Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise!

RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 9:24:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
INTRODUCTION:

The Debate.Org member using the ID "Bladerunner060" and I have just completed an extensive round of negotiations with the result being that he has invited me here to conduct my simple, 6-step Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise with emphasis on two different atheist positions/groups; one group represented by the argument crafted by "Bladerunner060" and another group represented by the argument crafted by me.

Despite the extensive negotiations, there may yet remain numerous logistical and practical details affecting the success of the exercise that may need to be worked out as we proceed.

My intent, in response to the invitation from "Bladerunner060", who would not make his appearance at my place, is to have a one-on-one chat with "Bladerunner060" regarding our respective arguments and leading to our successful completion of the exercise.

The first 3 steps in the exercise involve critical thinking skills independent of atheism (i.e., "form" over "content").

The last 3 steps in the exercise involve "content" and what atheists think.

As a preliminary matter, Step #1 has already been completed as shown below. I will follow this post with Step #2 and wait for "Bladerunner060" to check in. We'll go from there.

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

"Bladerunner060" Atheist 101 Argument:

Major Premise:

> IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination AND
> IF (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than imagination,
>
> THEN (C) it can reasonably be said that 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 AND
> (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than through imagination.

Conclusion:

> (C) It can reasonably be said that
> Man did originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination.

Robert Baty Atheist 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 9:33:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Following is Step #2 awaiting the reply of "Bladerunner060":

Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - ???

"Bladerunner060" Atheism 101 Argument:

Major Premise:

> IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination AND
> IF (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than imagination,
>
> THEN (C) it can reasonably be said that 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 AND
> (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than through imagination.

Conclusion:

> (C) It can reasonably be said that
> Man did originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination.

Robert Baty 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is intended to be a full and complete answer.

I think it CAN be done, yes, but I question whether you're really asking that, so I have to ask you for clarification (after all, if you hand me a jar of jelly beans, I CAN state the correct number...but that possibility doesn't mean I can do so consistently).

My answer would, at present, be I'm "UNSURE".

After all, an enthymeme is a rhetorical device which, by definition, is missing premises in order to persuade. Based on its initial construction, it is missing the elements which make it a modus ponens; while it can be assumed to contain them, I am not clear that it is possible to guarantee the solution of the major premise from only a minor and the conclusion, considering we are unsure if we could state definitively that it was the ONLY minor premise or whether part of the minor premise which was missing, and the same can be said about the conclusion.

If we presume that the minor premises are complete in and of themselves, and that this enthymeme is a pure First-order enthymeme, then I can tentatively say YES, I think.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll try to add some clarification and hope that you might reconsider and strengthen the hesitant "yes" currently being proposed.

We know what conclusions are affirmed, right!

We know the related premise and our desire is to formulate the related "If p, then q; p; q" form argument to support the conclusion, right?

Since the premise associated with the conclusion is clearly not the major premise necessary for our exercise, it must be classed as the minor premise, right?

So, we have the conclusion and minor premise, right?

The result is ungetoverable. The missing major premise is simply the result of hypothesizing the minor premise with an "if" prefix, followed by a comma and the conclusion preceded by "then".

To make the clarification even easier, perhaps, consider that we simply eliminate the major premises from our two arguments.

If we delete the major premises from our respective arguments, would it be possible to reconstruct what we deleted from the minor premises and conclusion?

I think so, and I may have just given you a "spoiler" as to Step #3!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So we are assuming that this is a proper first order enthymeme, which contains everything but the Major Premise. Consider my "yes" less tentative. Sufficient for Step #3?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:43:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I tried to tell y'all how easy, simple the exercise is. We are almost half way through.

Here's a review with the added Step #3.

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #3:

Step #3:

Do you think that the major premises of the above
arguments are properly inferred and properly
constructed from the minor premises and conclusions
of the arguments?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - ???

NOTE: I have been trying to tinker and tailor the exercise to individual needs and so make some minor errors at times in all the copying and pasting. In the above, I have corrected the previous "believe" to "think". It doesn't, in my opinion, change the substance of the exercise and I consider it a further accommodation to my atheist inclined adversaries who may prefer to consider what they "think" instead of what they "believer".
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:52:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Assuming what I said before, I extend the same agreement.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Bladerunner060",

Thanks. We are half way through, but it does get a little trickier from here on out.

Let's take that up tomorrow.

Think on these things and I'll get back to you with Step #4 tomorrow.

Review of the first half of the Atheism 101 Exercise in Critical Thinking

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #3:

Step #3:

Do you think that the major premises of the above
arguments are properly inferred and properly
constructed from the minor premises and conclusions
of the arguments?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 7:57:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #4:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the conclusions are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - ???

From "Bladerunner060" Atheist 101 Argument:

Conclusion:

> (C) It can reasonably be said that
> Man did originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination.

From Robert Baty Atheist 101 Argument:

Conclusion:

> (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 10:57:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
OK, here's where we are at through 4 steps, with the 5th step now added for your consideration.

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #3:

Step #3:

Do you think that the major premises of the above
arguments are properly inferred and properly
constructed from the minor premises and conclusions
of the arguments?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #4:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the conclusions are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #5:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the minor premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - ???

From "Bladerunner060" Atheist 101 Argument:

Minor Premise:

> (A) Man was able to originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination AND
> (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than through imagination.

From Robert Baty Atheist 101 Argument:

Minor Premise:

> (A) Man was able to originate the
> idea/concept of God through the power
> of imagination.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 10:59:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would not say it's the only valid argument, but that's not the question. Therefore my answer is Yes
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:07:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, the formal exercise is almost complete. Here's where we are through 5 steps now with the 6th step added (discussion may follow according interest):

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #3:

Step #3:

Do you think that the major premises of the above
arguments are properly inferred and properly
constructed from the minor premises and conclusions
of the arguments?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #4:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the conclusions are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #5:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the minor premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #6:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the major premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - ???

From "Bladerunner060" Atheist 101 Argument:

Major Premise:

> IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination AND
> IF (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than imagination,
>
> THEN (C) it can reasonably be said that Man
> did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

From Robert Baty Atheist 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.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 11:25:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I think there are atheists who affirm that premise, and I can obviously agree that SOME atheists undoubtedly agree completely with the premise, so yes.

However, I think it should be noted that some atheists may also affirm the premise but think it insufficient to make the argument. Certainly yours (as I think it is can't to be called a "true premise"), and possibly mine as well.

But short answer Yes.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 2:03:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Bladerunner060",

Thanks for successfully completing the exercise with me.

Here's how I have it:

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #3:

Step #3:

Do you think that the major premises of the above
arguments are properly inferred and properly
constructed from the minor premises and conclusions
of the arguments?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #4:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the conclusions are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #5:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the minor premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #6:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the major premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

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

My additional comments:

The conclusion of my argument may be said to reflect the affirmation commonly seen being espoused by what may be called "bold atheists".

As my argument reveals, such a "bold" affirmation locks the affiant into an argument which even other atheists recognize as having premises which go beyond the evidence but which are "believed" to be true; implicitly or explicitly.

The argument proposed by "Bladerunner060", in my opinion, reflects a "not-so-bold atheist" position.

That's important to note next time you see an atheist addressing the issue with an affirmation.

Does the atheist really want to take up the "bold" affirmation or the "not-so-bold" affirmation.

The argument proposed by "Bladerunner060" also suffers from the problem of having an affirmation/minor premise that takes one beyond the reach of the evidence; though, as we have seen, some may "believe" such premise to be true.

In summary:

In my argument, the "bold atheist affirmation", atheists are burdened with both major and minor premises which are doubtful.

In the argument from "Bladerunner060", the "not-so-bold atheist affirmation", the atheist is burdened with a minor premise which is doubtful.

Right?

Atheists don't believe there is any "God".
Theists do.

Thanks again for your time, talent and interest.

The exercise, as now successfully completed, helps provide a further update on the same issue that was taken up in the long ago (1829), as I previously referenced in the "Debate" venue, between the theist Alexander Campbell and the atheist Robert Owen (who took the "bold" affirmative).

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the argument from "Bladerunner060", the "not-so-bold atheist affirmation", the atheist is burdened with a minor premise which is doubtful.

What is the affirmation/minor premise that takes on beyond the reach of the evidence?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 4:25:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 3:20:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

What is the affirmation/minor premise that takes on beyond the reach of the evidence?

Your minor premise, which is the same as mine with an additional twist:

> (A) Man was able to originate the idea/concept
> of God through the power of imagination AND
> (B) there is absence of evidence for god's
> existence other than through imagination.

Both (A) and (B) are doubted.

As with my argument, and as Campbell proposed against Owen, and Owen was unable to rebut, the atheists have been unable to demonstrate that man now or "back then" is/was able to and did, in fact, originate the idea/concept of God as a result of the power of imagination.

Your additional twist, also doubted, is your denial that there is any evidence for an alternative. I think the general rule is that it is not often wise to try and prove up a universal negative like that.

There is a difference, don't you know, between denying there is evidence and simply reaching a different conclusion from a consideration of the evidence.

Ken Ham says there is no evidence for evolution.
You say there is no evidence for revelation or reason.

There's evidence in both cases. The problem is that reasonable folks may happen to draw different conclusions from their consideration of the evidence; as well as some unreasonable people.

Whenever, in my opinion, someone says "there is no evidence for..." it is a red flag that may signal a lot of quibbling about the definition of "evidence" and its application and a situation where folks simply reach different conclusions from a consideration of the evidence.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:16:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Then allow me to change it to "sufficient evidence".

Until "sufficient evidence" has been shown to demonstrate the existence of something, it cannot be assumed to be real.

And the ability of humans to "imagine" god? Anything that can be talked about can be imagined. Anything that can be thought of through reason can be imagined.

I would say the BoP is on the person arguing that man COULDN'T have imagined the concept of god, the same way it would be on a person who claimed unicorns must be real because man couldn't have imagined the concept of unicorns.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:20:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just checked and it looks like Amazon has plenty of options for getting a copy of the Campbell-Owen Debate of 1829.

The "imagination" issue actually took up very little time in that discussion, but some with an interest in such things may want to check it out. It used to also be available on-line, but I don't have a handy link to where that was and I think that website has undergone some changes since I last checked.

I got my hard copy a long time ago before, apparently, the value of that debate went up so much.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:25:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 5:16:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Then allow me to change it to "sufficient evidence".

Until "sufficient evidence" has been shown to demonstrate the existence of something, it cannot be assumed to be real.

And the ability of humans to "imagine" god? Anything that can be talked about can be imagined. Anything that can be thought of through reason can be imagined.

I would say the BoP is on the person arguing that man COULDN'T have imagined the concept of god, the same way it would be on a person who claimed unicorns must be real because man couldn't have imagined the concept of unicorns.

Sufficient for who?
By whose standards?

See the problem?

Changing it to "sufficient" really doesn't help much.

I get that atheists are not persuaded.
Theists are.

As to the burden of proof, the arguments reflect affirmations from the atheist point of view. As "they" say, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

As a matter of fact, I propose, and I earlier quoted a sympathetic review of Daniel Dennett, the experts admit they haven't figured out how religion evolved, much less where and how it began; though they have some "imaginative" theories about all of that.

Atheists "believe", beyond the evidence, that it was "imagination".
Theists have other options available; atheists don't.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your major premise isn't a major premise anymore, it's an argument. You've complicated the case massively. It's a modus tollens with a simplification.

P1 - God could have came either from the mind (imagination) or reality. (Either P or Q)
C1 - God could have came from imagination (P)

P1 - The idea of God comes from either reality or imagination (or other option here)
P2 - It is unlikely God came from anywhere other than imagination.
C1 - Therefore God came from imagination.

The problem is the simplification is pretty much redundant: you'd need another saying it's possible for God to exist in reality.

Of course, one can (as I and others do) deny the first premise of the simplification (claiming God could not come from reality), or as every theist does deny the second premise of the second argument (It is unlikely God came from anywhere other than imagination).

It just seems now like a very complex way of saying "God either exists, or he does not. I don't see any reason to think that he exists in the real world. Therefore I think God did not come from the real world".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:34:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stephen,

Were you wanting to work your way through my exercise?

If so, I can set it up for you and you can try your hand at Step #1.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:44:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 5:25:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote, in part:

I don't see any reason to think that he exists in the real world.
Therefore I think God did not come from the real world.

Hey, I think I am the one who tries to keep it simple!

Atheists don't believe there is any "God".
Theists do!

However, when an atheist "boldly" affirms that "Man created God", then I've got him/her/them locked into an argument and a position which helps demonstrate that their belief about that goes beyond the reach of the evidence.

Simple stuff.
Nice to know and be able to recognize.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:01:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Stephen Hawkins:

That is what it is. RLBaty originally proposed as a "critical thinking exercise" the idea that IF god could be imagined, THEN he was imagined.

My response to that was that the premise wasn't a fair representation of how atheists reach the conclusion "it is reasonable to assume god came from the imagination".

I concede that my modification of it probably wasn't right either, but in the original comments on the debate RLBaty started, I pointed out that it was a rough one, since I was forced to use RLBaty's format.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 6:01:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
@Stephen Hawkins:

That is what it is. RLBaty originally proposed as a "critical thinking exercise" the idea that IF god could be imagined, THEN he was imagined.

My response to that was that the premise wasn't a fair representation of how atheists reach the conclusion "it is reasonable to assume god came from the imagination".

I concede that my modification of it probably wasn't right either, but in the original comments on the debate RLBaty started, I pointed out that it was a rough one, since I was forced to use RLBaty's format.

"Bladerunner", et al,

I documented the "bold" atheist claim that "Man created God" and the implications, reflected in my argument.

It's a lock, and no one has found the key.

No one forced anyone to try and finagle their way around my argument and my claims regarding it and the simple state of the matter.

So many atheists try try to claim that "we don't believe there is any God; period".

Well "we" know better, but if you want to keep it simple, as I suggested, here's how that goes:

Atheists don't believe there is any God.
Theists do.

Up from there, and things can get a little dicey, as we have seen in these recent conversations.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:24:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I documented the "bold" atheist claim that "Man created God" and the implications, reflected in my argument.

It's a lock, and no one has found the key.

You documented the conclusion.

From "Man created unicorns",
I can guess the minor premise
"Man had the ability to create unicorns"

And try to construct
"If man had the ability to create unicorns,
then man created unicorns"

But that's not the argument we use to disprove unicorns; we say that the lack of unicorns is a null hypothesis, and until the null hypothesis is disproven we will continue on as though the null hypothesis is true.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Bladerunner060",

It's only been about 100 times that my misguided adversaries had thought to contrive some argument to try and compete with my own and the claims I have made for them.

I've chased and chased such rabbits; roasted just right, they are fine food!

So, if you want to try that technique again, you are welcome to do so. I may chase another rabbit. I may not.

Just, if you can, try to make it clear how whatever you are trying to get at affects those 6 steps we were in agreement on.

By the way, one of my anonymous adversaries on the Democratic Underground tried to pull that unicorn out of his hat. I chased that rabbit only to find that my adversaries had cut and run from his own unicorny evasion.

Such exploits are archived at my place.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 10:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The 6 steps here don't seem to establish anything but whether the argument is logically presented. Do you feel they establish anything else?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 10:18:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 10:11:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

The 6 steps here don't seem to establish anything but
whether the argument is logically presented.

Do you feel they establish anything else?

If there is any one or all which you wish to revisit, just let me know; we can take them one reasonable step at a time:

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #1:

Do you think the arguments are so constructed
that if their premises are true their conclusions
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that they
are logically valid)?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #2:

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

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #3:

Step #3:

Do you think that the major premises of the above
arguments are properly inferred and properly
constructed from the minor premises and conclusions
of the arguments?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #4:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the conclusions are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #5:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the minor premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes

Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise Step #6:

Do you think that there are atheists that implicitly
and/or explicitly think the major premises are true?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> "Bladerunner060" - Yes