Baty v. McDonald "GRAS" Debate: 3rd Affirmative!
BATY V. MCDONALD "GRAS" DEBATE: 3RD AFFIRMATIVE
We have the proposition and we have the
affirmative and negative position
holders clearly identified as
follows:
If God's word (the text)
says everything began over a period of six days, is interpreted by
some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand
years ago, and there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually
much older than a few thousand years, then the interpretation of the
text by some
is wrong.
Affirm: Robert Baty
Deny: Jerry D.
McDonald
Link to 1st Affirmative:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13669
Link
to 1st Negative:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13674
Link
to 2nd Affirmative:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13677
Link
to 2nd Negative:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13821
Link
to McDonald v. Baty "Atheist" Debate:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13690
Summary
of Affirmative Claim:
If the Word of God cannot be
wrong, and some thing really is more than a few thousand years old, then it must
be, irrefutably, the case that the claim that "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old" (i.e., the interpretation of the text) is wrong.
The only variable in the
proposition, by definition and without regard to Jerry McDonald's failed
effort to claim otherwise, is the interpretation of the text.
That one may be wrong in an
interpretation of the text is clearly and irrefutably attested to by accepted
scholars and all reasonable students of the written
word.
It should be emphasized here that
the proposition for discussion is hypothetical. The debate is not about whether
its antecedent or consequent are actually true or false, but about whether the
consequent would be true if its antecedent were true.
It should also be emphasized here
that the definitions given cannot be reasonably disputed. The proposition is
mine, and the definitions are mine, and that most reasonably so.
So it is, by the force of reason
and the definitions given, that it is proposed and
sustained that it is most definitely the case that:
If
God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days,
is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that some thing is
actually much older than a few thousand years, then the interpretation
of the text by some is wrong.
That hypothetical proposition should never have been
disputed, though its dispute has provided valuable insight into what is commonly
known as the "young-earth, creation-science" movement and its promoters. In
rejecting the simple truth of the above proposition and standard logical
principles, such promoters effectively concede that their claims are not
"scientific" but "theological".
And that is a very good thing to know as we observe the
popular public debate over "young-earth, creation-science" which has
failed the test of science.
Now I would like to deal with the substance
of Jerry McDonald's second negative.
Jerry writes:
His
(Baty's) proposition is confusing...
Not at all. If the Word of God cannot be wrong and some
thing really is more than a few thousand years old, then the interpretation of
the Word of God otherwise is irrefutably wrong. That's what the proposition, by
definition, reflects.
Jerry
writes:
His
(Baty's) definition...is blatantly
false.
Not at all. Jerry may wish
to argue with some other proposition and over some other definition, but this is
about my proposition and my definitions which, by definition, are neither true
or false; they are simply stipulated definitions which Jerry McDonald is free to
accept or reject, but Jerry McDonald cannot sustain his position that they are false.
Jerry
writes:
He (Baty) says
that God's word cannot be
false...
and again:
He (Baty) says that God's
word cannot be false...
Jerry McDonald is again demonstrating his failure to
understand the basic logic involved and the importance of recognizing a
hypothetical statement.
For
purposes of my proposition, the premise defines the "Word of God" as God's Word which cannot be wrong.
Jerry
McDonald may wish to debate a proposition dealing with the inerrancy of the
Word of God, but that is not what this debate is about.
In this debate, the Word of God, by definition, is not
subject to error. Similarly, by definition, some thing is more than a few
thousand years old and we can so
determine from the "empirical evidence".
That leaves the only variable to
be in error; the interpretation of the religious text referenced in the
proposition.
Jerry writes:
He (Baty)
knows that I (McDonald) have successfully denied his proposition...
Jerry McDonald, I know,
denies the truth of my proposition, but he cannot successfully show it to be false.
It is, by
definition and the force of reason, simply a true statement!
Jerry thinks
to spring a trap and writes:
(L)et me
spring the trap. Robert looks at things like SN 1987A and says
that because...
I'd
say Jerry is sprung in his own trap, and he cannot escape. As far as the
proposition under consideration is concerned, what Jerry has to say about me and
SN 1987A is most irrelevant.
Jerry, we are dealing with a hypothetical statement which
proposes, by definition, that IF the Word of God cannot be wrong and some thing
really is more than a few thousand years old, then the claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old" is, by the force of reason simply and most
truly in error.
Jerry, you need
to start to seriously spend time in understanding the proposition noted above
which is the proposition that is the subject of this debate, and
the stipulated definitions.
For "no good
reason" Jerry continues to quibble about whether or not we should consider
100,000 or 10,000 years for purposes of determining what is more than a few thousand.
Robert says that
there is no difference between 10,000 and 100,000. Well, I would
think that he needs to go back to school and take basic math again
because there is a 90,000 year difference.
Well, perhaps Jerry can just consider the 100,000 a gift.
The 100,000 figure works just fine for purposes of this debate. If Jerry ever
gets to a serious discussion on the real substance of the issue, then I'm sure
some worthy opponent will be glad to oblige him and let him have his 10,000 year
maximum age for everything.
Jerry wants to continue to reject my definition regarding
interpretation which simply proposes that one's
interpretation of the Word of God may be in error.
Jerry writes regarding
his rejection of my definition:
I do not (accept it) for the
reasons given in my first rebuttal...
and
...Robert needs to take a course in Biblical Hermeneutics.
and
Whether he
likes it or not, we are talking about how the words were defined at
the time in which they were written which will then give us a proper
interpretation of the passage.
No need for a course in Hermeneutics. I posted a
number of quotes from the authorities that Jerry McDonald and his son both use
approvingly. There is no doubt but what Jerry's own accepted authorities agree
with me that interpretations may be wrong.
My definition simply and quite appropriately notes that an
interpretation may be in error and, in fact, the interpretation in the
proposition is the only aspect of the proposition that is subject to being wrong
and is wrong if the Word of God cannot be wrong and
some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.
That's just a
reflection of the force of reason and the stipulated defintions.
Jerry
McDonald is hardly in a position to address such matters if he cannot accept the
simple notion that one's interpretation of the Word of God just might be
wrong.
(Please note: Jerry
McDonald did NOT attempt to use Daniel Denham's "Dungan" proposition to try and refute my proposition!)
Jerry
writes:
He
(Baty) didn't like my refusal to accept his definition of "empirical
evidence" and says that I am getting
ahead of myself.
Yep, my stipulated
definition was designed to reflect that the hypothetical statement forming the
proposition under consideration included the fact that some thing really was
more than a few thousand years old and we could so determine from the real world evidence independent of the
Word of God.
Jerry may want to deny that the real world evidence shows
that anything is more than a few thousand years old, but that is a subject
for the minor premise.
Furthermore,
Jerry has already made it clear that he rejects any real world evidence contrary
to his theological claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
How so very
geocentric of Jerry!
Jerry further reflects his error in this discussion
by writing:
(W)here is Robert's
empirical evidence that the universe is more than a few thousand
years old?
No
evidence is required for purposes of determine the truth of my
proposition!
It's as simple as that!
Jerry doesn't like how the law of
the excluded middle has application, and properly so, to demonstrating the
simple truth of the proposition under consideration here.
Jerry
writes:
I see he
(Baty) didn't like my statement about the law of excluded middle.
Jerry needs to quit trying
to change the subject and stay with the proposition under consideration in this
debate.
The law of the excluded
middle simply states that a proposition, such as is the subject of this debate, is either true or false.
In my
proposition, the law of the excluded middle, as previously explains, works very
well, in conjunction with the stipulated definitions, to show that my
proposition, simply by the force of reason and by definition, is
true.
It's as simple as that, Jerry
McDonald's refusal to so acknowledge notwithstanding!
Jerry's excluded middle claim
is:
Either
the Bible is correct when it CLEARLY states that everything was
created in six literal 24 hour days and this happened not more than
10,000 years ago, or the Bible is not correct when it CLEARLY states
that everything was created in six literal 24 hour days and
this happened not more than 10,000 years ago.
There is no middle here.
Jerry
should have stopped with "Either the Bible is correct or the Bible is not
correct".
Since he didn't, he's
got problems with his above example, but that problem is not relevant to this discussion.
In any case, my
proposition in this debate, if Jerry will read it closely, is not
about the Bible.
Jerry also writes, claiming:
He (Baty) didn't like
my position on the law of contradiction, but I didn't expect him to.
The law of contradiction simply states that two opposing positions
cannot both be true at the same
time.
I didn't like Jerry's failure to properly apply the rule to
my proposition based on the rules of reason and the stipulated
definitions.
It is quite easy, you see!
If the Word of God, by definition,
cannot be wrong, and if, by definition, some thing really is more than a few
thousand years old and we can so determine from the real world evidence, it
irrefutably follows that the interpretation of the Word of God
that can, by definition, be wrong, is what is wrong.
Jerry has his own
proposition as follows:
(I)f the Bible teaches that
everything was created in six literal 24 hour days, not more than
10,000 years ago, and if the Bible is true, then any so-called
"real-world evidence" to the contrary is
false.
Interesting, but not relevant to the proposition being
considered in this debate.
Well, maybe there is some relevance. That is, even with
Jerry's proposition, he's got the same problem in that he simply refuses to test
his "if the Bible teaches" claim with reference to the possibility that the real
world evidence could show his interpretation to be
false.
Jerry McDonald might as well have claimed:
(I)f the Bible teaches
that the Sun moves around the Earth, and not the Earth around the Sun,
and if the Bible is true, then any so-called "real-world evidence" to
the contrary is
false.
Jerry's argument failed when used by the geocentrists of
old, and it fails when used by the "young-earth, creation-science" promoters,
regardless of the truth of the major premises.
So, if I grant Jerry the truth of his "young-earth" and
"geocentrist" propositions, will Jerry McDonald return the favor and grant that
my proposition is equally
true?
Jerry, how about that for a deal!
Of course, I would want you to
seriously reflect on the propositions and actually stipulate that you do
actually believe them to be true; that you're not just saying it as you
have said such things before.
Jerry writes:
He
(Baty) says that the discussion is not about the Bible, but about the
hypothetical inerrant word of God that may be
wrongfully interpreted.
No, it is about the Bible.
Let's try it
again.
Jerry, go back and read the
proposition, the stipulated definitions and their explanations I've given them, and the simple rules of
logic.
This discussion is not about the Bible, though we all might
make our own applications to the Bible or any other alleged Word of
God.
Jerry writes:
There is no
"empirical evidence" which shows that there are some things more than 10,000 years
old.
If he thinks
he has it, let him bring it
on.
That's not relevant to the present discussion as to the truth of my
proposition.
Jerry writes:
He
(Baty) keeps saying that I have conceded the debate to him. I guess he
thinks that if he says something long enough it will come true.
I still think that Jerry
has, implicitly, if not explicitly, conceded the debate in what he has written
and in that he has failed to touch top, side or bottom of my proposition as to showing it is not true.
The
difference between us is that I keep saying things because they are true in
hopes of getting through to Jerry and others, while Jerry is the one who keeps
repeating his errors as if hoping to make his errors come true (i.e., remember
his
oft-repeated false claims about the "truth of the premise", etc.).
Jerry
McDonald writes:
He (Baty) is
the one who says that YEC is claimed to be science, I never have.
That's "young-earth,
creation-science" (YECS). I'm glad to see, again, that Jerry McDonald would try
to claim he doesn't believe in "young-earth, creation-science".
SInce my proposition was designed
to specifically deal with "young-earth, creation-science", however, it does make
you wonder why Jerry McDonald is trying to so hard to deny the simple truth of
my proposition which specifically addresses the "young-earth, creation-science"
prospect that the Word of God cannot be wrong and some thing just might really,
truly, actually be more than a few thousand years
old.
It is as if he doesn't want folks
to realize that the "young-earth, creation-science" claim of being "scientific"
can stand its ground scientifically.
Yet, Jerry tries to convince us that he agrees with us on
that; that "young-earth, creation-science" is NOT scientific, but
theological.
We got that!
That's why we have yet to find a
bonafide "young-earth, creation-science" promoter who can accept the prospect
that there really is some thing more than a few thousand years old and that
their interpretation of the text may be falsified with reference to the real
world evidence related thereto, independent
of the text.
Most
interesting, Jerry concludes with:
Well, I have gone over my word limit, but then so did Robert,
but I do apologize for
it.
No apology necessary.
Most folks who have followed this discussion realize that
Jerry McDonald refused to negotiate in good faith for a more formal, in writing,
for the record discussion regarding my
proposition.
Jerry has chosen to follow my lead by which I simply put in
to the record my first affirmative in support of the simple truth of my
proposition.
There are no
stipulated rules regarding the discussion. Had Jerry McDonald shown some good
faith and negotiated for a more formal discussion, we would have sought to agree
to the definitions beforehand; effectively allowing him to accept the truth of my proposition without a
discussion such as this.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
McDonald’s
Third Rebuttal (Part 1)
At the end of what was
supposed to have been Robert’s affirmative proposition, I wrote and told him
that if he wanted he would be allowed a 500 word rejoinder so the affirmative
writer would have the last word on his proposition, which is the norm for such
debates. However, Robert wrote back
with the following email:
“--- In
Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...>
wrote:
Jerry, you
write:
Robert, if you wish
you may have a five hundred word rejoinder after I submit my third rebuttal. That way the affirmant
gets the last word in the
debate.
Jerry, perhaps you
didn't read my earlier affirmative yet.
Did you forget?
You refused to
negotiate in good faith for a more formal, in writing, for the record discussion
as to the simple truth of my proposition.
Jerry, as long as you
are contemplating a rebuttal effort regarding the irrefutable truth of my
proposition, I figure to continue to try and help you overcome your continuing
problems so that we might establish a foundation upon which to build should a
bonafide (i.e., not you) "young-earth, creation-science" promoter show up to
dispute the substantive issue involved with my "Goliath of GRAS" argument.
Jerry, while I await
your 3rd negative, I have begun a draft of my 4th affirmative which follows
(Jerry, don't misrepresent this like you did my earlier draft; I intend to
respond to your 3rd negative should you submit it!)” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/post?act=reply&messageNum=13846).
I should have known
that he couldn’t be trusted. At
first I did refuse to have another written debate with him, as noted in my first
rebuttal, but on January 9, 2008 I sent the following email to his list in a
post entitled “[M & B] Re: The McDonald v. Baty after "Goliath" debate
proposal!”
--- In
Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
wrote:
No, Rick I said it was
not a proposition that was a subject for debate. The argument is a proposition, but it is
not one that should be used as a subject for debate. However, if Robert wants to affirm that
as his proposition, I'll deny it. I
have no problem with that whatsoever.
I have said this several times.
You guys must have a reading comprehension problem.
In Christ
Jesus
Jerry D.
McDonald
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13615).
As you can very well
see, I agreed to Robert’s terms.
The terms were laid out by Robert in the following email under the same
title: ““[M & B] Re: The
McDonald v. Baty after "Goliath" debate proposal!”:
Robert Baty
<rlbaty@webtv.net> wrote:
Jerry McDonald now
writes:
(W)e already have a
written debate published. If
you don't want to debate me publicly don't waste my time.
Jerry McDonald also
now writes:
Will you accept my
invitation to a public debate or
not? If not, don't waste my
time.
Your response to this question will determine whether or not
I will have any further contact
with you.
Let's remember that
almost immediately after advising me to "leave him alone", Jerry McDonald began
to write numerous messages to me personally and to various public venues
regarding his claim to have somewhat to offer in opposition to my "Goliath of
GRAS".
Now he is doing just about everything imaginable to demonstrate
his bad faith and failure to appeciate sound, common sense rules of logical
analysis and composition and run off from his obligations to deal with the
specific issues that he has sought, in writing, to promote.
I am the one
repeatedly accepting the offer to debate Jerry McDonald publicly, and as he
himself has already adequately justified, in writing, and for the record his
attempts to impeach the validity of my "Goliath of GRAS" and the simple, easy to
understand truth of its major premise (i.e., my "proposition").
Will
Jerry McDonald accept my invitation as formalized following my name below, or
negotiate in good faith, with good sense, reasonable alternatives as to the
rules; the proposition in dispute already having been agreed upon?
These
recent developments have hardly been a waste of time! Jerry McDonald has
provided yet another chapter in the long history of the debate over my "Goliath
of GRAS" and its relevance to addressing the fundamental, real world
falsification test as to the real world claim commonly associated with the
"young-earth, creation-science" movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old).
And a valuable chapter it is!
I just hope
we'll be able to add yet another chapter; the formal discussion over the truth
of the major premise (i.e., my "proposition") of the "Goliath of
GRAS".
WHAT WILL JERRY DO REGARDING HIS PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND
OBLIGATIONS REGARDING ISSUES HE HAS RAISED AGAINST MY "GOLIATH OF
GRAS"?
I am anxious to find out~!
Sincerely,
Robert
Baty
-------My Debate Proposals-----------
Propositions and Rules
for the McDonald-Baty Debate:
Proposition:
If God's word (the
text) says everything began over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to
mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is
empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand
years, then the interpretation of the text by some is
wrong.
Affirm: Robert Baty
Deny: Jerry D. McDonald
Agreement for
debate
1. Upon the successful
completion of the debate, the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding a
possible second proposition that goes directly to addressing the real world
falsification issue involving the fundamental real world claim commonly
associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement; namely that
"nothing is more than a few thousand years old".
2. The debate will be
first conducted in writing, for publication contemporaneously on the
Maury_and_Baty YAHOO! discussion list and Jerry McDonald's own, personal
webpage.
3. The debate, provided it is all right with the brethren at the
4.
The written debate will be conducted between the dates of
5. There will be three affirmative
presentations and three negative presentations. No presentation is to be
more than 2,000 words in length.
6. No new material will be allowed to be
introduced as part of the final negative presentation.
7. No more than
five written questions will be asked in each presentation. The opposing
presenter will be free t o answer the questions as he deems appropriate, or not
answer.
8. Additional rules may be added with approval of both
parties.
9. Rick Hartzog and Todd S. Greene will act as moderator or
Robert L. Baty. Jerry McDonald's moderator(s) are yet to be
announced.
10. By agreeing to the above proposals, Robert Baty and Jerry
McDonald acknowledge that the truth or falsity of the disputed proposition is
unrelated to any religious views held by its participants.
Signed:
Robert L. Baty;
Signed:
??????
{Note* Rule 10. is the
only rule that I reject. Robert
wants me to agree that the falsity of his proposition is unrelated to any
religious views held by him. That
simply will not do. Robert is
responsible for his proposition and should it be proven wrong, then it will be
related to his religious views.}
("Robert Baty"
<rlbaty@webtv.net> Add to
Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:
jerry@challenge2.org,
w_w_c_l@yahoo.com
CC: rlbaty@webtv.net
Subject: Re: Jerry
McDonald v. "Goliath of GRAS"/Baty Debate Proposal!
Date:
As you can see, we
were going by his rules, In a
message entitled for the debate proposal, I agreed to debate him in this
debate. He sent his first
affirmative, and I sent in my first rebuttal. He now says that I didn’t negotiate in
good faith, but as you can see from the documentation, he is
wrong.
Folks this is what
happens when a Christian aligns himself with unbelievers. This is why Paul wrote:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and
what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath
Christ with Belial? or what part hath he
that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement
hath the
Wherefore come out
from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean
thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor.
6:14-17).
Robert really needs to
look at himself. He has aligned
himself with atheists and now he is beginning to pick up on their dishonest
practices. He has now backed out of
the agreement and has decided that rather than having three exchanges, he has
decided to continue his affirmative as long as I send in a negative
article. Well, that’s fine with
me. Since he has lifted the limit
of exchanges (as well as the limit of words) I will shove this article down his
throat because my third rebuttal will have at least 100,000 words in it. Farrell Till did pretty much the same
thing to me in 2006 and I made him regret it when I sent him an article with
100,000 words. We still haven’t
finished that debate (it is on hold of course), but my next rebuttal will have
somewhere close to 500,000 words and he still hasn’t finished responding to my
fifth rebuttal (it had nearly 200,000).
I have learned to shove these guy’s own deceitful ways down their throats
and make them choke on it.
Though Robert says that he doesn’t mind if this rebuttal has 100,000
words, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. However, I do want to keep the reader in
mind and I don’t want the reader to think that he/she is going to have to deal
with one 100,000 word article. So
what I intend to do is to make up 10 parts to this article, and put 10,000 words
(or thereabouts) in each article.
That way it will be easier to read.
Robert has placed
himself in the enemy camp by his association with the enemy. For years he went after men like Bert
Thompson over minute matters, some of which he had to back up on, and has caused
trouble in at least two congregations (one in
Robert
writes:
“Baty v. McDonald
"GRAS" Debate: 3rd Affirmative!
BATY V. MCDONALD
"GRAS" DEBATE: 3RD AFFIRMATIVE
We have the
proposition and we have the affirmative and negative position holders clearly
identified as follows:
If God's word (the
text) says everything began over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to
mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is
empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand
years, then the interpretation of the text by some is
wrong.
Affirm: Robert
Baty
Deny: Jerry D.
McDonald” (Baty’s Third
Affirmative).
As has already been
pointed out the affirmative and negative positions are clearly identified. However, because I thought we were
limited to a certain amount of words, I decided not to take any time in looking
at Robert’s proposition. However,
seeing that I have unlimited space and word allotment I’ll take the time do look
at his proposition.
Robert doesn’t seem to
understand the difference between a debate proposition and a propositional
argument. Robert’s debate
proposition in this debate is nothing more than the major premise of what he
calls his “Goliath of GRAS Argument.”
The argument goes like this:
Major Premise: If God's word (the text) says everything
began over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six
24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years, then the
interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
Minor
Premise: God’s word (the text) says everything
began over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six
24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand
years.
Conclusions: Then the interpretation of the text by some
is wrong.
Robert first presented this argument to me several months
ago and asked me if I thought it was a valid argument. Old Dopy me, not
realizing that he had been up to this for some time with other preachers (such
as Marion Fox, Gil Yoder, Terry Hightower, etc.,) I went ahead and gave him my
opinion. My
opinion was that it was not a valid argument for two reasons: (1) a valid
argument needs to be clearly and unequivocally stated, and (2) there needs to be
a relationship between the antecedent (the minor premise) and the consequent
(the conclusion).
Mr. Baty’s argument had neither. His argument is clouded with confusion and is
so poorly written that it is hard to figure out what he is trying to say. I tried to help him
with this in an email at one time by rewording his argument, and he refused my
help. The way
to make the argument clear would be as follows:
Major Premise: If God’s word (the text) says that everything
was created over a period of six days, and if that word is interpreted by some
to mean six literal 24 hour days which occurred not more than 10,000 years ago,
and if there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually older than 10,000
years, then it is case that either the tests dating results are in error or the
six literal 24 hour day interpretation is in error.
Minor Premise: God’s word (the text) does say that
everything was created over a period of six days. And it is the case that the text is
interpreted to mean six literal 24-hour days which occurred not more than 10,000
years ago. And
it is the case that there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually
older than 10,000 years.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the case that either the
dating tests results are in error or the six literal 24 hour day interpretation
is in error.
Now, this is a valid argument
because it is (a) clear and unequivocal, and (b) there is relation between the
antecedent (the minor premise) and the consequent (the conclusion). It is a wordy
argument, but it is valid. Now all that needs to be proven is the minor
premise; especially the part about there being empirical evidence that some
thing is actually older than 10,000 years. If that could be proven, then the argument
would rest as sound and true. If it could be proven that some things was
actually older than the 10,000 years then the six literal 24 hour day
interpretation would be in error.
The
reason that Robert doesn’t want this argument as stated is because (1) it would
either put the dating methods at fault or (2) it would put the Bible at fault
because the Bible unequivocally states that every thing was created in six
literal 24 hour days and it also clearly teaches that this creation took place
not more than 10,000 years ago. Robert doesn’t want either one to be the case
because he wants to hang on to evolutionary science (?) while at the same time
holding on to his interpretation of the Bible.
Let
us look at what the Bible actually teaches. In Exodus chapter 20 Moses was giving the
legislation for the Jewish work week. He wrote:
“Six days shalt thou labour, and
do all thy work:
But the
seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Now
when we look at this we see that Moses said that in six days God
created (or made) the heaven, the earth, the sea and all that is in them and he
rested (past tense) on the seventh day. He blessed the seventh day and
hallowed it and it became the Sabbath day. What was the Sabbath day? Was it a long
period of time, or was it one 24 hour day? Well, let us look at scriptures which deal
with the Sabbath.
Now
remember, they weren’t suppose do any work on this day. They weren’t
allowed to work or even allow their sons, daughters, servants or even a stranger
that had come within their gates work on that day. Numbers
John Gill wrote:
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the
sea,
and
all that in them is, etc. And of which six days, and of the several things made in
each of them, see the notes on the first chapter of Genesis:
and
resteth the seventh day: which does not suppose labour, attended with weariness
and fatigue; for the Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, neither is
weary, Isa
40:28 nor ease and refreshment from it, but only a cessation from the
works of creation, they being finished and completed, though not from the works
of Providence, in which he is continually concerned: now this circumstance,
before recorded in the history of the creation, is wisely improved to engage an
attention to this command, and to the observation of it; there being an
analogy between the one and the other, that as God worked six days, and, having
done his work completely, ceased from it and rested, so it was fit and proper,
that as the Israelites had six days allowed them to labour in, and do all their
work, they should rest on the seventh, they and all that belonged to them, or
had any connection with them:
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath, and hallowed
it: he separated it from
all other days of the week, and set it apart for holy use and service, by
obliging his people to cease from all work on it, and to give up themselves to
the exercises of religion, as hearing, reading the word, prayer, praise, etc.
and he blessed it with his presence, and with the communications of his grace,
as he still continues to do, whatsoever day his people make use of for his
worship and service. The note of Jarchi is,"he blessed it with manna, by
giving double bread on the sixth, and sanctified it by manna, that it might not
descend on it;''so that there was a provision made for it, which was blessing
it; and it was distinguished from all other days, no manna falling on it, which
was the sanctification of it; and all showed it to be a day the Lord had a
particular regard to, and that it was to be a day of rest, and exemption from
labour” (Gill’s
Exposition of the Entire Bible, Sword Searcher).{Sword Searcher and E-Sword are Bible
programs with commentaries, lexicons and dictionaries}.
Adam Clarke wrote:
“Six days shalt thou
labor - Therefore he who idles away time on any of the six days, is as guilty
before God as he who works on the Sabbath. No work should be done on the
Sabbath that can be done on the preceding days, or can be deferred to the
succeeding ones. Works of absolute necessity and mercy are alone excepted. He
who works by his servants or cattle is equally guilty as if he worked himself.
Hiring out horses, etc., for pleasure or business, going on journeys, paying
worldly visits, or taking jaunts on the Lord's day, are breaches of this law.
The whole of it should be devoted to the rest of the body and the improvement of
the mind. God says he has hallowed it - he has made it sacred and set it apart
for the above purposes. It is therefore the most proper day for public religious
worship” (Clarke’s
Commentary on the Bible, Sword Searcher).
Both of these learned scholars state that these days were
days of the week.
How many days are there in a week? Seven! Is the week in these verses the same kind of
week we spend each week? Of course! There is no difference between the week
mentioned in Exodus 20:9-11 and the week we spend today here on earth. It is all very
simple, all we have to do is to look at it and allow the Bible to explain
itself. You
know the Bible is its own best commentator. Then if it is all that simple how do people
get all mixed up?
Some look at the word “day” in the Genesis account and
conclude that it could mean a long period of time. Their basis for
this is that Peter wrote “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). Concerning this verse Adam Clarke wrote:
“One day is with the Lord as a thousand years - That is: All time is as nothing
before him, because in the presence as in the nature of God all is eternity;
therefore nothing is long, nothing short, before him; no lapse of ages impairs
his purposes, nor need he wait to find convenience to execute those purposes.
And when the longest period of time has passed by, it is but as a moment or
indivisible point in comparison of eternity. This thought is well expressed by
Plutarch, Consol. ad Apoll.: "If we compare the time of life with eternity, we
shall find no difference between long and short. ?a ?a? ????a?a? ta µ???a et?st??µ? t?? est?? a???st??µa????
de µ????? t? ß?a??tat?? st??µ?? for a thousand or ten thousand years are but a certain
indefinite point, or rather the smallest part of a point." The words of the
apostle seem to be a quotation from Ps 90:4” (Ibid).
If
you notice Peter didn’t say that one long period of time is no different than a
thousand long periods of time. He said “one day,” one
literal 24 hour day, with God is the same as a thousand years (a literal
thousand years), and visa versa. This is because God is eternal and he is
above time and space.
Time and space means nothing to God, but it does mean something to
man. When God
had the Bible written he had it written in a language that man could
understand. He
did not write it in such a way that man would have to guess and wonder what he
meant by such-and-such. He wrote it clearly and unequivocally so that
it could be understood. Now there are some things that require study
on our part, but all of it can be understood. However, we can all understand that the Bible
was written in the common language of the common man because God wanted all men
to be able to understand it. So he isn’t going to leave something here,
that describes our origins, that is so confusing that we cannot under any
circumstances understand it.
Now, as we look at the word “day” in the Genesis account we
notice that the word is used in Genesis 1:5: “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” As we look below we
can see the different ways that the word “day” is used:
“H3117
???
yôm: A masculine noun meaning day, time, year. This word stands as
the most basic conception of time in the Old Testament. It designates such
wide-ranging elements as the daylight hours from sunrise to sunset (Gen_1:5; 1Ki_19:4); a literal
twenty-four hour cycle (Deu_16:8; 2Ki_25:30); a generic
span of time (Gen_26:8; Num_20:15); a given point
in time (Gen_2:17; Gen_47:29; Eze_33:12). In the plural, the word may also
mean the span of life (Psa_102:3 [4]) or a year (Lev_25:29; 1Sa_27:7). The prophets
often infuse the word with end-times meanings or connotations, using it in
connection with a future period of consequential events, such as the "day of the
LORD" (Jer_46:10; Zec_14:1) or simply, "that
day" (Isa_19:23; Zec_14:20-21)” (Word Study,
E-Sword).
Gill wrote:
“and the evening and the morning were the first
day: the evening, the first part of the night, or darkness,
put for the whole night, which might be about the space of twelve hours; and the
morning, which was the first part of the day, or light, put also for the whole,
which made the same space, and both together one natural day, consisting of
twenty four hours” (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword).
John Calvin wrote:
“The first day Here the error of those is
manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is
too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God
perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.
Let us rather conclude
that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating
his works to the capacity of men. We slightingly pass over the infinite
glory of God, which here shines forth; whence arises this but from our excessive
dullness in considering his greatness? In the meantime, the vanity of our minds
carries us away elsewhere. For the correction of this fault, God applied the
most suitable remedy when he distributed the creation of the world into
successive portions, that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he
had laid his hand upon us, to pause and to reflect. For the confirmation of the
gloss above alluded to, a passage from Ecclesiasticus is unskilfully cited. 'He
who liveth for ever created all things at once,' (.) For the Greek adverb
????? which the writer uses, means no such thing, nor does it
refer to time, but to all things universally” (Calvin’s Commentaries,
Sword Searcher).
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s Commentary said:
“5. first day--a natural day, as the mention of its two parts clearly
determines; and Moses reckons, according to Oriental usage, from sunset to
sunset, saying not day and night as we do, but evening and morning” (Ibid).
From what we have seen above the word for “day” in this
passage does refer to the literal 24 hour day. However, there are a number of scholars and
commentators who hold to the view that each day was a period of time. They use the word
“day” figuratively.
Such is the case with the ISBE writers who wrote:
“Day
daŻ (???, yoŻm; ??µe´?a, heŻme´ra): This common word has caused some trouble to plain
readers, because they have not noticed that the word is used in several
different senses in the English Bible. When the different uses of the word are
understood the difficulty of interpretation vanishes. We note several different
uses of the word:
(1) It sometimes means the time from daylight till dark.
This popular meaning is easily discovered by the context, e.g. Gen_1:5; Gen_8:22, etc. The marked
periods of this daytime were morning,
(2) Day also means a period of 24 hours, or the time from
sunset to sunset. In Bible usage the day begins with sunset (see Lev_23:32; Exo_12:15-20; 2Co_11:25, where night is put before day). See
DAY AND NIGHT.
(3) The word “day” is also used of an indefinite period,
e.g “the day” or “day that” means in general “that time” (see Gen_2:4; Lev_14:2); “day of trouble”
(Psa_20:1); “day of his wrath” (Job_20:28); “day of Yahweh” (Isa_2:12); “day of the Lord” (1Co_5:5; 1Th_5:2; 2Pe_3:10); “day of salvation” (2Co_6:2);. “day of Jesus Christ” (Phi_1:6).
(4) It is used figuratively
also in Joh_9:4, where “while it is day” means “while I
have opportunity to work, as daytime is the time for work.” In 1Th_5:5, 1Th_5:8, “sons of the day”
means spiritually enlightened ones.
(5) We must also bear in mind that with God time is not
reckoned as with us (see Psa_90:4; 2Pe_3:8).
(6) The apocalyptic use of the word “day” in Dan_12:11; Rev_2:10, etc., is
difficult to define. It evidently does not mean a natural day. See
APOCALYPSE.
(7) On the meaning of “day” in the story of Creation we
note (a)
The word “day” is used of the whole period of creation (Gen_2:4); (b) These days
are days of God, with whom one day is as a thousand years; the whole age or
period of salvation is called “the day of salvation”; see above. So we believe
that in harmony with Bible usage we may understand the creative days as creative
periods. See also ASTRONOMY; CREATION; EVOLUTION.
Figurative: The word “day” is used figuratively in many senses, some
of which are here given.
(1) The span of human life. -
Gen_5:4 : “And the days of Adam ... were eight
hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk ... then I will lengthen thy days” (1Ki_3:14; compare Psa_90:12; Isa_38:5).
(2) An indefinite time. -
Existence in general: Gen_3:14 : “All the days of thy life” (compare
Gen_21:34; Num_9:19; Jos_22:3; Luk_1:24; Act_21:10).
(3) A set time. - Gen_25:24 : “And when her days ... were
fulfilled”; Dan_12:13 : “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the
end of the days” (compare Lev_12:6; Dan_2:44).
(4) A historic period. - Gen_6:4 : “The Nephilim were in the earth in
those days”; Jdg_17:6 : “In those days there was no king in
(5) Past time. - Psa_18:18 : “the day of my calamity”; Psa_77:5 : “I have considered the days of old”
(of Mic_7:20; Mal_3:7; Mat_23:30).
(6) Future time. - Deu_31:14 : “Thy days approach that thou must
die”; Psa_72:7 : “In his days shall ....” (compare Eze_22:14; Joe_2:29; Mat_24:19; 2Pe_3:3; Rev_9:6).
(7) The eternal. - In Dan_7:9, Dan_7:13, where God is
called “the ancient of days.”
(8) A season of opportunity. -
Joh_9:4 : “We must work the works of him that
sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom_13:12, Rom_13:13; 1Th_5:5-8). See DAY (4), above.
(9) Time of salvation. -
Specially referring to the hopes and prospects of the parousia (see ESCHATOLOGY
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT). Rom_13:12 : “The night is far spent, and the day
is at hand.”
These writers took both positions stating in one place that
it was a 24 hour period, but then they later wrote that the creation days could
be long periods of time. They use this word figuratively. However D.R. Dungan
wrote: “All words
are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the
context forbids” (Hermeneutics, p. 184). Is there any thing in the Genesis record that
demands (0r even allows) that the word “day” be understood figuratively? No! As a matter of fact
the immediate context forbids figurative usage, as does the overall context (Ex.
20:9-11 et. al.).
If you will notice the writers of the ISBE reference astronomy, creation,
and EVOLUTION. So many people want to hang on to evolution
all the while hanging on to God and creation. It cannot be done. You cannot join God
and evolution; the two are diametrically opposed to each other. Evolution says
there is no God and that everything just happened by chance while Creation says
there is a God and every thing happened by intelligent design. Evolution—Chance;
Creation—Intelligent Design. How can anyone think that the two can be
joined together in any way, form or fashion? It is unfathomable.
Now, getting back to dealing with Robert’s proposition, he
should have had a proposition that went something like “Resolved: Real world evidence
shows that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation is
erroneous.”
That would be a satisfactory proposition, but Robert wasn’t interested in
looking at satisfactory propositions. He decided to use the major premise of his
Goliath of GRAS argument as his proposition. I guess, this is all right if he wants to use
it that way.
“Whatever flips your trigger,” right? It takes all kinds.
Now
when I spoke of Robert’s argument not being valid because there was no relation
between the antecedent and the consequent, let me explain that according to
relevance logic this is true. However, in classical logic, Robert’s
argument is a valid argument because all one has to do to have a valid argument
according to classical logic is to have an argument in the modus ponens format
which goes like this:
“If p, then q.” “p.” “Therefore q.” Robert’s argument is in the modus ponens
format. It is
a hypothetical argument and as such, according to classical logic, it is a valid
argument. But
so is the following argument:
Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon, then the
moon is made of cream cheese.
Minor Premise: The cow jumped over the moon.
Conclusion: Therefore the moon is made of cream
cheese.
Now
the first question that is going to pop into your mind is “uh…how does the cow
jumping over the moon make the moon made of cream cheese”? And, of course, the
answer is; it doesn’t! Well then, how is it a valid argument? According to
classical logic (which is sometimes referred to as Aristolian logic) as long as
it is in the proper format it is a valid argument, but that does not make it a
sound argument.
In
Relevance logic, the argument isn’t valid because there is no relevance
(relationship) between the antecedent (if the cow jumped over the moon) and the
consequent (then the moon is made of cream cheese). If you could get a
cow to jump over the moon this would not necessarily mean that the moon was made
of cream cheese.
I argued with Robert for months about the invalidity of his Goliath of
GRAS argument.
I quoted Irving Copi from his book Introduction to Logic, 11th Edition where Copi wrote:
“When an argument makes the claim that its premisses (if
true) provide irrefutable grounds for the truth of its conclusion, that claim
will either be correct or not correct. If it is correct, that argument is valid. If it is not
correct (that is, if the premisses when true fail to establish the conclusion
irrefutably), that argument is invalid.
For
Logicians, therefore, the term validity is applicable only to deductive
arguments. To
say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that it is not possible for its
conclusion to be false if its premisses are true. Thus we define ‘validity’ as follows: A deductive argument
is valid when, if its premisses are true, its conclusion must be
true.
Every deductive argument makes the claim that its premisses
guarantee the truth of its conclusion, but not all deductive arguments live up
to that claim.
Deductive arguments that fail to do so are invalid” (p.
43).
Now, as you can plainly see, Copi said that the only way
that a deductive argument (an argument in the modus ponens format “if p, then
q”) can be valid is, if when the premise is true, the conclusion is also
true. If you
have a true premise and a false conclusion, the argument is valid. Following is an
example of a valid argument:
Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which
are factual are total situations which are true.
Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a
total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.
Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my
proposition is a total situation which is true.
Now, this argument is valid by both classical and relevance
logic standards. Look at it closely. The argument simply
states that if all the parts are factual, the whole will be true. There is a relation
there that is axiomatic, it is irrefutable. If the constituent elements are all factual,
then the total is true. This is not the case with Robert’s Goliath of
GRAS argument because if his minor premise is true then he has one of three
situations he has to deal with. (1) the Bible is false and a lie, but Robert
says he won’t accept that; (2) the dating results are false, and he won’t accept
that one; (3) if God made everything fully grown (which the Bible says he did)
then the dating results could be true and the literal interpretation of the
Genesis account is also true; another conclusion Robert won’t accept. The only thing he
will accept is for the literal interpretation to be false, but that conclusion
is not irrefutably warranted by the premises. The premise that he needs to prove is the
minor premise:
Minor Premise: God’s word (the text) says everything began
over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that
some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years.
If Robert can prove that premise to be true, then it still
won’t irrefutably warrant the conclusion that the literal interpretation of the
Genesis account of creation is erroneous because the Bible clearly states that
God made everything in a fully grown state. Everything was able to reproduce after its
own kind. The
only way that could happen is for everything to be at a fully grown stage of
existence.
When God made Adam, he didn’t make a sperm and egg come
together and form a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, then a baby, a little
boy, then a teenager, then a man. He made him a fully grown man. When God made Eve
he made a fully grown woman and Adam took her as his wife. So Robert’s
argument, according to relevance logic is not a valid argument because the
antecedent (the minor premise) does not irrefutably necessitate the consequent
(the conclusion).
I tried for month to get Robert to see this. I quoted Copi’s
introduction to Logic, but to no avail. No, Robert is right and everyone else is
wrong. I am
not the only one who has told him this, but he is right and everyone else is
wrong.
In the 1978 (5th) edition
of Introduction to
Logic, Copi wrote concerning validity:
1.6 Truth and Validity
Truth and falsehood may be predicated of propositions, but
never of arguments.
And the properties of validity and invalidity can belong only to
deductive arguments, never to propositions. There is a connection between the validity or
invalidity of an argument and the truth or falsehood of its premisses and conclusion,
but the connection is by no means a simple one. Some valid arguments contain only true
propositions, as, for example,
All whales are mammals.
All mammals have lungs.
Therefore all whales have lungs.
But an argument may contain false propositions exclusively,
and be valid nonetheless, as, for example,
All spiders have six legs.
All six-legged creatures have wings.
Therefore all spiders have wings.
This argument is valid because if its premisses were true
its conclusion would have to be true also, even though in fact they are all
false. On the
other hand, if we reflect upon the argument
If I owned all the gold in
I
do not own all the gold in
Therefore I am not wealthy
we see that although the premisses and conclusion are true,
the argument is invalid. That the premisses could be true and the
conclusion false, if not immediately apparent, may be made clear by considering
that if I were to inherit a million dollars, the premisses would remain true,
although the conclusion would become false” (pp. 41,42).
This is where Robert’s argument falls. Even if his premise
(antecedent-minor premise) is true his conclusion (consequent) could be
false. The
conclusion (the consequent) does not irrefutably and necessarily follow from the
premises.
Therefore his argument, according to Copi is invalid.
Now the reason that I have quoted from both editions that
Copi wrote is because a man named Carl Cohen edited Copi’s eleventh edition in
2002 (Copi died in 2002, I don’t know if it was before or after Cohen edited the
book).
However, Robert wrote Dr. Cohen a letter naming me as someone who was
misusing his works.
The work belongs to Copi, Cohen was a co-editor of the book.
What follows are the letters to Dr. Cohen.
This first email includes the letter that Robert wrote to
Dr. Cohen.
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
<w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
<w_w_c_l@> wrote (in conclusion):
The above material, coupled with the previously posted
material from
the 11th edition of *Introduction to Logic*, along with the numerous other
references and resources that have been archived over the last several months,
should put to rest once and for all any question about the formal logical
validity of
Robert's syllogism, reproduced below.
There's just one more thing... ;-)
Let's see...There is one more relevant quote from the 11th
edition of
*Introduction to Logic*, by Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, that was not in the
older edition we have been referencing.
Jerry McDonald neglected to mention it to us, but our
friend who has been providing us with the previously posted material from the
11th edition (which we had asked McDonald for, and were unable to get him to
produce) found the following quote, and acted upon it:
-----------------------------
|
Acknowledgements
|
|
The loyal support of instructors and students of logic
|
has been a major factor in the steady improvement of
|
"Introduction to Logic" over the years. This widespread
|
(and sometimes critical!) participation of our readers
|
has proved to be a mighty strength. To all of those who
|
have had some role, large or small, in molding this
|
eleventh edition, we convey our hearty thanks.
|
|
Readers who offer their suggestions (email: ccohen[at]umich.edu)
|
receive our direct response, of course; but we also take
|
satisfaction in listing here the names of some of those to
|
whom we are indebted.
(snip, snip)
|
|
|
|
Carl Cohen
|
Introduction to Logic
pages xix-xxi
-----------------------------
Did somebody say e-mail? I think they did!
Well, why didn't Jerry McDonald say so, knowing, as he
does, our interest in contacting the logic experts at various colleges and
universities and asking them for their professional opinion on the formal
logical validity of "Goliath"!
Anyway, no harm done!:
-----------------------------
From: Robert Baty
Sent:
To: Carl Cohen
Subject: Introduction to Logic query!
Dear Professor Cohen,
I
have been involved in recent, quite heated discussions with some who have sought
to use your and Copi's text in support of the proposition that the following is
not a simple, logically valid, modus ponens argument:
Major premise:
If God's word (the text) says
everything began over a period
of six days, is interpreted by
some to mean it was six 24-hour
days occurring a few thousand
years ago, and there is empirical
evidence that some thing is
actually much older than a few
thousand years, then the
interpretation of the text by
some is wrong.
Minor premise:
God's word (the text) says
everything began over a period
of six days, is interpreted by
some to mean it was six 24-hour
days occurring a few thousand
years ago, and there is empirical
evidence that some thing is
actually much older than a few
thousand years.
Conclusion:
The interpretation of the text
by some is wrong.
By my way of thinking and interpreting your text, they are
simply wrong in their use of various statements from your text.
It would be helpful if you could give me your opinion, for
the record, as to the simple, logical validity of the above stated argument.
Do you consider the above argument valid?
Any exposition regarding your answer will be welcomed and
helpful.
A
speedy reply would also be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
-----------------------------
After receiving an automated response saying that Professor
Cohen would be vacationing in
-----------------------------
To: Robert Baty
From: Carl Cohen
Subject: Re: Introduction to Logic query!
Date:
Carl Cohen
Philosophy
The
To Whom It May Concern:
I
don't know the persons I am here addressing, but I do hope that I may be
helpful:
An argument in the form of ~modus ponens~ is indubitably
valid, and can be proved valid on a truth table, as we do in *Introduction to
Logic*.
Its logical form is:
p
> q,
p,
therefore q.
In English this might be stated as:
"If some hypothetical proposition asserting that 'if p then
q'ť is true, and a second proposition asserting 'p' is true,
then we may certainly conclude that 'q'ť is true."
The content of 'p' and the content of 'q' is of no
consequence whatever; the argument is valid in virtue of its form alone.
Thus, for example, if it is true that
"If there is a green fairy on my desk then I will be in
and if it is also true that
"There is a green fairy on my desk"
then it follows irrefutably that
"I will be in
The compelling logical force of ~modus ponens~ arises from
the formal relations between 'if p then q'ť, 'p'ť, and 'q'ť.
The statement variables 'p'ť and 'q' may be replaced by any propositions whatever.
Turning then to the argument that has been sent to me for
comment:
Let us suppose that the variable 'p'ť is replaced by the following proposition:
"God's word (the text) says
everything began over a period
of six days, is interpreted by some
to mean it was six 24-hour days
occurring a few thousand years
ago, and there is empirical evidence
that some thing is actually much
older than a few thousand years."ť
Let us suppose that the variable 'q'ť is replaced by the following proposition:
"The interpretation of the text by some is wrong."
IF it is true that the proposition 'p'ť just above entails the proposition 'q'ť just above, [p > q]
AND if it is true that 'p'ť, [p]
then 'q' is most certainly true. [q]
The truth of the conclusion [q] is here established only if
we know the hypothetical proposition [p > q] to be a true premise, and know also that
the antecedent within the hypothetical [p] to be a true premise.
~Modus ponens~ tells us absolutely nothing about the truth
of these premises; it is a valid argument FORM. It states only that IF p > q, AND p, THEN
q.
I
hope this is helpful.
Have a satisfying new year.
Be well.
Carl Cohen
-----------Robert Baty wrote:------------
Dear Professor Cohen,
I
hope that you have now been able to return as planned from
Pending your hoped-for attention to my inquiry, I have
again thought it might be helpful to give you yet another example of how Jerry McDonald
(bold print mine, jdm) has attempted to use your "Introduction to Logic" to
support his false claim regarding the simple, logical validity of my argument
which I presented for your consideration in my two earlier e-mails; copies of
which follow my name below.
Here is a link to a message posted by Jerry McDonald
regarding this matter, with relevant excerpts therefrom:
-----------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12987
Maury_and_Baty YAHOO! discussion list Message #12987
From: Jerry McDonald
Date:
Subject: Re: Response To Todd Greene
(excerpts)
|
If "P" then "Q"
|
"P"
|
Therefore "Q".
|
|
"Q" must irrefutably follow from "P."
|
|
If it doesn't then regardless of the form it isn't valid.
|
|
If makes absolutely no difference what form you use, if
|
the conclusion is not irrefutably drawn by the premise,
|
the argument is invalid.
|
|
You said, earlier, that I was not looking at everything
|
else that Copi said, but I was.
|
|
It was you who were not looking at everything.
|
|
You left out that parenthetical phrase about constituent
|
and contingent. You said it wasn't in the fourth edition.
|
|
I don't have that edition so I cannot say for sure. However,
|
it was in the fifth through the 11th.
|
|
The word "constituent" means that the two premises must be
|
so related if they are both true the conclusion must
|
necessarily be true.
|
|
The validity of the argument is contingent upon the
|
constituency of the premises and conclusion.
|
|
Again my argument:
|
|
Major Premise:
|
|
If the cow jumps over the moon, then the moon is
|
made of cream cheese.
|
|
Minor Premise:
|
|
The cow jumped over the moon.
|
|
Conclusion:
|
|
The moon is made of cream cheese.
|
|
Now it is in the proper form "If P then Q", "P",
|
"therefore Q."
|
|
However, there is no relation between the conclusion
|
and the premise.
|
|
Just because the cow jumps over the moon this does not
|
necessarily and irrefutably mean that the moon is made
|
of cream cheese.
|
|
There has to be such a relation between the premise and
|
the conclusion that if the premise is true it is axiomatic
|
that the conclusion be true as well.
|
|
Baty's argument doesn't do this, there are too many holes
|
in it to keep the conclusion from being irrefutably true
|
if the premises are true.
|
|
In Christ Jesus,
|
Jerry McDonald
-----------------------------
So there you have it, folks!
Carl Cohen "indubitably" illustrates for us why Robert's
syllogism is formally valid. He irrefutably refutes McDonald's misguided
notions that 'q' must follow from 'p' for an argument to be formally valid and
that validity is
dependent on any other thing besides form alone.
As Robert Baty might say (and did!):
"We win!"
"We win!"
Great work there, Robert! And thanks for looking up those quotes for us --
the ones that Jerry McDonald is claiming he gave us, knowing full well he never
did!
Let's see -- that makes it 15-0 for "Goliath" against the
unsuccessful attempts of Jerry McDonald, and Terry Hightower and the rest of
David (not "David") P. Brown's "boys"!
Undefeated! I'll be posting the season statistics
shortly, as a follow-up to this message.
Rick Hartzog
Worldwide
I
had already removed my subscription from the Baty list, but since I was in a
discussion with Rick over the supernova that we detected in 1987 I periodically
went back and checked up on it (since the list is open) and I found the letters
that Robert had written to Dr. Cohen naming me as one who was misusing Dr.
Copi’s and Dr. Cohen’s work. It was then that I decided that I could not
refrain from speaking up. I decided to write Dr. Cohen the following
letter.
Dr. Cohen, I would like to ask you a question.
On page 46 of the 11th edition of Introduction to Logic the
following is written:
"As noted earlier, a successful deductive argument is
valid. Validity refers to a relation between propositions--between the set
of propositions that serve as the premisses of a deductive argument, and the one
proposition that serves as the conclusion of the argument. If the later
follows with logical necessity from the former, we say that the argument is
valid. Since logical necessity is never achieved by inductive arguments,
validity never applies to them. Nor can validity ever apply to any single
proposition by itself, since the needed relation cannot possibly be found within
any one proposition."
Also on page 43 it is written:
"When an argument makes the claim that its premisses (if
true) provide irrefutable grounds for the truth of its conclusion, that claim
will either be correct or not correct. If it is correct, that argument is
VALID. If it is not correct (that is, if the premisses when true fail to
establish the conclusion irrefutably), that argument is INVALID.
For logicians, therefore, the term validity is applicable
only to deductive arguments. To say that a deductive argument is valid is
to say that it is no possible for its conclusion to be false if its premisses
are true. Thus we defind 'validity' as follows: A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
IS VALID WHEN, IF ITS PREMISSES ARE TRUE, ITS CONCLUSION MUST BE
TRUE."
Now my question is "Just because an argument is in a modus
ponens format 'if p, then q,' does this make the argument valid?" If I
say:
Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon, then
the moon is made of cream cheese.
Minor Premise: The cow jumped over the
moon.
Conclusion: Therefore the moon is made of cream
cheese.
Is that a valid argument just because if is in the format
of "if p, then q"? Are you saying that the argument is a valid argument or
that it is simply in a valid form? I can put anything into a valid form,
but would that make the argument itself valid?
Major Premise: If I am a white man, then I am a black
man.
Minor Premise: I am a white man.
Conclusion: Therefore I am a black man.
Is the argument valid, or just in a valid "if p, then q"
form?
My reason for asking this is because I have been in a long
time running written discussion with three men; Robert Baty, Rick Hartzog and
Todd Greene over this. Baty has an argument which states:
Major Premise: If God's word (the text)
says everything began over a period of six days, is interpreted by
some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand
years ago, and there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually
much older than a few thousand years. The interpretation of the
text by some is wrong.
Minor Premise: God's word (the text) says everything
began over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six
24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years.
Conclusion: Therefore the interpretation of the
text by some is wrong."
Mr. Baty wrote you and responded with the
following:
"IF it is true that the proposition 'p'ť just
above
entails the proposition 'q'ť just above,
[p > q]
AND if it is true that 'p'ť, [p]
then 'q' is most certainly true. [q]
The truth of the conclusion [q] is here established only
if
we know the hypothetical proposition [p > q] to be a
true premise,
and know also that the antecedent within the hypothetical
[p]
to be a true premise.
~Modus ponens~ tells us absolutely nothing about the truth
of
these premises; it is a valid argument FORM. It states only
that
IF p > q, AND p, THEN q."
I understand you to say that the argument is in a valid
FORM (something I have never denied), but to say it is in a valid form does not
mean that the argument is a valid argument. If so, then why does the
conclusion have to irrefutably follow from the premises as you state on pages
43,46 of your book Introduction to Logic?
I would like for you to respond to this email. I
realize that this gets you caught up in a discussion (that has gone on for
several months now) even though you have little time for it, but I feel that Mr.
Baty, Mr. Hartzog and Mr. Greene (if you have heard from Hartzog and/or Greene)
have not given you all the information you needed to answer the question.
If I can be of assistance to you in any further way to
clarify the position on this please let me know.
Respectfully,
Jerry D. McDonald
That day I received the following email from Dr. Cohen:
Carl Cohen <ccohen@umich.edu> wrote:
Carl Cohen
16 Ridgeway
Dear Jerry McDonald –
Thank you for writing. I reply to your questions:
What we call "modus ponens" is an argument form, a valid,
elementary, argument form. Arguments – actual arguments in English or German or
any language – may, or may not, have that form. Since modus ponens is an
absolutely valid argument form, any argument that really does have that form
must also be valid.
So the answer to your question is Yes.
You ask: “Just because an argument is in a modus ponens
format [which is: “if p then q, p, therefore q] does this make the argument
valid? The
answer is, yes, it does, absolutely.
You give the example: “If the cow jumped over the moon then
the moon is made of cream cheese. The cow jumped over the moon. Therefore the
moon is made of cream cheese” Is this argument valid? Yes, absolutely it
is. But why
should this trouble you? It does not follow from the fact that this argument is
valid that the moon really is made of cream cheese. All that we are
saying is that
IF it is true that
If the cow jumped over the moon the moon is made or cream
cheese,
And IF it is true that
The cow did jump over the moon,
THEN
the moon is made of cream cheese.
But of course it is absurd to assert that if the cow jumped
over the moon the moon is made of cream cheese, (that premise is wildly false)
And it is equally absurd to contend that the cow did jump
over the moon (that premise also is wildly false.)
Therefore the argument you give as an example supports the
truth of the conclusion – that the moon is made of cream cheese – ONLY if we
could know two things which are in fact totally absurd and false. No problem
here. Your
sample argument is VALID – which is to say that IF its premises are true its
conclusion must be true. That does not make its conclusion true, of
course.
Read, in that same edition of Introduction to Logic, the
passages in the very early chapters about the relations between truth and
validity. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion is related to the
premises in a specified way. Whether the conclusion of a valid argument is
true is an entirely different matter.
I hope this is helpful. I send a copy of this note to Mr. Baty.
Be well.
Carl
I have reached my 10,000 word limit for this part (actually
I went over by 54 words) so I will go to part 2.
In Christ Jesus