HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Atheists & Agnostics (Group) » What Vic Stenger and Ken ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:19 PM

 

What Vic Stenger and Ken Ham have in common!

Last edited Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

This discussion thread was locked by EvolveOrConvolve (a host of the Atheists & Agnostics group).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29403

Vic Stenger - leading atheist promoter
Website: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html

Ken Ham - leading young-earth creation-science promoter
Website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Question:

What do Vic Stenger and Ken Ham have in common?

Answer:

They both are on the run from answering three
simple questions from Robert Baty; three
separate questions for each of them.

In recent days, both Vic Stenger and Ken Ham have shown that they are running
from answering three simple questions with discussion to follow as may be
determined appropriate.

Questions for Vic Stenger:

(1)

Do you, Vic Stenger, recognize Robert Baty's
argument on atheism as being so constructed
that if its premises are true its conclusion
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it
is logically valid)?

(2)

Do you, Vic Stenger, believe the major premise
of Robert Baty's argument on atheism is true?

(3)

Do you, Vic Stenger, believe the minor premise
of Robert Baty's argument on atheism is true?

Questions for Ken Ham:

(1)

Do you, Ken Ham, recognize Robert Baty's
"Goliath of GRAS" argument on the age of stuff
as being so constructed that if its premises
are true its conclusion will follow as true
therefrom (i.e., that it is logically valid)?

(2)

Do you, Ken Ham, recognize the major premise of
Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS" argument on the
age of stuff, given the stipulations and force
and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
reasoning, as true?

(3)

Do you, Ken Ham, deny the minor premise of
Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS" argument is
true because you have your interpretation of
the Bible regarding the age of stuff and that
trumps any other evidence and its interpretation
to the contrary?

Argument on Atheism for Vic Stenger:

MAJOR PREMISE:

IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
of God through the power of imagination, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation,

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, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation.

CONCLUSION:

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

"Goliath of GRAS" Argument on the Age of Stuff:

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 for "Goliath of GRAS" Argument:

"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.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

45 replies, 3336 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply What Vic Stenger and Ken Ham have in common! (Original post)
RLBaty Nov 2012 OP
rrneck Nov 2012 #1
RLBaty Nov 2012 #2
rrneck Nov 2012 #3
Warpy Nov 2012 #44
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #4
OriginalGeek Nov 2012 #5
RLBaty Nov 2012 #6
RLBaty Nov 2012 #7
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #8
RLBaty Nov 2012 #9
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #10
RLBaty Nov 2012 #11
RLBaty Nov 2012 #12
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #13
RLBaty Nov 2012 #14
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #15
RLBaty Nov 2012 #16
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #18
RLBaty Nov 2012 #19
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #20
RLBaty Nov 2012 #21
RLBaty Nov 2012 #17
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #22
RLBaty Nov 2012 #23
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #25
RLBaty Nov 2012 #26
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #27
RLBaty Nov 2012 #28
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #29
RLBaty Nov 2012 #30
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #31
RLBaty Nov 2012 #32
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #33
RLBaty Nov 2012 #35
RLBaty Nov 2012 #24
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #34
RLBaty Nov 2012 #36
uriel1972 Nov 2012 #37
RLBaty Nov 2012 #38
RLBaty Nov 2012 #39
FiveGoodMen Nov 2012 #40
RLBaty Nov 2012 #41
RLBaty Nov 2012 #42
RLBaty Nov 2012 #43
EvolveOrConvolve Nov 2012 #45

Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:50 PM

1. TLDR

I'm not interested in what one guy with a blog said about another guy with a blog. I'm even less interested in what two guys didn't say about what one guy said in a blog.

If you want to indulge in self promotion, you could at least properly format your OP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:08 PM

2. Re: TLDR

 

OK, I'll bite!

Show me what the original post would look like according to your preferred format.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:55 PM

3. Get rid of these - >

Try and remember a lot of people read DU on handheld devices and when you cut and paste stuff it displays funny.

But I'm not going to do your work for you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:47 PM

44. I'll second the TL,DR.

Bullshit needs to be broken down into manageable bites.

What you're doing is the written equivalent of the Gish Gallop.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:16 PM

4. On the run? Really?

Without snark or sarcasm, who do you think you are that anyone needs to answer any question from you at all?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:34 PM

5. Well, you phrased that more kindly than I was about to.

But I did wonder the same thing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:29 PM

6. On the run! Really!

 

It's not a matter of who I think I am!

I am the one making reasonable inquiries.

As to Ken Ham, he has tried to make a name for himself by challenging others he disagrees with and going on and on about the results he doesn't like (e.g., those he challenges don't accept). So, I have given him an opportunity to accept a simple challenge; one that does not require a big, public debate. My challenge just asks him to acknowledge that I have been properly representing him on issues those who agree with him on the age of stuff have historically blundered.

As to Vic Stenger, he earlier put up his own discussion list followers to run interference for him after indicating he was interested in my inquiry. They ran interference while Vic just ran. Curious developments in recent days caused me to revisit that matter and Vic again chose to run.

Who am I?

I am the one who has put Ken Ham and Vic Stenger to flight; over some of the simplest of matters.

As Richard Dawkins has confirmed, little ol' me putting the likes of Ken Ham and Vic Stenger to flight looks good on my resume; not so much on Ken's and Vic's resumes.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:41 PM

7. Re: On the run! Really!

 

After mysteriously receiving a flood of unsolicited messages from Vic's discussion list in my personal email yesterday, I reminded him and his minions of our unfinished business. Vic couldn't handle it and announced his run with the following message:

From: Vic Stenger
To: Robert Baty via Avoid-L list
Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 14:54:10 -0700

Subject: Re: Still waiting for Vic Stenger!

I don't even recall what the issue was,
but you have no basis to criticize this list
and I sure don't want to have anything to do
with (you).

I am auto-deleteing you.

Victor J. Stenger, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Hawaii
Author of 2007 New York Times bestseller: God: The Failed Hypothesis
Latest book: God and the Folly of Faith
In press: God and the Atom
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Huffington Post blog archive:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:43 PM

8. Don't think it matters, but ...

I don't see where Major (A) ==> (B)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:52 PM

9. Re: I don't see where Major (A) ==>(B)

 

Can you translate that into plain english.

If you are simply saying that the antecedent does not lead to the consequent in the major premise, I agree.

I am not one who thinks the major premise is true.

However, atheism implies and atheists explicitly and/or implicitly claim the major premise is true.

I am asking Vic Stenger if he is willing explicitly affirm or deny the major premise.

If I got your issue wrong, that plain english clarification might allow me to be more responsive.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:56 PM

10. I'm say that IF (A) -- which I think is true -- THEN NOT NECESSARILY (B)

(A) doesn't imply (B).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 08:16 PM

11. Re: ...IF (A) - - -which I think is true - - -THEN NOT NECESSARILY (B)

 

Are you talking about the modus ponens form of reasoning generally?

The argument for Ken Ham in particular?

The argument for Vic Stenger in particular?

As to the argument for Vic, I do not think the major premise is true.

That's one of the points to be made in the exercise, of course. Even if one could demonstrate that man could have originated the idea/concept of God, it does not follow that that accounts for the origin for their are other options.

I also don't think (A), the minor premise, is true though atheists do think so.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:39 PM

12. I might add...

 

Dr. Dziubla of the University of Kentucky, challenged little ol' me to a "debate" over my argument when I was sojourning on the James Randi website.

Not knowing any better, I accepted his proposal and amidst considerable distractions from anonymous skeptics who, it appeared, just couldn't stand it, we had our chat.

The one on one is archived at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

Therein, Dr. Dziubla indicates that, just as I have proposed, atheists do, generally, claim the premises of my atheist argument are true.

What is Vic Stenger's position on the argument and those premises?

See Vic Stenger run!
Run, Vic Stenger, run!

Simple, simple stuff, Vic.

Vic, you've got my 3 simple questions.

I'm still waiting for your public, explicit statement as to your position on those matters.

Vic, I have a pretty good idea of your position, as reflected below, but I am looking forward to your explicit, public statement on those 3 simple matters.

Here is the Vic Stenger reference supporting my claims:

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

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/how.html

(edited and adapted for relevance by RLBaty)

How to Answer Theist Arguments
A seminar series for atheists and freethinkers

The seminars were presented by Vic Stenger, Ph.D,
Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy of
the University of Hawaii and Adjunct Professor
of Philosophy, University of Colorado.

Theist:

How can you explain the origin of the
idea/concept of God?

Atheist:

I can only offer a possible explanation.

Theist:

OK, what is it?

Atheist:

Imagination

Theist:

You cannot prove that.

Atheist:

I only said I was going to offer a possible
explanation. Imagination is one possible
explanation. Not enough data are available
to determine the true explanation.

========End Excerpts=================

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:58 AM

13. With the athiest one

A does not imply B, that is just because humans can imagine a god or gods does not mean that god or gods are the result of human imagination. They could be real. Checked again before posting, nope A still does not imply B.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:28 AM

14. Re: With the atheist one

 

Last edited Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree that (B) is not implied by (A) in the atheist argument because there are other possibilities.

However, atheists/atheism, rejects the two other options (reason and revelation).

The result is that atheists/atheism implies the belief that the major premise is true.

Some atheists will admit to it; some will not!

What will Vic Stenger do?

Run!

Robert Owen, a leading 19th century skeptic, had the same problem in his debate with Alexander Campbell 160 or so years ago. My argument updates the question raised there and, in my opinion, shows that skeptics are in the same position today as when Owen proposed that imagination accounts for the origin of the idea/concept of God. That is, they explicitly and/or implicitly affirm the major and minor premises in the above argument but such "belief" goes beyond the reach of the evidence.

And so, as one report put it:

"(Daniel Dennett's) point is NOT that
science knows how religion evolved
naturally, but that it has several
ideas, and that all them are more
plausible than the existence of a
supernatural entity."

Ken Ham, et al, continues to look for scientific support for his ideas about the age of stuff, and Vic Stenger, et al, continues to look for the origin of religion independent of revelation. Something else they have in common.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:12 PM

15. Let's look again

IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination, as opposed to reason and/or revelation,

THEN (B) man did originate the idea/concept of God
through the power of imagination?

No...

THEN (B) it's quite possible -- indeed, likely -- that that is just what happened.


The atheist position is that there's no evidentiary reason to believe in gods so (B -- invention) is very, very likely.

Your mistake is thinking that atheists have to prove anything.

We don't.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:54 PM

16. Re: Let's look again

 

So, despite the round-about, you are indicating that you agree with me that atheism/atheists imply that the major premise is true; that atheists, in fact, implicitly and/or explicitly, believe it to be true.

You also indicate that you recognize that the truth of the major premise has not been established; proposing atheists have nothing to prove.

No, atheists don't have to prove it.
For all atheists know, there is a God.

They don't believe there is a God.
Theists do believe there is a God.

Atheists, implicitly or explicitly, propose man originated the idea/concept through the power of imagination; rejecting reason and/or revelation as possible alternatives.

That reasonably translates to the proposal that man, despite the lack of evidence, had the power to originate the idea and that having such power must have originated the idea/concept by such power because there is no evidence of other alternatives to account for the origination of the idea/concept of God.

Some admit to it.
Others not so much.

No mistake on my part.

I am not asking anyone to prove what cannot be proven; the truth of the major and minor premises.

They can't be proven; but atheists do believe them to be true, explicitly and/or implicitly.

Thanks for helping clarify the matter.

I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice to get Vic Stenger, or other leading atheist celebrities, to answer those three questions, officially and publicly, which are so simple and present in very elementary and logically valid terms what the fundamental affirmation, implicit or explicit, of atheism is.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:17 PM

18. That seems unnecessarily tangled

I think man can invent a god whether a real one exists or not.

I think man did invent god without the presence of any real one, but I doubt there is any way to prove that (now or in the future).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:33 PM

19. Not unnecessarily tangled at all!

 

The issue is not whether or not man is able to invent a god.

The issue is whether or not the idea/concept of God originated as a result of man's imagination as opposed to either reason or revelation.

Thanks again for further confirming your position that my argument is valid and that you believe the premises to be true and also admitting that such belief goes beyond the evidence presently available to you and that such will probably remain the case in the future.

Now, maybe someone will use their moral influence on Vic Stenger and he will, as a leading proponent of UNbelief, will answer those three simple questions that makes it so much easier to understand the fundamental issue. Vic is not being asked to prove anything, just tell "us" what he believes about my argument.

Argument on Atheism for Vic Stenger:

MAJOR PREMISE:

IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
of God through the power of imagination, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation,

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, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation.

CONCLUSION:

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

(1)

Do you, Vic Stenger, recognize Robert Baty's
argument on atheism as being so constructed
that if its premises are true its conclusion
will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it
is logically valid)?

(2)

Do you, Vic Stenger, believe the major premise
of Robert Baty's argument on atheism is true?

(3)

Do you, Vic Stenger, believe the minor premise
of Robert Baty's argument on atheism is true?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:51 PM

20. No.

"The issue is not whether or not man is able to invent a god.

The issue is whether or not the idea/concept of God originated as a result of man's imagination as opposed to either reason or revelation."


If it was revelation, then there actually has to BE a god to do the revealing. People argue about whether that happened, but there's no consensus. We can't conclude anything there.

But here's the point you keep glossing over:

IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
of God through the power of imagination, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation,

THEN (B) man did originate the idea/concept of God
through the power of imagination.


I can't think of any more ways to say no.

No.

Just because man is able doesn't prove he did.

Nothing you say after that makes the slightest bit of difference because THAT part is wrong: (A) does not imply (B).

Atheists think that's how it happened (that we just made it up) but few of us would say it was proven.

Don't bother thanking me again for agreeing with you. I don't.

Furthermore, your obsession with Stenger and with springing some kind of trap on him is rather pathetic.

He's a smart guy, but he's just a guy. What he believes doesn't change reality. What you could or could not get him to admit wouldn't alter anything.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:10 PM

21. Thanks for implicit endoresement of my analysis!

 

I'm not obsessed with Stenger, and there is no trap set.

Just as with those who agree with Ken Ham about the age of stuff, so many atheists agree with Vic Stenger.

If they would publicly answer my three simple questions, and discuss as necessary, it would, I believe, help those who share their fundamental beliefs from making certain blunders on the simple stuff.

I didn't ask for proof of the major premise.

You and I agree that the major premise has not been proven.

I have asked if Vic Stenger believes the major premise to be true.

You have implicitly indicated that you believe it to be true (i.e., that man was able to originate the idea and that man did originate the idea by the power of imagination and that it was not a result of reason and/or revelation).

I do NOT believe (A) implies (B), but you have made it rather clear, explicitly and/or implicitly, that you believe it to be true beyond the "proof"/"evidence" which you admit you do not have.

One the points of the exercise is to emphasize just such as you seem to want to emphasize: Atheists/Atheism implies the truth of the premises.

Atheists believe the premises to be true beyond the evidence.

I get that.
I have tried to emphasize that.

You have helped to emphasize that.

As a leader of the new atheist movement, what does Vic Stenger have to say about those three simple issues?

Oh, that's right!
Vic Stenger ran off!



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:00 PM

17. A little more trivia: something Vic and I have in common!

 

Vic Stenger was the featured guest of Annie Gaylor and Dan Barker on their FreeThought Radio program on June 11, 2011.

I was the featured guest of Annie and Dan on their program on October 31, 2009.

Neat, huh!

Both programs should still be available via the FFRF archives at:

http://ffrf.org/news/radio/shows/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:13 PM

22. There may be some athiests who believe such a flawed and simplistic argument

But I don't and I don't know any athiests who do.
It's all about evidence and likelyhood and yes, 'gasp' reason.
If there has been any true evidence of the divine no-one has successfully brought it to the awareness of the scientific community for direct analysis. Without evidence for the divine it is unreasonable to believe in it.
So what are we to make of stories of the divine? Hmmm, no evidence for the divine and we know that people can and will make things up and sincerely believe in their creations.

Therefore, what is more likely, The Divine for which there is no evidence or people creating origin stories?

The more reasonable answer is creation stories.

This is of course a more complex and nuanced and reasonable argument than the strawman argument you have created. It is little wonder athiests don't want to have anything to do with you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:27 PM

23. There are some who admit to it; others not so much!

 

That is, as I have noted, atheists either implicitly and/or explicitly believe the premises to be true.

I have simply taken the fundamental beliefs of atheists and atheism and formed them into a simple, logically valid argument.

In doing so, it is much easier to evaluate. Apparently some don't like such legitimate and accurate analysis.

As has been noted, it may be about the evidence but it is admitted that while atheists implicitly and/or explicitly admit to believing the premises to be true, the evidence to establish the truth of the premises is lacking.

My experience has been that atheists don't like to admit to believing something beyond the evidence.

That's what, in part, makes this exercise so valuable.

It's not a strawman argument. It is the fundamental argument implied by atheism and explicitly and/or implicitly admitted to being believed by atheists.

If they ever prove those premises, the ranks of atheists should increase substantially.

It may be no wonder why Vic Stenger, et al, don't want to deal with it, but what we believe to be the reasons are probably not going to be the same.

Even Uriel1972 further admits to the accuracy of my analysis in claiming that belief in a God is UNreasonable. Not reasonable. No God to reveal himself. HMMM! That leaves the implication that those premises are believed to be true.

Some admit to it.
Some don't. Some won't.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:57 PM

25. Bull dust

I said it was unreasonable to believe in a god WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Not that there was NO god.
L2R

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:07 AM

26. I got that!

 

Atheists, popularly, simply claim not to believe that there is a God.

For all they know, God does exist.

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:10 AM

27. Well and good

but if you got that, why did you misrepresent my argument?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:14 AM

28. I haven't!

 

I have accurately represented the argument implied by atheism and atheists and which is explicitly and or implicitly accepted as having true premises and a true conclusion by atheists.

I notice you didn't state your argument and have not chosen to engage in my step by step analysis of my argument.

In addition, I think I have accurately represented anything of substance that you might have said about the subject of this thread.

If you wish to have me consider your explicit complaints, feel free to set them forth for my possible consideration and response.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:19 AM

29. Not once did I say or even imply that there was no god

Simply that without evidence it is unreasonable to believe in one or the other or the many thousands of gods for the choosing. Yet you said that I did say there was no god by implication, which is patently untrue.
You are being dishonest and/or blinded by your self conferred cleverness.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:26 AM

30. Not so! But I enjoy the game you are playing!

 

Can you give me a message number and quote what it is exactly I may have said that you are complaining about?

Better yet, just come out and be explicit in stating your position on the matter in your next post.

Do you, uriel1972, believe there is a God?

You, uriel1972, are the one being less than open and honest regarding these simple matters.

Now, are you willing to get off your high horse and work through that step by step exercise I laid out for you and others who have an interest in this thread?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:39 AM

31. Post 23

Read it again especially the part where you say "Even Uriel1972 further admits to the accuracy of my analysis in claiming that belief in a God is UNreasonable. Not reasonable. No God to reveal himself. HMMM! That leaves the implication that those premises are believed to be true."

No god to reveal himself. I never said that. I said there is no evidence of god. A totally different proposition.

Is it reasonable to believe in a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter that no-one has ever seen, no. And it is by the same token that without evidence it is unreasonable to believe in something. That does not mean it does not exist.

I do not believe in a god or gods because there is no credible evidence. I also believe that said god or gods may well exist.

I will not work my way through your exercise because it is dishonest and insulting.

And I am not playing your game you seem to enjoy so much.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:55 AM

32. Post 29! Back at ya!

 

You may not be willing to play my game, but it ain't because you think it is dishonest. It may be insulting to you, but that is not a problem with me or the exercise.

They say that folks like you don't turn on reason/logic until logic/reason turns on them.

I've turned reason/logic on you and you just can't stand it.

It shows!

I appreciate the show.

Now, what was it you accused me of in Message #29?

It was:

"You (RLBaty) said that I (uriel1972) did say there was
no god by implication, which is patently untrue."

I notice that you seem to have failed your little test.
Despite my request, you did not quote where I said that.

Here's what you quoted me as saying:

"Even Uriel1972 further admits to the accuracy of my
analysis in claiming that belief in a God is UNreasonable.
Not reasonable. No God to reveal himself. HMMM! That
leaves the implication that those premises are believed
to be true."

Yep! You flunked your test.

But I think we made some progress.

You do not believe there is a God.
Theists do.
For all you know, there is a God.

You don't want to participate in a simple, relevant, critical thinking exercise regarding the fundamentals of atheism. That would be message #24.

Thanks again for the demonstration.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:05 AM

33. ????????

What part of "No God to reveal Himself" don't you understand?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:14 AM

35. Uriel1972 already lost and now he's back for more?

 

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:05 AM - Edit history (2)

I really think we could have a more positive experience if the poster using the ID of "Uriel1972" would work through the critical thinking exericse in message #24.

That poster now asks:

"What part of 'no God to reveal himself' don't you understand"?

Maybe someone else with a more personal relationship with that poster will help him out here.

If not, maybe I can come back to it in due time.

HINT:

Nah! No hints. I'll let y'all try and work that out amongst yourselves first.

Now, it's message #24 if you want to get serious about your problems and the issues I raised in the opening post.

See you there, or not.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:48 PM

24. Step by Step! Any Takers?

 

Let's try it this way if there is interest!

MAJOR PREMISE:

IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept
of God through the power of imagination, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation,

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, as opposed
to reason and/or revelation.

CONCLUSION:

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


Step #1:

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

I do.

Step #2:

Do you believe that atheism implies the truth of the conclusion
and that atheists implicitly and/or explicitly believe the
conclusion to be true?

I do.

Step #3:

Do you believe that atheism implies the truth of the minor
premise and that atheists implicitly and/or explicitly believe
the minor premise to be true?

I do.

Step #4:

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

I do.

Step #5:

Do you believe that the major premise of the above argument
is properly inferred and properly constructed from the minor
premise and conclusion of the argument?

I do.

Step #6:

Do you believe that atheism implies that the major premise
is true and that atheists implicitly and/or explicitly believe
the major premise to be true?

I do.

I think I have made my case for my positions regarding these important, simple, fundamental, public issues and I am more than willing to further test my understanding of atheism as popularly promoted.

Thanks for cooperating.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:13 AM

34. Alright I'll bite

If both premises are true then the conclusion is true.
If one or more premises are false then the conclusion is false.
The second premise is not demonstrably true.
Some athiests might believe this argument, but not all do.
Your argument falls in a heap.
QED

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:16 AM

36. Nope! You failed again!

 

Uriel1972,

It's a step by step exercise.

You really need to take each step one at a time.

I'll work you through it.

Start with step #1.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:21 AM

37. I'm sorry if reality is failing to adhere to your perceptions

but you really need to look at your arguments and yourself through the harsh magnifying glass of reason.
I've had enough of dealing with your faux philosophical bullshit. Enjoy your time in heaven

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:27 AM

38. Uriel1972 - another failing demonstration, but much appreciated!

 

My patronage of this venue to test my analysis has been most successful; in large part because of your demonstrations.

You, uriel1972, are the one who has been blundering over a simple, critical thinking exercise with emphasis on the implications of atheism and what atheists implicitly and/or explicitly believe to be true.

Thanks again.

Maybe some others will take up the exercise of message #24.
Maybe not.

I suspect that uriel1972 may be the best this venue has to offer or that others who know better simply don't want to follow his act.

I think I get it.

Give me a call if there be any who wish to work through the exercise, step by reasonable step.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:34 AM

39. Well, one more gift, no extra cost, before I retire for the night!

 


Most of you may have noticed it, but I thought I would note it for the record as just one example of the kind of problems I have historically had to deal with on this simplest of fundamental matters. That's why I try to keep it simple.

Uriel1972 proposed, as he sought to evade a reasonable, step by step, critical thinking exercise with emphasis on atheism and atheists:

"If one or more premises are false then the conclusion is false".

Nope!

A valid argument can have false premises and a true conclusion.
Look it up if you have a problem with that.

Later, folks!
Maybe.





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Reply #39)


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:46 PM

41. Like I said before...

 


...it is quite easy to see why Stenger is on the run.

However, we differ as to why that is the case.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:48 PM

42. Atheism 101 - Special Class for DU Students!

 


Should any DU students wish to "come out" and attempt to successfully complete the critical thinking exercise presented for you in message #24 here, I have prepared the classroom for you at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29450

See you there, or not.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RLBaty (Original post)


Response to RLBaty (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:50 PM

45. Locking - take your ball and go back to your sandbox

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink