As you may note in the header section of this e-mail that I am receiving
posts from this list on AOL. I don=92t know about the rest of the country=
, but
here in Los Angeles logging on to AOL is very difficult. So, I have not
been able to pick up these posts in a while. Having several hundred to go
through, I just picked out several that had topics of interest to me. I m=
ust
of missed some controversy about me, because I found a post entitled
=93Mocking Brady.=94 It seems that Cardinal Till is up to his old tricks =
again.=20
Thank you for apparently coming to my defense in my absence. You
seemed to have figured out Till=92s use of ad hominem. You know, there is
an old adage in law: If you have the evidence on your side, pound on the
evidence. If you have the law on your side, pound on the law. If you have
nothing on your side, pound on the table. Well, the Cardinal has no
evidence or arguments, so his table always gets a good beating.=20
In Till=92s letter to you he calls me a =93presup=94 as he has in several=
other
letters. I think he believes that the term is some sort of pejorative. Bu=
t,
that
is beside the point. In all the years that Till had been involved with
Christianity he never learned the difference between a presuppositionalis=
t,
and an evidentialist. I am of the latter. Even though I have pointed this=
out
to Till on several occasions, it is apparent that he thinks that anyone w=
ho
has an understanding of philosophy is automatically a =93presup.=94 Of c=
ourse,
if he is using it as a pejorative, then it is a lot easier to just label =
your
opponent than to actually deal with the arguments.=20
There are actually two types of presuppositionalist: 1) one who has an
epistemological start with transcendental argumentation, and 2) the pure
fideist (blind faith). More on that later.
Since the Cardinal has seen fit to give a run down of the past, I will do=
the
same; except I will stick to the arguments rather than personal details a=
bout
Till and the others on this list.=20
In his post to you Till talks about all the philosophical arguments that =
were
bantered about. Since I came to this list I have posted on only one subje=
ct:
the historical reliability of the resurrection of Jesus. Any Philosophica=
l
arguments that I engaged in were directly related to refutations of contr=
a
resurrection assertions. Till is the one who gave me permission to discus=
s
this issue on this list, and ever since then he has been running from it.
When I started this discussion I was eager to set the criteria and baseli=
ne
by
which to judge the evidence for the historical reliability of the NT, and=
the
resurrection event in particular, but Till would have nothing to do with =
it.
He would have nothing to do with my suggestions that the criteria we use
to judge the resurrection be objective, and inductive. At one point, the
Cardinal declared ex cathedra that I was not able to do anything objectiv=
e.
So, I sought a criteria and baseline from him. Surely, he had some way of
determining that the resurrection of Jesus was not accurate history! But =
to
my dismay he had no criteria, or baseline by which to judge evidence one
way or the other. For several months I have pleaded with the Cardinal to
provide an objective, inductive criteria by which we can judge documents
and events. Yet, none have flowed from the Cardinal=92s pen.=20
In my last post to this list, about ten days ago, I once again asked for =
the
criteria. I received several replies.=20
I received a reply from Ralph Nielsen. But, no criteria.
I received a reply from Larry Sites. But, no criteria.
I received a reply from Darrell. But, no criteria.
I received a reply from Cardinal Till himself. But, no criteria.
Walt, I am afraid that the evidence you are presenting will do no good.
Without a criteria and baseline to judge from, they are free to simply ra=
ise
the bar to high heaven for events they don=92t like, and lower it to dir=
t
level
for events they do like. This is what they have been doing to you. Of
course once the bar is set, then you and I know that the resurrection
becomes the best attested to event of the ancient world. That is exactly
why they refuse to use objective criteria.=20
Try asking them for a criteria. You=92ll find that as close anyone of the=
m gets
is: If the event reported is a natural event and doesn=92t affect me, I m=
ight
believe it. If it is supernatural, I know it couldn=92t have happened. Th=
is is
all
I was able to get out of any of them. Yes Walt, I know, it is totally
subjective. But, that=92s the point. They can=92t do objective without a =
bunch
of brute facts burying them.
Upon failing to come up with a historical criteria, Till declared that he
didn=92t need one. He knew the resurrection couldn=92t have happened beca=
use
experience has shown him that dead men to not rise. I pointed out that Ti=
ll
that he had committed a categorical fallacy.=20
Follow:
1) If Jesus rose from the dead, it would have to happen because a suffici=
ent
cause brought it about. (Cause and effect. If an effect can be shown to h=
ave
happened, it would have to have a cause.)
2) The people that Till experienced staying dead did not have a sufficien=
t
cause acting on them to bring about resurrections. If they had, then the=
y
would have risen.
3) So, Till applies the conclusion reached by studying one category ( the
category of dead people that do not have sufficient causes acting on them=
),
to an instance (if it did occur) of a different category ( the category o=
f
dead
people that do have sufficient causes acting on them).
It=92s sort of like saying: you can=92t cook chickens, because every unco=
oked
chicken I have ever seen has been uncooked!=20
Even though I pointed this out to Till, he just doesn=92t get it. I gath=
er
from
his post to you that he is still trying to use this fallacious type of
reasoning.=20
You might want to make this wager with Till: Wager 1 million dollars that
every marble you drop off a building that has a sufficient cause acting o=
n it
that keeps it from falling, will not fall. See how readily he will take t=
hat
bet.
After this argument failed him, he retreated to an appeal to =93common
sense.=94 I asked Till if by common sense he meant some information that
was innate to all mankind? I pointed out that people of contrary position=
s
(like Descartes, and Hume) appealed to common sense against each other.
I then pointed out that what we normally mean by common sense were
conclusions of inductive and/or deductive arguments that were so obvious
that one didn=92t normally need to go over them. I then ask the Cardinal =
if he
could give me these simplistic arguments, since somehow I had missed
them.
No arguments came forth from Cardinal Till.
You see, Till is a presuppositionalist of the second type I mentioned abo=
ve.
He is a fideist. How does he know that Jesus didn=92t rise from the dead?
Because he knows that Jesus didn=92t rise from the dead! Not much, I know=
,
but when it=92s all you have, you pound the table.
Regards & good luck,
Aramis
All for one and one for all!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.=20