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

Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:03:31 -0600 (00919134211, 4.1.19990215145858.00a3e3f0@pop.truman.edu) 

At 02:55 PM 2/15/99 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
snip


>>>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.  

>>

>

>TILL

>As I just pointed out in another posting, the absence of positive evidence

>may not constitute negative evidence, but if the claim that lacks positive

>evidence is extraordinary in nature, the absence of positive evidence

>certainly constitutes sufficient reason not to believe it.  This is a simple

>fact that Matt Bell himself would apply to probably all facets of his life

>except his religious beliefs.

>

Ed

Yes, I certainly agree, hence my analogy with Hera.    It seems amazing to
me that theists of whatever variety will accept the most outrageous claims
put forward by their own religions, but would never entertain for a moment
an equally reasonable claim put forward by another.  It seems terribly
undemocratic.