The Instigator
RLBaty
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TSH
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
TSH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,077 times Debate No: 29440
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (38)
Votes (5)

 

RLBaty

Pro

(Since Mangani has declined to accept this challenge 3 times, even while boldly and falsely proclaiming that my YECS argument's major premise is not true, and I am currently advised that he is not accpeting challenges at this time, I am opening up the challenge to anyone who wants to offer a rebuttal to my claim.)

Arguments are built with propositions.

Propositions assert that something is the case or that something is not the case.

A proposition may be affirmed or denied.

Propositions are either true or false.

I affirm the proposition offered for this debate and offer the following example of a conditional statement that can be determined to be true, given the stipulations, independent of whether or not any of the conditions reflected therein are, in fact, true and as a result of the logical connections between the hypothesized conditions, the antecedent, and the conclusion, the consequent.

CONDITIONAL STATEMENT:

IF (A); God's word (the text) says
everything began over a period
of six days, and

IF (B); God's word (the text) is
interpreted by some to mean it
was six 24-hour days occurring
a few thousand years ago, and

IF (C); there is empirical
evidence that some thing is
actually much older than a
few thousand years,

THEN (D); the interpretation of
the text by some is wrong.

STIPULATIONS:

"God's word" - communication from
God in words that are not wrong.

"Interpreted by some" - what some
folks think it means and what thinking
might be wrong.

"Empirical evidence that some thing is
actually much older than a few thousand
years" - some thing is much older than a few
thousand years old and we can so determine
from evidence and its interpretation
independent of "the text".

"Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

A conditional statement asserts that in case the antecedent is true, its consequent will be true also.

A conditional statement does not assert that its antecedent, or any portion thereof, is true, but only that if its antecedent is true, then its consequent is true also.

A conditional statement does not assert its consequent is true, but only that its consequent is true if its antecedent is true.

To understand the meaning of a conditional statement one must understand what the relationship of implication is.

The relationship may be logical, definitional, causal, or decisional; for example.

The example above is, given the stipulations, an example of the logical relationship form of implication. That is, the consequent logically flows from the antecedent and the conditional statement can be determined to be true, logically, whether or not any of the conditions reflected therein are, in fact, true.
TSH

Con

A. The resolution, that conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true, is interpreted to mean the following:

"ALL CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE"

Note that "determined" means that conditional propositions can be either true or false (without loss of generality, only "true" conditional propositions will be considered).

Otherwise, Pro can win by constructing a conditional unrelated to the condition (e.g. if a certain rock is red, then I am Pro), which is unfair and contrary to the intent of this debate. To this end, in order that the conditional be related to the condition, not only must A imply B, but also ¬A must imply ¬B, thus, A↔B.

B. General Disproof: Proof by Contradiction

1. Let A↔B for reasons discussed in (A). Thus, (A⇒B) ∧ (¬A⇒¬B)
2. According to the resolution, (A⇒B | A) ↔ (A⇒B | ¬A)
3. This can be rewritten as ((B|A) | A) ↔ ((B|A) | ¬A)
4. This can be rewritten as (B|A) ↔ ((B|¬A) | A)
5. This can be rewritten as (B|A) ↔ (false | A). {Remember, ¬A implies ¬B instead of B}
6. This can be rewritten as (B|A) ↔ false
7. This can be rewritten as ¬(B|A)
8. This can be rewritten as ¬(A⇒B)
9. This contradicts step 1, which asserts that A⇒B
QED

C. Specific Disproof of Pro's Complicated Example:

"IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years, THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some MUST BE wrong."

1. A∧B∧C ⇒ D
2. ¬(A∧B∧C) ⇒ ¬D
3. Let A∧B∧C ↔ E
4. Then E ↔ D
5. E ↔ D can be contradicted the same way as A ↔ B was in part B.

1. IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years, THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some MUST BE wrong.

2. IF (¬A); God's word (the text) DOESN'T SAY everything began over a period of six days, and IF (¬B); God's word (the text) is NOT interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and IF (¬C); there is NOT empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years, THEN (¬D); the interpretation of the text by some NEED NOT BE wrong.

3. Out of characters.

D. Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

E. Conclusion

Pro's reasoning is faulty. If the condition is wrong, then the conditional is meaningless. Indeed, from incorrect assumptions, any and all conclusions can be deduced. For example, 0=1, an obviously false statement, is equivalent to and can be used to derive other falsities.
Debate Round No. 1
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
I may have gotten those three message links wrong. If so, try these:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

http://groups.yahoo.com...

http://groups.yahoo.com...
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
My thanks to Mangani for his vote on this important public issue and, more importantly, his comments.

I have added my response thereto at my place and so there are now three messages I have posted subsequent to TSH's failed effort regarding these matters:

My response to TSH's failed effort which so many here fell for:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
http://groups.yahoo.com...

My response to Mangani's comments following his votes:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

Rebuttals should be sent to the following email address, changing (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
There are now two responses:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
http://groups.yahoo.com...

Rebuttals should be sent to the following email address, changing (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
And again: Not an answer. So shenanigans stands.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
http://groups.yahoo.com...

Rebuttals may be sent to the following address for consideration; change (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
RLBaty:

Where? You can't just assert you've said something. You've done that before. I officially call "shenanigans". Explain it, or show where you've explained it, or I can only assume you are a liar.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
bladerunner,

I have, as a matter of fact, repeatedly explained the purpose of my exercises; though they may have one or more utilitarian purposes independent of my own.

That you continue to deny such reflects upon your bad faith and if, in fact, you missed my explanations, you should endeavor to do a little homework, demonstrate you've done such, and then if you had some legitimate questions I might consider patronizing you further.

Mangani claims to have been researching me all over the Internet back to 2007, and he still whines on as if he really doesn't "get it". I think he "gets its" and just can't/won't handle it openly and honestly.

I have learned not to expect agreement, and this venue has shown that all sorts who hang out here have problems with the simplest of critical thinking skills that otherwise might be seen as rather UNcontroversial.

If you want a homework assignment, here it is:

- Bladerunner is hereby encouraged to engage
- Magnani in a discussion of the issue in this
- debate challenge and Mangani's continuing
- inability and/or refusal to recognize my
- YECS major premise, given the stipulations,
- as logically true and see what it takes to
- get Mangani to accept my claim, if he may
- be convinced of its truth, admit his error,
- and explain how he came to make his
- error.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
You still haven't really explained the purpose behind any of these exercises. You propose these things under terms no one who is assessing things rationally could disagree with. What does it prove when you've established that internally consistent statements are internally consistent? What is the goal of these exercises? They only establish internal consistency.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Tulle,

No problem!

That's one reason why we have conversations.

I do well to propose and try to defend my own argments and the claims I make for them without trying to cover the waterfront and prove up any one or all "logical systems" that might be imagined.

Thanks for your contribution. Maybe it will be of help to Mangani and others who have been blundering about on these simple matters.
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
Well yeah, they "may" be. They also may not be. I misread your proposition.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
RLBatyTSHTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: If the condition is wrong, then the conditional is meaningless. That statement pretty much sums it up. Conduct to Con for Pro's attempt at ad hominem against an unrelated debater.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
RLBatyTSHTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a Math guy. Con dismantled the argument. Argument & sources to Con. Everything else is a tie.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
RLBatyTSHTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not rebut Con's arguments, and Con used a source. It's unfortunate that Pro chose a one-round debate format, but that was his choice when creating the debate.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
RLBatyTSHTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed the Logical disproof of the resolution. It's game over for pro. Also, Con used a source which supported his premise and has internal primary sourcing
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
RLBatyTSHTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set up the rules for this one-rounder, and failed to beat out the argument he didn't know what was coming.