(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:14:13 -0600 (00919124053, 4.1.19990215120808.00b58530@pop.truman.edu)
At 05:47 PM 2/15/99 +0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
>> 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.
>
Ed
I think you're right. Although there is certainly insufficient evidence to
merit belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, this lack of evidence alone
does not prove that the Bible's account is false. Likewise, you cannot
prove that Hera didn't turn Hyacinth into a flower because she banged Zeus.