Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

RLBaty- Enlighten us with your logic :-/

Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:22:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please... I have already agreed with the overall premise of your Step #1 as a matter of construct, and not content. Even so, please present it again so as to have it here, and not have go back and forth for reference.

Please present your argument from the beginning as concise as possible. Please reformat your copy and paste so it does not look like you copied and pasted some poorly punctuated gibberish.

Please be patient with me, and the second you get condescending and idiotic, I'm going to find you and put lumps on your face.

Ready? Ok...
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 8:53:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm a little short on time, but my intention is to accommodate your interests, whether real or feigned, as much as possible.

Till then, I note the following:

http://www.debate.org...

> No threats or implications thereof.

I have had occasion to post a number of messages at my place advising law enforcement officials of possible persons of interest should some evil befall me or mine. I have had occasion to engage a number of real sore losers over the years.

It is especially problematic regarding anonymous adversaries and adversaries who may have friends or sympathizers who may take action in response to threats made or implied.

Mangani, you might want to address that issue while awaiting my return to try and address your request.

You might not want to address that issue.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:27:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
OK!

Here is how I propose to proceed.

I will post separate messages providing the introduction to my argument and exercise, the argument and basic stipulations, and each of the 3 steps of the exercise.

I will then entertain questions, discussion, criticisms, etc., etc.

I figure that will be 5 separate posts to follow this one. It may be helpful to readers if no one posts until I get the 5 posted in sequence.

There is nothing particularly profound or unusual in the argument or the exercise. There are no tricks or traps.

I propose the argument is what I claim for it and does what I claim it does; maybe more depending on those who try to contend with it and my claims.

Please allow me to post the next 5 messages before attempting to complete the three simple questions/steps of the exercise.

Your cooperation will be appreciated.

The argument/exercise has been around a long time and has an extensive Internet history. The best history and most complete, is probably available where it all started; at my place.

My place has the following address:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:32:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
THE INTRODUCTION

This exercise/debate has been designed for certain young-earth creation-science promoters (i.e., Ken Ham, Kent Hovind) and their like-minded sympathizers with the intent to illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills.

The argument/exercise has been designed to accomplish such results without resorting to technical, scientific arguments better left to those with the requisite time, talent and skills to properly consider them.

In one my most recent outings, Ken Ham's personal representative indicated that he, Ken Ham, was simply not going to publicly take part in the exercise or confirm or deny my representations of his positions on the 3 steps of the exercise.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:35:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
THE ARGUMENT and BASIC STIPULATIONS

Major Premise:

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.

Minor Premise:

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

(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

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

Conclusion:

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

BASIC 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 more 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.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Step #1:

Is the argument so constructed
that if its premises are true
its conclusion will follow as
true therefrom (i.e., is it
logically valid)?

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - Yes
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:37:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Step #2:

Is the major premise, given the stipulations
and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning, true?

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - ???
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:39:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Step #3:

Do young-earth creation-science promoters reject
the truth of the minor premise of the argument
because they have their interpretation of the
Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps
any other evidence and its interpretation
to the contrary.

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - ???
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:03:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 9:37:41 PM, RLBaty wrote:
Step #2:

Is the major premise, given the stipulations
and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning, true?

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - ???

No.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:04:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 9:39:07 PM, RLBaty wrote:
Step #3:

Do young-earth creation-science promoters reject
the truth of the minor premise of the argument
because they have their interpretation of the
Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps
any other evidence and its interpretation
to the contrary.

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - ???

Yes.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:17:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Step #2:

Is the major premise, given the stipulations
and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning, true?

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - No

OK, let's take a look at that.

Major Premise:

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.

I'll try to keep it simple, so if you have need of further explanation, feel free to indicate what your problems are and I will try to attend to them.

By stipulation, the word of God cannot be wrong.

By stipulation, the word of God may be misinterpreted.

By stipulation, the empirical evidence phrase refers to a situation where some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of God's word and its interpretation.

So, if God's word cannot be wrong and it is the case that some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of the text, where is the problem, if there is a problem?

My proposal: any interpretation of the text contrary to the facts is where the problem is; the interpretation of the text is wrong.

So, the following is determined to be true, simply based on the stipulations and the force and effect of one's reasonable, mental machinations:

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.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By stipulation, the word of God cannot be wrong.

Because this is a logical exercise, I would implore you to prove that the bible is God's word. I will not ask you to prove the existence of God, only that the bible is God's word. You cannot confirm rationally that God's word has been written down by any man, and until this can be confirmed, a logical argument cannot be made using a probability as a statement of fact.

By stipulation, the word of God may be misinterpreted.

Any words may be misinterpreted, but this would not be a problem with someone who can correct any misinterpretation for themselves. This stipulation I agree with, however.

By stipulation, the empirical evidence phrase refers to a situation where some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of God's word and its interpretation.

You cannot rationally invoke empirical evidence in an argument where the crux, God's word, lacks empirical evidence itself.

So, if God's word cannot be wrong and it is the case that some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of the text, where is the problem, if there is a problem?

The problem is we cannot determine, A] Who or what is God, and B] That this God is in any way in communication with humans. If this cannot be determined, we cannot treat the notion of "God's word" as empirical evidence, therefore your entire argument is moot.

My proposal: any interpretation of the text contrary to the facts is where the problem is; the interpretation of the text is wrong.

The text itself is contrary to the facts, therefore deeming any interpretation wrong.

So, the following is determined to be true, simply based on the stipulations and the force and effect of one's reasonable, mental machinations:

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.
The construct of the argument is true, but the content is not.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:39:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.

- Thomas Paine
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:55:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mangani,

I refer you back to my message entitled "introduction".

You are correct in proposing that this is a critical thinking/logical exercise. It's emphasis is on the fundamental issue facing young-earth creation-science promoters and why they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges. For all who engage the exercise, it also allows for a demonstration as to the extent to which participants can demonstrate their critical thinking/logical skills, or lack thereof.

You have indicated that you agree with me as to Step #1 and Step #3.

Your problem is with Step #2 which tests your ability to recognize if and when a conditional statement (i.e., the major premise) is, simply by the force or reason and given the stipulations, true.

Give it another try, Mangani; give it another try and get back to me on it. Really, give it a real try and maybe do a little independent study if you don't want to wholly rely on me for counsel regarding these simple matters. Feel free to bring some help back with you for a little added participation here.

Also, please note that the argument itself does not deal with the Bible, though it obviously finds application to the young-earth creation-science promoter who accepts the Bible as the "can't be wrong" God's word.

One does not have to be a theist, or a young-earth creation-science promoter, in order to recognize the major premise, based on the stipulations, is true.

It's really quite simple, Mangani.

You just have to be reasonable, Mangani, and if you are not familiar with such Logic 101 exercises, you need to spend a little time thinking through it.

It has been proposed that if some things are more than a few thousand years old, it is either the case that the Bible is wrong or that the interpretation of the Bible, by some, is wrong.

The argument we are considering in this present exercise has to do with the interpretation side of that matter.

For those who want to test the Bible's veracity on the basis of the age of stuff matter, instead of an interpretation thereof, I have a separate argument for that.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, calm the F down, and stay in your place. Remember THIS stipulation?

"Please be patient with me, and the second you get condescending and idiotic, I'm going to find you and put lumps on your face."

Now, back to your exercise:

"It's emphasis is on the fundamental issue facing young-earth creation-science promoters and why they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges."
- First of all, I am not a young-earth creation-science promoter, so your frustration on their failures should not befall me.
- Second, your exercise is only necessary because you have your own logical shortcomings... otherwise you would not argue from this perspective. The Bible is not God's word. Because you have not accepted that as a fact, you have made this exercise necessary. Otherwise it would not be. This much is evident.

"One does not have to be a theist, or a young-earth creation-science promoter, in order to recognize the major premise, based on the stipulations, is true."
- The premise can't be true if the stipulations "can't" be true. Therefore the premise is not true.

Let's re-examine your Step #2

"Step #2:

Is the major premise, given the stipulations
and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning, true?"

"IF (A); God's word (the text) says
everything began over a period
of six days, and"
- False. The text (which you allege to be God's word, in this case, the Bible, as opposed to God's other alleged words like the Qur'an) does not say everything began over a period of six days (upon deeper examination).

"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,"
- True. The text is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24 hour days some thousands of years ago.

"IF (C); there is empirical
evidence that some thing is
actually much older than a
few thousand years,"
- False. There is no empirical evidence that anything is actually much older.

"THEN (D); the interpretation of
the text by some is wrong."
- True. D is true independent of A, B, and C.

"By stipulation, the word of God cannot be wrong."
- The word of God cannot be wrong, but the text can be.

"By stipulation, the word of God may be misinterpreted."
- The word of God cannot be misinterpreted, but the text can be.

"By stipulation, the empirical evidence phrase refers to a situation where some thing is more than a few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of God's word and its interpretation."
- We cannot determine empirically. We can assume through theoretical evidence a proximity in age based on comparisons with other objects.

"My proposal: any interpretation of the text contrary to the facts is where the problem is; the interpretation of the text is wrong."
- Your proposal presupposes, and accepts the text as the word of God. THIS is why you are losing your argument with young-earth proponents. You are debating he irrational, and trying to do it logically... but you accept irrational evidence to support your claims, and reject irrational evidence to reject theirs.

"So, the following is determined to be true, simply based on the stipulations and the force and effect of one's reasonable, mental machinations"
- The stipulations are false, therefore the argument cannot be true.

If you word your statement like this, nobody would have a problem with it:

If (A); The bible says creation took God 6 days to complete, and

IF (B); These bible passages literally state it took 6 days to complete, and

IF (C); Creation can be proven to have taken longer than 6 days, then

(D), The bible is wrong.

To accommodate your theism, you can re-word it this way:

Assuming the bible is the word of God in it's infallible and original perfection, as literally spoken by God:
If (A), God's word says creation took six days to complete, and
If (B), These six days are interpreted by some literally, and
If (C), Evidence proves creation took longer than six days to complete, then
(D), The bible fails to identify properly what, exactly, is a day, according to God.

Stipulations based on irrational or abstract ideas should be stated as within the context of, in this case, young-earth proponents. The standard for evidence has to be set by the young-earth proponents, or there will always be holes in your argument. If young-earth proponents stipulate they do not accept radio carbon dating as evidence, then you can't use that argument. All theists, however, will at one point or another attempt to cite scientific evidence in support of their position. THIS is why the stipulations, or standard for evidence, has to be set by the debater who's position is perceived to be irrational, rather than the one with that perception.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 4:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mangani,

I'm in my place, and you are out of place.
I'm long-suffering and will give you yet more time.

I remember your threat.
Do you remember my earlier response?

Yes, Mangani, I am the one trying to get YOU to stick with the exercise and the issues relevant thereto.

I don't know who or what you are, but it doesn't matter whether or not you are a young-earth creation-science promoter.

Think, Mangani, think, and, really, consider getting some help since you have some kind of problem with my quite reasonable counsel.

Go back and take a look at Steps #1, #2, and #3. Everyone can successfully complete the exercise and, quite appropriately, agree with my answers, which are the right answers, on these matters.

As I advised you earlier, the Bible is NOT actually referenced in the argument.

I also explained that the argument was applicable, as explained in my introduction, to those who hold the Bible to be the "can't be wrong" Word of God.

Think about these things, Mangani. Think reasonably, admit your errors, explain your errors, and correct them.

I warned you about your problem with comprehension and conditional statements (i.e., "if..., then...). The major premise can, indeed, be true whether or not any or all parts are, in fact, true.

This is a failing, a conspicuous failing, on your part, Mangani. Of course, you are not the first.

Let's re-examine my Step #2, as you suggest:

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

Mangani proposes boldly, and falsely:

- False.

No, Mangani, that is not even enough to be either true or false. It is HYPOTHETICAL, Mangani, HYPOTHETICAL; and it's part of a complete, conditional statement such as commonly "forms" the major premise of arguments.

Can you now think about your problems and try to demonstrate you are able recognize HYPOTHETICAL statements common to suggest argument "forms" and that you can tell when such a simple, HYPOTHETICAL, with stipulations, can be determined to be true simply by the force of reason and mental exercise?

I'll give you time.

If you cannot demonstrate progress on these simple, fundamental matters, we need not deal with your other problems reflected in your latest message.

If you show progress, and cannot resolve your other problems, we can take them up in order as they may be relevant to Step #2 which you are struggling with.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 4:54:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I'm in my place, and you are out of place."
- How very convenient.

"I remember your threat. Do you remember my earlier response?"
- Your earlier response is inconsequential. Keep your judgments and criticisms to yourself, and stick to the exercise.

"Yes, Mangani, I am the one trying to get YOU to stick with the exercise and the issues relevant thereto."
- And therein lies your problem. Your goal is not to reach a rational conclusion, rather one you have presupposed to be correct. You feel you are "directing" or "teaching," when in fact you are only discussing.

"I don't know who or what you are, but it doesn't matter whether or not you are a young-earth creation-science promoter."
- It DOES matter in order to determine the relativity of the logical systems at work here.

"Think, Mangani, think, and, really, consider getting some help since you have some kind of problem with my quite reasonable counsel."
- You are neither my counselor, nor my psychiatrist. Instead of insulting me you should stick to your exercise.

" Everyone can successfully complete the exercise and, quite appropriately, agree with my answers, which are the right answers, on these matters."
- If everyone agreed with you, you wouldn't be all over the internet trying to get people to agree with you ;) People who, for the most part, seem to disagree with you.

"As I advised you earlier, the Bible is NOT actually referenced in the argument."
- I mentioned the bible in order to make your argument true. Without mention of the actual text you are discussing- that which you are referring to as "God's word"- all your points are moot unless you can A) Prove your god exists, B) prove your god speaks, and C) prove that what you consider to be "God's word" are actually the words of that god.

"I also explained that the argument was applicable, as explained in my introduction, to those who hold the Bible to be the "can't be wrong" Word of God."
- I also addressed this scenario, in which you would still be wrong.

"Think reasonably, admit your errors, explain your errors, and correct them."
- I'm thinking reasonably, and I disagree with you. I've demonstrated reasonably why I disagree with you. If you don't care to do the same, there is nothing to discuss as you are no an authority, or "thee" authority, as you seem to have convinced yourself to be.

"I warned you about your problem with comprehension and conditional statements"
- Your opinion is inconsequential to my being right or wrong. If you have a rational rebuttal to my statements, then present it. Otherwise, pure ad hominem neither wins an argument, nor gains any kind of support from the person you are having a discussion with.

"The major premise can, indeed, be true whether or not any or all parts are, in fact, true."
- I've made that point several times.

"This is a failing, a conspicuous failing, on your part, Mangani. Of course, you are not the first."
- Then by logic the failure is yours.

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

Mangani proposes boldly, and falsely:

- False."

You say so, but you can't rationally argue so. I have presented a rational argument as to why this is false. You did not rebut my argument, and so it stands.

"Can you now think about your problems and try to demonstrate you are able recognize HYPOTHETICAL statements common to suggest argument "forms" and that you can tell when such a simple, HYPOTHETICAL, with stipulations, can be determined to be true simply by the force of reason and mental exercise?"
- I have already done his, and re-phrased your arguments in true to form hypotheticals. Your hypotheticals rely on presumptions- not simply hypotheticals.

"If you cannot demonstrate progress on these simple, fundamental matters, we need not deal with your other problems reflected in your latest message."
- Of course... rev up your engine to exit this conversation in frustration, and take your tantrum to "your place" where all will boost your ego by smothering you with their agreement.

"If you show progress"
- You must show I am wrong to suggest I have not progressed through your steps. Your argument is flawed, and I've shown it to be. You have not offered a rational rebuttal, yet you affirm you are the rational party in this argument. You are delusional.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:46:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mangani Claim:

"Your (RLBaty's) goal is not to reach a rational conclusion,
rather one you have presupposed to be correct."

Reply:

That's a false statement.

I have demonstrated the basis for my position and it stands unrebutted despite all the whining from my opposition that continues to demonstrate a failure regarding basic, critical thinking skills.

Mangani Claim:

"If everyone agreed with you..."

Reply:

I didn't say everyone agreed with me, but reasonable people with basic critical thinkings skills "can" agree with me. I even gave you an on-line reference to one professor of logic that did so regarding Step #2 and that without any suggestion that there was any substantive doubt about my position as to Step #2.

It's the disagreeable ones who provide the demonstration regarding the extent to which folks lack basic, critical thinkings skills and such lack is not limited to young-earth creation-science sorts.

Mangani Claim:

"I mentioned the bible in order to make your argument true."

Reply:

For this exercise, as I have explained, arguments are not true or not true.

Arguments are valid, not valid, sound, or not sound.
Statements/premises/conclusions are true or not true.

The validity and soundness of my argument do not need the Bible. That's another argument, as I explained earlier.

Mangani has already agreed that my argument is "valid".
Mangani demonstrated he has yet to grasp the meaning and relevance of stipulations, hypothetical statements, and how hypothetical statements may be recognized, through the process of reason, as true.

Mangani Claim:

"I've demonstrated reasonably why I disagree with you."

Reply:

He's demonstrated, reasonably, why he disagrees and why he disagrees reflects his lack of critical thinking skills necessary to successfully complete the exercise. Alas, there is still time for him to man-up to the exercise and complete it successfully.

Mangani Claim:

"Your opinion is inconsequential to my being right or wrong. If you have a rational rebuttal to my statements, then present it. Otherwise, pure ad hominem neither wins an argument, nor gains any kind of support from the person you are having a discussion with."

Reply:

My opinion has nothing to do with Mangani being wrong. It's just my way of taking note of his errors.

I have rebutted his errors, and he's gone to running off at the keyboard instead of dealing openly, honestly with his problems; a common problem noted to be present when dealing with anonymous Internet characters.

Mangani Claim:

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

I have presented a rational argument as to why this is false.
You did not rebut my argument, and so it stands.

Reply:

Sentence fragments are neither true or false.
That's the rebuttal.

Mangani also demonstrates his further lack of understanding of the nature of a hypothetical, conditional statement.

Mangani may try to prop up his false claim about it being false, but reasonable people recognize his problem regarding this simple, fundamental matter.

Mangani Claim:

"...rev up your engine to exit this conversation in frustration,
and take your tantrum to "your place" where all will boost your
ego by smothering you with their agreement."

Reply:

Mangani is the one "revvvvving up" his keyboard to flood the messages with words demonstrating his continuing failings on the simplest of matters.

Mangani Claim:

"You must show I am wrong...
Your argument is flawed, and
I've shown it to be.
You have not offered a rational rebuttal,
yet you affirm you are the rational party in this argument.
You are delusional."

Reply:

Mangani is not the one who gets to decide those issues and his lame efforts to establish his case is noted.

Everyone can form their own opinions on those various issues.

I repeat mine should there be an serious interest in further discussing the exercise.

1.

My argument is logically valid.

2.

The major premise, based on the stipulations, is true and can be determined to be true based on the stipulations and from simple, mental exercise (i.e., logic).

3.

The argument being logically valid with a true major premise, the only issue left relevant to determining whether it is sound is whether or not the minor premise is true. Young-earth creation-science promoters such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind reject the minor premise because they have their interpretation of their preferred "God's word" regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary. That makes dealing with such a lot easier in that it avoid quibbling over complex, technical, scientific issues better left to others with the time, talent and interest in doing so. Others, perhaps like the anonymous Mangani, may reject the minor premise for other reasons not relevant to this exercise.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:30:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're seriously boring me...

"That's a false statement."
- Yea yea... we know. YOU KNOW, therefore nobody else does ;)

"I have demonstrated the basis for my position and it stands unrebutted"
- Ah ah ahhh... no lies now, sir.

"For this exercise, as I have explained, arguments are not true or not true."
- And I stated that in Step #1, your argument was true in form. Your Step #2 asks if the major premise is true, given your stipulations. I have stated your stipulations cannot be true, and this follows that your premise also cannot be true.

By your own affirmation:
Arguments are valid, not valid, sound, or not sound.
Statements/premises/conclusions are true or not true

Your premise is not true, therefore your major premise cannot be true.

"The validity and soundness of my argument do not need the Bible."
- I have already affirmed this myself, and have proposed different scenarios in which your major premise would be true. Because your premise requires "the text" as you refer to it (again, I assume you are eferring to the bible, and not the Qur'an, or some other text which believers claim to be the word of God) to be the word of "God," but you fail to define and identify God, your argument may be sound, or valid, but your Step #2 asks if your major premise is true- it is not, given these shortcomings.

"Mangani has already agreed that my argument is "valid"."
- Yes, in form.

"Mangani demonstrated he has yet to grasp the meaning and relevance of stipulations, hypothetical statements, and how hypothetical statements may be recognized, through the process of reason, as true."
- No I haven't. I re-stated your argument so as to make your premise 'true' regardless of hypotheticals. If your goal is this:
"with the intent to illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills", you fail with your hypotheticals. Young earth creation science promoters do not believe your hypotheticals are hypothetical. You cannot have a rational argument rationalizing with the irrational (I need to practice what I preach :-/)

"Sentence fragments are neither true or false. That's the rebuttal."
- Silly me... here I was thinking I was debating an adult :-/

"Mangani also demonstrates his further lack of understanding of the nature of a hypothetical, conditional statement."
- Blah blah blah... nobody cares. Nobody is going to sit here and say, "Yes! You're right! Down with Mangani and his failure to follow your logic!" You sound childish. This is a debate website. You want a debate? Debate. You want to act like a child? I see...

"Mangani may try to prop up his false claim about it being false, but reasonable people recognize his problem regarding this simple, fundamental matter."
- What an argument :-/ And who are you talking to??? Oh yea... you're gonna copy and paste this and move it to where everybody licks your ego ;)

"Mangani is the one "revvvvving up" his keyboard to flood the messages with words demonstrating his continuing failings on the simplest of matters."
- Ok...? Witty response there, guy *thumbs up as I exit the little yellow bus*

"Mangani is not the one who gets to decide those issues and his lame efforts to establish his case is noted."
- Ok...???

"My argument is logically valid."
- Valid does not equal true. Your Step #2 asks if your major premise is true. It is not. You are running from this issue... even after admitting I've already stated your Step #1 (the argument question) is true, as is Step #3, which does not require steps 1 or 2 to conclude. Step #3 is simple common sense that a person like you can only reach through tedious vociferousness.

"The major premise, based on the stipulations, is true and can be determined to be true based on the stipulations and from simple, mental exercise (i.e., logic)."
- Not if the stipulations simply cannot be true. Here is the major stipulation which deems your major premise untrue:

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

- How can this be a valid stipulation??? You are not saying "let's suppose" and you are not stating IN the stipulation that the term "God's word" is used hypothetically. If your stipulation were worded as such:

"God's word"- communication purported to be from God, written down, and canonized as a book referred to simply as "the bible" or more formally "The Holy Bible."

THEN your premise might hold water. However, because a stipulation of your premise is to accept a probability as FACT (in order for the stipulation to hold, it must be factual, or clearly stated as hypothetical), your premise cannot be true.

"Young-earth creation-science promoters such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind reject the minor premise because they have their interpretation of their preferred "God's word" regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary."

- You don't seem to understand something very simple. Let me try to give you a valid argument that should end this nonsense:

IF (A) Something is written, and read literally, and what is understood from reading is literally what is written, it is not a "wrong" interpretation, and

IF (B) YECS believe in the bible (their preferred God's word, as you state), and

IF (C) The bible literally states God created everything in 6 days, then

(D) YECS do not incorrectly interpret the bible.

Now... breathe... and give your ego a break. You're wrong. Disagree? Debate me. Don't insult me as if you're some kind of guru when all you've shown is stubbornness verging on stupidity.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 7:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For all the continuing dripping come off the keyboard of my misguided adversary here, the issues are rather simple and the status of the exercise remains as follows:

Step #1:

Is the argument so constructed
that if its premises are true
its conclusion will follow as
true therefrom (i.e., is it
logically valid)?

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - Yes

Step #2:

Is the major premise, given the stipulations
and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
common-sense reasoning, true?

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - No

Step #3:

Do young-earth creation-science promoters reject
the truth of the minor premise of the argument
because they have their interpretation of the
Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps
any other evidence and its interpretation
to the contrary.

Robert Baty - Yes
Mangani - Yes

Here's the hypothetical statement (Step #2) that Mangani has yet to demonstrate he understands and understands how it is determined to be, based on the stipulations, true:

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.

Here are the basic 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 more 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.

If there be anyone out there who thinks Mangani has offered any sustainable rebuttal to my justification for my "true" answer regarding the hypothetical statement, given the stipulations, or has anything new to offer to the discussion of that, I encourage them to make their appearance.

Mangani is not "boring" me, but he's put on the common demonstration typical when this simple exercise is presented for consideration; in this case showing that limited, fundamental, critical thinking skills is a problem not limited to young-earth creation-science types.

Although, for all I know, Mangani is a young-earth creation-science sort.

I will address one item from Mangani's latest message to further demonstrate the veracity of my claims.

Mangani wrote:

"I (Mangani) have stated your stipulations cannot be true,
and this follows that your premise also cannot be true."

This is just a further demonstration that Mangani is not demonstrating his understanding of such terms and principles reflected in such terms as "hypothetical", "stipulation", and that he cannot demonstration the distinction between a true hypothetical major premise and a potentially not true minor premise.

So, Mangani can whine on, or he can get some help and come back and try again, or some new participant can show up and offer their views on the 3 steps.

Elsewhere, I offered to continue Mangani's problems further if he would come out, come clean and openly, honestly level the field and negotiate in good faith regarding the logistics for a more formal discussion of such matters in which we might share a mutual interest.

Otherwise, I think I have patronized him, another anonymous, whiny sniper long enough and made my points without successful rebuttal.

My place remains open for any here who are not afraid to get out and about and test their mettle in other venues.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 7:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Debate me. If you think you're smarter, more logical, more rational, then debate me. Don't be a coward. Debate me, or leave. Go home.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 7:58:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The coward, if there be one here, is the anonymous sniper and whiner who won't come out, come clean and openly, honestly negotiate the details for such discussion as we might agree upon producing.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:19:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The coward, if there be one here, is the anonymous sniper and whiner who won't come out, come clean and openly, honestly negotiate the details for such discussion as we might agree upon producing.

I prefer to be right rather than respected around here of all places.

I've got the "right" down.

Others can worry about all the whining about respect from anonymous, cowardly snipers.