(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:18:32 -0000 (00919127912, 19990215192251609.AAA318@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:47:39PM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Jeff Epler
> Perhaps further discussion of the idea of "disproof", "negative evidence",
> and "burden of proof" would be instructive, but I hope that before we do
> that you will agree with my basic point, which I will now repeat: You
> agree, as you wrote in an earlier message that
> If the NT documents are trustworthy records then Mary, Joseph
> etc have historical verification"
> and you must acknowledge that any line of reasoning that would cause
> someone to deny that "Mary, Joseph etc have historical verification" would
> entail the denial that "the NT documents are trustworthy records".
Matthew Bell
I don't quite follow your line of reasoning here. Mary (to limit to one person
to save repeating 'Joseph etc'), is cited as a real person in an ancient
document which is one of the best attested of its day. The information
provided in that document is sparse as she is not a central person in the same,
so how can that sparse information be used to judge the validity of the whole
document? That one could deny what is attributed to this Mary, i.e. a virgin
birth I can understand, but not that this could be used as a conclusive
argument that she never existed, nor the document which speaks of her is false.
>
> Jeff Epler
> Now that this matter of purely symbolic logic has been dispensed with, I'll
> address my reasoning that "Mary, Joseph etc have historical verification"
> should be denied not only because of possession of negative evidence, but
> that if you deny it only because you lack positive evidence you are
> probably just acting in the same way you do every day with other
> unsupported statements.
Matthew Bell
The only way that I can see one can deny that Mary has historical verification
is to show that the document which record here existence are not reliable or
trustworthy. Do you deny that every minor character mentioned in Tacitus has
historical verification?
>
> Jeff Epler
> So perhaps I will have to, on this occasion, disagree with Farrell.
Matthew Bell
But in this case it would not be Farrell you would be disagreeing with, at
least if his statement has any semblance of truth to it? He did not say, 'I,
Farrell Till have lonmg recognised that etc etc.', but, and I quote with
emphasis, 'LOGICIANS have long recognised that etc etc. So are you saying that
Farrell is here misrepresenting 'logicians', or that you disagree with their
conclusions?
> Jeff Epler
> In any case, it is slightly different to say that "absence of positive
> evidence constitutes negative evidence" and what I'm saying.
>
> Maybe this is really subtle, so I'll try again.
>
> There are millions of statements out there that one could make which
> have no evidence for them. For instance, "To increase my health,
> I ought to eat rubber tires " (are they "tyres" where you live?), "If
> a woman douches with pepsi after intercourse she won't get pregnant",
> "George Washington had three nipples", and any of countless others.
Matthew Bell
These examples don't seem to me to be equal analogies to what we are
discussing. The statement, Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus, is recounted
not as an act of nature, but of an act of an omnipotent God, i.e. a miracle,
which by its very definition goes against that which is we are familiar with.
Also I believe that with the first two, positive contrary evidence can be given
which would disprove them, the same cannot be said for the historicity of the
virgin Mary. The latter would certainly not be impossible, considering other
such quirks of human biology/ anatomy.
> Jeff Epler
> Now, I haven't gone on an extensive information gathering hunt for even
> these three examples, let alone all the others (though, of course, in
> writing these three I have reflected upon them and continue to believe
> that it's extremely unlikely that there is any positive evidence for them)
> I act as though they are false. To me, that would include denying A in
> statements like "if A then B", with B from the above set.
>
> Besides, the mere fact that "virgin births are biologically impossible for
> human beings in modern times" and "the biological nature of human beings
> has not changed significantly in the last 4000 years" are both accepted
> facts (do you deny them?) would lead us to conclude that virgin births
> were biologically impossible for people in the last 4000 years. Thus,
> negative evidence is trivially presented in this case, rendering your whole
> argument based on the quote from Farrell moot.
Matthew Bell
Yes, so you would wish. The one important factor you fail to consider is that
the virgin birth is not purported to be a natural biological possibility seeing
as it was a miracle, which as I stated above goes against that which is
natural, hence the word supernatural.
> Jeff Epler
>Or, one more argument,
>
>
>
> 1. A human woman cannot have a child without the presence of the
> sperm of a human male.
> 2. Mary was a human woman.
> 3. Therefore, Mary could not have had a child without the presence
> of the sperm of a human male. (1,2)
Matthew Bell
In a more correct form:
1. A human woman cannot have a child naturally without the presence of the
sperm of a human male.
2. Mary was a human woman.
3. Therefore, Mary could not have a child naturally without the presence of the
sperm of a human male. (1,2).
The claim of course is that the birth of Jesus was not natural, but
supernatural, so your point is moot.
>
> You should recognize the form of "socrates is a man", so that leaves
> only to dispute the truth of the two premises .. We're waiting. Like,
> was she an alien, or what?
Matthew Bell
I hope I have provided some useful response in the above.
Thanks
M.Bell