RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

Round 3, Part I, Rebuttal to Con's Opening Statement ______________________ The only argument presented by my opponent is the following: (RLBaty's) major premise is untrue... That's been where Mangani has been floundering for quite some time now, and I remain available to engage in a more formal discussion of that fundamental issue, affirming the truth of my major premise, given the basic stipulations, if Mangani and I can work out the logistical details necessary to produce that discussion. ------------- Now, while my opponent clearly disagrees with my position, he does not offer why. He does not support his major premise in any way other than affirmation. Let us, again, re-examine his major premise: IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and... - I recognize this is a condition, but is this a condition that is possible to fulfill? There are three types of "IF" clauses: a condition possible to fulfill, a condition in theory, and a condition not possible to fulfill. Condition I: a. Nature: Open condition, what is said in the condition is possible. b. Time: This condition refers either to present or to future time. e.g. If he is late, we will have to go without him. If my mother knows about this, we are in serious trouble. Does Condition (A) in the Major Premise of GOG meet the criteria for a First Conditional as a conditional clause of the premise? No. It is not possible to determine the following from the conditional clause for it to fit the description of "possible": What is "God?" What is "God's word (the text)?" Where does it say in "God's word" that "everything began over a period of six days?" A conditional clause must not present more questions than it answers for it to be considered "possible." If you can't answer the question "what is God's word" by looking at a conditional clause, the conditional clause relying on "God's word" cannot be "possible" within the context of conditional clauses. My opponent will argue this is a "hypothetical conditional statement," however it doesn't fit that model either, ie. "If you ate too much, you would get fatter." This does not pose any questions you cannot answer yourself by looking at the conditional statement. Have you eaten too much? The reader knows the answer to that question. Does God's word (the text) say everything began over a period of six days? Several unanswerable or unanswered questions arise from what is said to be a conditional statement, and therefore that statement is not a valid conditional statement, rendering the premise "untrue." IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and - B is true, but... IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years - C is not quite true. The notion of "empirical evidence" is not a rational one. Just as with the problem with identifying "God" and "God's word" in A, C requires you to believe the notion of "empirical evidence" without there being such a thing. Evidence is not empirical- evidence is, well, evidence. A proper condition would say "IF (C) there is 'evidence' that some things are much older than a few thousand years. THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some is wrong." - Now here GOG has the exercise jump from the suggestion that YECS interpret the "text" one way, science says something else, and the conclusion reached is the interpretation is wrong. I have repeatedly shown how this logic does not follow. The text ITSELF may be wrong. Here is the major flaw of this argument: If 'God's word (the text)' says everything began over a period of six days, and some interpret that to mean six days (24hrs. is a day... I don't know what other kind of day there is), then the interpretation by THESE PEOPLE CANNOT BE WRONG. They are simply believing the literal text. ______________________ Round 3, Part II, New Counterpoints Needless to say, GOG has major flaws. It does not establish "who or what" is God. The Major Premise cannot stand if the conditional statements are not possible, and the conclusions drawn are questionable. D is completely inconsequential to A, B, and C in the major premise. The fact that "some" misinterpret ANY text is common sense- not he conclusion of some intellectual logic exercise. The fact that D is concluded in GOG by following A and B and C proves it is not essential. Anything can be said to reach conclusion D. For example: If the Bible were translated from it's original text, and If these translations rely on individual interpretation by various scholars, then C, the interpretation of the Bible by some is wrong. This is simple common sense- again, not the conclusion of some advanced intellectual logic test. The minor premise, it should follow, is also untrue, but relies on a bit of trickery. Let's start at the end: (D) The interpretation of the text by some is wrong. I have already shown how this conclusion can be reached through much simpler means. It does not require contemplation of the existence of God, it does not rely on identification of any body of text, and it doesn't rely on a comparison of interpretations. By mere laws of subjectivity it can be rationally deduced that the interpretation of the text, by some, is wrong. Again, this proves GOG is not essential to reaching the goals stated in the introduction to GOG. If neither the major, nor the minor premise are true, or essential, it would also follow that the entire exercise is not sufficient in illustrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills. In fact, even if the major and minor premise WERE true, all they would establish is that the interpretation of the text by some is true. This does not illustrate why they have failed in their scientific pretensions- this would take arguments supporting the Lambda-CDM concordance model, radiocarbon dating, etc. The arguments also do not illustrate why YECS have failed in their legal challenges- this would take actual discussion of their legal problems, a presentation of laws and cases adversely affecting the alleged legal challenges faced by YECS, and how this argument pertains to those legal challenges. This exercise also fails to demonstrate the extent of the basic critical thinking skills of YECS. It only shows their faith is based on the literal text of the bible. GOG does not argue the literal text of the bible is wrong. GOG does not argue that the bible is "God's word," nor does it adequately establish that. GOG does not present an alternative interpretation to the literal one. GOG does not present evidence, or "empirical evidence" proving the age of anything to be greater than a few thousand years. GOG is, therefore, neither essential nor sufficient in illustrating why it is that YECS have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, nor does it demonstrate the extent of YECSs' basic critical thinking skills.