(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:06:57 -0800 (00919156017, 2.2.32.19990216030657.0085eb90@midwest.net)
At 11:35 PM 2/15/99 -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
>> >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?
>>
TILL
Well, well, well, it always comes back to this, doesn't it? I don't have
to provide conclusive evidence that miracles CANNOT happen. It is apparent
to all that IF miracles do happen, they are so rare that one is within
reason not to accept the claim of a miracle unless VERY convincing evidence
can be presented that the miracle happened. You yourself know that this is
true, because you constantly reject claims of the extraordinary for no other
grounds than that there exists no reasonable evidence that these claims are
true. Do you deny this?
TILL
>> 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.
>
TILL
Very well, then just tell us if you believe that Muhammad performed this
miracle, which was attested to by "eyewitnesses." If you don't believe that
this miracle happened, then please tell us why you don't believe it.
>
>
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net