that this argument does NOT actually address the question of the existence of a god, but only addresses how Mankind came to activate a concept of a god.

                  This argument has apparently been featured within JREF, among other places, but I have knowledge of it only from Robert himself. 

                  As a disclaimer, Robert is, in fact, a Christian, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the logic necessary to assess the validity of the argument itself.

                  The Atheism 101 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.

                  The Atheism 101 Questions:

                  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
                  Dave Foda - Yes

                  Dave Foda – It is only possible, but not foregone.  It’s even likely (with caveats).  However, if a god were to exist, then even if the minor premise is true, the conclusion would not necessarily follow. 

                  In the case of this particular formulation, though – without addressing the actual existence of a god – I would answer “Yes.”

                  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
                  Dave Foda - Yes

                  Dave Foda – Yes, but this question addresses “modus ponens” (mode that affirms) arguments generally, and not this argument specifically.

                  Question #3:

                  Do you think that the major premise of the above argument may be properly inferred and properly constructed from the minor premise and conclusion of the argument?

                  Robert Baty - Yes
                  Dave Foda - Yes

                  Dave Foda - Yes.  However, my response deals only with the argument’s construction, and not the argument’s truth-value.

                  Question #4:

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

                  Robert Baty - Yes
                  Dave Foda - Yes

                  Question #5:

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

                  Robert Baty - Yes
                  Dave Foda - Yes

                  Question #6:

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

                  Robert Baty - Yes
                  Dave Foda - Yes

                  Now, for an explanation as to why I am in agreement with Robert (mostly):

                  The questions Robert has asked are observant of the argument’s formulation (its validity, in the sense of logistical systems ONLY), and not its truth-value (whether or not the conclusion is unavoidably true in a practical sense). 

                  Let’s look at a “modus ponens” argument with different parameters:

                  MAJOR PREMISE:

                  IF (A) you have a current password, THEN (B) you can log onto the network.

                  MINOR PREMISE:

                  (A) You have a current password.

                  CONCLUSION:

                  (B) You can log onto the network.

                  Well, let’s say that I do have a current password, but I am NOT able to log onto the network. Obviously, there is something else that is affecting my ability to log onto the network.  Perhaps the Ethernet cable is disconnected.  Perhaps the authentication server is offline.  Perhaps I have no fingers with which to type in the password.

                  However, none of those stand in the way of my possession of a current password, and all other things being supportive of my ability to achieve a successful logon, the password is the only variable that the argument addresses.

                  The argument that Robert has put forth is logically valid, but the conclusion that the argument reaches is not foregone, as there are several other factors to consider. 

                  To arrive at an answer, one must adopt an inductive line of reasoning, rather than a deductive line of reasoning, simply because the argument does not take into account some variables, the major one being the question of Man’s “motivation” to “create the concept of God.” 

                  If this were taken into account, the argument would look like this:

                  MAJOR PREMISE:

                  IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination, and (B) had the motivation to do so, THEN (C) man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

                  MINOR PREMISES:

                  (A)  Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

                  (B)  Man had the motivation to do so.

                  CONCLUSION:

                  (C) Man did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

                  With the addition of Minor Premise (B), it shifts the analytic system of the argument closer to a deductive line of reasoning, and further away from an inductive line.

                  Of course, there would still be other factors to consider. 

                  But what is important to note here is that a logical construction of a “modus ponens” argument does not mean that the argument’s truth-value is as simple as the argument attempts to present. 

                  It’s vital to understand that logic is a process, and not a set of “conclusionary” practices.  In practical consideration of this argument, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, even though the logical consideration of the formulation of the argument does lend itself to the conclusion:  If God really did exist, the conclusion might be false, even if the minor premises were true.

                  So, yes, the argument is logically constructed, and logically valid. 

                  Separately, as far as the argument’s truth-value goes – and as long as one would be able to address the intrinsic variables – I find it true. 

                  Simplistically, yes, Man did - and does - have the capacity to imagine a god; and, yes, Man did create the concept of a god.

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




                  To: maury_and_baty@yahoogroups.com
                  From: rlbaty@...
                  Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:43:04 -0400
                  Subject: [M & B] Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise-FaceBook!

                  My little Exercise now has its own FaceBook page:

                  https://www.facebook.com/Atheism101CTE

                  We'll see how it holds up in that venue.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty


                • Robert Baty
                  IN SUMMARY Dave Foda (Atheist/Anti-Theist) https://www.facebook.com/dave.foda v. Robert Baty (Theist) https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1 Subject: Atheism
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 19, 2013
                    IN SUMMARY

                    Dave Foda (Atheist/Anti-Theist)
                    https://www.facebook.com/dave.foda

                    v.

                    Robert Baty (Theist)
                    https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1

                    Subject: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise

                    The Atheism 101 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.


                    The Atheism 101 Questions:

                    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
                    - Dave Foda - Yes

                    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
                    - Dave Foda - Yes

                    Question #3:

                    Do you think that the major premise of the above
                    argument may be properly inferred and properly
                    constructed from the minor premise and conclusion
                    of the argument?

                    - Robert Baty - Yes
                    - Dave Foda - Yes

                    Question #4:

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

                    - Robert Baty - Yes
                    - Dave Foda - Yes

                    Question #5:

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

                    - Robert Baty - Yes
                    - Dave Foda - Yes

                    Question #6:

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

                    - Robert Baty - Yes
                    - Dave Foda - Yes

                    --------------------------------------------
                  • w_w_c_l
                    I can hear it now -- And there is Robert Baty, agreeing with the atheist again. Why am I not surprised? ...
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 20, 2013

                      I can hear it now -- 

                       

                      "And there is Robert Baty, agreeing with the atheist again.  Why am I not surprised?"...

                       

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/coCBanned/conversations/messages/25516



                      ---In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, <maury_and_baty@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                      IN SUMMARY

                      Dave Foda (Atheist/Anti-Theist)
                      https://www.facebook.com/dave.foda

                      v.

                      Robert Baty (Theist)
                      https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1

                      Subject: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise

                      The Atheism 101 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.


                      The Atheism 101 Questions:

                      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
                      - Dave Foda - Yes

                      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
                      - Dave Foda - Yes

                      Question #3:

                      Do you think that the major premise of the above
                      argument may be properly inferred and properly
                      constructed from the minor premise and conclusion
                      of the argument?

                      - Robert Baty - Yes
                      - Dave Foda - Yes

                      Question #4:

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

                      - Robert Baty - Yes
                      - Dave Foda - Yes

                      Question #5:

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

                      - Robert Baty - Yes
                      - Dave Foda - Yes

                      Question #6:

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

                      - Robert Baty - Yes
                      - Dave Foda - Yes

                      --------------------------------------------
                    • Robert Baty
                      Those were the days, Rick. Sincerely, Robert Baty To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com From: w_w_c_l@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:42:24 -0700 Subject: RE:
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 20, 2013
                        Those were the days, Rick.

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty


                        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                        From: w_w_c_l@...
                        Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:42:24 -0700
                        Subject: RE: RE: [M & B] Dave Foda v. Atheism 101 Exercise

                         

                        I can hear it now -- 
                         
                        "And there is Robert Baty, agreeing with the atheist again.  Why am I not surprised?"...
                         
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/coCBanned/conversations/messages/25516


                        ---In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, <maury_and_baty@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                        IN SUMMARY

                        Dave Foda (Atheist/Anti-Theist)
                        https://www.facebook.com/dave.foda

                        v.

                        Robert Baty (Theist)
                        https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1

                        Subject: Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise

                        The Atheism 101 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.


                        The Atheism 101 Questions:

                        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
                        - Dave Foda - Yes

                        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
                        - Dave Foda - Yes

                        Question #3:

                        Do you think that the major premise of the above
                        argument may be properly inferred and properly
                        constructed from the minor premise and conclusion
                        of the argument?

                        - Robert Baty - Yes
                        - Dave Foda - Yes

                        Question #4:

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

                        - Robert Baty - Yes
                        - Dave Foda - Yes

                        Question #5:

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

                        - Robert Baty - Yes
                        - Dave Foda - Yes

                        Question #6:

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

                        - Robert Baty - Yes
                        - Dave Foda - Yes

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

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.