(The long version) Re: Debate Format
Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:23:10 -0600 (00919110190, 19990215082310.D11984@craie.inetnebr.com)
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:04:54AM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
> Yes, but I think that what all the above have in common is that they
> cannot be categorically shown to be false.
This is not news: This is the problem of negative existential statements.
This is why debates have the standard that the burden of proof is on the
one who affirms.
> Now, I am not asking anyone to prove a negative, or take the burden
> of proof that Mary (or any other of your examples) was not a virgin,
Thanks. Does that mean we'll go with the normal standard that, until
sufficient proof is furnished, that existential statements ought to be
treated as though false? This is the standard by which I live my daily
life, and it's worked out well so far.
> only stating that debating such matters don't assist in determing the
> truth of falsity of the inerrancy claim, which is surely the purpose
> of the list?
But surely "the bible contains statements which ought to be treated as
though false" (i.e., positive existential statements for which no, or
inadequate, support has been furnished) entails "the bible is or ought to
be treated as though errant". If not, why not?
Surely you recognize the validity of the following argument:
1. If A then B
2. B is false
3. A is false (1,2)
then why do you deny this argument, substituting "ought to be treated as
false" for "is false":
1'. If A then B
2'. B ought to be treated as false
3'. A ought to be treated as false (1',2')
> Discussion on
> all the above amounts to one thing, the reliability of the NT documents
> as true history. If the NT documents are trustworthy records then Mary,
> Joseph etc have historical verification.
Let me restate your argument. It's of the form "If A then B", and B is
"Mary, Joseph etc have historical verification". Now, if B is false (or
ought to be treated as false) then you are in one of my arguments above.
> What can be debated, and can assist us in determining whether the Bible
> is inerrant or not, is a topic which disproves the claim of inerrancy.
But, as I hope you see above, if "B" is false then "A" must be false:
I.e., if you fail to establish your case for the virgin birth (and all
other such attempts are failures as well, I should say), then we
ought to provisionally treat the virgin birth as false---and thus we'd
treat "A", the inerrancy of the bible as provisionally false.
> That was the intent of my challenge which I should have worded more
> precisely. I look forward to a listing of what logical fallacies are
> contained in the above ;0
I hope I have pointed out to you the way in which Till's debate subject can
address the issue of biblical inerrancy: It was hidden in your words all
along, but apparently you didn't see it.
> > ELF Well, what incidents/people in the NT of doctrinal importance,
> > that underlie actual Christian (fundamentalist) belief CAN be
> > affirmed?
>
> Matthew Bell
> Umm. the doctine of Biblical Inerrancy?
Humor me here. Is "the doct[r]ine of Biblical Inerrancy" an *incident* or
one of the *people* in the NT?
> >
> > Pilate and Herod were actual persons, so far as such things can be
> determined -
> > but there isn't a scintilla of evidence they did any of the things the NT
> says they
> > did (apart from John the Baptist) that are of any importance to Christian
> belief.
> > The slaughter of the innocents?
> > The granting of a pardon to a condemned criminal on some special day?
> >
> >
> > > MATTHEW
> > >
> > > It is without doubt that you were trying to make some sort of Farrellite
> point
> > > in doing so, and I have played along with such to delay that point being
> made
> > > (two can play mind games!). So I suggest you make your point, receive your
> > > accolades from the faithful and get down to the business you are supposed
> to be
> > > so proficient in and set a serious debatable proposition.
> >
> > ELF And what could that be?
>
> Matthew Bell
> It could be anything which would assist us in determining whether
> the Bible was inerrant or errant. How would debating the virgin birth
> have accomplished this?
I hope my above words have helped clarify how debating the virgin birth can
contribute to the debate on biblical errancy.
> Wouldn't an alleged internal inconsistency constitute such? Doesn't
> Farrell Till run TSR which is allegedly full of articles which
> demonstrate the errancy of the Bible?
Yes, that would too---but so does this.
Jeff
--
\/ http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jepler/ Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love.
-- Charlie Brown