Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Class Exercise, by request!

[RLBaty]

Le Taz Hot recently wrote to me that I should, with reference to this lesson, "consider reposting in Religion".

So, if you got a problem with that, take it up with Le Tax Hot!

In recent days Vic Stenger has refused to answer a few simple questions regarding the fundamentals of atheism. In more recent, subsequent discussions with others, I have developed a class exercise for those interested in the affirmative, unsubstantiated beliefs of atheists and such beliefs as is implied by atheism in the context of a simple, critical thinking exercise.

The exercise contains an argument and six simple questions with discussions to follow according to the time, talent and interest of the participants. Nothing really all that controversial. No traps. Just a simple critical thinking exercise with emphasis on fundamental, unsubstantiated, affirmations of atheists/atheism.

However, while most DU observers to date have simply chosen to whine a bit about the exercise and me, a couple have been explicit in demonstrating the need for such exercises in that they have denied that 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).

Those two posters are Bradical79 and Wrath of Medusa. That's fine if that is what they believe; it raises a cause for some discussion as to the very first, otherwise uncontroversial, step (if there is interest in such).

Here's the argument with the six questions (steps) following, including my position as to each question:

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 will be posting this invitation for those interested to complete the exercise at my place in conjunction with this posting to the DU and preserve any participation here at my place as well.

For those so inclined, you can participate at my place directly. Here's the link to get over there:

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

These issues are related to the issues taken up by Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell back in 1829 and by Dr. Dziubla and me back in 2011. Here are links to those debates:

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-downloads/file/7060-campbell-alexanderowen-richard-debate-on-evidences-of-christianity/

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

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[greyl]

1. Previous thread where your OP was taken to task:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021771201

[defacto7]

2. Previous thread where your OP was LOCKED:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021771201

[Speck Tater]

3. The conclusion does not follow because...

IF (A) man was able to originate the
> idea/concept of quantum mechanics through the power
> of imagination, as opposed to reason
> and/or revelation,
>
> THEN (B) man did originate the
> idea/concept of quantum mechanics through the power
> of imagination.

To say that:

If X is a possible cause of Y
then X is THE cause of Y

is not valid. It's completely bogus reasoning because it assumes, without so stating, that X is the ONLY cause of Y, which goes way beyond what is explicitly stated in the original premiss.

To make it valid you would have to state it as:

If imagination is the only possible source for a belief in God
THEN imagination was the only source for a belief in God.

But you didn't say that, so your line of reasoning fails.

[intaglio]

4. Major premise

Fails at the first hurdle.

There is a false dichotomy, a dichotomy between reason and imagination; imagination does not necessarily lead to false concepts and reason does not necessarily lead to correct conclusions. The ideas generated by reason and/or imagination must be tested against reality by the accuracy of their predictions and even then you must beware of self-fulfilling prophecy. You also introduce revelation which as nothing to do with either reason or imagination but concerns only an argument from authority, assuming there is something doing the revealing

You then repeat your minor premise merely by leaving the word "If" out of the statement. You then state as a conclusion (presumably of your minor premise) the second part of your major premise by leaving out the word "Then". This is not logic, it just tossing the word salad.

Continuing, you ask a series of questions without point and state your beliefs regarding those questions. This is not sane argumentation.

To be frank there is no reason to follow your self promoting links and argue with you any more than there is reason for me to join Rapture Ready and argue with them. If you continue to spam this pointless post I will report it.

[Fumesucker]

5. There is only one "fundamental" to atheism

The atheist, for whatever reason or no reason at all, lacks a belief in a supreme being.

That's it, period.

Many theists don't seem to realize that most atheists in America started out as theists and rejected theism, we know you better than you know us because we once were you.

[skepticscott]

6. You fail at the first step

by fraudulently presuming that reason and imagination are exclusive of one another, when every student of logic 101 knows better.

No intelligent person takes your self-promotional, narcissistic tripe seriously.

[Goblinmonger]

7. This group is where this belongs.

That being said-as has been pointed out to you already numerous times--your major premise is flawed because it presents two options as being binary when they are not mutually exclusive: one can use imagination while still being centered on reason. Data for that claim: "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. QED.

[skepticscott]

41. His logic is

a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD!

[R0ckyRac00n]

148. Logic is

Appreciate the Spock reference!

[dmallind]

9. By this codswallop you think you can *teach* critical thinking? Really?

Let's start you learning on the remedial course first:

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) dmallind was able to think up a story last night, as opposed to watching TV

> THEN (B) dmallind did think up a story.



1) Is that a direct analog of your premise; why or why not?
2) If it is not, explain in detail the differences in logical terms
3) If it is, then explain whether it is a premise that can be inductively argued or deductively proved, or unsuitable to either approach.

[RLBaty]

10. They are learning all right; they are learning!

Actually, it is rather humorous the lengths some have gone to around the DU to evade having an open, honest discussion regarding basic critical thinking skills as applied to the atheism and atheists.

Step #1 does involve engaging folks here in some remedial training and, just maybe, some will actually engage the matter in good faith, with a little open, honest discussion as may be appropriate.

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, for reasons I made clear in message #8 here.

Who else is now ready to join me?

Any of the whiners started their research yet to try and confirm or rebut my claim that the argument is logically valid?

[dmallind]

14. And you are refusing to do so. Prove me wrong and I will believe today.

Come on "teacher", grab a convert

Answer my question and then put your silliness into a real premise.

[dmallind]

11. Modus ponens he adds! What a joke!

You think we're all stupid, obviously, but THAT stupid?

Modus ponens takes the form

"If A is true, A implies B is true"

"A is true"

"Then B must be true"

Your pemise is nowhere fucking near that. What you are trying to say is

"If a is possible then a must be true"

How the hell did you think we'd miss that?


How many cites on modus ponens do you want? How can you torture your shite into that form? you cannot!

[RLBaty]

12. Dmallind don't know modus ponens!

At least he has done a good job in demonstrating he just don't get it.
Thank you very much!

It appears, the joke is turning out to be on him and his likeminded snipers.

I await those who may wish to pursue the exercise in good faith.

[Goblinmonger]

15. So you respond to someone and

refer to them in the 3rd person. Aside from your lack of understanding of elementary logic, that makes you come across as a tool. You may want to actually engage in dialogue with people rather than this 3rd person approach that you must think makes you sound intellectual.

I'll have to try that technique on my students today and see if it helps (the main difference being that I know what I'm talking about in the area of what I'm teaching but even that won't change the dickishness of that approach).

[dmallind]

16. Oh Christ this one's nuts, but for those who care to know

http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~pconrad/cs40/lessons/logic/modusPonensModusTollens.html

Now - everyone - Believers especially - read this link and tell me who got modus ponens right.....

[RLBaty]

18. Ho! Ho! Ho! I've got modus ponens right! Dmallind got it wrong!

Thanks to Dmallind for offering the evidence from whence it might be reasonably concluded that I am the one who has properly represented modus ponens and that Dmallind got it wrong.

Dmallind, are you open and honest enough to seriously consider your problem and the misguided course you have taken in this matter?

Do you want me to explain your error?

Will you explain it and admit to it?

I await your further demonstration as to how you propose to handle your problem so that we might agree as to Step #1.

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

[dmallind]

22. Nuts and illiterate...

How, precisely, does your premise fit modus ponens? Tell me what is P, what is Q, and what is the link between them.

While you're at it, in what area do you fondly imagine I erred?

[RLBaty]

27. Dmallind, try getting Muriel to explain it to you!

I've already made my position clear and you misrepresented what modus ponens is all about.

I will explain it more in detail as may become necessary, but you need to do your part.

(Hint: Think "form", not "content"!)

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[dmallind]

30. In other words you can't

If men can do X therefore they did X is not even close to the correct form, regardless of content.

[RLBaty]

31. Dmallind, you are not passing your homework assignment!

Let me try to help you out.

Apparently your friends here who know better than you are willing to let you flounder!

Good for me!
Sweet victory!

Here's the deal, dmallind:

Modus ponens is:

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

It's about "form", not "content".

My argument "form" is:

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore q.

Try real hard, Dmallind, to see your error, explain your error, and correct your error.

Remember, Dmallind, it's about "form", not "content"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[cleanhippie]

42. Perhaps if you your to drop the arrogant, condescending bullshit...

you would find yourself taken a bit more seriously.

As it stands now, you are being laughed at, having your posts locked, and are probably very close to being banned from DU.


Where you go from here is up to you.

[Progressive dog]

103. You cannot prove that something does not exist

I tend more toward your beliefs, but you are incorrect in your logic. The conclusion is only true if the premise is true. You have put your conclusion in the premise. This is commonly called circular reasoning.

[RLBaty]

106. Progressive Dog; thanks for adding to the demonstration of the need here!

A conclusion may be true without regard to whether or not the premises are true.

It's not circular reasoning to affirm the antecedent and, if the premises are true, wind up reasoning to a true conclusion.

[Goblinmonger]

13. 2 things and then I think I'm done with you if you don't actually respond to what I am saying

1. I don't even have to get to your silly logical construct to know you are off base. You say this:

the context of what atheism implies and atheists believe

and the problem is that in order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything. Actually, the definition of atheists is that they lack a belief in a god. That is it. So it isn't even your major premise that is flawed, it is the assumption you make as you start into constructing your "logical" argument.

2. YOUR MAJOR PREMISE IS FLAWED. You have never addressed this. Do so now. If not, it will become even more clear that you are not truly interested in engaging in discussion about the issue but instead want to convince everyone of how awesome you are while refusing to listen to those that disagree with you (which, btw, should mean that you will fit in quite nicely with those theists that post the most frequently in here and with whom you shared a common bond of being banned from the A/A group). You say this:

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,

Address and explain how this isn't a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. There is no need to progress past the major premise when the major premise is fundamentally flawed.

I'm quite sure you won't respond because, as I've said, you really don't want a dialogue.

[intaglio]

53. Your arguments are based upon sand

Your so-called "Major Premise" is just a nonsense. You are contending that there is a dichotomy between "Imagination" and "Reason." There is not; reason and imagination are complementary not antithetical.

You insert "Revelation" into your arguments when "Revelation" is merely a term for Argument from Authority. Something has to do the revealing be it a teacher or a writing. A thing cannot be revealed if there is not actor performing the action of revelation, additionally the actor needs an audience receiving the revelation. Your arguments cast you as both actor and audience which is an excersize in circularity.

Your "Minor Premise" is merely a repeat of your major premise and as such is not a separate entity.

Essentially you are a self promoting fool with no knowledge of the concepts you arguing nor of the most simple rules of logic. To argue your pointless questions would require us to accept, a priori, that your premises and conclusions have validity; they do not.

[rrneck]

17. The scalpel of logic

clumsily applied to the syrup of emotion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I disagree about step #2; it's where you 'step' outside formal logic

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.

The argument is logically valid in the sense that "If (a) then (b); (a) is true; therefore (b) is true" is logically valid. It says nothing about whether the major or minor premise is true, or about who might believe either to be true.

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.

"implicitly and/or explicitly believe"? You are now moving into a completely different area, which has nothing to do with formal logic. If you believe that atheists believe something implicitly, then that's your personal opinion. It's entirely separate from Step #1.

Why should we bother proceeding beyond there? I think you need to sort out your argument before we do.

[RLBaty]

20. Who will admit to agreeing with muriel-volestrangler as to Step #1?

Let's see if we can get a consensus on that, along with Dmilland's admission and explanation regarding how he blundered on that simple, fundamental matter.

We'll then be prepared to move to Step #2.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I better warn you: when you get back to logic with step #4, you fall flat on your face

which seems to make what you reckon about what atheists believe pretty irrelevant.

[Goblinmonger]

26. No. I do not agree to Step #1.

Because of this phrase:

logically valid

The major premise contains a fallacy.

[RLBaty]

28. OK, I guess we got more work to do on Step #1, Goblinmonder

Such a need helps to further demonstrate my approach in proposing this exercise.

The need appears great.

Do you comprehend what "stipulation" means?

The meaning of "logically valid" has been stipulated!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[Goblinmonger]

32. Here's my problem

You seem enough like a pedantic type that if I agree to your stipulated definition of "logically valid" in step 1 and then later on attempt to point out the fallacy in the major premise, you would tell me that I already agreed in Step #1 that the premise was logically valid.

None of this particular mental masturbation about what "logically valid" means in context of your stipulated definition addresses the fact that your major premise contains a fallacy. Care to address that one, oh great teacher?

[RLBaty]

35. Goblinmonder, someone recently said...

...they weren't going to do my work for me.

You need to do your homework on these simple matters.

My stipulated definition as to logically valid is standard fare; found in all proper authorities.

Your problem about the content of the major premise is independent of the validity issue and we can deal with it when it becomes relevant to our exercise.

Work on your problem with validity and get back to us; if you care to.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. I think goblinmonGer expressed the problem well

Your entire attitude screams that you will attempt to make unfounded claims. I've pointed out step #4 is one such attempt. You seem to think you are being reasonable, but you are spending a lot of your time insulting people, claiming you've caught them out, and trying to be condescending, when you have nothing to be condescending about. It's not surprising that you've found other sites have given up trying to communicate with you.

[Phillip McCleod]

23. this is one weird post. that is all

[trotsky]

25. Methinks at some point one of the "t"s in his last name got lost. n/t

[RLBaty]

29. Trotsky, that's a common proposition!

I've learned to answer to "Batty".

It adds to substantiating one or more of the points I try to make when discussing the simple, fundamental matters in dispute on this and other matters I have an interest in.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

34. Ho! Ho! Ho!

Dear Robert, you have succeeded in passing one of your homework assignments! Perhaps you had a friend assist? No matter, you have completed Stage 1 of my exercise! Are you interested in proceeding to Stage 2?

[RLBaty]

36. Trotsky, maybe we can run yours and mine concurrently!

We're still trying to complete Step #1 of mine!

"Friend assist?"

I've got friends?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

37. Robert, Ho! Ho! Ho! Yes, let us do that!

Here is my exercise - it may look somewhat familiar to you but I assure you it is quite unique!

MAJOR PREMISE:

> IF (A) man was able to originate the
> idea/concept of unicorns through the power
> of imagination, as opposed to reason
> and/or revelation,
>
> THEN (B) man did originate the
> idea/concept of unicorns through the power
> of imagination.

MINOR PREMISE:

> (A) Man was able to originate the
> idea/concept of unicorns through the power
> of imagination, as opposed to reason
> and/or revelation.

CONCLUSION:

> (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
> of unicorns 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)?



Step #2:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the truth of the
conclusion and that unicorn nonbelievers implicitly and/or
explicitly believe the conclusion to be true?



Step #3:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the truth of the
minor premise and that unicorn nonbelievers implicitly and/or
explicitly believe the minor premise to be true?



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?



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?



Step #6:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies that the major
premise is true and that unicorn nonbelievers implicitly and/or
explicitly believe the major premise to be true?

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

I eagerly await your answers - if you need any assistence in determining any of the words above, please just ask or consult a dictionary! Ho! Ho! Ho!

[RLBaty]

38. OK, let's get started!

Trotsky,

What is your answer to Step #1.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

39. Ho! Ho! Ho! It appears Robert has misunderstood the point of this exercise!

Perhaps someone can explain to him, these are questions he needs to answer!

[RLBaty]

40. Trotsky, and your answer to your first Step #1 question is????

I've turned the light on for you at my place with a separate subject thread:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29492

Are you planning to requite my love and make your appearance at my place.

It would be a nice demonstration regarding the level of good faith in your participation in these important public matters.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

46. Robert, I have also left a light on for you at the following site:

http://timecube.com/

If you are truly interested in good faith discussion, I would love for you to review the material there and please send your feedback to the e-mail link at the bottom of the page! As I believe the content at that site has much to do with your efforts to educate atheists on logic!

Ho! Ho! Thank you!

[RLBaty]

48. Trotsky, you are the one behind in the good faith demonstration!

You and a host of others here.

Despite my friendly entreaties, you and others have not requited my love and made appearances at my place.

The light is still on for you there; as it is for others.

I have spent considerable time and effort humoring the malcontents here with my presence and ministry; and enjoying the humor seen in their conduct and failure to demonstrate an understanding of the simplest of fundamental matters.

Catch up you can, Trotsky, et al.

Answer your own questions and make your appearance at my place.

Or not!

I'll draw my own conclusions as to the "implications" of which course you take.

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

[trotsky]

50. Robert, you have come here and issued a challenge!

You have done no work to earn our trust - you have merely cut and paste something you have previously used and demanded tasks from others!

You may leave your light on, but I suspect none of the malcontents shall join you until you demonstrate your willingness to put forth some effort in this dialog!

Please, visit the site I linked to, digest its contents, and reply to the e-mail at the bottom of each page. Copy your reply here, along with your responses to my exercise!

Or not!

The malcontents here shall draw their own conclusions as to the "implications" of which course you take, and judge your exercise (and earnestness and sincerity in this dialog) accordingly!

Ho! Ho! Ho!

[RLBaty]

51. Trotsky, you've got that all wrong!

I am the one who has put forth legitimate, good faith effort on the class exercise.

Your latest effort at analysis is a continuing evasion.

I don't think your link is legitimate. I didn't see anything there relevant and it kept throwing up all sorts of irrelevant things.

Indeed, we will all be able to draw such conclusions as we may about the exercise and our adversaries.

Now, Trotsky, are you going to bring your exercise up to speed with mine by answering those questions and then asking your fellows here to join you in your answer to Step #1.

Are you, in effect, abandoning your own exercise.
You wouldn't be the first, as I previously noted.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

54. No, Robert, you are the one who is wrong!

I am truly interested in seeing your responses to the challenges I have assigned you!

Your ongoing attempts to avoid those assigments and force me to give you an Incomplete grade are not doing your image any favors! How will our other students react to the example you set?

I assure you, my link is quite legitimate with many valid points about the nature of theistic/atheistic claims - quite pertinent to the ongoing lessons here!

I continue to put forth considerable effort in this discussion but you are returning none! If you do not complete these tasks in your next response, I will therefore assume you have admitted defeat!

You wouldn't be the first, as I have vanquised many challengers before you.

[trotsky]

58. What a shame, Robert! You conceded defeat!

Your reply, out of place, did NOT answer any of my points or challenges, and as I warned you, that would be taken as a sign of my ultimate triumph over you. Victory is sweet!

[RLBaty]

62. No shame on this side of the monitor, Trotsky!

It's your unicorn exercise that is out of place. You would have done well to start a new thread if you wanted to talk up unicorns.

I patronize such exploits, but only to a certain extent.

Catch up if you can, Trotsky.

Your own questions await you, and if you decide to now proceed in good faith, on a level playing field, step by reasonable step, maybe I can help you further with your problems and maybe others still struggling will also be helped thereby.

Take the record for what you think it is worth. As I have been repeatedly saying, each is welcome to draw their own conclusions about my victory claim.

It's sweet, and I am enjoying the sweetness.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

95. Fare thee well, Robert!

I am sorry your defeat was so humiliating, but I will be here should you ever decide to accept my challenge!

[RLBaty]

98. Challenge accepted previously; still awaiting your anwers to your own questions!

Trotsky,

Bring yourself up to speed by giving your answers and we'll be in a position to try and build on that good faith effort, if you dare to make it.

Unicorn 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)?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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)?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #2:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the
truth of the conclusion and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the conclusion
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #3:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the
truth of the minor premise and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the minor premise
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn 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?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn 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?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #6:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies that
the major premise is true and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the major premise
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

142. Ho! Ho! Ho! Robert, you are a treasure!

But your continued irrational behavior and refusal to accept the basic challenge presented to you guarantee my ultimate victory! Any further responses from you that do not contain the required material only cement my status as champion of this discussion! Ho Ho, and good luck, Robert!

[RLBaty]

143. Trotsky continues his Terry W. Benton impersonation! I noticed, Trotsky!

The gimmick failed with Terry W. Benton.
Your effort likewise fails.

Both of you just used it to your detriment and as a further testimony to your failed efforts to challenge my arguments and the claims I make for them.

I'm still waiting for you to answer your own questions, such as I have done with mine, so that we might really put on a good show for the atheist and unicornist audience here. Some theist might even profit thereby.

Are you up to it, Trotsky?


Bring yourself up to speed by giving your answers and we'll be in a position to
try and build on that good faith effort, if you dare to make it.

Unicorn 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)?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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)?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #2:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the
truth of the conclusion and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the conclusion
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #3:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the
truth of the minor premise and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the minor premise
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn 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?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn 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?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #6:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies that
the major premise is true and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the major premise
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

144. Oh Robert, I have enjoyed this attempt to test your intellectual mettle!

You have failed spectacularly, but nonetheless it was a valiant effort on your part to try and match wits with a great teacher like me! I will enjoy the chuckles you have given me for quite some time! Thank you! This will be the last response you get from me, for I can now see that you are simply not able to reach the same intellectual heights I have achieved! I had great hopes for you, but sadly you are not the prize student I have longed for! Alas! Good bye, Robert! If you somehow do manage to increase your reasoning ability beyond the basic level you currently occupy, please feel free to come back and contact me and we'll give it another try!

[RLBaty]

145. Nice exit strategy; too bad your unicorn came up lame!

Like I have been saying, Trotsky, we can chuckle together.

You put on a better show than the others, and it has been a joy.

We might have worked it out where we could be chuckling over the same thing. Alas, it looks like you are on the run and we are just going to have our chuckles over different things.

Come around my place some time and requite my love and maybe we can find something else or the same thing to chat about.

Or, maybe come around Forbes and post a note to me.

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

[RLBaty]

43. Don't forget, Trotsky, points and purposes can be elusive!

That is, while you may think to make a point and achieve a certain purpose with your alternative exercise, it might just be that, when the dust settles, it's my points that have been made and my purposes that been achieved.

I've had about a dozen or so adversaries think to dream up some argument to compete with mine, in hopes of impeaching my arguments and the claims I have made for them.

They have failed.

Will you?

We'll see how that works out.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

44. I assure you, Robert, I will not forget! Ho! Ho! Ho!

Nor will you, I hope! Please do let me know when you've completed my exercise and your real education can begin!

[RLBaty]

45. Trotsky, so get started already!

You seemed to agree with me that you exercise and mine should run concurrently.

Then you ran off!

I answered all of the questions in my exercise.

You need to answer all the questions in your exercise.

Then we can deal with any problems with Steps #1.

We are still on Step #1 with my exercise.

Simple stuff, Trotsky!

It's time for you to put up your answers to your exercise questions.

That will put both exercises on the same footing and we'll see if we can agree on Steps #1 and get a consensus from those problem students here.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

47. Robert, I shall, when you provide your answers!

I eagerly await such a simple task for you, so that I may learn of your superior logic and reasoning!

Our students will be doubly impressed!

[RLBaty]

49. I prefer a level playing field, and it's not level!

It's up to you, if you wish to have your exercise compete with mine or be given serious consideration along with mine.

I have given my exercise.
I have answered my questions.
Folks here continue to evade dealing openly and honestly with Step #1.

Come up to speed, Trotsky, and we will proceed.

Answer you own questions and then we can work together to see if we agree and can get the others here to agree with us.

Your continued reluctance to answer your own questions give me the victory. I don't think you are going to be able to change that.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[trotsky]

52. Robert, your continued attempts to shirk your responsibilities in this dialog are upsetting!

And clearly, despite your protests to the contrary, they are giving me the decisive victory! You appear as demoralized and dejected as Mitt Romney supporters looking to rationalize away their loss!

Please, I implore you to put forth the effort required to demonstrate your commitment to this dialog by completing the homework assignments I have given you!

[RLBaty]

33. Muriel, keep this under wraps until we get to Step #4!

I stumbled across this comment somewhere:

"First-order enthymeme: An incompletely stated
syllogism in which the proposition that is taken
for granted but not stated is the major premise."

We can discuss it further if we get to Step #4 which is troubling you.

SHHH!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[RLBaty]

55. Trotsky, here we are with reference to your attempt to compete with unicorns!

Trotsky,

Bring yourself up to speed by giving your answers and we'll be in a position to try and build on that good faith effort, if you dare to make it.

Unicorn 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)?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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)?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #2:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the
truth of the conclusion and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the conclusion
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #3:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies the
truth of the minor premise and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the minor premise
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn 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?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn 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?

Trotsky - ???

Atheist 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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Unicorn Step #6:

Do you believe that nonbelief in unicorns implies that
the major premise is true and that unicorn nonbelievers
implicitly and/or explicitly believe the major premise
to be true?

Trotsky - ???

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?

Robert Baty - Yes

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[mr blur]

56. CONGRATULATIONS! You win Irritating Halfwit Of The Month.

Now go away and play somewhere else.

Sincerely,
mr blur

[RLBaty]

57. I may have irritated some...

...but as I have stated earlier, we appear to have different ideas about why that is the case.

As for me, I have been somewhat humored by the inability of so many to openly, honestly engage in a simple, critical thinking exercise with emphasis on atheism/atheists.

The experience has, without reasonable doubt, helped some to see the need for such training in the basics.

Modus ponens is one of the simplest of universally accepted valid forms of argument.

Alas, look at all the trouble folks around here have in recognizing such an argument and publicly admitting to what they recognize.

It's somewhat of a sign as to the prospects of how they will deal with the weightier matters.

If there is no further interest here, I will be content to take my latest victory and celebrate accordingly.

Otherwise, I will leave y'all to your private studies regarding critical thinking; to the extent you have such interests.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[intaglio]

60. Dear Mr Baty, you do not argue in good faith

In fact, to pun, your faith is abysmal.

You persist in assuming that we accept your, so-called, premises, a priori. A simple observation; that your "Major Premise" is founded on the falsehood that imagination and reason are not antithetical and, additionally that revelation is merely acceptance of authority; is ignored. If your premise is flawed all arguments stemming from that premise are at best flawed and at worst false.

Using MP/MT argumentation assumes that your premise is true. Your premise is not true therefore MP/MT arguments are not valid

[RLBaty]

61. Yes I do!

I am not "assuming you accept my premises, a priori".

Modus ponens does NOT "assume that the premise" is true.

You, intaglio, are another fine demonstration as to the need for some basic, critical thinking training.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[intaglio]

68. What foolishness you display

The falsification is in your use of words. Before your simplistic logic can stand up you have to show that the terms you use and their relation are valid. The relation you have chosen, that reason and imagination are antithetical, is false. Demonstrate the reality of your relation and you might have an argument but reason and imagination are complementary. A well known example shows this: the observation and careful analysis of the X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA by Rosalind Franklin would have lead to the helical structure being found but Watson and Crick took the leap of imagination to work from a concept of the double helix back to the image (I will leave aside their dubious ethics in acquiring the image). Indeed it can even be said that it takes imagination to see when reason can be applied to a problem and reason can lead you to see the necessity for a leap of imagination.

The limitation on the MP/MT is always that the premise is true in the context of the argument. The classic MP argument:

A key is needed to open the door, I can open the door therefore I have a key;

is only true within a context where the door is locked or latched with a mechanism that requires a key. To make the argument you therefore have to use the words accurately and carefully:

A key is needed to unlock the door, I can unlock the door, therefore I have a key.

In the context of your argument your premise is false because you have assumed that imagination and reason are antithetical when - they - are - not. This ignorance rots the heart of your argument. Do you choose to dispute the simple truth of the relationship of reason and imagination? Or is your facility for critical thinking so warped that you cannot see this truth?

You wish us to assume that you are arguing in good faith but your falsification of your argument and your inability to defend your choice of words shows us otherwise

[RLBaty]

69. Intaglio insists on demonstrating further bad faith!

In this exercise, arguments are considered valid, not valid, sound or not sound.

Propositions (premises/conclusions) are considered true or not true.

This is the simple stuff that intaglio and others don't want to admit to understanding and demonstrating an ability to apply.

Modus ponens, as a valid argument form, does not assume or requite that it be assumed that the premises are true as intaglio seems to be trying to insist, ipse dixit.

We need to get that consensus on Step #1, or at least try more than we have, before moving to the other problems y'all are demonstrating.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[intaglio]

71. In other words you cannot defend your choice of words

You cannot refute my statements and you are merely trying to push up the hits on your vanity blog.

[RLBaty]

72. I have defended them very well; thank you!

Step #1 asks:

"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, and it has been repeatedly explained why that is the case.

Logical validity, in this context, has to do with "form", not "content".

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore q.

Simple, simple, stuff.

Legitimate authorities agree with me, but if you think through the definition provided in the question itself, you can figure out that if the premises are true then the conclusion will follow therefrom.

Some continue to resist this simple, fundamental truth.

As to your other problems, as I have said, we'll get to them in due time as they may become relevant.

The exercise is designed to proceed step by reasonable step.

Still waiting to form a consensus of agreement as to Step #1.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[intaglio]

94. How? Explain your use of reason and imagination as antithetical

Or do you not understand the word?

Explain your use of falsehoods in your premises.

You dissemble.

[RLBaty]

99. Have you got your glasses on?

Can't you see that we are still working on "assembling" a consensus of members around the proposition that my argument is so constructed that if its premises are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is logically valid)?

We are on Step #1 in the exercise.

I have repeatedly noted that other matters will be taken up as they become relevant to the exercise.

You evade openly and honestly allowing me to lead you through the exercise.

[intaglio]

105. What consensus can be made about a false premise?

Except a consensus that the premise is false. The premise is false because your understanding about the words is fatally flawed: reason and imagination are not antithetical and you have used them as such. Additionally you have just restated your major premise as your minor premise, why?

You have neither defended your use of words nor your lack of logic. If you wish us to argue with you or then defend yourself. Instead of justifying your falsehood you now try and recast yourself as a teacher, which prompts speculation over what other aspects will you adopt to dodge explaining your use of falsehood and false logic.

Will next you claim to be a prophet? or perhaps an aspect of the Tathagata?

[RLBaty]

107. The current consensus effort has to do with Step #1!

Whether or not one or both premises is true is a secondary issue that will be dealt with as it may become relevant.

Step #1 involves an issue that involves "form" and not "content". Without a proper "form", the truth of the premises doesn't really matter as far as the merits of the argument.

I have defended my exercise and, as is still being demonstrated, many here are struggling with the simplest of matters; recognizing a valid, modus ponens form argument....and admitting to it.

[intaglio]

110. So you cannot defend yourself

You expect us to do so. Therefore you have already sunk into irrelevance.

[RLBaty]

108. About that reading comprehension problem?

Intaglio wrote:

"You have just restated your major premise
as your minor premise, why?"

Really, am I going to have to spend more time explaining that false claim to y'all?

Read the major premise.
Read the minor premise.

NOTE: THE MINOR PREMISE IS NOT A RESTATEMENT OF THE MAJOR PREMISE!

[intaglio]

113. You have still not answered regarding reason/imagination but, from your original post,

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,

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.

As I observed originally the only difference is the use of the word "IF"

Similarly

> THEN (B) man did 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.

Also explain your use of imagination/reason as antithetical

[RLBaty]

114. Step by reasonable step, intaglio!

(Read it again, intaglio! The difference between
the major and minor premises is more than "if"!)

Otherwise, as I have noted repeatedly, we'll get to the secondary and tertiary issues such as are troubling you once, and if, we can bring the class to a successful completion of Step #1.

[intaglio]

115. Highlight the difference in statemnts. Explain your use of reason/imagination

You do not argue in good faith. You refuse to explain. You deceive - even yourself.

[RLBaty]

116. I try to refuse to chase rabbits and be further distracted by anonymous snipers!

But I will patronize you a bit further.

The major premise is mixed hypothetical statement consisting of an antecedent (preceded by "if&quot and a consequent (preceded by "then&quot .

It is such as is common to modus ponens form, form, form, form, form arguments.

The minor premise simply proposed to affirm the antecedent is true, whether or not it is true.

I argue in good faith and I am miles ahead of the competition here, and I propose to argue step by reasonable step should any dare to walk with me through the exercise.

I have explained, and will explain as the exercise proceeds, step by step, if the exercise proceeds and we get some good faith demonstrating students willing to take that walk with me.

Some may be deceived here, but it appears we disagree on who they may be.

[intaglio]

124. The antecedent is not true therefore your usage is false.

You still have not explained your use of reason/imagination as antithetical.

Your argument fails at the first hurdle - as I stated originally.

On anonymity; the use of nom de plume (or perhaps nom de guerre) are common and say nothing of your correspondent. Would you decline to argue with Eric Blair because he used a nom de plume? Perhaps you would decry Brian O'Nolan because he use several pen names. Perhaps the mathematics of Nicolas Bourbaki are invalid because of your distaste. Do you refuse to accept the pseudepigraphical writings in the Gospels?

Citing anonymity is often just an excuse to dodge argument later. On this board I am known as "intaglio" a name originally chosen for use on another message board because of its meaning and because I like the syllable pronounced in the original Italian, I find "gli" has an attractive sound. If you find this inexplicable I have two statements, "elbow" and "cellar door".

[RLBaty]

125. My argument cleared the first hurdle long ago; waiting for y'all to catch up!

The antecedent may be true or not.

My usage of it is neither true or not true; it's either valid or not valid, sound or not sound.

There are, of course, sinister and other motives for preferring anonymity, and such may explain why my anonymous adversaries have not requited my love, and exposure, with an equivalent introduction.

Like yourself; give it a try, and provide on-line links for corroboration of your identity.

Otherwise, as is my custom, your whining doesn't really get much serious consideration. Why should I think you know what you are talking about when your talk demonstrates you need help you are rejecting and are acting in bad faith regarding what is otherwise a simple, fundamental exercise in critical thinking.

You suppose properly that I would gladly correspond with anonymous famous posters whose identity was known to me.

I deal with anonymous snipers according to the circumstances. They can remain in the shadows according to their own desires. However, that such has consequences, particularly when their anonymity allows them to evade accountability for bad behavior, is noted for the record.

Now, here's Step #1 for your serious consideration:

Step #1:

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

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.

I say "yes"!

What sayeth ye, o anonymous one?

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

[intaglio]

126. You have falsely used the concepts in your antecedent

please explain your use of reason/imagination as antithetical.

[RLBaty]

127. So, you are still unable to bring yourself to openly, honestly complete Step #1!

Fine with me!

It will be there if you decide to be a good little student and participate in the exercise in good faith; step by reasonable step.

[intaglio]

129. You are not a teacher

It is impossible to complete a step that is not there. The step is not there because it is illusory. It is illusory by virtue of being based on the incoherent use of language.

[RLBaty]

130. Oh, I've taught y'all alright; that makes me a teacher!

I understand, however, that we may disagree as to what you have learned from me.

As to that step not being there; that's a further demonstration of your reading and critical thinking comprehension problems.

It's there.
It's legitimate.
You haven't taken it successfully yet (and you've lots and lots of company).

Step #1: ( put your glasses on, do you homework as necessary )

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

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.

I say "yes"!

What sayeth ye, o anonymous one?

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

[humblebum]

63. "regarding the fundamentals of atheism" - that must mean that

there really are atheist fundamentalists. Imagine that.

[skepticscott]

64. Tell us..

Do you really sit around with a vacant expression on your face all day, waiting for someone to post something with the words "atheist" and "fundamental" in close proximity so that you can jump in with your usual profundity?

[humblebum]

65. Probably no more so than yourself. nt

[RLBaty]

66. Muriel's ranting and raving!

Following my name below is Muriel's most recent ranting and raving, in relevant part.

It is yet a further demonstration of the bad faith consistently exercised by my opposition here.

She would have done better to work on the misguided whiners here who have yet to agree with her and me regarding the simple, logical validity of my argument. We would then be poised to move to Step #2 and work on resolving other problems she and others have exhibited on these fundamental matters.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

---------------------Muriel's Rant/Rave-------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123011458

From: muriel_volestrangler
Date: Friday, November 9, 2012
Time: 5:31 PM
Subject: It seems to be a bizarre attempt to
'prove' what atheists 'believe'

It goes something like this:

"here is a suggestion:

If humans could have made up God,
then humans did make up God.

I claim atheists think humans could have made up God.

I claim atheists think humans did make up God.

Therefore I claim that atheists think that 'if humans
could have made up God, then humans did make up God.'"

The last step, whatever atheists think, is nonsense.

You cannot work back from that kind of conclusion of
an argument to prove a premise of it.

I suspect he would then attempt to say that atheists
think they have proved that all ideas of gods were made
up by humans, but that atheists are mistaken in their
logic, therefore - God.

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. My 'ranting and raving' was achieved with no exclamation marks

whereas I suspect your key for that will have been worn blank, you use it so much.

What is 'bad faith' about that? I told you here you fall flat on your face with step #4. That's what I say in that A&A post. And, although I hadn't read the following when I posted what you quote, this does seem to confirm where you think you can take this flawed argument:

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=11419

and:

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=11427

Your claims that people are 'implicitly endorsing your analysis' are both ridiculous and rude. It's that rudeness and cavalier disregard for what others say so that you can smugly declare "victory!!!!" without having to bother understand anyone else's arguments that makes me predict your ultimate purpose for all this is "therefore - God".

[RLBaty]

73. Muriel, you are neglecting using your moral influence on your fellows here!

I don't seem to notice your effort to convince them that we are right in agreeing upon the proposition that my argument is "logically valid"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, I don't seem to see where you admit to seeing and taking message #33 under consideration!!!!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121853942#post33

We'll get to your problems and others' as they become relevant to the discussion.

For now, we are still waiting for a consensus to form regarding an agreement as to Step #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. You ought to stop saying "sincerely", because it's obvious you're not (nt)

[RLBaty]

76. I am sincere, and I am trying to enjoy the chat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone else should as well, and they should get over themselves and deal with coming out on the losing end of an argument.

Now, about working together to get a consensus of agreement as to Step #1....

What's your suggestion??????????????????

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[RLBaty]

67. Vic, how about coming out and helping out your folks here; they really, really need you!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/we-must-do-more-than-thin_b_2100706\
.html?utm_hp_ref=science

We Must Do More Than Think. We Must Observe

By Vic Stenger
Posted: 11/09/2012 11:38 am

(excerpts)

How often have you read "proofs" of the existence, or
non-existence, of God or some other deep question?

A logical deduction can tell you nothing that is not
already embedded in its premises.

All a logical deduction does is enable you to determine
whether or not some conclusion is consistent with some
set of premises.

Today, most physicists and philosophers hold that our only
source of knowledge about the world is observation.

While scientists use reason and logic, their premises must
be based on data.

And the justification for this position is not some
metaphysical reasoning but the fact that it works.

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

[RLBaty]

93. This just in from the Huffington Post!

They published my comment following Vic's column that was posted there today!

Now I can retire!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/we-must-do-more-than-thin_b_2100706.html?utm_hp_ref=science

From: Robert Baty
Submitted: 6 hours ago ( 7:27 PM)

What a coincidence!

It just so happens that I have been chatting about Vic Stenger
on the Democratic Underground (DU) website about just such
things as he mentions in his above column.

A few days ago, I was unable to get Vic to answer some simple
questions about such things.

His like-minded folk on the DU are struggling and demonstrating
a real need for training in the fundamentals of critical thinking.

Here's the link to where the discussion has been taking place:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121853942

It seems to have pretty much wound down, leaving me the undisputed
victor.

I tried pretty hard to help the DU folks.
I may try further if they continue to show an interest.

Maybe Vic could make an appearance there.
Maybe not.

[RLBaty]

120. Vic Stenger, running again?

Vic Stenger Spotted Running From Robert Baty...Again?

Vic Stenger posted a personal response to another poster who responded to his latest Huffington Post column at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/we-must-do-more-than-thin_b_2100706.html?utm_hp_ref=science

So, it is quite reasonable to assume that he saw my posting there and even took a peek into the DU discussion and then decided to run from me.........again!

Maybe he will make his appearance later and deal directly with me regarding these important public issues; maybe not.

Vic, I believe, could really help bring all our students to a successful completion of Step #1 in our class exercise.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29538

[EvolveOrConvolve]

75. This whole thread is full of fail!

[RLBaty]

77. Except for me; "I'm winnnnnnnnnning"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

79. Cool story, bro...

[Phillip McCleod]

78. this thread gets better and better

if by "better" one means "more entertaining because of all the crazy"

[rrneck]

80. It's got one rec. Guess who. nt

[RLBaty]

81. Would that be me? Did I hit that button?

[rrneck]

82. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=245235⊂=recs

[RLBaty]

83. Feel better now??

[rrneck]

84. Very impressive.

You figured out how to operate an internet forum. Care to lay out the steps involved in your deductions?

Spock better watch his ass!

[RLBaty]

85. The steps involved in my deductions?

Are you talkin' 'bout my argument; which is a deductive argument?

Have you figured out the first step yet?

That's the first step in the exercise; is the argument so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., is it logically valid).

If not, it's back to the drawing board!

[rrneck]

86. What conclusion is that? nt

[RLBaty]

87. What conclusion is what?

First you wanted something about deductions.

Now you are talking conclusion.

What conclusion is what that you want to know about?

Should I interpret your silence as indicating you are still working on figuring out Step #1 of the proposed exercise reflected in the Opening Post?

[rrneck]

88. So you got nothing.

What are you trying to prove?

[RLBaty]

89. So, you are still stuck on Step #1 of the exercise!

Folks can form their own conclusions as to whether anything was proved and what, if anything it was that was proved and what other results might be generated by the conversation so far and at the possible successful conclusion of the exercise.

Right now, it looks like the folks here don't even want to successfully complete Step #1.

[rrneck]

90. Still nothing. But you're very good st peekaboo.

I'm done For tonight, but I'll no doubt see more nothing tomorrow.

[RLBaty]

91. Put on your glasses when you get up tomorrow!

The information you need to deal with Step #1 is here, amidst all the whining and crying and complaining from my misguided adversaries.

If you don't see it when the sun comes up, just ask, be ready to pay attention and participate in good faith, and we can probably get you successfully through Step #1. Along with Muriel, the three of us should be able to make some more progress in getting others to join us in believing the argument is "logically valid".

[rrneck]

104. Still nothing. You have nothing to prove. nt

[RLBaty]

109. Of course I have nothing to prove!

At this point, my case has been made up to Step #1 and I am patiently awaiting other students to join in working towards a consensus that the major premise of my argument is so constructed that if its premises are true it conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., is logically valid).

Of course, if there is a lack of good faith interest in further pursuing the successful completion of the exercise, I can live with that and work on my own further analysis of the spectacle put on here by my adversaries.

[rrneck]

112. The only advasaries you have

are the ones you imagine. Since you have no conclusion, there is nothing to discuss. Except your absurd behavior, which had been quite entertaining.

[RLBaty]

92. Statistics!

This thread is in the top 10 for the most discussed and it looks like it will fall just short of having 1,000 views during its first day in this group.

Not bad; not bad at all.

[Phillip McCleod]

97. like a train wreck i just cant stop watching

[RLBaty]

100. Funny thing appears to have happened with the statistical page!

About as soon as I noted the impressive place this thread had earned on the DU, somehow it was taken off the statistics page.

That could be an important clue as to just how open and honest the folks who hang out here and run the place are when it comes to such things.

Well, I think it is an important clue; you are welcome to draw you own conclusions about such things.

[RLBaty]

101. And I just put us over the 1,000 views milestone!

[RLBaty]

146. 145 Replies - 1500 Views!

Not bad!
Not bad at all!

Alas, the DU management appears to be reeling and in spite continues to deny this thread its rightful place in the statistics.

[Dorian Gray]

96. This thread

has given me a headache!

[RLBaty]

102. It's given me....

...a great deal of empirical evidence tending to support my opinions regarding the subject of the thread and the merits of my Atheism 101 exercise.

I appreciate your patronage; though I would have preferred an even better result.

We are still working on Step #1 in the exercise should any be interested in continuing the exercise; step by reasonable step.

[Anthony McCarthy]

117. Good Lord, What a bunch of nonsenes

> 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.

There is not a single idea that "man" has that didn't originate in the mind of "man". Every single thing, including logic and mathematics and science and history originates in the imagination of "man". If this negates the idea of God then it also has to negate the idea of all of those other things. Every single one is based in the experience of people, every single idea we have is based in our experience. All of our address of even the physical world is not only based in but dependent on our experience of the physical world.

It's like atheists want to repeal the entire history of physics and philosophy after c. 1929. And a considerable amount of it in the two decades before that.

[RLBaty]

118. Alas, another interloper who doesn't want to take the walk through the exercise...

...step by reasonable step?

[Anthony McCarthy]

119. If the first step is invalid, the rest of it is as well

And the first step is invalid.

This is stuff that was obviously not true back in the late 1920s. If you want to use this to debunk God, it works equally well for every single other thing that originates in human imagination and, hey, we're all human and we use our imagination to think about the physical world as well as God. That's a point that William James made considerably before that time as well.

[RLBaty]

121. And your problem with Step #1 is.....?

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Anthony,

I am waiting for you to answer explicitly the Step #1 question so many here have been stumbling and bumbling over; despite it's otherwise simple, fundamental and UNcontroversial nature (for those with basic critical thinking skills).

So, answer clearly, explicitly Anthony.

Show us YOUR critical thinking stuff and maybe help some others along with the exercise.

[Anthony McCarthy]

122. I stated it

If something originating in the imagination of human beings invalidates it then every single part of mathematics, physics, chemistry, even logic is likewise invalidated. All of those are absolutely based on our ability to imagine them. That has been absolutely relevant to science since the early 20th century, impinging directly on the physics that was invented to understand the physical universe. There is no such a thing as human knowledge or human thinking that is independent of human imagination and human experience.

[RLBaty]

123. No you did NOT, Anthony!

You are demonstrating a reading comprehension problem and are trying, like many others before you, to get ahead of the step by step progression of the exercise.

Y'all must have really been handfuls for your teachers back in the day.

I'll try to make it simple for you and give you another try.

Following is Step #1 for your explicit reply "yes" or "no" and whatever other commentary you may wish to add:

Step #1:

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

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.

I say "yes", Anthony!

What sayeth ye?

[Anthony McCarthy]

132. I said that everything people think of is the product of their imagination

It's the first thing I said on this thread. Mathematics certainly would be impossible without imagination since numbers are the product of the imagination. Since science depends on mathematics as well as the ability of human beings to imagine structures and forces in the physical world it can't observe, it is even more dependent on imagination.

The issue of God being imagined is not relevant to an argument as to the existence of God. If God being imagined means there is no God then anything else that is imagined would be, likewise, debunked.

Atheists seldom address these issues on more than a naive level of thought but they're not the only ones who do.

[RLBaty]

134. You are just another problem student, Anthony!

This thread is designed to provide students with a critical thinking exercise with emphasis on atheism.

I set it up in order that I might lead a group of interested students through the exercise, step by reasonable step and, in part, test my ideas and my adversaries.

While it has been successful, my failing students have clearly demonstrated the need for such basic training.

As with others with similar claims, Anthony, your whining is premature. Here's Step #1 for you to again to consider completing without further distractions and evasions:

Step #1:

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

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.

I say "yes", Anthony!

What sayeth ye?

[Anthony McCarthy]

136. I say I'd rather not have arguments that bad that support my side in an argument

I usually leave that to blog atheists and biblical fundamentalists.

[RLBaty]

138. It's a great argument, Anthony!

Too bad you and others have been unable to even complete Step #1 in the exercise and proceed in successfully completing the full exercise and so, just possibly, come to an appreciation of just how great it is.

It's greatness, however, is made manifest even in putting my adversaries here to shame regarding the first step in its analysis.

[RLBaty]

128. Everyone say "Hi" to Vic Stenger!

Vic's and his Avoid-L discussion list members have probably been turned on to the discussion here and we should give them all a big "shout out"!

See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/we-must-do-more-than-thin_b_2100706.html?utm_hp_ref=science

(There, I announced this discussion and Vic has reviewed the messages there.)

[Anthony McCarthy]

135. If this is supposed to refer to me

I have commented elsewhere to the effect that Victor Stenger is a hack who publishes with the materialist equivalent of Regnery, Prometheus.

You don't have to hold a particular ideology to make bad arguments, you just have to make bad arguments.

[RLBaty]

137. It doesn't, Anthony!

It has to do with Vic Stenger, as has been recently discussed here in this subject thread, at my place, and on related subject threads in the General and AA groups here on the DU.

[Android3.14]

131. Wow. Another example that peddling stupidity is more than a Bible thumper's monopoly

It is possible that Bob actually thinks he has constructed a valid argument.
But the truth is he has a blatantly stupid argument which portrays atheists as smirking no-nothings. As several folks have revealed, he has constructed it poorly, and apparently are unaware how pitiful his defense has been for the argument, other than the "I'm going to pretend I'm right just to annoy people" theme that just oozes from this thread.
A person misleads people because of one and/or two reasons. The person is intentionally misleading people to support a hidden agenda or the person incorrectly thinks he or she is providing good leadership. Bob seems relatively clever, so I'm guessing he isn't misleading out of stupidity.

[RLBaty]

133. No misleading from this side of the monitor; much from your and yours sides!

Oh, anonymous Adroid3.14,

Rather than whine, why not be explicit and simply take the first step successfully (maybe helping you fellow misguided sorts here catch up):

Step #1:

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

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.

I say "yes"!

What sayeth the latest anonymous sniper using the ID of Android3.14?

[Android3.14]

140. What's the point?

Why should I argue with a person for whom I have no faith that he or she is sincere?
I doubt, when you say "yes" in the context of your previous post, that you are saying something you believe. Engaging in rhetoric over this topic with you is pointless for the simple reason that you lack credibility.
As I said before, you are either doing this for a reason other than a desire to test your ideas in the crucible of rhetoric, or you lack the fundamental capacity to engage in the discussion.
Since you appear to be relatively clever, I can only conclude you are insincere.
I'm done.

[RLBaty]

141. You should do a little homework, Android3.14!

I have all the empirical data to support my suspicions and opinions regarding the lack of good faith on the part of my adversaries here.

If you can't figure out that my "yes" as to the logical validity of the argument is sincere, in good faith, simple, fundamental, and relatively UNcontroversial, you may have problems beyond my ability to help you.

Nice exit strategy, Android3.14.
Not unexpected.
Others have done worse (i.e., see AA group continued whining about me).

Thanks for your part in the demonstration.

[RLBaty]

139. My name up in lights again!

I thought some here might get a kick out of this.

If you visiting my little YAHOO! group, you may noticed the reference to following me on Forbes.

Peter J. Reilly has just given me another honorable mention in his latest column today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/11/10/ira-penalty-on-withdrawal-to-pay-alimony-can-family-law-judge-spell-qdro/

Anyone want an autograph????



Peter has also published some of my columns there, if any care to check the archives and read some of them.

[Phillip McCleod]

147. delusions of grandeur much?

[Iggo]

149. LOL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=245235&sub=trans