(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:04:54AM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:

> > If the NT documents are trustworthy records then Mary, Joseph etc have

> > historical verification.

> 

> I'm glad you agree with this statement.  Because, if you do, you implicitly

> state that debating "Mary, Joseph etc" (a topic which would include the

> virgin birth) can address biblical errancy.  Your statement is of the form

> "if A then B", and thus the argument goes like this:

> 	1. If A then B

> 	2. Not B

> 	3. Therefore, Not A (1,2)

> Now, if you (and everyone else who sets out to affirm B) fail to give a

> convincing case for the truth of B, we ought to provisionally accept it as

> false, and thus (provisionally) accept the conclusion.]

> 

> So, you see, if the virgin birth goes unproven then we ought to deny both

> it and the inerrancy of the bible.  So stop saying that this issue can't

> disprove biblical inerrancy.


Matthew Bell
I would consider such a line of argument as a fallacious non-sequitur. To quote
Farrell Till, ''...Logicians have long recognised that the absence of negative
evidence does not constitute positive evidence just as the absence of positive
evidence does not constitute negative evidence'. (TSR, Volume Nine, Number
Four, Where is the Objective Evidence).' It appears to me that this would be
saying that the lack of positive evidence for Mary and the virgin birth does
not constitute negative evidence, which is exactly what your argument seeks to
do.

Thanks
M.Bell

• Previous message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Next message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]