(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:35:12 -0000 (00919143312, 19990215233926937.AAA242@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> 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.
Matthew Bell
It only constitutes legitimate reasons when one begs the question of whether
miracles can happen or not. Why don't you provide the conclusive evidence that
miracles cannot happen?
>
> 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?
Matthew Bell
No, I would not, since it begs the question of whether miracles can or cannot
happen.
Thanks
M.Bell