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

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 07:18:32PM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:

> > > 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

> Do you accept that this is a valid argument:

> 	1. If A then B

> 	2. Not B

> 	3. Therefore, Not A (1,2)

> 

> Yes?  No?  (Hint, all students of logic do.  It's called modus tollens and

> you've heard the likes of Elf talk about it before)

>

>

> Do you accept the statement that you get when you let A="the NT documents

> are trustworthy records" and B="Mary, Joseph etc have historical

> verification"?

> 

> Yes?  No?  (Hint, that statement is one you've already made, so I hope you

> accept it)

> 

> If you accept both of those then you must see that if "Mary, Joseph etc

> do not have historical verification" entails "Therefore, the NT documents

> are not trustworthy records".  You just plug it all in to an argument

> you already agreed was valid, and that's what you get as a result.


Matthew Bell
I have no problems accepting both of your statements, but still don't see where
it leads to since Mary is historically verified (provisionally) in the NT
documents. The question is whether they are reliable or not. When that issue is
decided then one can evaluate the likelihood of B being true.

> 

> Of course, we're debating with B="the virgin birth story is true" or

> something similar, but you get the idea.  I keep returning to the example

> which you stated yourself, because it's available and the choice of

> words was yours and not mine.


Matthew Bell
I have already pointed out that accepting Mary as historically verified in the
NT documents is different from everything that is claimed for her. The virgin
birth or any other Biblical miracle is not impossible nor indeed unlikely if
the God revealed in those Scriptures truly exists, unless of course you want to
beg the question of the possibility of miracles occurring. 

Thanks
M.Bell

• Previous message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Next message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]