Re: The proper analysis of GoG
> By the way, thank you for acknowledging that what Robert andTamara
> and I have been telling you all along - that GRAS is a logicallyTodd:
> valid proposition - is correct. That IS refreshing, and it's
You are welcome. Just because it is valid in its form, does not
make it true. Agreed?
> > Robert, I have NEVER given mixed signals.the
> Danny, come on! Now you're just being ridiculous. You acknowledged
> that you were mistaken regarding your comments about the logic of
> proposition - and it is the mistaken nature of your words that hasTodd, if you fellows have misunderstood me, it is due to the fact
> sent these mixed signals.
that you do not read in context. I would ask you to do that and this
bogus charge of "mixed signals" will simply fade away.
> > Robert, as you can see, I disagree that the major premise isto
> > true. It is false to the core.
> This is one of those mixed signals. First you say it is impossible
> disagree with it, that no one can disagree with it, and then youturn
> around and say you disagree with it, that it is false. This isjust
> one example of the many mixed signals you have given. You are notTodd, context, context, context. I admit the form is valid. However,
> being careful with your statements, and so we are reading confused
> claims from you.
the truth within it is not. What does that mean? Logically, it is
valid. The truth of the premise is found wanting. Is that plain
> You see, asking about the first premise is NOT asking about theIF
> second premise. Asking you if you agree that the first premise is
> logically valid means asking you if you agree that IF all of the
> parts are true THEN the THEN part follows from the IF parts. Thisis
> REGARDLESS of whether or not the IF parts themselves are actuallyit
> true. There can be arguments where the first premise is simply NOT
> logically valid (which is why you are totally wrong to keep saying
> is impossible to disagree with the first premise), in which casethe
> argument simply falls apart at that point and no longer needs tobe
> discussed because it is simply an invalid argument (logicallyGoG is so easily defeatable. What is the point? Robert crowed and
> invalid). If you could successfully demonstrate that the first
> premise was logically invalid, then you would destroy GRAS on that
> point alone.
crowed about this "undefeatable" argument he had. I had to write him
no less than 6 times to get it out of him! He seemed a bit shaken to
me. I have analyzed the entire thing and found it sorely lacking. If
a NO BODY like me can show its weaknesses and fallacies so easily,
imagine if Somebody came along and looked at it!
>Todd, at the risk of being unkind, I think you just lied. You
> I hate to have to keep giving you simple lessons in logic, but
> unfortunately you keep demonstrating the need for them.
said "I hate ..." Truth is, no, you love to say things like that.
Tell the truth now.
> I already explained this in some of my earlier comments aboutGRAS,
> but unfortunately you have been ignoring my posts.Todd, why have I ignored you? My "beef" (to quote Robert) is not
with you. You are not the one to have made the claim. Robert did, so
I face him. When I am done with him, I'll turn my attention to you.
I know Robert is parroting what you say and that is ok, he needs the
help. I am not the smartest fellow around, but neither am I afraid
of this argument as laid out by Robert. Why don't you go back to the
corner, send Robert out to face this fight. Once he is defeated, the
next 12 rounds will be yours. You do understand I am using a metphor
for boxing, right?
>Todd, what Robert has written is not true major and minor premises.
> So please keep in mind that IF YOU AGREE THAT THE PROPOSITION IS
> LOGICALLY VALID THEN YOU AGREE THAT THE FIRST PREMISE IS CORRECT.
Therefore, what you say above is incorrect.
> Incidentally, I have also already responded to your criticalanalysis
> point by point, and have pointed out a number of mistakes in yourTodd, recall that Robert chose this fight. These 12 rounds are his.
> claims. Here are the posts:
> "Re: Detailed Analysis of GoG - the interpretation" (1/29/05)
> "Re: Detailed Analysis of GoG - the empirical evidence" (1/29/05)
> (Also note that in post #5450 I corrected a sentence in post #5449
> where I had left out some important words!)
Once he is laid out on the canvass, I'll give you your 12 rounds.
Robert must stand and fight on his own. We will not fight dirty.
That is why I follow the rules and when I hit low (am wrong) I admit
it and try to make up for it. Can you or Robert say the same? I
haven't seen it yet.
> But besides the critical points I have already made, I too amthat
> interested to see Robert's point-by-point critique, since I know
> Robert's perspective differs from mine in some important areas.Todd, since he will parrot only what you say, why would you be
interested? Serious question there.
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Danny Fyffe wrote (post #5486):
Well, this time I haven't quoted a single thing from the post, but I
will refer to it, and I have provided the link.
What you did was acknowledge that the whole premise is "logically
valid." Then you proceeded to argue that the first premise was
unsound (not true, not correct) because (as you asserted) one or more
of the "if" elements of the first premise was itself not correct.
What I have been pointing out to you is that you simply cannot do
this because in fact the first premise of a modus ponens argument
does not address the truth of the "if" elements. The first premise
only asserts that the "if" elements *imply* the "then" element,
REGARDLESS of whether or not any of the "if" elements are themselves
If P, then Q.
P implies Q.
This later form of stating the first premise actually makes this
clearly, because we say simply "P implies Q" and it is easier to see
that we are in no way asserting the truth of P. We are only asserting
that IF P was true, then Q would also have to be true. Notice that in
fact as a first premise of an argument we may have a continuing
argument that has a quite different form from the kind of argument
that GRAS is. Indeed, we could be asserting that P implies Q because
we already know that Q is NOT true, and thus we would be using the
fact of Q not being true to argue that P is NOT true as well,
because, after all, "If P then Q."
Now, just a little reminder that the P element of GRAS actually has
multiple elements, so instead of merely "If P, then Q" we have "If A,
B, and C, then Q." Again, this would also translate to "A and B and C
together imply Q."
So the problem that we have been having is that when in your post
#5486 you SAID you were addressing whether or not the first premise
of GRAS was true (sound), you then procdeeded to argue that B and C
are not true. But this was IRRELEVANT, having nothing to do with the
first premise. The purpose of the first premise (of an argument in
this form) is to assert the IMPLICATION of Q by the COMBINATION of A,
B, and C, REGARDLESS of whether or not A or B or C are themselves
So please understand that when you are asked by Robert (or anyone
else) whether or not you think that the first premise of GRAS is
true, you are NOT being asked whether or not A or B or C is true, you
are being asked whether or not you agree that the COMBINATION of A
and B and C IMPLIES Q. In other words, do you agree that...
(A) IF God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of
six days [REGARDLESS of whether or not it actually does]
(B) IF God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was
six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago [REGARDLESS of
whether or not anyone actually interprets it so]
(C) IF there is empirical evidence that things are actually much
older than a few thousand years [REGARDLESS of whether or not this is
actually the case]
(Q) the interpretation of the text [the one referred to in B] is
So the question for you, Danny, *with respect to the soundness of the
first premise*, is simply this: Do you agree that the COMBINATION of
A, B, and C IMPLIES Q? If you do not agree, that Q is implied by the
combination of A, B, and C, then what you would need to do to dispute
the idea that A and B and C imply Q is to show how A and B and C
could all be true (regardless of whether or not they actually are
true) and yet Q not be the case.
I certainly hope this clears things up for you, with respect to the
first premise of GRAS.
So we can actually get to the meat of the argument.
In the year 2007. ;-)
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@y...> wrote, in part, to Danny Fyffe:
>I assume those ** things are to take into account the language
> So the question for you, Danny,
> *with respect to the soundness
> of the first premise*, is simply
> Do you agree that the COMBINATION of
> A, B, and C IMPLIES Q? If you do not
> agree, that Q is implied by the
> combination of A, B, and C, then what
> you would need to do to dispute the
> idea that A and B and C imply Q is
> to show how A and B and C could all
> be true (regardless of whether or not
> they actually are true) and yet Q
> not be the case.
> I certainly hope this clears things
> up for you, with respect to the
> first premise of GRAS.
difficulties we've been having on the terms we use to describe what
we are talking about.
Anyway, Todd, I think that is a pretty good take on the issue we've
been discussing and I am curious as to the "ace" you may be holding
up your sleave.
I notice that you have said that you think the major premise of
my "Goliath" is false (see poll results).
I couldn't get anyone else to provide a justifiable basis for such a
conclusion nor come up with a better than "Goliath" for logically
getting us to the significance of the issue.
Would you like to enlighten us on your poll answer?