(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:55:29 -0800 (00919140929, 2.2.32.19990215225529.00cc1f34@midwest.net)
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.
>
TILL
Not at all! You just can't seem to understand this principle, can you? The
absence of positive evidence that the virgin birth of Jesus happened does
not constitute proof that it did NOT happen; however, given the
extraordinary nature of the claim, the absence of positive evidence that it
happen does constitute legitimate reasons not to believe that it happened.
If you can't see the difference, then you need more help than I can give
you, Matt.
Let's take the Muslim claim that Muhammad divided the moon into two parts.
The absence of positive evidence that this event happened does not
constitute negative evidence, i.e., evidence that it did NOT happen.
However, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, the absence of
positive evidence that it happened constitutes very legitimate reasons not
to believe that it happened. Would you agree with this line of reasoning?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net