 
|
June 12, 2009, 06:47 AM
|
#5975440 / #1 |
|
Officer
Mod: E/C Join Date: September 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,068
 |
Did God Raise Jesus from the dead.
Start Date: 22 Jun 2009
Affirmative:Jerry McDonald Negative: radical_logic This thread has been set up for a formal debate on following resolution: Resolved: It is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. The debate will have 5+ rounds. Jerry McDonald will go first and have a concluding brief statement. These are the parameters of the debate. A Peanut Gallery has been set up for the rest of us to comment on the debate. Last edited by George Hathaway; June 24, 2009 at 06:46 AM. |
|
|
|
June 23, 2009, 01:28 PM
|
#5987991 / #2 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's First Affirmative Part 1
McDonald's First Affirmative I wish to express my gratitude for the opportunity that is mine to take part in this discussion on such an important topic: “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I appreciate my opponent for agreeing to take the negative position in this debate. It will be my great pleasure to give historical evidence for God raising Jesus Christ from the dead. I want it understood that I have no ill will towards my opponent, but I will be pressing my position in this debate, and I will expect him to do the same as it progresses. I also want to make it clear that in this respect we are engaged in a spiritual war. Some people don’t like to talk about war and such, but the fact of the matter is we are soldiers in two armies. I am in the army of Christ and my opponent, whether he realizes it or not, is in the army of Satan. I say that with all the kindness that I can, but there is simply no kind way to say it. I realize that my opponent probably doesn’t even believe in the existence of Satan, but this is one Satan’s biggest lies, getting people to believe that he does not exist. Anyone who stands against the resurrection of Christ stands against the army of Christ for Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Mat 12:30). So as we stand before you at this time I stand as a soldier for Jesus Christ, and my opponent stands as a soldier against Jesus Christ. Regardless of whatever army he wants to claim, he stands in the camp that is against Christ, and that would encompass Satan’s domain. I will treat my opponent civilly and honorably, but he is my opponent nonetheless and I must treat him as such. The following words are important to our study: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Act 2:22-24).These are the words spoken by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost of Acts chapter two, as part of his first gospel sermon. These words tell us three things: 1. Jesus of Nazareth was approved of God among men by miracles, wonders and signs that he did in the midst of them.All three of those actions were determined, carried out and sanctioned by God. Nothing that happened to Jesus of Nazareth was a surprise to God, Christ’s life, death, burial and resurrection was all part of a carefully worked out plan to bring man back to God, it was worked out in every detail. There were prophecies about his life and death in the Old Testament which cannot be ignored. There were prophecies about the church that he would sit up years before it was set up. There were prophecies about the kind of kingdom his kingdom was going to be—Spiritual, not Carnal. And there were prophecies of his being resurrected from the dead. All of these were determined, carried out and sanctioned by the hand of God. So in this debate I will be affirming: “Resolved: It is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.” The proposition is defined as follows: Resolved: Established. “It is a historical fact…” I mean that this is a fact of history. The word “fact” means: “Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J] fact FACT, n. L. factum, from facio, to make or do. 1. Any thing done, or that comes to pass; an act; a deed; an effect produced or achieved; an event. Witnesses are introduced into court to prove a fact. Facts are stubborn things. To deny a fact knowingly is to lie. 2. Reality; truth; as, in fact. So we say, indeed” (Webster’s Dictionary, Sword Searcher Bible Program).The word “historical means: “Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J] historical HISTOR'ICAL, a. L. historicus. Containing history, or the relation of facts; as a historical poem; the historic page; historic brass. 1. Pertaining to history; as historic care or fidelity. 2. Contained in history; deduced from history; as historical evidence. 3. Representing history; as a historical chart; historical painting” (Ibid).“…that God…” refers to the first person in the Godhead otherwise known as the Father. “…raised…” means: “RA'ISED, pp. Lifted; elevated; exalted; promoted; set upright; built; made or enlarged; produced; enhanced; excited; restored to life; levied; collected; roused; invented and propagated; increased” (Ibid). “…Jesus…” refers to Jesus of Nazareth, the person who is referred to as the Son of God, whose crucifixion on the cross was recorded in the four accounts of the Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). “…from the dead” means from the dead, not from near death or not from a death like state, but from the dead. Jesus’ body was dead and it was resurrected. It was dead because the bodily functions stopped, the body literally died, and the spirit was separated from the body. Now this ought to take care of the definition of what I am affirming. If my opponent has any further question on it he may bring it up in his first rebuttal and we will revisit it, but I think my intent is clear. I intend to show that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by God, and that such is a historical fact. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS Before getting into proving the resurrection there is a foundation which first must be laid, Jesus said: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock” (Mt. 7:24,25).Now while the context of the statement is that building our faith upon the words of Jesus Christ is to build our faith upon a sure foundation, the principle is that any position must have a foundation and if that position is to stand it must have a solid foundation. So in this part of the article I will lay the foundation for my position of the historicity of the resurrection and then go on to make my argument for the resurrection itself. 1. The first thing that we need to establish in this foundation is that Jesus Christ really did exist. If there was no person named Jesus the Christ then any discussion of a resurrection is of no value. So in this part we will be looking at some evidences for the existence of Jesus Christ. a. Josephus writes about the death of James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Verse 1). b. Secular history provides evidence that Jesus really existed: “founder of Christianity, one of the world’s largest religions, and the incarnation of God according to most Christians. His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the “historical Jesus” difficult. The basic outlines of his career and message, however, can be characterized when considered in the context of 1st-century Judaism and, especially, Jewish eschatology. The history of Christian reflection on the teachings and nature of Jesus is examined in the article Christology” c. While some may argue that these entries could be biased they are no more biased than entries for the existence of Washington, Lincoln or any other character of history. All we have to rely on is the historical writings that others have left us. However, as stated in my definition of the proposition the word “historical” means: “1. Pertaining to history; as historic care or fidelity. 2. Contained in history; deduced from history; as historical evidence. 3. Representing history; as a historical chart; historical painting” (Webster’s Dictionary, Sword Searcher Bible Program). 2. The next part of the foundation that we wish to lay is that Jesus did actually die upon the cross. There are many theories about him not dying, but either faking death or being in a near death state. These theories have led to much speculation about him rolling away the stone on the resurrection morning and leaving the tomb and going away and marrying Mary Magdalene and leaving a blood line which has become a pet theory for men such as Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and Dan Brown The Da Vinci Code, and now probably the new movie Angels and Demons. All of these are based upon the false assumption that Jesus never died on the cross, but some how duped the world into thinking that he did. In this part we want to look at those theories and dispel them so as to establish the truth of the matter. a. According to Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln: “In the Gospels Jesus’s death occurs at a moment that is almost too convenient, too felicitously opportune. It occurs just in time to prevent his executioners breaking his legs. And by doing so, it permits him to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy. Modern authorities agree that Jesus, quite unabashedly, modelled and perhaps contrived his life in accordance with such prophecies, which heralded the coming of a Messiah. It was for this reason that an ass had to be procured from Bethany on which he could make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. And the details of the Crucifixion seem likewise engineered to enact the prophecies of the Old Testament .26 In short Jesus’s apparent and opportune demise’ which in the nick of time, saves him from certain death and enables him to fulfill a prophecy is, to say the least, suspect. It is too perfect, too precise to be coincidence. It must either be a later interpolation after the fact, or part of a carefully contrived plan. There is much additional evidence to suggest the latter. b. There are several problems with their theory only one of which is what was handed to Jesus to drink when he said “I thirst.” The scripture tells us “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth” (Joh 19:28-29). c. Now who was the “they” that filled the sponge with vinegar and what was the vinegar that they filled the sponge with? These are two questions that need to be answered. i. The soldiers were the only ones that would be allowed close enough to the prisoners to hand anyone anything at all and especially close enough to the drinks. They were charged with crucifying Christ not allowing him to live, and so they would have taken extra care not to allow anyone else to get near him. d. Now it is clear that if the Roman soldiers were drinking out of this vinegar that they were not going to allow someone to put something in it to dope Christ up, and they were not going to allow someone to get close enough with anything else to give him. No, the soldiers gave him the vinegar (the same stuff they had been drinking) and then he died. Why didn’t he resuscitate? Because his work here on earth was finished, he didn’t intend to live forever on the cross. He came to die on the cross and when it came time to die, he did. 3. The scriptures tell us that the centurion pierced Christ’s side with a spear and there came out blood and water “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water” (Joh 19:34). Doctors will tell you that the only way this could have happened is if the centurion had pierced Christ’s heart with his spear. When he did this all the blood that was left in the body was poured out, all the water that was left with the blood poured out. Christ died on the cross and the centurion’s spear made sure of it. Therefore the foundation is set: Christ died on the cross. He did not appear dead, nor was he in a near death state. His body was dead, his spirit had left the body and it had gone back to God. This was God’s plan; it was not an afterthought or an accident: “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and the foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:22,23). Now we can go on to look at historical evidences for the resurrection. My opponent wrote the following: “Tomorrow, Jerry McDonald is scheduled to post his opening statement affirming the debate resolution: It is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.He says he plans to use these type of arguments to show that this debate on the resurrection will not be like any debate on the resurrection that has ever been conducted. One of the things that I would like to point out is that he talks about “observed physical events,” as though that will be part of this debate. However, I would like to point out that this debate is not about our “observed physical events,” but it is about “historical” events. Observed physical events have nothing to do with this discussion anymore than “observed physical events” have to do with our historical writings of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or any other person of history that we have not observed. If my opponent is planning on dealing with what “we” can physically observe he will be proceeding on a false assumption; that this debate will be determined by what we can experience today. This debate is to be about historical evidence, not about our experience. Now, let us look at the main argument for the proposition. This is called the “constituent element” argument. This argument simply says that if all the parts are factual, then the whole will be true. Let us look at this argument at this time. The Argument Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true. Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual. Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true. This argument is valid because it is in a valid form and the conclusion automatically follows from the premise. However, validity alone does not make the argument true. In order for the argument to be true, it must also be sound. That is that minor premise must be true: “The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.” In other words, I must prove my minor premise in order to prove my argument and then prove my proposition. So, is my minor premise true? This is the question that we will be spending the rest of the debate looking at. Now let’s look at the historical evidence for the resurrection. There are three types of historical evidence that we shall notice in the course of this debate. ELEMENT NUMBER ONE: .Only By The Supernatural Power Of God Could Jesus Christ Have Been Raised From The Dead One thing that we need to establish is that if Christ was raised from the dead that it would take a supernatural act of a divine being so powerful so as to set aside the laws of nature. According to the laws of nature, after Christ had been crucified and buried, he should have stayed dead, but God intervened miraculously and set aside the laws of nature and raised Christ from he dead. There is simply no other way this could have happened. People don’t come back from the dead after such a death and being buried for two or three days. The only way that they could is for someone or something to set aside the laws of nature and intervene supernaturally. The laws of nature show us that once someone is dead that, naturally, that person will not come back to life. The laws of nature are (1) one is born, (2) one lives {for an indeterminate amount of time} and (3) one dies, and when this happens nature says that the person (or thing) stays dead. What is death? “Death is the end of life. Every living thing dies, but human beings are probably the only creatures that can imagine their own deaths” (http://www.worldbook.com/wb/article?...50700&st=death). “Resurrection, «REHZ uh REHK shuhn», is a religious belief that a dead person will return to life through the power of God” (http://www.worldbook.com/wb/article?...t=resurrection). Only through the power of God (an all powerful supernatural divine being) could someone who was truly dead be brought back from the dead. Peter said that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:22-24). It would have to have been by God’s ability to set the laws of nature aside and supercede them in order for Christ to have come back after actually dying. This is what I claim happened. ELEMENT NUMBER TWO: First I want to look at the World Book Encyclopedia online to show that it includes information about the resurrection of Christ:Secular History Includes Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ. “The Resurrection. Christians believe Jesus returned to life, which they call his Resurrection, and celebrate it on Easter Sunday. The New Testament Gospels and the Gospel of Peter tell how Mary Magdalene went to Jesus’s tomb on Sunday morning. She found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. Last edited by George Hathaway; June 24, 2009 at 06:48 AM. |
|
|
|
|
June 23, 2009, 01:50 PM
|
#5988000 / #3 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's First Affirmative Part 2
”Within a relatively short period of time, the disciples converted thousands of people to the new faith. The missionary activity of the apostle Paul helped to spread Christianity throughout the eastern Mediterranean area within 30 years after Jesus’s death. The spread of Christianity confronted the early Christians with the question of how Gentiles should be incorporated into the Christian church. Jesus himself had not clearly answered this question, probably because he interacted mainly with other Jews. When the early Christians converted Gentiles in large numbers, it became necessary to decide whether they needed to keep the Jewish law. The early Christians first disagreed about the answer. Finally, they decided that Gentiles could be members of the Christian church without keeping the Jewish law” Now while my opponent may argue that this alone does not give iron clad evidence that Christ rose from the dead, it does show that it is as much a part of secular history as the existence of George Washington, and the things that he did. My opponent will no doubt say that most of the references here are from the scriptures and he would be correct, but again this is considered a fact of history. Then the Encyclopedia Britannica also gives us information concerning the resurrection: The Resurrection of Christ, a central doctrine of Christianity, is based on the belief that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead on the third day after his Crucifixion and that through his conquering of death all believers will subsequently share in his victory over “sin, death, and the devil.” The celebration of this event, called Easter, or the Festival of the Resurrection, is the major feast day of the church. The accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus are found in the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and various theological expressions of the early church’s universal conviction and consensus that Christ rose from the dead are found throughout the rest of the New Testament, especially in the letters of the Apostle Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 15).Now this is handled in these encyclopedias as though it was a real historic event. My opponent may point to Santa Claus and argue that he, too, is found in the encyclopedia, and he would be correct. But when you look up Santa he is spoken of as a legend while Christ is spoken of as a real person. Notice: “Santa Claus is a legendary old man who brings gifts to children at Christmas. He has long been portrayed as a stout, bearded man in a red, fur-trimmed suit. The legend of Santa Claus is popular mainly in the United States.Christ, on the other hand, is considered a real person who lived a real life and was crucified and was raised from the dead: “Jesus Christ was one of the world’s most important religious leaders. The Christian religion was founded on his life and teachings. Most Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God who was sent to Earth to save humanity. Even many people who are not Christians view him as a great and wise teacher. Jesus was certainly one of the most influential people who ever lived”I have used up my allotted space for this affirmative, so I will have to end now. I will continue in my next article. I also invite you to read my opponent’s article. I ask you to pay special attention to how he handles my arguments and you will see who actually has the truth on this matter. If my opponent hedges around and doesn’t deal with my arguments you will know it is because he can’t deal with them. Last edited by George Hathaway; June 24, 2009 at 06:50 AM. |
|
|
|
|
June 25, 2009, 09:53 PM
|
#5991330 / #4 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
First Rebuttal: Part 1
Like Jerry McDonald, I begin with my expression of gratitude for the opportunity to debate a highly engaging and interesting topic that carries such deep significance in the minds of many believers, and especially to my opponent, both for agreeing to participate in this exchange and the courteous tone in which he has conducted himself throughout his opening statement. I am also grateful to George Hathaway for his role in setting up and moderating this debate.
Introductory Remarks on the Overall Argument The resolution, which McDonald has affirmed, raises two logically distinct questions: (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? An affirmative answer to (i) does not logically entail an affirmative answer to (ii), and conversely, an affirmative answer to (ii) does not logically entail an affirmative answer to (i); it could be the case that Jesus was raised from the dead but advanced extraterrestrials were causally responsible for the raising, or it could be that God would have been the causal agent responsible for the raising if Jesus was raised from the dead, but Jesus was not in fact raised. The way this topic has been traditionally debated by nontheists and skeptics is to argue for a negative answer to (i), that Jesus was probably not raised, while accepting – often even endorsing – an affirmative answer to (ii). However, in this debate, I will approach the resolution by giving a skeptical answer to (ii), specifically that even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we would still have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising. If McDonald cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), then the dialectical battle is over: it would be unnecessary for me to defend a negative answer to (i), something which many others have done. In other words, even if my opponent can successfully defend the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, if he cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), that it would have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising, then he will not have established what he has set out to prove: that it is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. He would have established, at most, the more modest claim that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, which is emphatically not the resolution under debate. Thus, my Overall Argument (henceforth OA) can be stated as follows: (1). If Jerry McDonald is unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate, then he will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution (henceforth DR) by the conclusion of this debate.As argued above, premise (1) is true and I assume my opponent concurs. Hence the only contentious, disputable proposition of OA is premise (2), which I intend to demonstrate by defending a skeptical answer to (ii). My skeptical answer will consist of two assertions, one modest claim and one bolder claim: respectfully, (M) even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we nevertheless have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising, and (B) if Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, natural explanations would be far more preferable than the supernatural one. I, of course, only need to give a successful defense of Claim M in order to prevent my opponent from successfully defending an affirmative answer to (ii)—this alone is sufficient to establish premise (2) of OA. However, since I believe I can go a step further, I will. A successful defense of Claim B is dialectically unnecessary but nevertheless effective at pounding home the point that premise (2) is true. McDonald will therefore have to successfully rebut my arguments for both claims in order to refute premise (2); if he cannot, then he would be forced to concede the soundness of OA, as well as the debate. McDonald’s Argument How, then, do I propose to demonstrate claim M and show that my opponent will be unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate? In what follows, I will attribute to McDonald a logically valid argument for an affirmative answer to (ii), one that he has to make (or something very similar), and challenge him to defend its soundness. If, by the completion of this debate, he is unable to successfully demonstrate the argument I attribute to him (or something very similar), then he will have successfully proven premise (2) of OA for me—his inability will be his downfall. So what does the structure of this argument look like, and is it a fair representation of what can be reasonably attributed to my opponent? In his opening statement, McDonald has already helpfully provided me with the argument I intended to attribute to him: One thing that we need to establish is that if Christ was raised from the dead that it would take a supernatural act of a divine being so powerful so as to set aside the laws of nature. According to the laws of nature, after Christ had been crucified and buried, he should have stayed dead, but God intervened miraculously and set aside the laws of nature and raised Christ from [t]he dead. There is simply no other way this could have happened.Apparently, my opponent and I are in complete agreement about what he needs to establish: that if Jesus was raised from the dead, the raising probably would have required a supernatural agent—i.e. God—to bring about the event. This conclusion follows, McDonald believes, because “there is simply no other way [e.g. via some natural process] this could have happened.” Hence we have something like the following: (1). Jesus probably couldn’t have risen naturally from the dead.As we probe deeper into the matter, we need to inquire why Jesus probably couldn’t have risen naturally from the dead. Again, my helpful opponent has provided an answer: Jesus should have stayed dead according to the laws of nature. Since the laws of nature probably rule out the possibility of Jesus rising naturally, then if Jesus was in fact raised, contrary to what the laws of nature probably allow, then it follows that Jesus probably couldn’t have risen naturally—and therefore he probably rose supernaturally. Although helpful, this particular way of expressing the argument that Jesus couldn’t have risen naturally—because the event is prohibited by the laws of nature—is not a precise as I would like. What is really being articulated here, and I’m confident my opponent will agree, is that if Jesus was in fact raised, there probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled him to rise naturally. For the only relevant difference between Jesus and the rest of humanity, one that could explain why Jesus would have been able to rise from the dead at all, is a supernatural one (i.e. intervention of a divine being). Implicit in my opponent’s argument, then, is what I call the No Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption (NRDA), which I state as follows: NRDA: There probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally.In contrast, there is what I call the Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption (RDA), which states: RDA: There probably could have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally.As I hope is now clear, McDonald’s argument is committed to affirming (NRDA)—or something very similar—and denying (RDA)—or something very similar. If he cannot maintain the former claim, then he cannot justifiably assert that Jesus probably couldn’t have risen naturally (and therefore probably rose supernaturally). If, on the other hand, he fails to prevent (RDA) from being established—a task I will later take up—then not only will he be unable to claim that Jesus probably couldn’t have risen naturally, he would also be forced to concede the contrary. McDonald’s Argument (henceforth MA) can now be given the following structure: (1). NRDA is true, and the rest of humanity can’t rise naturally from the dead.MA is surely valid, but is it sound? I hereby challenge my opponent to demonstrate MA’s soundness. Are there good reasons for supposing that if Jesus was raised, there probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled him to rise naturally? If so, what are they? I request McDonald to supply those reasons in his upcoming rebuttal. For now, I will attempt to anticipate an objection. Perhaps my opponent will argue that he can maintain (NRDA) without supporting arguments, at least initially, because the assumption should be presumed true until good reason is offered to abandon this presumption: in other words, the burden falls on me to show, via argumentation and evidence, why (NRDA) should not be maintained, and not on my opponent to show, via argumentation and evidence, why (NRDA) is true. The claim is therefore innocent until I cast suspicion over it. The same, however, does not hold in reverse for the skeptic regarding (RDA), the claim that there probably could have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity: it is suspicious until I can show otherwise. In what follows I will address these two issues in turn: 1. If Jesus was raised the dead, should (NRDA) be presumed true or should my opponent have to argue for it?, and 2. If Jesus was raised from the dead, should (RDA) be presumed true or should I have to argue for it? To the first question, I argue that my opponent bears the burden of argument, and to the second, I argue that I can initially presume (RDA) without argument. Argument 1: (NRDA) should not be presumed true without argument (P1). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should not assume these capability differences cannot be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we have strong reasons to suppose otherwise.Argument 1 (henceforth Arg1) does not purport to establish the falsity of (NRDA). If (C2) is true, it does not mean MA (McDonald’s Argument) is unsound, but that my opponent has some work to do in order to establish its soundness. If, however, he maintains he can presume the truth of (NRDA) without argument, then he will need to reject Arg1 by disputing (P1). But this move would be implausible: (P1) is extraordinarily well confirmed by induction, which is a principle my opponent implicitly acknowledges and accepts. The challenge to my opponent, if he wishes to deny (P1) without rejecting the principle of induction, is to supply a counter-example: inform me of an instance where we have observed biological entities with different capabilities and thought it justifiable to assume that those differences cannot be explained, even in part, in terms of relevant differences as expressed in (a) and (b), despite not having strong reasons to suppose there were no such differences. Stated another way, show me an instance where, in the absence of strong reasons for supposing there were no relevant differences—as expressed in (a) and (b)—between biological entities with different capabilities, it was nevertheless justifiable to assume that their capability differences are not explainable, even in part, in terms of relevant differences as expressed in (a) and (b). Given what we know about the world, it is highly doubtful that my opponent will be able to find a counter-example to (P1), and therefore highly doubtful that he will be able to reject the argument. Hence his only plausible option is to accept (C2) and supply strong reasons for supposing the truth of (NRDA). Argument 2: (RDA) should be presumed true without argument (P1'). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should assume these capability differences can probably be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we strong reasons to suppose otherwise.Argument 2 (henceforth Arg2) is a bit more threatening, because if my opponent is unable to reject (C2'), then premise (1) of MA is presumed false until very good reasons to abandon (RDA) are forthcoming. Like Arg1, the first premise is extraordinarily well confirmed by induction, and therefore, if McDonald wishes to reject Arg2 by denying (P1'), he will need to supply a counter-example. Specifically, he will need to show an instance where: it was not justifiable to assume that capability differences between two biological entities can probably be explained, even in part, in terms of relevant differences—as expressed in (a) and (b)—despite not having strong reasons to suppose that those differences probably don’t exist. Consider: Why are dogs, but not goats, able to bark? What explains why some people can run 26 miles without stopping but others can’t? How is it that some are able to remain suspended high in midair for hours at a time, often traveling at supersonic velocities, while others are unable to lift both feet even a few inches above concrete pavement? I’m sure my opponent realizes that the answers to these questions are articulated, at least in part, in terms of relevant differences expressed in (a) and (b), even if he himself does not know the exact details of those answers. I’m sure he realizes there are countless examples of capability differences between biological entities considered explainable, at least in part, in terms of relevant differences as expressed in (a) and (b), and also many instances where even when we are ignorant of the details of those differences, we nevertheless think unknown physiological and/or technological differences can probably explain those capability differences. The fact is: both (P1) and (P1') are inductively so well confirmed that they are part of our background knowledge—thus if McDonald wishes to reject conclusion (C2') of Arg2, he needs to provide strong reasons for rejecting (P1'). His best option is to accept (C2') and try to supply strong reasons for abandoning (RDA). More Arguments in Defense of Claim M What are some other ways of showing that my opponent will be hard pressed to establish premise (1) of argument MA, and thereby hard pressed to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), and thereby hard pressed to successfully deny premise (2) of OA? In this section I list two further arguments: the first falls in line with the previous task of demonstrating that McDonald will need to supply strong reasons for (NRDA), and the second attempts to cast doubt on the possibility of those strong reasons appearing by the conclusion of this debate. Argument 3 (1). Whenever we encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories, it would be premature to conclude that the phenomenon probably has a supernatural cause, unless we have strong reasons to suppose that it does.Argument 3 (henceforth Arg3) requires little by way of explanation since the meaning of the premises are rather straightforward. Obviously, the crucial claim is (1), and I’d be interested to know if my opponent disagrees with it: specifically, does he think it would not be premature to conclude—that is, it would be perfectly appropriate and justifiable to conclude—that if we were to encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, one we have not adequately study scientifically, that it probably has a supernatural cause, despite not having strong reasons for supposing that it does? In other words, could we ever encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, one we have not adequately study scientifically, such that, if we did not have strong reasons to suppose it has a supernatural cause, can nevertheless justifiably conclude that it does? It is hard to believe that any reasonable person could give an affirmative answer to this question. If, however, my opponent is in agreement that premise (1) is true, then he would be forced to concede the conclusion, and therefore forced to attempt to supply strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true. |
|
|
|
|
June 25, 2009, 09:53 PM
|
#5991331 / #5 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
First Rebuttal: Part 2
Argument 4
(1). We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science (henceforth C), then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]A stated above, Argument 4 (henceforth Arg4) purports to cast doubt on the possibility of my opponent being able to provide strong reasons for supposing that (NRDA) is true. Although Arg4 is a bit abstract, it bears directly on the question at issue: i.e. if Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? My opponent wants to claim that the event of Jesus being raised from the dead could have occurred only if God raised him, because “there is simply no other way this could have happened.” This assertion is either true or false, but thus far, my opponent has offered no argument to support it. How does he know “there is simply no other way this could have happened?” How does he know the event of Jesus being raised from the dead couldn’t have been accomplished via some natural process? My opponent seems to have glossed over a distinction made explicit in premise (1) above: the distinction between an event—in this case, Jesus being raised from the dead—that is inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science, and an event that is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by all possible future science (e.g. the state of science 800,000 + years from now). If the event is naturally impossible, as McDonald believes, then it must also be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by all possible future science (e.g. the state of science 800,000 + years from now). But how does he purport to claim to know[2] that no possible future science will be able render the event naturally possible? When we’re talking about how our descendants might understand the inner workings of the physical world in the far distant future, that is, what they will consider naturally possible or impossible, we have very little basis from which to make a confident inductive assertion. Perhaps 800,000 + years from now, or longer, they will discover a natural mechanism that will enable someone to be raised from the dead after three days. Or perhaps they will encounter highly advanced extraterrestrials who already have this knowledge. The point is: on what basis does my opponent rule out these possibilities as being very improbable? If he cannot supply a good answer to this question, then he will be unable to reject the first premise of Arg4, and therefore unable to reject the conclusion. Either he can rule out those possibilities given what science so far says, or he cannot. If the former route is attempted, then the inference will be inductively weak, for he cannot reasonably claim to know what will be considered naturally impossible thousands or millions of years from now on the basis of very limited data. If he cannot rule out those possibilities on the basis of what science so far says, then he has no objection to premise (1), but must accept it as true. I look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say on these matters. Arguments in Defense of Claim B Thus far, the arguments above have mostly been deployed in defense of Claim M, the claim that even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we nevertheless have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising. I now turn to the bolder claim, Claim B, and offer two arguments in its defense. The first one is nothing new, for it merely provides an explicit structure to an argument previously considered. Because of reasons of space, and because the argument is self-explanatory and should now be familiar, I will not provide any commentary on it but proceed directly to the second argument. I simply ask that my opponent will address it head on in his rebuttal. Argument 5 (henceforth Arg5) (1). If Arg2 is sound, and if there are no strong reasons for supposing RDA to be false, then we should assume that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could have risen naturally.The next, and final, argument argues directly for Claim B by comparing the supernatural hypothesis to a particular naturalistic hypothesis, and concludes that the latter is far preferable even on the assumption that Jesus was raised from the dead. Specifically, I compare the supernatural hypothesis (DBH) to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), which states that Jesus was either an advanced extraterrestrial and/or had help from advanced extraterrestrials. If Jesus was raised from the dead as allegedly observed by the eyewitnesses, it is far preferable, I claim, to believe he was raised via advanced technology and/or a highly unique, yet natural physiology, than by God. My opponent has quoted a version of the argument below in his opening statement, but has made no attempt to attack its soundness. I request that in his subsequent rebuttals, he will confine his remarks to the version below and attempt to attack its soundness. Argument 6 (henceforth Arg6) (1). If H1 and H2 can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain, and H1 is not initially less probable than H2, or only slightly less so, then, if H1 makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than H2, H1 is preferable to H2.The phenomenon of Jesus being raised from the dead, if it really occurred as allegedly observed by the eyewitnesses, naturally raises the question: how did it occur? Who or what could have caused the event to happen? I think it is safe to grant, at the outset, both the mere possibility that advanced ETs and God could have raised Jesus from the dead, and also generous to grant, at the outset, that DBH—the hypothesis that Jesus was a divine being who was raised by God—is not initially less probable than ETH—the hypothesis that Jesus was a natural entity who was raised by advanced ETs. Hence ETH is not, initially, more preferable than DBH. I hope my generosity is reciprocated, and that my opponent will grant premise (2) without further argument. The crux of the matter, then, comes down to premise (3). Does ETH make enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than DBH to explain the observed physical events (i.e. Jesus being raised, post-mortem appearances)? If it does, then premise (3) is true and my opponent will have no way of escaping conclusion (4) without (successfully) rejecting a different premise. I claim DBH makes enormously more unnecessary causal assumptions in at least two ways: first, those involved in helping Jesus (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events, and second, Jesus himself, according to DBH, has more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events. I begin with the second way first. According to DBH, after Jesus was raised from the dead, he acquired a body with the following properties: he was (a) no longer able to die; (b) no longer able to get injured; (c) no longer able to get sick; (d) no longer able to age; and (e) able to teleport at will without regard to spatial distances. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has written: “Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural. In this new mode of existence he was not bound by the physical limitations of this existence, but possessed superhuman powers." (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15) But there is, of course, no good evidence whatsoever that Jesus possessed an immortal and indestructible body. Without begging the question, why does my opponent think Jesus was able to withstand the blast force of billions of nuclear bombs completely unscathed, materialize instantaneously – via mere thought – on a planet in a distant galaxy, manipulate dark energy, or inhale highly toxic chemicals without being adversely affected in any way? Why must we make these causal assumptions about Jesus in order to account for the observed physical events? According to ETH, we don’t: the properties (a)-(e) attributed to Jesus on DBH do not need to be true of Jesus in order to account for the observed physical events. Jesus could have been raised from the dead, made his postmortem appearances, without possessing an immortal and indestructible body. Why not? If this is right, that Jesus did not need to possess such a body in order for the allegedly observed physical events to have occurred, then it follows that ETH makes enormously fewer causal assumptions—that is, infinitely fewer—than DBH to explain those same events. The same holds true when we consider those involved in assisting Jesus with his activities: God and angels vs. advanced ETs. Why is it necessary to assume that the causal agent responsible for Jesus being raised was omnipotent? Why does my opponent think non-omnipotent beings couldn't have accomplished the same task? If they could have, then if those purported to be helping Jesus according to DBH (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events, then it follows that ETH makes enormously fewer causal assumptions than necessary in the first respect as well. Hence I conclude premise (3) of Arg6 is true and that the overall argument is sound. Concluding Remarks I have, in this rebuttal, framed my Overall Argument (OA) in a way that requires my opponent to refute the second premise, specifically by successfully defending an affirmative answer to (ii). Several arguments were given proving to be obstacles in this regard. If my opponent fails to successfully address them throughout this debate, then by its completion the following fact will be inescapable: Jerry McDonald will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution. [1] See long version if the condensed argument is too confusing to read: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...nknowable.html. [2] I am not requiring absolute certainty here. Charitable readers will interpret my demands in probabilistic terms. |
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2009, 11:51 PM
|
#6000849 / #6 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Second Affirmative (Part 1)
McDonald’s Second Affirmative Mr. Lo begins his rebuttal of the proposition with a denial of God (or a supernatural process) being the cause for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. There are some things that we need to notice that are of importance: 1. Mr. Lo does not deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ, thus he grants, at least, the possibility that it did happen. a. Either Christ was raised by the supernatural powers of God, or Occam’s Razor, “a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...am%27s%20Razor), is a rule that we need to look at regarding Spencer’s position. WHICH POSITION IS MORE LIKELY TO BE THE TRUE POSITION? 1. God, as a supernatural entity (able to set aside the laws of nature), supernaturally raised Christ from the dead, or This is the long and the short of Spencer’s argument. He gives us a long dissertation about how we don’t know what scientists may find 800,000 + years in the future and what they may not find. First he assumes that this planet will be in existence 800,000 years from now, and his second assumption is that if it is that there will be any scientists on the planet to find anything. For all he knows, in 800,000 years this planet will be as barren as the moon (if it still exists at all). In his book Biology for the 21st Century and the Life Science Prize Tested Devolution, Evolution, and Genesis, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:a. either he was a superhuman and raised himself, or “An old Earth is the opposite of what evolution needs. Evolutionists would like to say the Earth is old to provide ample time for evolution to work. We know this is a topsy-turvy desire because time yields devolution, the exact opposite of evolution. Given an old age, the biosphere would have devolved to extinction and the earth would be as barren as the moon” (p. 14).Now looking at what Dr. Mastropaolo writes here and when we look at the rate that this planet has decayed over the last 6 to 7 thousand years we can see that there most likely won’t be a planet here in the time that Spencer speaks about. So his argument is really moot. However, for the sake of argument let’s grant his 800,000 + years. Are the laws of nature going to change? Dead is still dead, is it not? You would still have to have a supernatural force to set the laws of nature aside in order to raise someone from the dead. When we look at the fact that Christ was not just dead, but had been dead and buried the matter takes on a whole new argument. One of the things we need to consider when we look at the possibility of Christ being raised naturally is that Christ’s body was prepared for burial: “And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid” (Joh 19:38-41).Now while they didn’t prepare the body for mummification and they didn’t have our modern day embalming procedures, they did prepare the body for burial. They washed the body, and covered it with myrrh and aloes and then wrapped the body in linens. With the body being dead, being prepared for burial by being covered with myrrh and aloes and wrapped in grave clothes, there is no way that he could have come back by natural means. Mr. Lo surmises that because Christ was different from the rest of humanity that this would mean that he was able to naturally resurrect himself. (1) Christ was God in the flesh (Col. 2:9), (2) He could have resurrected himself, but in order to do this he would have had to do this “supernaturally.” He could not do this by means of natural law. Some have argued that if God exists as the Bible states that he could do anything, but what they don’t understand that God cannot do those things that are impossible. For example God cannot make a ball that is black all over and white all over all at once at the same time because such is impossible. The ball could be black and white, or it could be grey, or some shade thereof, but it could not be both colors at the same time all over. God could not naturally set aside the laws of nature and raise the dead. The only way to set aside the laws of nature would be to supernaturally set them aside and raise the dead. Now which makes more sense? Does it make more sense that Christ was raised from the dead by a supernatural being (God) who was able to set aside the laws of nature by supernatural means, or does it make more sense that Christ was raised from the dead by a natural being who was able to set aside the laws of nature by natural means? I think, according to Occam’s Razor, even my opponent would have to agree that position number one “Christ was raised from the dead by a supernatural being (God) who was able to set aside the laws of nature by supernatural means” makes more sense and is the most likely answer. When you take into consideration that Christ’s body had been prepared for burial and had been in the tomb from Friday evening until Sunday morning (which included having had his body covered with myrrh and aloes, and wrapped in linens) there is no way that his body was going to come back through natural means. Using Occam’s Razor my opponent’s position fails because it stands against logic, and yes, even reason and science. My position, on the other hand, stands with logic, reason and science. It is logical and reasonable to believe that a supernatural being (God) can set aside the laws of nature (especially since he made them) to bring about his will. This would not violate any known scientific law. However my opponent’s position would violate scientific law because it would have natural means setting aside natural law to naturally raise someone from the dead three days after he had died and had been embalmed and buried (entombed). So, where does all this leave Mr. Lo? It leaves him with no position at all! I would think that science would agree that it would take a supernatural force to set aside the laws of nature and raise the dead. We are, after all, talking about reality not sci-fi, and we are not talking about cryogenically freezing people and then thawing them out. We are talking about someone who died on a cross close to 2,000 years ago, having had his heart pierced with a soldier’s spear, was taken down and was covered in myrrh and aloes, and was bound in grave clothing and was entombed for more than 24 hours. He was dead and was not going to come back to life by any natural means. The only way that he could have come back to life would have come back to life by some supernatural power. Mr. Lo brings up what might be found in 800,000 + years, but the fact is the proposition does not have anything to do with the future or even the present. It has to do with “historical facts.” What were the historical facts concerning the resurrection in the first century? Since Christ was God in the flesh (Col. 2:9; Jno. 1:1-3,14) even if he had raised himself, he would have done it supernaturally because as we have already stated there is no way even for God to naturally set aside natural laws and raise the dead naturally. The only way to set aside natural law is to supercede natural law and the only way to be able to do that is to be above natural law, in other words “super” natural. That is the only way it could have been done. Now let’s go through and look at his arguments in turn: Argument 1: (NRDA) should not be presumed true without argumentThe argument is based upon the idea that I would argue that my position should be considered true until he presents evidence showing it to be false; in other words the burden of proof falls upon him to present evidence that the proposition is false. This is actually a fallacy of logic called Ad Ignorantiam: “The argument ad ignorantiam (from ignorance) is the mistake that is committed when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true” (Introduction to Logic, p. 139).I am in the affirmative in this debate and it is my obligation to present affirmative arguments to support my proposition, this I have already done. Mr. Lo’s first argument is no part of my strategy or position. I am not going to sit back and say that it is Mr. Lo’s obligation to prove that there was or wasn’t physiological differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity. Of course there were differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity. Jesus was human, but he also the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). He was the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). My position is that I am to present arguments that Christ was fully man, and that he was fully God (how that was possible, I do not pretend to understand), but that when he died on the cross he was raised by the power of the Father (Acts 2:22-24). I have already presented two elements of my argument (1) that Christ was indeed raised by the supernatural power of God, and (2) that secular history gives evidence for this resurrection. The first element is where Mr. Lo seems to have the problem. However, he did not deal with anything that I said, so I will repeat my statements: We looked at the meaning of death and saw that it meant the end of life. We looked at the meaning of the word “resurrection” and saw that it was a religious belief that a dead person returns to life through the power of God. When one dies, that is natural. If that person is resurrected, that is not natural it is something that is beyond nature. It is something that would have to have the laws of nature set aside. You couldn’t naturally set aside the laws of nature. Let’s look at this in argument form: Major Premise: If you cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature, then you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead. Minor Premise: You cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature. Conclusion: Therefore you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead. Now surely my opponent won’t disagree with the validity or the soundness of that argument. How can someone naturally set aside the laws of nature? Can one, through natural means, stop gravity from being gravity? No! You would have to have to be able to overpower (or supercede) the law of gravity in order to do that. If you just tried to do it naturally gravity would win every time. If you tried to raise the dead through natural means, the dead would stay dead. You could put all the drugs you wanted into a dead body and do whatever you wanted to (one that had been embalmed and buried) and all you would get would be a dead body that you had filled with drugs. The only way that you could raise that dead body would be if you had supernatural powers (i.e, the ability to supercede the laws of nature) and bring the body back to life (i.e, restore life to that body), but that would not be natural. I hope that Mr. Lo will deal with my argument on this in his second rebuttal. One other item before I move on Mr. Lo wrote “I request McDonald to supply those reasons in his upcoming rebuttal.” I am sure that this was just a mistake and he meant to put “his upcoming affirmative,” but there are those who are reading this debate who need to know that I am not in the negative. I have no rebuttal to present as I am to affirm and defend. Mr. Lo is to rebut, he is to deny, negate and oppose. It is his job to follow me point by point, argument by argument and deal with what I have written, not the other way around. I just wanted to clear that up. Argument 2: (RDA) should be presumed true without argumentHere we have the opposite of argument number one. Again it is based on Ad Ignorantiam because it assumes that the argument is false unless I present good evidence to support it. The argument is valid, and it is a sound argument. I may not be apt to give the evidence to support the argument, but that does not mean that no one has the evidence. Now my opponent may legitimately say “I will not believe it unless McDonald gives me good evidence to support the argument,” but to say that the argument is false until and unless I give good evidence to support it is a fallacy of logic and one that is easily detectible and easily answered. Why do dogs bark and not goats? It is in their DNA, they are made that way, that’s why! Why can some people run for 26 miles and others can’t? There are many reasons for that. My brother-in-law runs in marathons every year, he is a couple of years older than I am. He has good lungs and a good heart. I have bad lungs and a bad heart. I smoked for 10 years and I had cancer, and pcp pneumonia and was on life support for 21 days, and now I am on manufactured oxygen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I do good to walk from my house to the church building. Darrell has never smoked in his life. There are many reasons he can do such things and I can’t. What is so wonderful about that? “How is it that some are able to remain suspended high in midair for hours at a time, often traveling at supersonic velocities, while others are unable to lift both feet even a few inches above concrete pavement?” Until I know what you are talking about I cannot logically answer the above. I don’t know of any human who can run at supersonic speed. I don’t know any human who can be suspended in mid air even for a moment. I don’t know anyone who can suspend himself from the pavement even an inch. If you know of such a case, please enlighten me. The only way that I know that someone could travel at supersonic speed is to be in an aircraft that travels at supersonic speed. The only way I know that anyone could be suspended is to be suspended by some sort of contraption of wires and belts to hold him. If you know of any other way, then please enlighten us and I will do my best to answer, otherwise I will have to say that it would take a supernatural power to do that. Argument 3Argument number three is false as it is based on the very thing I have been discussing throughout this affirmative. You cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature. The laws of nature say that when death occurs, and especially when the body has been embalmed (prepared for burial) and buried, you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force. You would need a force that is so powerful that it would supercede the laws of nature; set them aside and force life back into that body. When you do that you would have a supernatural force. Man does not have that capability presently, and never has had. In Mr. Lo’s hopeful 800,000 + year future he thinks that maybe we will discover a gene that will allow us to naturally do this. How can we discover a gene that will allow us to naturally set aside the laws of nature? When the body dies, the genes die with it, and when it is embalmed the genes are worthless. The DNA and tissue are no good, which is why when someone is a donor dies all the organs are harvested immediately and transplanted as soon as possible because you only have a certain amount of time before the tissue becomes worthless. Now there are some things, like bones, that can be frozen and used later, but even they have an expiration. However, if they are not harvested immediately, they are worthless. So, how do we explain Christ, after being prepared for burial, being covered with myrrh and aloes, wrapped in grave clothing, placed in a tomb and having the tomb sealed from Friday evening until Sunday morning, coming back to life by any natural means? Will Mr. Lo attempt to say that the angels were really extraterrestrials from an alien planet? To take Occam’s Razor to this again, it would make more sense to say that Christ was resurrected by the power of the Father. Argument 4Finally we get to his final argument (where he first introduced the 800,000 + year earth) which in his mind shows that if it could happen in 800,000 + years then it could have happened 2,000 years ago. (1) 2,000 years ago they didn’t even have the technology that we have today, and (2) if we continue to advance technologically and continue to exist in 800,000 + years we will have technology then that we don’t have today. So the argument is like comparing apples to oranges. The only way that you would be able to do this in the distant future would be with some technological devise that no one in the first century had, something we don’t even have today. However, as I have already stated, you cannot naturally do this even then. If you do this with a technological device you are using something to set aside the laws of nature, something that is stronger than the laws of nature, something that is superior to the laws of nature; therefore supernatural. So no matter how he wants to slice it, it still comes up “Supernatural.” I call it “God,” he can call it whatever he likes. The whole issue centers around whether or not the laws of nature can be set aside naturally or not in order to raise the dead. I say that such is impossible and that such will always be impossible, whether it is next year or 800,000 + years from now. How can one naturally set aside the laws of nature? |
|
|
|
|
July 2, 2009, 11:58 PM
|
#6000858 / #7 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Second Affirmative (Part 2)
My opponent can surmise all he wants, but he is going to have to do more than just say “what if” in order to rebut the proposition. I am the one who is in the affirmative, and as such it is my obligation to make affirmative arguments in favor of my proposition and to defend those arguments. It then becomes Mr. Lo’s responsibility to rebut the arguments that I have made, and then if he has the space he can make negative arguments. However, Mr. Lo has put the cart before the horse (so to speak) and has made negative arguments and has ignored the arguments that I have made in favor of my proposition. Although he has presented a well written article he has ignored his obligation thus far in the debate.
Now he needs to go back and answer my first affirmative and when he is done with that he will have more arguments to answer because I am going to be making further affirmative arguments in favor of my proposition. ELEMENT NUMBER THREE Biblical History Gives Information About God Raising Jesus From The Dead On the day of Pentecost Peter spoke these words to the Jews: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Act 2:22-24).Peter told those people that they had taken Christ and had crucified him and that God had raised him up from the dead. Paul also made this statement to the church in Rome: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:1-4).The Bible is not vague about how Christ was raised. Christ was raised by God, by the glory of the Father. Now Mr. Lo may argue that the Bible is not history, but it is. These epistles, if they are nothing else, they are historical documents that have survived time. It is my firm conviction that they are inspired by God, but even if they aren’t they are historical documents and they do record information about the resurrection of Christ and they take the position that God raised Jesus up. CLOSING REMARKS I do appreciate my opponent’s first rebuttal and the way in which he has conducted himself thus far. I hope that this will be a fruitful discussion and that we can both learn from it. However, I do want him to consider Occam’s Razor as he takes pen in hand (so to speak) to write his second. In Christ Jesus Jerry McDonal |
|
|
|
|
July 4, 2009, 04:37 PM
|
#6002841 / #8 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Second Rebuttal: Part 1
As noted in my first rebuttal, the debate resolution raises two logically distinct questions: (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? If my opponent Jerry McDonald cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to both questions, then he cannot successfully defend the affirmative position of the debate resolution. For suppose he were able to successfully establish the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, but not the claim that it was God who raised him. He would then be unsuccessful in demonstrating what he has intended to prove: that it is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. Thus for my opponent, it is essential that he successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate. I turn once again to the Overall Argument (OA):
(1). If Jerry McDonald is unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate, then he will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution (henceforth DR) by the conclusion of this debate.McDonald has disputed neither the validity of OA nor the truth of premise (1). He has, however, disputed the truth of premise (2) and attempted to argue for its falsity while addressing (some, not all) my arguments. In this rebuttal, I show why premise (2) stands unrefuted, and why the thrust my arguments remain unaddressed. McDonald’s Argument, Claims M and B Revisited Previously, I attributed to my opponent a logically valid argument for an affirmative answer to (ii), one he has to make (or something very similar), and challenged him to defend its soundness. That argument relies on a crucial assumption that is at the heart of this debate, which I called the No Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption (NRDA): NRDA: There probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally.In contrast, there is what I call the Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption (RDA), which states: RDA: There probably could have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally.An affirmative answer to (ii) presupposes the truth of (NRDA) and the falsity of (RDA), and therefore a successful defense of an affirmative answer to (ii) will necessarily consist of a successful defense of (NRDA)—or something very similar. If my opponent cannot establish the claim that there probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity, differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally, then he certainly cannot establish his conclusion: that Jesus probably couldn’t have risen naturally, and therefore probably rose supernaturally. Hence, my opponent is committed to the following argument (or something very similar): (1). NRDA is true, and the rest of humanity can’t rise naturally from the dead.Can my opponent establish the soundness of McDonald’s Argument by defending the truth of (NRDA)? Has he been able to successfully defend the truth of (NRDA)? I have attempted to defend a skeptical answer to (ii) in order to establish premise (2) of OA. The answer I defended consists of two assertions, one modest claim and one bolder claim, or claims M and B: (M) even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we nevertheless have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising, and (B) if Jesus was raised, natural explanations would be far more preferable than the supernatural one. In other words, Claim M asserts we have no good reason for supposing the truth of (NRDA), whereas Claim B asserts not only the absence of any good reason for supposing the truth of (NRDA), but also asserts the truth of (RDA). By defending both claims, my opponent is forced to rebut several arguments which threaten his position. I have constructed a total of six arguments, three in defense of Claim M, two in defense of Claim B (two overlap), and as readers will observe in this second rebuttal, none have been rebutted, though some were conceded. I turn first to the three arguments in defense of Claim M and examine my opponent’s responses to them, and next to the arguments in defense of Claim B. Arguments in Defense of Claim M Argument 1 (conceded)(P1). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should not assume these capability differences cannot be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we have strong reasons to suppose otherwise.My opponent has challenged neither the validity of Arg1 nor the truth of its premises. Hence I must assume he accepts the soundness of Arg1 and thus its conclusion: that (NRDA) should not be presumed true unless we have strong reasons for affirming (NRDA). Does he, then, have reasons for affirming (NRDA)? If so, what are those reasons and are they compelling? These questions arise again when we consider the next argument: Argument 3 (conceded) (1). Whenever we encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories, it would be premature to conclude that the phenomenon probably has a supernatural cause, unless we have strong reasons to suppose that it does.This argument also attempts to establish the same basic claim made in Arg1, but has not been properly disputed: nowhere in his second affirmative does my opponent challenge the validity or soundness of Arg3. Does he dispute either premise (1) or premise (2)? If so, he gave no indication he disputed them; and if they are conceded, conclusions (3) and (4) follow logically and inescapably. I thus assume McDonald accepts the soundness of Arg3 and therefore its conclusion: that it would be premature to conclude (NRDA) is true unless we have strong reasons to suppose that it is true. Has my opponent supplied such reasons in his second affirmative? I directly take up this question when considering Arg4. It should be noted at the outset, however, that the soundness of arguments Arg1 and Arg3 have been conceded, or at least not disputed. Argument 1 + Argument 3 (Arg1+3) (1). If either Arg1 or Arg3 are sound, then if Jerry McDonald is unable to supply strong reasons by the completion of this debate for supposing NRDA to be true, then he will not be able to establish by the completion of this debate that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could not have risen naturally.This argument is not a new argument in defense of Claim M, but one which makes explicit the implications of Arg1 and Arg3. If the soundness of both Arg1 and Arg3 are conceded, then the only way my opponent can escape conceding conclusion (5), and therefore the debate, is to provide strong reasons for supposing NRDA to be true. He must, in other words, demonstrate the falsity of premise (4) of Arg1+3. I look forward to see what he does. Argument 4 (1). We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science (henceforth C), then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]Although written in highly abstract language, Arg4 bears directly on the event in question—the event of Jesus rising from the dead. Consider McDonald’s claim that the raising of Jesus would have been naturally impossible. Why does he think this? Specifically, why does he think the (actual) laws of nature would have prohibited Jesus from rising naturally from the dead? He offers plenty of bare assertions: According to the laws of nature, after Christ had been crucified and buried, he should have stayed dead...The laws of nature show us that once someone is dead that, naturally, that person will not come back to life… He could not do this [rise from the dead] by means of natural law... there is no way that his body was going to come back through natural means…The only way that he could have come back to life would have [been to] come back to life by some supernatural power…Only through the power of God (an all powerful supernatural divine being) could someone who was truly dead be brought back from the dead…The only way that you could raise that dead body would be if you had supernatural powers. (emphasis added)One must ask: In his second affirmative, has McDonald given any good reason for thinking these assertions are more than just bare assertions? No, he has not. Nothing my opponent wrote challenges either the validity or premises of Arg4. He simply asserts—many many times—the negation of conclusion (4), that if Jesus was raised from the dead, the event would have been a naturally impossible one, but offers no argument whatsoever for this claim. Furthermore, he misconstrues the alternatives when he writes: Does it make more sense that Christ was raised from the dead by a supernatural being (God) who was able to set aside the laws of nature by supernatural means, or does it make more sense that Christ was raised from the dead by a natural being who was able to set aside the laws of nature by natural means?The “natural” alternative, however, does not assert the possibility of Jesus being raised naturally by an entity who naturally “sets aside” the laws of nature! This possibility is incoherent, and not at all what I’ve been considering. Hence I reject the first premise of his argument: P1. If you cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature, then you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead.(P1) assumes that the only way to “naturally raise someone from the dead” is to “naturally set aside the laws of nature,” which is of course incoherent. If Jesus were raised naturally, his raising would be perfectly consistent with the laws of nature—no need to “set aside” the laws of nature—in the same way that “defying” gravity via jetpack is perfectly consistent with the laws of gravity. Thus, if the laws of nature truly prohibit Jesus from rising naturally from the dead, then Jesus couldn’t have risen naturally. Period. My opponent (falsely) construes me to be saying: “the laws of nature prohibit Jesus from rising naturally, but he could have risen naturally anyway, specifically by naturally ‘setting aside’ those laws.” Again, this is not my position. Instead, my position is: “we have no good reason to think the laws of nature really prohibit Jesus from rising naturally, and therefore we have no good reason to think Jesus couldn’t have risen naturally.” I also noted in my previous rebuttal an important distinction expressed in premise (1): the distinction between an event—in this case, Jesus being raised from the dead—that is inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science, and an event that is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by all possible future science (e.g. the state of science 800,000 + years from now). The fact that something is inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science doesn’t mean it will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by all possible future science. After all, as we know from the history of science, many things we now consider possible were once considered—by prominent scientists, no less—to be scientifically impossible[2], and thus the mere impossibility of any event relative to any particular scientific paradigm is no guarantee that it is impossible relative to some other scientific paradigm, and thus no guarantee that it is impossible per se – i.e. impossible according to the actual laws of nature. If McDonald wants to claim Jesus “could not” have been raised from the dead “by means of natural law,” then he must demonstrate that that phenomenon is inconsistent not only with the physical laws as understood by current science, but also probably inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by all possible future science (e.g. the state of science 800,000 + years from now). In my first rebuttal, I challenged my opponent’s ability to demonstrate this claim. I asked: How does he purport to claim to know[3] that no possible future science will be able render the event naturally possible? Perhaps 800,000 + years from now, or longer, not only will our descendants discover a natural mechanism that would enable someone to be raised after three days, but also discover a scientific explanation for how Jesus, 2,000 years ago,could have risen naturally. Perhaps they will encounter advanced extraterrestrials who already have this knowledge. On what basis does my opponent rule out these possibilities? Because McDonald has not supplied any satisfactory answers to these questions, he therefore has supplied no satisfactory reasons for rejecting premise (1) of Arg4, or any other premise of the argument. [1] See long version if the condensed argument is too confusing to read: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...nknowable.html. [2] See Michio Kaku’s Physics of the Impossible, pgs XI-XVIII. [3] I am not requiring absolute certainty here. Charitable readers will interpret my demands in probabilistic terms. |
|
|
|
|
July 4, 2009, 04:37 PM
|
#6002842 / #9 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Second Rebuttal: Part 2
Objections and Misunderstandings
McDonald writes: Are the laws of nature going to change? Dead is still dead, is it not? You would still have to have a supernatural force to set the laws of nature aside in order to raise someone from the dead…God could not naturally set aside the laws of nature and raise the dead. The only way to set aside the laws of nature would be to supernaturally set them aside and raise the dead…[M]y opponent’s position would violate scientific law because it would have natural means setting aside natural law to naturally raise someone from the dead… You cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature…How can discover a gene that will allow us to naturally set aside the laws of nature? If you do this with a technological device you are using something to set aside the laws of nature, something that is stronger than the laws of nature, something that is superior to the laws of nature… The whole issue centers around whether or not the laws of nature can be set aside naturally or not in order to raise the dead… How can one naturally set aside the laws of nature?I again address this confused position because it apparently forms a large part of my opponent’s response. His assumption is simply incorrect: no one in this debate is asserting even the mere possibility that Jesus, or anyone, was able to naturally accomplish – either via advanced technology or by some other means – what is naturally impossible. The issue is not “whether or not the laws of nature can be set aside naturally,” but “whether or not the event of Jesus being raised from the dead (assuming it occurred) violates the laws of nature.” My opponent should reflect on the following: if a person’s body shoots up 50 feet in the air with the aid of a portable jetpack[1], does this action “violate” or “defy” the law of gravity? Would he say the technological device was used to naturally “set aside” the law of gravity? Surely not, I hope! Similarly, then, when considering the possibility of Jesus being raised naturally, I am not considering the possibility of Jesus being raised naturally by accomplishing what’s already naturally impossible. I am, instead, considering the possibility that the raising of Jesus is within the realm of what’s already naturally possible. I hope my opponent will acknowledge this distinction and his error in his next affirmative. McDonald writes: Finally we get to his final argument (where he first introduced the 800,000 + year earth) which in his mind shows that if it could happen in 800,000 + years then it could have happened 2,000 years ago. (1) 2,000 years ago they didn’t even have the technology that we have today, and (2) if we continue to advance technologically and continue to exist in 800,000 + years we will have technology then that we don’t have today. So the argument is like comparing apples to oranges. The only way that you would be able to do this in the distant future would be with some technological devise that no one in the first century had, something we don’t even have today.My opponent is confused as to the purport of Arg4. The conclusion denies that if an event occurs which is inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science, we can justifiably claim it is naturally impossible. Thus, just because the phenomenon of Jesus rising from the dead is inconsistent with current science, that doesn’t mean the phenomenon is inconsistent with the laws of nature. If Arg4 is sound, we cannot justifiably claim the raising of Jesus from the dead would have been naturally impossible, even if the event contradicts current science, and thus cannot justifiably claim (NRDA) to be true. Moreover, nothing in my argument suggests that because something is possible 800,000 + years from now, it therefore would have been possible 2,000 years ago. I am certainly not committed to this view, as my opponent falsely believes. As stated above, perhaps our descendants in 800,000 + years will discover a scientific explanation for how Jesus, 2,000 years ago,could have risen naturally. Or maybe they will discover evidence supporting the extraterrestrial hypothesis. These possibilities were dismissed without argument. Why? It is also important to note that it makes absolutely no difference if human beings won’t actually exist in 800,000 + years. For my argument is not about what scientists will in fact discover in the distant future, but about what they could or could not discover to be naturally possible if given the means and opportunity. The purport of Arg4 might be clearer if the argument were slightly restated. Argument 4 (restated) (1). We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if the event of Jesus being raised from the dead were inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science (henceforth C), then that event will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]I hope my opponent will indicate in his next affirmative the premises he wishes to dispute, and his reasons for disputing them. If he cannot successfully challenge the conclusion of Arg4, then he cannot establish (NRDA), and hence the soundness of McDonald’s Argument. Arguments in Defense of Claim B (P1'). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should assume these capability differences can probably be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we strong reasons to suppose otherwise.My opponent wrote about Arg2 that it “is valid, and it is a sound argument.” Thus, if McDonald thinks my argument is sound, then he must think the conclusion is true: that (RDA) should be presumed true until we have strong reasons for abandoning this presumption. It is therefore puzzling that he goes on to say the argument commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, and specifically: Now my opponent may legitimately say “I will not believe it unless McDonald gives me good evidence to support the argument,” but to say that the argument is false until and unless I give good evidence to support it is a fallacy of logic and one that is easily detectible and easily answered.McDonald misunderstands. First, Arg2 is not declaring that (RDA) is in fact true—and therefore (NRDA) is false—until or unless we have strong reasons for abandoning (RDA), which is strictly speaking impossible. If proposition P at t1 is in fact true, it would be impossible to uncover evidence at t2 that P at t1 is false. Instead, Arg2 is declaring that (RDA) should be presumed or believed to be true—and therefore (NRDA) should be presumed or believed to be true—until or unless we have strong reasons for abandoning this presumption, which is not impossible and perfectly appropriate. Consider: I believe my mother is a very trustworthy person. Hence, when she tells me she went to get her car fixed this morning, despite not having any independent evidence to verify this claim, I believe it to be true. I will continue to believe it until or unless strong reasons surfaces supporting the contrary. No fallacy is committed here, because my justified belief is based on strong inductive evidence. Similarly, then, (RDA) should be presumed true for precisely the same reason: despite not having any independent evidence verifying (RDA), it is nevertheless extraordinary well supported by induction. My opponent cannot disagree so long as he thinks Arg2 is a “sound argument,” though should he wish to retract this concession in his next affirmative, he is of course free to do so. I only ask that he indicate his reasons for disputing the premises of Arg2. Argument 5 (uncontested) (1). If Arg2 is sound, and if there are no strong reasons for supposing RDA to be false, then we should assume that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could have risen naturally.My opponent did not mention Arg5 in his last affirmative, therefore giving no indication of the premises he wishes to dispute. Arg5 remains uncontested. Argument 6 (uncontested) (1). If H1 and H2 can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain, and H1 is not initially less probable than H2, or only slightly less so, then, if H1 makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than H2, H1 is preferable to H2.My opponent also did not mention Arg5 in his last affirmative, therefore giving no indication of the premises he wishes to dispute. Arg6 remains uncontested. Summary Remarks The focus of this debate is now on the second premise of the Overall Argument. (1). If Jerry McDonald is unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate, then he will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution (henceforth DR) by the conclusion of this debate.Will Jerry McDonald be able to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate? So far, he has not been successful. I have challenged him to demonstrate the soundness of Mcdonald’s Argument by defending the truth of (NRDA), but he has yet to take up this challenge. Arguments Arg1+3 and Arg4 purport to show this task to be unlikely, and thus far, my opponent has not given any strong reasons for supposing the truth of (NRDA), or any good reasons for rejecting those arguments. Furthermore, he has not contested—or even mentioned—arguments Arg5 and Arg6 in his previous affirmative, therefore giving no indication of the premises he wishes to dispute. I close by asking him three questions: Q1. Do you have strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true? If so, please list them in your next affirmative. Q2. Do you wish to retract your concession that Arg2 is a “valid [and] sound argument?” Q3. Do you contest the soundness of arguments Arg1, Arg3, Arg4, Arg5, and Arg6? If so, please indicate in your next affirmative the premises you wish to dispute and your reasons for disputing them. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjTQb3V19hI |
|
|
|
|
July 7, 2009, 08:46 PM
|
#6006725 / #10 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Third Affirmative (Part 1)
McDonald’s Third Affirmative When I closed my second affirmative I overlooked Spencer’s 5th and 6th arguments. This was merely an oversight, I was not trying to avoid them nor was I conceding them. I didn’t catch the oversight until I had uploaded the article on the forum, after which I wrote to Spencer and notified him of this mistake and informed him that I would take care of those arguments in this affirmative, first thing. So let’s deal with arguments 5 & 6 of Spencer’s 1st rebuttal.Argument 5 (henceforth Arg5) Argument five is based on based on argument 2 and argument 2 is invalid and unsound. Therefore argument 5 is invalid and unsound. Let’s look at that in syllogistic form.(1). If Arg2 is sound, and if there are no strong reasons for supposing RDA to be false, then we should assume that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could have risen naturally. Major Premise: Any argument that is based on a false argument is an argument that is, in itself, false.I contend that premise 2 of his argument 5 is false. Argument 2 is false because it is based on a fallacy of logic Ad Ignorantiam. There is no reason to believe that Jesus or anyone else could have been raised from the dead naturally. We are not talking about someone who has been resuscitated (one whose heart has stopped and have had their heart started again), we are talking about someone who was crucified, pierced through the side and has had his heart pierced, was embalmed and buried. This man was not going to come back by any natural means. All this talk of natural resurrection is just so much fiction to keep from dealing with reality. Mr. Lo realizes that he cannot destroy the evidence of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ so he fanaticizes this so-called natural resurrection. There is no such thing as a natural resurrection, and there never will be. Nature says that dead is dead and there is no way to raise the dead by any natural means. The only way to do that would be to set aside the laws of nature (supercede the laws of nature) and supernaturally raise the dead. Argument 6 (henceforth Arg6) When you look at Spencer’s explanation of this argument you can see the absolute absurdity of his position: “Specifically, I compare the supernatural hypothesis (DBH) to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), which states that Jesus was either an advanced extraterrestrial and/or had help from advanced extraterrestrials.” You can’t be serious can you, Spencer? Tell me that you are just joking! This one definitely deserves the DiNozzo Award. You can pick up your award any time at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNscmjsrIOc so just stop by and pick it up, and then get realistic. Jesus was not an advanced extraterrestrial, he was the Son of God. Why is it more plausible to think that Jesus was an extraterrestrial than to think that he was the Son of God? Putting Occam’s Razor into effect here I think it would be more plausible to see Jesus as the Son of God than as an advance extraterrestrial.(1). If H1 and H2 can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain, and H1 is not initially less probable than H2, or only slightly less so, then, if H1 makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than H2, H1 is preferable to H2. What evidence do we have of extraterrestrials? We have none! What evidence do we have of God? We have plenty! All of creation declares the glory of God (Psa. 14:1), our bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psa. 139:14) which shows that there was a grand designer. We can see God from the creation of the world even his eternal power and Godhead so that there is no excuse (Rom. 1:20). There is no way that evolution can explain the complexity of the human body or of our solar system or the universe. Only a designer can explain this. What evidence do we have of extraterrestrials? This idea of Jesus being an extraterrestrial or being raised by an extraterrestrial isn’t even a good hypothesis. The word hypothesis means: “1a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken on the ground of action. 2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, p. 613).So how is this an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument? How is it an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken on the ground of action? How is it a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences? I don’t see how argument six fits! I don’t see how stating that Jesus was possibly an extraterrestrial fits any of those definitions. I don’t see how stating that Jesus was raised by extraterrestrials fits any of those definitions. William Lane Craig’s statement: “Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural. In this new mode of existence he was not bound by the physical limitations of this existence, but possessed superhuman powers." (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15).does not have anything to do with what actually happened. Christ had supernatural powers before his death. They tried to kill him and he passed through the midst of them “And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luk 4:29-30). He was able to do this supernaturally. John Gill wrote: ”Ver. 30. But he passing through the midst of them, etc.] Either in soSo the idea that Jesus’ body had changed after his resurrection is false. He had supernatural powers before his death and resurrection. The resurrection where the bodies will change will be the final resurrection of man. Now when Jesus ascended into heaven his fleshly body changed into a spiritual body—a body that will never die again. However, the body that he had after he arose from the dead was the same body that he had before he died. This is why he still had the nail prints in his hands and the spear print in his side. This is why the body still needed nourishment. So from all of this we can see that arguments 5 & 6 are not sound either. Spencer said that they were uncontested. Well I dispute them now! My opponent argues: “(1). If Jerry McDonald is unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate, then he will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution (henceforth DR) by the conclusion of this debate.” The fact is I have been making arguments in favor of my proposition and to date Mr. Lo as yet to even deal with them. Instead he has chosen to make arguments of his own and demand that I spend my time answering them. I am in the affirmative and Mr. Lo is in the negative and it is his job to respond to the arguments that I make and he has not done that. I have answered his (with the exception of 5&6 which was an oversight and I got to them in this article). If Mr. Lo will just respond to the arguments that I have made he might be able to see whether I have successfully defended my position or not. As I said in my opening remarks, this debate is not about what we can see, but it is about what history reports. We have already seen that secular history reports that God raised Christ from the dead. We saw in our last affirmative that Biblical history reports that God raised Christ from the dead. Mr. Lo has yet to respond to any of this. He has refused to even allude to these arguments. Therefore they are uncontested. He hasn’t even dealt with my first element which argues that God the Father raised Christ from the dead. He has made the absurd statement that Jesus was possibly an extraterrestrial and/or was raised by extraterrestrials. He has taken the absurd position that one can possibly come back from the dead by natural means. However, we have not seen him deal with what I have said. He has not dealt with what I have said and that is that it would take a supernatural force to set aside the laws of nature and raise the dead. In my last article I pointed out that Jesus had been embalmed and buried. Yet he wants us to believe that it is possible that he could have naturally been raised from the dead. If that is the case then why is it that we have cemeteries? Element Number One is uncontested. Element Number Two is uncontested. Element Number Three is uncontested. Therefore I will continue to present these arguments as sound arguments in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until my opponent comes up and deals with them. My opponent claims that I have conceded his argument number 1. He says: “My opponent has challenged neither the validity of Arg1 nor the truth of its premise.” He must not have read my 2nd affirmative very well. Maybe that is why he was able to get his 2nd rebuttal in so quickly. Let me re-quote what I said about argument number 1: “The argument is based upon the idea that I would argue that my position should be considered true until he presents evidence showing it to be false; in other words the burden of proof falls upon him to present evidence that the proposition is false. This is actually a fallacy of logic called Ad Ignorantiam:If that isn’t enough to let him know that I am challenging the validity of his argument then I don’t know how to make him understand it. When I said that the argument is based on a fallacy of logic that stated that the argument is invalid I would have thought that Spencer would have picked up on that, but in case I am wrong let me say it in this way: “Argument Number 1 is invalid and therefore not sound because it is based upon a fallacy of logic—the fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam.” I hope that is clear enough. He then tries to argue that arg3 is conceded, but again I have not conceded that argument. Here is what I said about it: “Argument number three is false as it is based on the very thing I have been discussing throughout this affirmative. You cannot naturally set aside the laws of nature.” How does he get that I have conceded argument number 3 when I plainly said that it was false? He seems to not have read my article at all because I did disagree with his premises. Notice what I said: “The laws of nature say that when death occurs, and especially when the body has been embalmed (prepared for burial) and buried, you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force. You would need a force that is so powerful that it would supercede the laws of nature; set them aside and force life back into that body. When you do that you would have a supernatural force.”This would refute premise 1 which states: “(1). Whenever we encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories, it would be premature to conclude that the phenomenon probably has a supernatural cause, unless we have strong reasons to suppose that it does.”We have strong reasons to suppose that it would take a supernatural cause to raise the dead. Why? Because nature says that when death occurs, and especially when the body has been embalmed (prepared for burial) and buried, you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force. You would need a force so powerful that it would supercede the laws of nature; set them aside and force life back into that body. That refutes his first premise. His third argument is not sound. When we get to argument 4 he actually deals with some of what I had to say, but says that I just gave some bare assertions. His response is summarized in this manner. If someone was naturally raised from the dead that would not be setting aside the laws of nature. Notice what he says: “The ‘natural’ alternative, however, does not assert the possibility of Jesus being raised naturally by an entity who naturally ‘sets aside’ the laws of nature! This position is incoherent, and not at all what I’ve been considering. Hence I reject the first premise of his argument.”Now the real fun begins! He tells us that one can naturally rise from the dead without setting aside the laws of nature? Again, I ask “Why do we have cemeteries?” Surely if those people could do it 2000 years ago, we could figure out how to do it today? I mean Jesus wasn’t just raised from the dead, but he raised Lazarus from the dead: “Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him” (Joh 11:39-45).Now what natural means did Jesus use to raise Lazarus? He spoke to him and Lazarus’ life returned to him. Did his speaking to Lazarus contact some sort of enzyme or gene in Lazarus’ body that caused life to come back in it? No? Was Jesus really an extraterrestrial who was able to just speak the dead by to life? How was that done by natural means? You see the questions that Mr. Lo’s position leaves him open to? He says that setting aside the laws of nature has nothing to do with it, but I challenge him to show how it could be done any other way. I pointed out that if a person tries to defy the laws of gravity through natural means, gravity will win every time. He gave a Youtube link of a man with a jetpack defying the laws of gravity, but let me remind him that this man was not defying the laws of gravity naturally. He was doing it with something that would overpower the laws of nature; a jetpack. That jetpack was able to enable this person to supercede the laws of nature and be suspended above the earth. However, there is no natural way he could do that. I challenge you (the reader) to watch the video. Mr. Lo’s position is based upon a lot of “what if’s” or “what they might find in 800,000 + years, and though I have addressed this idea he completely ignored it. What makes him think that there will even be an earth that far into the future. Did he deal with what I said about this? No, he dealt with that just like he dealt with 90% of everything else that I wrote. He writes: “The issue is not ‘whether or not the laws of nature can be set aside naturally,’ but ‘whether or not the event of Jesus being raised from the dead (assuming it occurred) violates the laws of nature.’” Okay, why wouldn’t it violate the laws of nature? The laws of nature say that when one dies, he is dead. His body begins to deteriorate. This is why we have embalming methods because sometimes the funerals don’t happen on the same day as the death. In order to bring that person back to life, it would have to violate the laws of nature because the laws of nature say that when a person dies, he isn’t coming back. He says “My opponent should reflect on the following: if a person’s body shoots up 50 feet in the air with the aid of a portable jetpack4, does this action ‘violate’ or ‘defy’ the law of gravity? Would he say the technological device was used to naturally ‘set aside’ the law of gravity? Surely not, I hope!” There were two questions there. (1) Does the portable jetpack aid the person to violate or defy the law of gravity? Yes, it does! (2) Was the technological device used to “naturally set aside the law of gravity?” No, it wasn’t, it was used to supercede the law of gravity. It was used to defy and supercede the law of gravity. Now he needs to show how Christ could have been raised naturally without defying the laws of nature. Let me ask him (1) “How could Christ have been naturally raised from the dead without defying or violating the laws of nature?” (2) “If Christ’s resurrection defied or violated the laws of nature would this not mean that the laws of nature were being set aside?” (3) “If you continue to contend that Christ was naturally raised from the dead, but admit that this would defy the laws of nature and that defying the laws of nature would be setting aside the laws of nature, wouldn’t this be the same as saying that Christ was raised from the dead by natural means which set aside the laws of nature?” I am not confused about anything, but I have a feeling that my opponent is confused about a great many things. He then writes: “My opponent writes about Arg2 that it ‘is valid, and is a sound argument.’” At no time did I state that his argument was valid or sound. This is what I said about his 2nd argument: “Here we have the opposite of argument number one. Again it is based on Ad Ignorantiam because it assumes that the argument is false unless I present good evidence to support it. The argument is valid, and it is a sound argument. I may not be apt to give the evidence to support the argument, but that does not mean that no one has the evidence. Now my opponent may legitimately say “I will not believe it unless McDonald gives me good evidence to support the argument,” but to say that the argument is false until and unless I give good evidence to support it is a fallacy of logic and one that is easily detectible and easily answered.”I plainly state that his argument number 2 is the opposite of argument number 1. It is based on Ad Ignorantiam because it assumes that the argument is false unless I present good evidence to support it. What argument is false? Well, in order to understand that we have to go back to Mr. Lo’s first rebuttal where he wrote: “Argument 2 (henceforth Arg2) is a bit more threatening, because if my opponent is unable to reject (C2'), then premise (1) of MA is presumed false until very good reasons to abandon (RDA) are forthcoming.” MA refers to McDonald’s Argument: “it does not mean MA (McDonald’s Argument) is unsound.” So when I stated that the argument is valid and sound, I was not stating that his argument number 2 is valid and sound, but rather MA is valid and sound. His argument number 2 is invalid because it is based upon a fallacy of logic Ad Ignorantiam. So now the puzzle is solved for Mr. Lo. He needs to read a little bit closer next time. He says that I misunderstand the argument, but I don’t. The argument is based upon a fallacy of logic and this makes it an invalid argument. It makes an unsound argument, and it therefore makes it an untrue or a false argument. His Arguments 1,2,3 and 4 are all false. I also believe that I have shown arguments 5 & 6 to be false as well. Now to answer his questions: 1. My answer is No! 2. My answer is that I never made any such concession, he misread my statement. 3. My answer is that Yes I contest them all. Arguments 1 & 2 are based upon a fallacy of logic. Premise 1 on both arguments.Now having gone through his second rebuttal I will continue to make affirmative arguments. Let me say that it is Mr. Lo’s obligation to answer my arguments here and he is not doing that at all. He is merely presenting his own material to get it out there. I realize that there isn’t much I can do about that, but I will continue to make it known to the reader what his obligation is, and he needs to remember that I do get the last word in this debate because I have a 500 word summary at the end of the debate and if he continues on his present course I will keep it before the readers and I will make note of it in that summary. I also want to take note that he has tried to make a difference between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of Lazarus |
|
|
|
|
July 7, 2009, 08:57 PM
|
#6006741 / #11 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Third Affirmative (Part 2)
“PreliminariesAs we have already seen Christ’s body was no different after he arose from the dead than it was before he was crucified. Before he was crucified he was able to perform miracles, and he had the power to pass through a crowd of people without them seeing him. Lazarus was not just resuscitated or revived. He had been dead for four days and as the scripture said “by this time he stinketh.” This was not “body odor,” this was decomposing flesh which plainly states that Lazarus was dead. Lazarus was genuinely resurrected from the dead for even Jesus said that Lazarus would be resurrected. Notice: “But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him” (Joh 11:22-29).Jesus told Martha that Lazarus would rise again (he would be resurrected) and Martha said that she knew that he would be raised in the day of the final resurrection, but Jesus said that he was the resurrection and the life and that he could do these things. He then raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, just like Jesus was resurrected from the dead “whom God raised up” (Acts 2:24). So this idea that Lazarus was not really raised from the dead, that he was just revived, is just more of Mr. Lo’s fantastic imaginations. Now I want to use the rest of this article in bringing in new affirmative material. ELEMENT NUMBER FOUR Extra-Biblical History Reports Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Josephus wrote: “3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 3).In my next affirmative I will defend this statement and expand on the argument and give quotations from other sources, but my space has just about run out. CLOSING REMARKS Mr. Lo needs to address my affirmative arguments rather than concentrate on making his own arguments. I am in the affirmative and it is his obligation to deal with my arguments. So far he hasn’t dealt with any of them other than to make an allusion to the main argument (that he calls MA) so I exhort him to deal with the elements that I have given to back up my main argument. I also want to state that in 800,000 + years, if the earth is fortunate enough to be here that long, the laws of nature will be the same as they are now. Dead will still be dead, and the only way to raise the dead will be to supercede the laws of nature and supernaturally raise them.In Christ Jesus Jerry McDonald |
|
|
|
|
July 10, 2009, 03:28 PM
|
#6011235 / #12 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Third rebuttal: part 1
I have examined in my previous rebuttals the weaknesses of McDonald’s Argument (MA)—a logically valid argument I attributed to Jerry McDonald—as well as my opponent’s (non) attempts at defending its most contentious assumption, the No Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption or (NRDA). It is clear from reading his latest affirmative that my opponent has not grasped the simple truth: that failing (or refusing) to defend (NRDA) will mean being unable to demonstrate what he has set out to prove. Speaking of our obligations in this debate, he writes:
[I]t is Mr. Lo’s obligation to answer my arguments here and he is not doing that at all…Mr. Lo needs to address my affirmative arguments rather than concentrate on making his own arguments. I am in the affirmative and it is his obligation to deal with my arguments.My opponent apparently realizes that since he is affirming the debate resolution, he must present arguments for the affirmative position, while I must attempt to rebut those arguments. However, what he fails to realize is the difficulty of rebutting arguments that do not exist. As previously explained, in order for McDonald to successfully establish the affirmative, he must successfully defend an affirmative answer to two questions: (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? Unless he successfully defends an affirmative answer to both questions, he cannot successfully defend the affirmative position of the debate resolution, and thus far, my opponent has made no attempt to defend an affirmative answer to (ii). Hence, I am under no obligation to “deal” with non-existent arguments. In this rebuttal, the most I am obligated to do is remind him of his obligation, reiterate the arguments I already made, and correct the logical errors and strawman which continue to permeate my opponent’s responses. I begin once again with the Overall Argument (OA): (1). If Jerry McDonald is unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate, then he will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution (henceforth DR) by the conclusion of this debate.Has Jerry McDonald successfully defended an affirmative answer to (ii)? Has he made any serious attempts at defending an affirmative answer to (ii)? ‘No’ to both questions. In order to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), my opponent must defend the soundness of the logically valid argument I attributed to him (or something very similar), and in particular (NRDA). He is obligated to defend the following: (1). NRDA is true, and the rest of humanity can’t rise naturally from the dead.But, as we have seen, my opponent has given no reason whatsoever to suppose the truth of (NRDA), and therefore given no reason whatsoever to suppose that MA is sound. I ended my second rebuttal by asking McDonald three questions, the first of which was if he had any strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true. Incredibly, he said: “My answer is No!” (exclamation his) No? My opponent does not have strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true? This admission is not only incredible, but undermining: if McDonald cannot supply strong reasons in support of premise (1) of MA, and therefore cannot establish the soundness of MA, then he certainly cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii). With this concession, he has effectively conceded his inability to refute premise (2) of OA. I suspect (and hope!) that in his upcoming affirmative, my opponent will realize his error and rethink his answer. I can only hope that he will make a serious attempt to defend the truth of (NRDA). Arguments in Defense of Claim M Argument 1 (P1). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should not assume these capability differences cannot be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we have strong reasons to suppose otherwise.Does my opponent deny conclusion (C2)? Or does he accept conclusion (C2) but reject Arg1 on technical grounds? Although McDonald’s position is unclear, he does not appear to be denying the truth of (C2)—only the argument’s validity. Fallacious arguments can still have true conclusions, and if my opponent accepts the conclusion of a fallacious argument, he would have nevertheless conceded the point: that (NRDA) should not be presumed true until we have strong reasons to affirm (NRDA). Perhaps my opponent will clarify his stance in his next affirmative. Does he disagree with conclusion (C2)? Thus far, he has given no indication that he does. What, then, of McDonald’s objection that Arg1 is invalid because (P1) commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy? My opponent is simply incorrect. The Ad Ignoratiam fallacy, as he rightly noted, is committed when “it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false,” and nowhere in my rebuttals have I argued this way. Nowhere have I argued: (P1) is true simply because (P1) has not been proven false, which is undoubtedly fallacious. Instead, I have argued: (P1) is true because it is extraordinarily well confirmed by induction, which is clearly not fallacious. Moreover, even if I had argued fallaciously for (P1), it would not follow that Arg1 is itself invalid—it would only follow that the argument I used in defense of (P1) is invalid. Argument 3 (1). Whenever we encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories, it would be premature to conclude that the phenomenon probably has a supernatural cause, unless we have strong reasons to suppose that it does.Arg3 attempts to establish the same basic claim as Arg1. Does my opponent deny conclusion (4)? Does he think it would not be premature to conclude that (NRDA) is true despite having no strong reasons for supposing that it is true? McDonald also did not clarify his stance on this matter, but he does not appear to be denying the truth of conclusion (4). He has, however, taken issue with premise (1): The laws of nature say that when death occurs, and especially when the body has been embalmed (prepared for burial) and buried, you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force. You would need a force that is so powerful that it would supercede the laws of nature; set them aside and force life back into that body. When you do that you would have a supernatural force.My opponent somehow thinks the above “refutes” premise (1), because, according to him, “we [do] have strong reasons to suppose that it would take a supernatural cause to raise the dead.” This “refutation” is problematic for two reasons. First, other than my opponent’s bare assertion, he has given no question-begging reason whatsoever to think “it would take a supernatural cause to raise the dead.” A bare assertion is not an argument. Second, even if supernatural causation were necessary to raise the dead, this fact would not “refute” or call into question the truth of premise (1). Premise (1) does not assert anything beyond what is stated above: that unless we have strong reasons to suppose a scientifically unexplained phenomenon has a supernatural cause, it would be premature to conclude that it does. To conclude that the raising of Jesus had a supernatural cause is perfectly consistent with premise (1), so long as we have strong reasons to suppose this is true. McDonald also indicated his dispute with premise (2), which is puzzling. I will wait until his disagreement with premise (2) is clarified before responding. Argument 1 + Argument 3 (Arg1+3) 1.If either Arg1 or Arg3 are sound, then if Jerry McDonald is unable to supply strong reasons by the completion of this debate for supposing NRDA to be true, then he will not be able to establish by the completion of this debate that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could not have risen naturally.Because arguments Arg1 and Arg3 are sound, the only way McDonald can reject the conclusion of Arg1 + 3 is to refute premise (4). Unfortunately for him, as we have seen, he admitted in his last affirmative that he does not have strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true! Hopefully, he will rethink his answer when he writes his next affirmative. Argument 4 (1). We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if the event of Jesus being raised from the dead were inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science (henceforth C), then that event will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]My opponent objects to premise (1) simply by denying it without argument. How does he know that the event of Jesus being raised from the dead will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by any possible future state of science? The fact that something is inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science doesn’t mean it will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by all possible future science. After all, as we know from the history of science, many things we now consider possible were once considered—by prominent scientists, no less—to be scientifically impossible[1], and thus the mere impossibility of any event relative to a particular scientific paradigm is no guarantee that it is impossible relative to some other scientific paradigm, and thus no guarantee that it is impossible per se – i.e. impossible according to the actual laws of nature. If McDonald wants to claim Jesus “could not” have been raised from the dead “by means of natural law,” then he must demonstrate that that phenomenon will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by all possible future science (e.g. the state of science 800,000 + years from now). Despite having repeatedly challenged my opponent to demonstrate this claim, he has made no attempt whatsoever to do so. I had asked: How does he purport to claim to know[2] that no possible future science will be able render the event naturally possible? Perhaps our descendants in 800,000 + years will discover a scientific explanation for how Jesus, 2,000 years ago,could have risen naturally. Perhaps they will encounter advanced extraterrestrials who already have this knowledge. On what basis does my opponent rule out these possibilities? Why were they dismissed without argument? McDonald complains: What makes him think that there will even be an earth that far into the future. Did he deal with what I said about this? NoYes, I did deal with this objection. As I previously explained, it makes absolutely no difference if human beings won’t actually exist in 800,000 + years. For my argument is not about what scientists will in fact discover in the distant future, but about what they could or could not discover to be naturally possible if given the means and opportunity. My opponent thinks future scientists—if they will exist—cannot discover the raising of someone from the dead to be naturally possible, because the laws of nature,” he believes, “say that when death occurs…you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force.” Again, this is nothing more than a bare assertion. How does he know this is true? In his next affirmative, will he finally offer some supporting argument for his bare assertions? One can only hope. He asks: Now he needs to show how Christ could have been raised naturally without defying the laws of nature.No, I do not. The burden is on my opponent to prove his claim that Jesus could not have risen naturally. To again clarify, my position is not: “the laws of nature prohibit Jesus from rising naturally, but he could have risen naturally anyway, specifically by naturally ‘setting aside’ those laws.” Instead, my position is: “we have no good reason to think the laws of nature really prohibit Jesus from rising naturally, and therefore we have no good reason to think Jesus couldn’t have risen naturally.” Why does my opponent think the laws of nature really prohibit Jesus from rising naturally? Why has he given no argument whatsoever for his claim? [1] See Michio Kaku’s Physics of the Impossible, pgs XI-XVIII. [2] I am not requiring absolute certainty here. Charitable readers will interpret my demands in probabilistic terms. |
|
|
|
|
July 10, 2009, 03:28 PM
|
#6011236 / #13 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Third Rebuttal: part 2
Arguments in Defense of Claim B
Argument 2 (P1'). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should assume these capability differences can probably be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we strong reasons to suppose otherwise.McDonald denies the validity of Arg2 for the same reason he denies the validity of Arg1: he thinks (P1') commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. But nowhere in my rebuttals have I argued “that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.” Nowhere have I argued: (P1') is true simply because (P1') has not been proven false, which is undoubtedly fallacious. Instead, I have argued: (P1') is true because it is extraordinarily well confirmed by induction, which is clearly not fallacious. Moreover, even if I had argued fallaciously for (P1'), it would not follow that Arg2 is itself invalid—it would only follow that the argument I used in defense of (P1') is invalid. My opponent also denies conceding the validity and soundness of Arg2, even though his statement “the argument is valid, and it is a sound argument” appears just three sentences after he quotes Arg2. He explains that by “the argument” he was referring to McDonald’s Argument—the logically valid argument I attributed to Jerry McDonald—and not to Arg2, despite never having mentioned MA anywhere in his second affirmative. Perhaps, then, it is not I who “needs to read a little bit closer,” but my opponent who needs to write a bit more clearly. Argument 5 (1). If Arg2 is sound, and if there are no strong reasons for supposing RDA to be false, then we should assume that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could have risen naturally.Arg5 remains unrefuted. My opponent’s only criticism of Arg5 is that it is based upon Arg2, an argument he falsely charges with the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. McDonald needs to come up with a different reason for rejecting Arg5. Argument 6 (1). If H1 and H2 can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain, and H1 is not initially less probable than H2, or only slightly less so, then, if H1 makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than H2, H1 is preferable to H2.McDonald apparently takes issue with premises (2) and (3). What are his objections? He asserts: What evidence do we have of extraterrestrials? We have none! What evidence do we have of God? We have plenty!My opponent then proceeds to patently beg the question by referencing various Bible passages as evidence for God’s existence. But excusing this elementary error for the moment, let’s suppose he is correct that God exists. What follows? Would this fact—if it is a fact—provide conclusive or merely strong evidence for DBH? Would it mean that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is refuted? I fail to see how. The mere existence of God is compatible with three broad claims about God, one of which must be assumed in order to for McDonald to hold that DBH is far more probable than ETH. They are: (A1). God has never intended to participate in human affairs.Why does my opponent think (A3) is true? Can he supply any good (non-question begging) argument for ruling out (A1) and (A2)? If he cannot, then he cannot claim DBH is initially far more probable than ETH, nor can he claim that DBH is true. Of course, the same could be said about ETH: there is no good (non-question begging) argument for why ETH is initially far more probable than DBH. Can I rule out the possibility that advanced extraterrestrials never had any desire to participate in human affairs? In this debate, I have not even tried to make this argument, but instead generously granted at the outset that DBH is not initially less probable than ETH. My generosity was never reciprocated. What about my opponent’s claim that we have no evidence of extraterrestrials? He is simply wrong[3][4][5][6][7]. Although there may not be conclusive evidence of extraterrestrials, there is undoubtedly some (arguably strong) evidence for their existence. McDonald’s second objection is that ETH “isn’t even a good hypothesis” because nothing about ETH fits the definitions of “hypothesis” provided by the Merriam Webster dictionary. He is simply incorrect[8]. What of McDonald’s third objection, which is directed at premise (3)? Does he deny that ETH makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than DBH to explain the observed physical events? It is not clear. In my first rebuttal, I claimed DBH makes enormously more unnecessary causal assumptions in at least two ways: first, those involved in helping Jesus (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events, and second, Jesus himself, according to DBH, has more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events. Which point does McDonald dispute? He only disputes to the second point by denying what Christian scholar William Lane Craig has said: that “Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural” (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15) In other words, McDonald denies Jesus acquired an immortal and indestructible body after he rose, which puts him at a disadvantage. Besides William Lane Craig, Christian scholars such as Murray J. Harris, George Eldon Ladd, Raymond E. Brown, and others, completely disagree with my opponent’s view[9]. But even if McDonald’s interpretation of Christian theology were correct (which is highly doubtful), it still would not follow that DBH does not make enormously more unnecessary causal assumptions than ETH. The first point remains uncontested (and unmentioned): those involved in helping Jesus (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events. My opponent has yet to interact with what I said. Why? Summary remarks I ended my previous rebuttal by asking McDonald three questions, most having to do with the validity and soundness of the above arguments. Because I have sufficiently answered his objections, he now needs to find other ways of resisting those arguments if he wants to resist their conclusions. Thus, I repeat my question: Do you contest the soundness of arguments Arg1, Arg2, Arg3, Arg4, Arg5, and Arg6? If so, please indicate in your next affirmative the premises you wish to dispute and your reasons for disputing them. It will no longer be acceptable to claim arguments Arg1 and Arg2 are “based upon a fallacy of logic,” or that premise (1) of Arg3 is refuted. Bare assertions are simply not arguments, so please respond to argument Arg4 appropriately. And despite (finally!) mentioning Arg6, you need to interact with both of my reasons for thinking premise (3) to be true. Moreover, my opponent also needs to start supplying some serious argumentation—again, not bare assertions—in defense of (NRDA). When asked if he had any strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true, he answered, emphatically, with a loud “No!”, which I found incredible. I must encourage him to rethink his answer: For unless my opponent can supply strong reasons for supposing the truth of (NRDA), he cannot successfully defend the soundness of McDonald’s Argument, and unless he can successfully defend the soundness of McDonald’s Argument, he cannot successfully refute premise (2) of the Overall Argument—the main argument I have been defending throughout this debate. I look forward to see what McDonald does next. [3] http://www.disclosureproject.org/ [4] http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news...ollo_astronaut [5] http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rial-life.html [6] See Physics of the Impossible, pg 148 [7] http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/11/30 On this program, physicist Michio Kaku reaffirmed his belief that there is a 100 percent probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe (wikipedia) [8] A hypothesis, generally speaking, is simply a proposition set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena (dictionary.com), and ETH certainly qualifies. The definitions offered by Merriam Webster aren’t very good. See also wikipedia. [9] See Robert Greg Cavin’s article, “Is there Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?” Found in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. |
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2009, 12:26 AM
|
#6028155 / #14 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Fourth Affirmative Part 1
McDonald’s Fourth Affirmative Mr. Lo begins his third affirmative with the following words: “I have examined in my previous rebuttals the weaknesses of McDonald’s Argument (MA)—a logically valid argument I attributed to Jerry McDonald—as well as my opponent’s (non) attempts at defending its most contentious assumption, the No Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption or (NRDA). It is clear from reading his latest affirmative that my opponent has not grasped the simple truth: that failing (or refusing) to defend (NRDA) will mean being unable to demonstrate what he has set out to prove.”He continues to say that I have made no attempts at defending my position. I do not hold to his NRDA or his RDA. He sees these as the only alternatives, but I see them both as examples of Ad Ignorantiam and I refuse to work with them. My argument was clearly given “The Constituent Element Argument” and I have given four elements thus far to support it. Element number one was “Only By The Supernatural Power Of God Could Jesus Christ Have Been Raised From The Dead.” Did Mr. Lo take the material that I offered in that element and show what was wrong with it? No, he did not. I pointed out the definition of death and I pointed out the definition of resurrection. What did he say about those definitions? Nothing at all, he just passed them by as though they didn’t exist. Instead he insisted that I answer his arguments as though he was in the affirmative and I was in the negative, but he has it all backwards. I am in the affirmative, and he is in the negative. He is supposed to answer the arguments that I have given. When he does that, if he has space left over he may then and only then make his negative arguments. Mr. Lo has not even endeavored to answer the arguments that I have made and then he turns around and has the audacity to complain about me not having made any. Element number 2 was “Secular History Includes Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ.” What did he say about the information that I gave for that element? Not one thing! Instead he presented his own material and demanded that I deal with his material rather than present my own and then turns around and complains because he says that I have not presented material. Element number three was “Biblical History Gives Information About God Raising Jesus From The Dead.” I pointed out that whether Mr. Lo accepted the scriptures as inspired or not, he had to accept them as historical records, and they as historical records gave information about God raising Jesus from the dead. Again, my opponent simply skipped over this information and went on to his own material and complained because I haven’t made any arguments to advance my main argument. He might get away with that in an oral debate, but not a written one because all the reader has to do is to go back and read what has already been written. I have made arguments and Spencer has failed to respond to them. It is his job to do that, but he hasn’t even tried. I can only wonder why! Oh, I think we know why, the proposition only obligates me to show that it is historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. In other words, all I have to prove is that history records that it is a fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. I don’t have to worry about what might happen in 800,000 + years from now or what gene scientist might discover because the proposition only obligates me to show from history that God raised Jesus from the dead. History records this, and that is all I really have to show. Before this debate is over I will get into the empty tomb, but I really don’t even have to do that because the way that the proposition is worded, all I have to do is to show what is historical fact; not future, not present—historical fact. I also presented in my 3rd affirmative the fourth element which shows that “Extra-Biblical History Reports Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Now this is one that I thought he would take up and argue with because it is the much disputed quotation of Josephus, but he didn’t even want to discuss that one. Instead all he did was to simply ignore all of my elements of my argument and complain because I have not made arguments to support my main argument. Well, Spencer, if you will open your eyes you will see that I have presented the arguments and they are still there waiting for you to deal with them. You only have two more rebuttals before this debate closes so if you intend to get to them you had better get busy because I will be presenting more material in this article. Now why do I say that NRDA is based on Ad Ignorantiam? Notice the following statement by my opponent: Perhaps my opponent will argue that he can maintain (NRDA) without supporting arguments, at least initially, because the assumption should be presumed true until good reason is offered to abandon this presumption: in other words the burden of proof falls on me to show, via argumentation and evidence, why (NRDA) should not be maintained. In other words unless proof that it is false, the argument is presumed to be true. However, then he goes on to say: The same, however, does not hold in reverse for the skeptical (RDA), the claim that there probably could have existed some naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity: it is suspicious until I can show otherwise. In other words unless proof that this argument is true, it is presumed to be false. What is that if it is not Ad Ignorantiam? I said at the outset that the NRDA and RDA are no part of my strategy. I am in the affirmative, and I will run my affirmative the way I see fit not the way that Spencer Lo sees’ fit. Now he can deny that arguments 1 & 2 are based on Ad Ignorantiam all he wants, but all the reader has to do is to look at the arguments and look at the definition of Ad Ignorantiam: “The argument ad ignorantiam (from ignorance) is the mistake that is committed when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true” (Introduction to Logic, p. 139). I showed that argument 5 was based on argument 2 and since argument 2 was based on a fallacy of logic that it was false, therefore argument 5 was false. Mr. Lo pretends that I haven’t shown why I dispute his arguments. I showed that I disagreed with argument 3 because of the very thing that we have been discussing in this debate that raising someone from the dead by purely natural means would be impossible, especially after someone was embalmed and buried (something Mr. Lo has not even begun to deal with). I also pointed out why I disagreed with argument number 4. I used the example of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. What did Spencer say about that? I asked what natural means did Jesus use! He didn’t touch him, he simply said “Lazarus come forth.” How could that have been natural? There is no natural way that Jesus could have raised Lazarus from the dead simply by speaking to him. And I contend that there is no way that God could have raised Jesus from the dead by some natural means. Mr. Lo’s “extraterrestrials” argument is beginning to sound more and more like Richard Dawkins’ intelligent design (i.e., Expelled) when he said he would accept intelligent design if the designer was an extraterrestrial who had naturally evolved on some other planet. Now before I go any further I am going to complete my affirmative material because I don’t want to have to give any new material in my final affirmative. I want to save that for defense and argumentation. Element Number Four: “Extra-Biblical History Reports Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” We have already looked Josephus’ statement about Christ being crucified and raised again the third day. Now we want to look at further extra-biblical references to Jesus’ resurrection. “The resurrection of Christ from the dead is reported by the four Gospels, taught in the Epistles, believed throughout Christendom, and celebrated on every “Lord’s Day,” as an historical fact, as the crowning miracle and divine seal of his whole work, as the foundation of the hopes of believers, as the pledge of their own future resurrection. It is represented in the New Testament both as an act of the Almighty Father who raised his Son from the dead, (Act_2:24, Act_2:32; Rom_6:4; Rom_10:9; 1Co_15:15; Eph_1:20; 1Pe_1:21) and as an act of Christ himself, who had the power to lay down his life and to take it again. The ascension was the proper conclusion of the resurrection: the risen life of our Lord, who is “the Resurrection and the Life,” could not end in another death on earth, but must continue in eternal glory in heaven. Hence St. Paul says, ‘Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.’ELEMENT NUMBER FIVE Biblical Arguments For The Resurrection 1. The first argument that we would have to look at would, of course, be the empty tomb. In speaking to the Jews at Pentecost Peter said:Now what do we have? First, we have Peter saying that David was dead and buried and his sepulchre was with them at that day. In other words they could go to his tomb and find his remains. Secondly, we have David prophesying that God would raise Jesus up after he had died and that his flesh would not see corruption. Third, Peter says that God did raise Jesus up and that they are all witnesses and that he is by the right hand of God exalted, and having been received of the Father, they now have the promise of the Holy Ghost which they now see and hear. Fourth, David’s body is not ascended into the heavens, but Jesus’ body has. Conclusion: Jesus’ tomb is empty, if one went there they would not find the remains of Jesus Christ. If one went to the tomb of David they would find the remains of David, but they would not find the remains of Jesus at the tomb in which he was buried. Now we have already shown that Jesus was dead so that does away with the swoon theory. There is the “disciples stole the body while the soldiers slept” theory that the disciples paid the soldiers to claim when Jesus body came up missing. Two problems with that theory; actually three, but we will deal with two presently. (1) If the disciples were asleep, how did they know that the disciples were the ones who stole the body? (2) For a Roman guard to lose his charge (especially while sleeping while on duty) required the death penalty. Remember the instance of the Philippian jailor? “And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here” (Act 16:23-28).Now why did the jailor start to kill himself? Because he had fallen asleep and he was afraid that his prisoners had escaped and he knew that he would be put to death for falling asleep and losing his prisoners. So the very idea of Roman soldiers falling asleep on duty (all of them at the same time at that) and knowing that the disciples of Christ removed the body of Christ without them knowing it is absurd. 2. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Saul of Tarsus was a vehement enemy of the church and of Christ. He was convinced that Christ was a fraud and that anyone connected to him was a false teacher. He hunted Christians down relentlessly, both men and women; it made no difference to him. He stood by and gave approval at the stoning of Steven (Acts 7:51-58). But something happened to Saul on his way to Damascus; a trip that he had papers authorizing him to bring Christians back to be charged with heresy, papers he had received from the chief priests no less. Something happened to him! He saw a light in the way, and he heard a voice, and he spoke to that voice. When he asked who he was speaking to the voice said he was speaking to Jesus who Paul was persecuting. Now many have debated what Paul actually saw and heard, but let Paul tell us what he saw and heard. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time” (1Co 15:1-8).Paul says he saw the resurrected Jesus and he says he was the last one to see him. Now what did Paul say he heard on that road to Damascus? “And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest” (Act 22:6-8).So, here we have the testimony of Paul, a man who was so convinced that Christians were a threat to society, that their leader was a false prophet and that when he died on the cross he was dead forevermore. Suddenly, he sees the resurrected Jesus (0nly he sees him in his glorified body—something the others didn’t get to see because he saw him after his ascension into heaven), and he heard his voice and spoke to him and conversed with him. This was enough for the man who was so bent on the destruction of the church to suddenly do a 180, and start preaching the gospel he once fought against so vehemently, and the church he the church he once made havoc he spent the rest of his life building it back up. Why? All because he had seen the resurrected Jesus! Why would a man who was so dedicated to the destruction of a religion suddenly change and undergo the pain and punishment that Paul underwent (described in the book of Acts and 2 Cor. 11:24-28, without good reason? He had good reason! The only reason he would change would be to see the resurrected Jesus; that would be enough. This is the end of my affirmative material. I have made one affirmative argument in favor of my proposition. It is valid and it is sound. It is as follows: Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true. Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual. Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true. Now with the space I have left I will deal with his negative arguments. I want to say first of all that it is not Mr. Lo’s place to make affirmative arguments. If he wanted to make affirmative arguments he should have taken the affirmative, but he didn’t want to do that. I am in the affirmative and he is in the negative and it his responsibility to answer my arguments not the other way around. Now I have already dealt with his arguments before. I have already stated that his first two arguments are based on the fallacy of logic Ad Ignorantiam therefore they are not sound arguments. He argues that I have not shown that they are based on this fallacy, so let me show how. NRDA and RDA are based upon Ad Ignorantiam: “(C2). Therefore, NRDA should not be presumed true until we have strong reasons to affirm NRDA. (from C1)” (Conclusion 2 to L0’s NRDA). “that it is false because it has not been proved true” (Introduction to Logic, p. 139). What is the difference between these two statements? There isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between them. The 2nd conclusion of his RDA argument says “(C2'). Therefore, RDA should be presumed true until we have strong reasons for abandoning this presumption.” Now let’s look at what Copi says: “when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false” (Ibid). An argument should not be presumed true just because it hasn’t been proven false; this isn’t a court of law where the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. An argument is to be considered true when the evidence is presented and tested. I have presented my argument with the evidence to back it up. I have been trying to get Spencer to challenge the evidence, but whether he challenges it or not, it is evidence that has been tested time and again. Therefore it is evidence that is true. His arguments, on the other hand, have been shown to be false more than once, and especially now. There is no difference between what Copi says constitutes the fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam and Spencer’s NRDA and RDA arguments. With that being said his argument number 5 is based upon his argument 2 (RDA), and since argument 2 is false, argument 5 is also false. |
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2009, 12:28 AM
|
#6028157 / #15 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Fourth Affirmative Part 2
I have shown that argument 3 is false based on the fact that you cannot naturally raise someone from the dead. The word “natural” has the following meaning:
“Natural NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced] 1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired” (Webster’s Dictionary, e-Sword).Now since the word natural means pertaining to nature or by the laws of growth or in other words by the laws of nature, and since the laws of nature tell us that when a person is dead he stays dead, how could Jesus have been naturally raised from the dead? He couldn’t have, that’s the point! He surmises what scientists might be able to do in 800,000 + years if given the chance, but he refuses to deal with Dr. Mastropaolo's statement about the age of the earth. He refuses to deal with what I have stated about the earth being as barren as the moon, if it is even in existence that far into the future. He says that he did deal with it by stating what scientists might do if they had the chance, but that does not deal with my statements. However, even I dealt with what scientists might do if they had the chance in my second affirmative: Finally we get to his final argument (where he first introduced the 800,000 + year earth) which in his mind shows that if it could happen in 800,000 + years then it could have happened 2,000 years ago. (1) 2,000 years ago they didn’t even have the technology that we have today, and (2) if we continue to advance technologically and continue to exist in 800,000 + years we will have technology then that we don’t have today. So the argument is like comparing apples to oranges. The only way that you would be able to do this in the distant future would be with some technological devise that no one in the first century had, something we don’t even have today. However, as I have already stated, you cannot naturally do this even then. If you do this with a technological device you are using something to set aside the laws of nature, something that is stronger than the laws of nature, something that is superior to the laws of nature; therefore supernatural. So no matter how he wants to slice it, it still comes up “Supernatural.” I call it “God,” he can call it whatever he likes.Then there is argument number 4. His first premise says: “(1). We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science (henceforth C), then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise].” Is this to say that in 800,000 + years we will find that gravity is not be gravity, or the sun is not be the center of our solar system, but rather the earth is the center after all? What do you say Spencer? Are you saying that it is possible that we will find out, in the future that the earth is not round that maybe it is flat after all? These are the laws of nature. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, and gravity still works the same way it always has and always will. And guess what, when a person dies, he dies and he naturally will stay dead, and the only way he can come back from the dead is for some supernatural force to force life back in the body. 800,000 years aren’t going to change the laws of nature Spencer, and your little green aliens from the planet Mobeus aren’t going to change them either. Argument number 6 is false because premises 2 and 3 are false. “(2). ETH and DBH can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain (i.e. resurrection, postmortem appearances), and ETH is not initially less probable than DBH, or only slightly less so. (3). ETH makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than DBH to explain the observed physical events.” Spencer explained it this way: “Specifically, I compare the supernatural hypothesis (DBH) to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), which states that Jesus was either an advanced extraterrestrial and/or had help from advanced extraterrestrials.” This is so far-fetched that it is unbelievable. As I stated it reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ explanation of his idea of aliens being the intelligent designers who planted the life on this planet. Spencer’s position is: “we have no good reason to think the laws of nature really prohibit Jesus from rising naturally, and therefore we have no good reason to think Jesus couldn’t have risen naturally.” I could just as easily say that “we have no good reason to think that nature really prohibited the earth from naturally aging billions of years in 10,000 natural years, and therefore we have no good reason to think that the earth aged billions of years in just 10,000 natural years.” How will Spencer handle that one? Maybe in 800,000 + years scientists will find that this is exactly what happened! Maybe we don’t really know that much about the laws of nature after all! He wants me to re-answer his questions, but my answers stay the same, but I have some questions for him. (1) “How could Christ have been naturally raised from the dead without defying or violating the laws of nature?” (2) “If Christ’s resurrection defied or violated the laws of nature would this not mean that the laws of nature were being set aside?” (3) “If you continue to contend that Christ was naturally raised from the dead, but admit that this would defy the laws of nature and that defying the laws of nature would be setting aside the laws of nature, wouldn’t this be the same as saying that Christ was raised from the dead by natural means which set aside the laws of nature?” (4) “Did the NRDA and RDA arguments not have anything to do with the MA (McDonald’s Argument)?” (5) “In 800,000 + years will it be possible to find that the earth aged billions of years in 10,000 natural years?” In Christ Jesus Jerry McDonald |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2009, 03:41 PM
|
#6030606 / #16 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Fourth rebuttal: part 1
After the completion of this fourth round, Jerry McDonald will have one final chance at resisting the arguments I have presented throughout this debate—one final opportunity to defend the affirmative position of the debate resolution. To that end, he will need to demonstrate the soundness of McDonald’s Argument (MA). Will he succeed? Perhaps. So far, he has not.
Arguments in Defense of Claim M Argument 1 (P1). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should not assume these capability differences cannot be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we have strong reasons to suppose otherwise.McDonald has complained about the soundness of Arg1 for some time; in his third affirmative, he objected to (P1) on the grounds that it commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. In response, I showed why this criticism is incorrect: nowhere in any of my rebuttals have I “argued that [P1] is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false,” which would be fallacious. Instead, I have argued: (P1) is true because it is extraordinarily well confirmed by induction, which is clearly not fallacious. McDonald has not grasped this distinction. Moreover, even if I had argued fallaciously for (P1), it still would not follow that Arg1 is itself invalid—it would only follow that the argument I used in defense of (P1) is invalid. How does McDonald respond to these corrections in his fourth affirmative? He doesn’t. He simply insists that Arg1 commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy because of what Copi says, all the while failing to realize that what Copi says in no way supports his contention. Again, according to Copi, the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy is committed when “when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.” I fully agree. But since I have not argued this way, I have not committed this fallacy. Argument 3 (1). Whenever we encounter a scientifically unexplained phenomenon, which we have not adequately studied scientifically, and which appears to contradict our current scientific theories, it would be premature to conclude that the phenomenon probably has a supernatural cause, unless we have strong reasons to suppose that it does.McDonald’s objection to Arg3 has not changed: he believes it is refuted because “raising someone from the dead by purely natural means would be impossible.” I showed in my third rebuttal why this response does nothing to call into question the soundness of Arg3. First, other than my opponent’s bare assertion, he gives no non-question-begging reason whatsoever to think “raising someone from the dead by purely natural means would be impossible.” A bare assertion is not an argument (when will he realize this?). Second, even if supernatural causation were necessary to raise the dead, this fact would not “refute” or call into question the truth of premise (1). Premise (1) does not assert anything beyond what is stated above: that unless we have strong reasons to suppose that a scientifically unexplained phenomenon has a supernatural cause, it would be premature to conclude that it does. To conclude that the raising of Jesus had a supernatural cause is perfectly consistent with premise (1), so long as we have strong reasons to suppose this is true. How does McDonald respond to these corrections in his fourth affirmative? He doesn’t. Argument 1 + Argument 3 (Arg1+3) 1.If either Arg1 or Arg3 are sound, then if Jerry McDonald is unable to supply strong reasons by the completion of this debate for supposing NRDA to be true, then he will not be able to establish by the completion of this debate that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could not have risen naturally.I ended my second rebuttal by asking McDonald a question which gets at the heart of this debate, “Do you have strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true?” My opponent defied incredulity by answering “No!” Surely, this must have been an unconscious slip on his part, one would think (I did!). Why would my opponent concede to having no strong reasons for supposing the truth of (NRDA)? This concession is not only incredible, but undermining: if McDonald cannot supply strong reasons in support of premise (1) of MA, then he cannot establish the soundness of MA, and unless he can establish the soundness of MA, he cannot successfully defend the affirmative position of the debate resolution. How could my opponent have made such an egregious error? The mystery persists into his latest affirmative; McDonald still does not see his error, and now claims he is not committed to (NRDA). But he must hold to (NRDA), and does, or else he cannot establish the soundness of McDonald’s Argument. His much repeated (though unargued) assertion that Jesus probably could not have risen naturally presupposes (NRDA); specifically, it presupposes that there probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences (physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled the former to rise naturally. When asked about his concession that Arg2 is a “valid [and] sound argument,” he clarified that his statement was made in reference to McDonald’s argument—that is, in his second affirmative, when he stated “the argument is valid, and it is a sound argument,” he was talking about MA being valid and sound. If this is true, then McDonald does hold to (NRDA), whether he realizes his commitment or not. Hence, he needs to defend the soundness of MA by supplying strong reasons for believing (NRDA), something he has yet to do. Will he attempt to defend the truth of (NRDA) in his final affirmative? I remain skeptical. Unless he defends (NRDA), not only will he be unable to defend the soundness of MA, he will have effectively conceded premise (4) of Arg1 + 3, and therefore conceded his inability to establish that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could not have risen naturally. Making this concession would be more than slightly embarrassing. Argument 4 (1). We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if the event of Jesus being raised from the dead were inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science (henceforth C), then that event will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]Not much has changed in my opponent’s treatment of Arg4; McDonald objects to premise (1) by simply asserting its falsity without argument, and continues to ignore my reasons for why the inference in (1) is fallacious. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the fact that something is inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science doesn’t mean it will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by all possible future science. The history of science has taught us that many things we now consider possible were once considered—by prominent scientists, no less—scientifically impossible[1], and thus the mere impossibility of any event relative to a particular scientific paradigm is no guarantee that it is impossible relative to some other scientific paradigm, and thus no guarantee that it is impossible per se – i.e. impossible according to the actual laws of nature (why has my opponent ignored this fact?). If McDonald wants to claim Jesus “could not” have risen “by means of natural law,” then he must demonstrate that that phenomenon will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by all possible future science (e.g. the state of science 800,000 + years from now). Bare assertions are no substitute for proper argumentation (when will McDonald realize this?). I have repeatedly asked: How does he purport to claim to know[2] that no possible future science will be able render the event naturally possible? Perhaps our descendants in 800,000 + years will discover a scientific explanation for how Jesus, 2,000 years ago,could have risen naturally. Perhaps they will encounter advanced extraterrestrials who already have this knowledge. On what basis does my opponent rule out these possibilities? Why were they dismissed without argument? McDonald writes: when a person dies, he dies and he naturally will stay dead, and the only way he can come back from the dead is for some supernatural force to force life back in the body.Again, this is nothing more than a bare, naked assertion, unsupported by any argument in any of my opponent’s affirmative statements. Where has he argued for the above claim? Why does he blatantly beg the question by assuming it to be an established fact? He claims I didn’t deal with his “element number one”—i.e. “Only By The Supernatural Power Of God Could Jesus Christ Have Been Raised From The Dead.” But the reality is, I am under no obligation to “deal” with non-existent arguments, and McDonald has not even attempted to argue for his contention. Bare assertions are no substitute for proper argumentation (when will McDonald realize this?). McDonald reiterates an old objection: He surmises what scientists might be able to do in 800,000 + years if given the chance, but he refuses to deal with Dr. Mastropaolo's statement about the age of the earth. He refuses to deal with what I have stated about the earth being as barren as the moon, if it is even in existence that far into the future. He says that he did deal with it by stating what scientists might do if they had the chance, but that does not deal with my statements.My response is the same: it makes absolutely no difference if human beings won’t actually exist in 800,000 + years. For my argument is not about what scientists will in fact discover in the distant future, but about what they could or could not discover to be naturally possible if given the means and opportunity. Thus, my opponent’s claim about the future of this planet is absolutely irrelevant to my argument, and I am under no obligation to contest the truth of irrelevant statements. McDonald writes (quoting his earlier statement): Finally we get to his final argument (where he first introduced the 800,000 + year earth) which in his mind shows that if it could happen in 800,000 + years then it could have happened 2,000 years ago. (1) 2,000 years ago they didn’t even have the technology that we have today, and (2) if we continue to advance technologically and continue to exist in 800,000 + years we will have technology then that we don’t have today. So the argument is like comparing apples to oranges. The only way that you would be able to do this in the distant future would be with some technological devise that no one in the first century had, something we don’t even have today.I already addressed this objection in my second rebuttal. Hence my response is the same: nothing in my argument suggests that because something is possible 800,000 + years from now, it therefore would have been possible 2,000 years ago. I am certainly not committed to this view, as my opponent falsely believes. My opponent is confused because he apparently thinks “understanding at t5 how event e at t1 occurred” and “understanding at t5 how to induce e which people didn’t know how to induce at t1” are equivalent. They are not; it’s the difference between discovering how to do things we couldn’t do before and discovering how something that was done in the past was able to occur. As stated above, perhaps our descendants in 800,000 + years will discover a scientific explanation for how Jesus, 2,000 years ago,could have risen naturally. Or maybe they will discover evidence supporting the extraterrestrial hypothesis. These possibilities were dismissed without argument. Why? McDonald writes: Is this to say that in 800,000 + years we will find that gravity is not be gravity, or the sun is not be the center of our solar system, but rather the earth is the center after all? What do you say Spencer? Are you saying that it is possible that we will find out, in the future that the earth is not round that maybe it is flat after all?My opponent remains trapped in confusion. For purposes of argument, I have assumed throughout this debate that Jesus really was raised from the dead, but denied the inference to “it was God who raised him.” Premise (1) of Arg4 states that this inference is fallacious: after all, how do we know that just because the event is impossible according to current science that it will remain impossible according to all possible future science? The history of science teaches us to be cautious about bold-impossibility pronouncements[3]. What McDonald proposes above, as way of counter-argument, is that I would be committed to the highly skeptical view that perhaps we will discover simple perceptual statements to be later contradicted by radically different perceptional statements (e.g. finding out that the earth is really flat even though we can now clearly see it is spherical). My opponent is confused because he does not see the disanalogy between “events which are known not to occur under certain conditions, but are not known not to occur under completely unknown conditions” and “events which are known to occur but are later discovered not to have occurred.” (An example of the latter would be to discover that rocks don’t really fall to the ground—they instead explode and their fragments vaporize into thin air). McDonald is free to live in the matrix but I prefer reality. The following are my answers to his five questions: (1). I don’t know. But the fact that I don’t know how Jesus could have risen naturally doesn’t mean advanced ETs wouldn’t know, or that Jesus could not have risen naturally. (2). Yes, though it is unclear what you mean by “set aside.” (3). You are confused: I never even entertained the possibility that Jesus could have risen naturally and this would “defy” or “violate” the laws of nature. If Jesus rose naturally, then he did not violate the laws of nature—a point I repeated multiple times. (4). (NRDA) has everything to do with MA. See premise (1) of MA. (5). Yes, it is possible (which is not to say it is likely). [1] See Michio Kaku’s Physics of the Impossible, pgs XI-XVIII. [2] I am not requiring absolute certainty here. Charitable readers will interpret my demands in probabilistic terms. [3] See Michio Kaku’s Physics of The Impossible. |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2009, 03:41 PM
|
#6030607 / #17 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Fourth Rebuttal: part 2
Arguments in Defense of Claim B Argument 2 (P1'). Whenever we observe biological entity X with capabilities that biological entity O do not have, we should assume these capability differences can probably be explained, at least in part, in terms of either: (a) relevant physiological differences between X and O, and/or (b) relevant technological differences between X and O, unless we strong reasons to suppose otherwise.McDonald’s objection to Arg2 is identical to his objection to Arg1: he claims (P1') commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, which is false. I direct him to my reply under Arg1 above and advise him to reread Copi’s explanation of the fallacy. Argument 5 (1). If Arg2 is sound, and if there are no strong reasons for supposing RDA to be false, then we should assume that if Jesus was raised from the dead, that he probably could have risen naturally.Arg5 remains unrefuted. My opponent’s only criticism of Arg5 is that it is based upon Arg2, an argument he falsely charges with the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. McDonald needs to come up with a different reason for rejecting Arg5. Argument 6 (1). If H1 and H2 can potentially explain all the observed physical events they are intended to explain, and H1 is not initially less probable than H2, or only slightly less so, then, if H1 makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than H2, H1 is preferable to H2.Despite my extended treatment of Arg6 in my first rebuttal (650+ words), McDonald has spent considerably less space addressing the argument (less than 140 words in his latest affirmative). Not surprisingly, then, he has failed to properly address Arg6. His main objection remains the same: “Argument number 6 is false because premises 2 and 3 are false.” First a minor correction: arguments cannot be true or false, only valid or invalid, sound or unsound—only propositions can be true or false. Second, what are McDonald’s reasons for thinking premises (2) and (3) to be false? On top of ignoring everything I said about Arg6 in my third rebuttal, he gives no reasons whatsoever in his latest affirmative to suppose the falsity of (2) and (3); the most McDonald does is assert, without any justification, that ETH is “so far-fetched that it is unbelievable.” Why does he refuse to interact with what I say? McDonald’s “objections” are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions, and as things currently stand, Arg6 remains unrefuted. Immediately below I paste what I wrote in my third rebuttal about my opponent’s previous objections to Arg6. Perhaps in his next affirmative, McDonald will either acknowledge the adequacy of my responses to his objections or attempt to address them head-on. [From the third rebuttal] McDonald apparently takes issue with premises (2) and (3). What are his objections? He asserts: What evidence do we have of extraterrestrials? We have none! What evidence do we have of God? We have plenty!My opponent then proceeds to patently beg the question by referencing various Bible passages as evidence for God’s existence. But excusing this elementary error for the moment, let’s suppose he is correct that God exists. What follows? Would this fact—if it is a fact—provide conclusive or merely strong evidence for DBH? Would it mean that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is refuted? I fail to see how. The mere existence of God is compatible with three broad claims about God, one of which must be assumed in order to for McDonald to hold that DBH is far more probable than ETH. They are: (A1). God has never intended to participate in human affairs. (A2). God has intended to participate in human affairs, but only from “behind the scenes” so to speak and never through public displays that can be interpreted as “miracles.” (A3). God has intended to participate in human affairs, not only from “behind the scenes” so to speak but also through public displays that can be interpreted as “miracles.” Why does my opponent think (A3) is true? Can he supply any good (non-question begging) argument for ruling out (A1) and (A2)? If he cannot, then he cannot claim DBH is initially far more probable than ETH, nor can he claim that DBH is true. Of course, the same could be said about ETH: there is no good (non-question begging) argument for why ETH is initially far more probable than DBH. Can I rule out the possibility that advanced extraterrestrials never had any desire to participate in human affairs? In this debate, I have not even tried to make this argument, but instead generously granted at the outset that DBH is not initially less probable than ETH. My generosity was never reciprocated. What about my opponent’s claim that we have no evidence of extraterrestrials? He is simply wrong[4][5][6][7][8]. Although there may not be conclusive evidence of extraterrestrials, there is undoubtedly some (arguably strong) evidence for their existence. McDonald’s second objection is that ETH “isn’t even a good hypothesis” because nothing about ETH fits the definitions of “hypothesis” provided by the Merriam Webster dictionary. He is simply incorrect[9]. What of McDonald’s third objection, which is directed at premise (3)? Does he deny that ETH makes enormously fewer unnecessary causal assumptions than DBH to explain the observed physical events? It is not clear. In my first rebuttal, I claimed DBH makes enormously more unnecessary causal assumptions in at least two ways: first, those involved in helping Jesus (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events, and second, Jesus himself, according to DBH, has more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events. Which point does McDonald dispute? He only disputes to the second point by denying what Christian scholar William Lane Craig has said: that “Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural” (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15) In other words, McDonald denies Jesus acquired an immortal and indestructible body after he rose, which puts him at a disadvantage. Besides William Lane Craig, Christian scholars such as Murray J. Harris, George Eldon Ladd, Raymond E. Brown, and others, completely disagree with my opponent’s view[10]. But even if McDonald’s interpretation of Christian theology were correct (which is highly doubtful), it still would not follow that DBH does not make enormously more unnecessary causal assumptions than ETH. The first point remains uncontested (and unmentioned): those involved in helping Jesus (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events. My opponent has yet to interact with what I said. Why? [End] How does McDonald respond to these corrections in his fourth affirmative? He doesn’t; instead, he completely ignores them. Summary Remarks McDonald complains that since I am taking the negative in this debate, I need to address the various arguments he has put forth for the affirmative position instead of making counter-arguments of my own. He is very confused: my counter-arguments, if sound, would prevent him from being able to establish the affirmative position, and therefore they constitute a real threat he needs to tackle. Moreover, he fails to realize that I have been addressing his argument for the affirmative—argument MA. As noted previously, McDonald’s burden in this debate is to defend an affirmative answer to two questions (not just one): (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? How has McDonald attempted to defend an affirmative answer to (ii)? He hasn’t, at all; and thus it was necessary to construct a logically valid argument for him—argument MA—and challenge McDonald to defend its soundness. Has he done so? No, he hasn’t. Why not?The arguments I offered above, Arg1-Arg6, all goes to show that my opponent will be unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the completion of this debate. Hence, if my opponent thinks he can successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), then he will need to refute my counter-arguments—he cannot successfully arrive at an affirmative answer to (ii) without having refuted my counter-arguments. Thus, my counter-arguments are perfectly appropriate and relevant to this debate. When he finally realize this fact? I end this rebuttal by asking my opponent some familiar questions: Q1. Do you wish to retract your previous claim that you do not have strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true? If so, please list what you believe are strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true. Q2. Do you wish to contest the soundness of arguments Arg1-Arg6? If so, please indicate in your next affirmative the premises you dispute and your reasons for disputing them. [4]http://www.disclosureproject.org/ [5]http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/090422_alien_evidence_apollo_astronaut [6]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9943-top-10-controversial-pieces-of-evidence-for-extraterrestrial-life.html [7] See Physics of the Impossible, pg 148 [8]http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/11/30 On this program, physicist Michio Kaku reaffirmed his belief that there is a 100 percent probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe (wikipedia) [9] A hypothesis, generally speaking, is simply a proposition set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena (dictionary.com), and ETH certainly qualifies. The definitions offered by Merriam Webster aren’t very good. See also wikipedia. [10] See Robert Greg Cavin’s article, “Is there Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?” Found in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. |
|
|
|
|
July 28, 2009, 01:56 AM
|
#6033726 / #18 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Fifth Affirmative Part 1
McDonald’s Fifth Affirmative I want to begin with Spencer’s answers to my questions: (1) “How could Christ have been naturally raised from the dead without defying or violating the laws of nature?” Comment: He claims that such is possible, but doesn’t know how such could have happened. If a person is going to claim that something is possible then proof would be needed that such a thing is possible, otherwise it is just wishful thinking.Lo: (2) “If Christ’s resurrection defied or violated the laws of nature would this not mean that the laws of nature were being set aside?” Comment: If he says if Christ’s resurrection defied or violated this would set aside the laws of nature, but he is unclear about what I mean by “set aside” means. Well, if he doesn’t understand what I mean by “set aside” how does he know that the laws of nature would be set aside? (3) “If you continue to contend that Christ was naturally raised from the dead, but admit that this would defy the laws of nature and that defying the laws of nature would be setting aside the laws of nature, wouldn’t this be the same as saying that Christ was raised from the dead by natural means which set aside the laws of nature?” Comment: You answered question # 1 which said “How could Christ have been naturally raised from the dead without defying or violating the laws of nature?” Your answer was: “I don’t know. But the fact that I don’t know how Jesus could have risen naturally doesn’t mean advanced ETs wouldn’t know, or that Jesus could not have risen naturally.” You are arguing for a position that you have absolutely no idea how it is possible to happen. You argue that Christ could have risen by natural means without violating natural law, but you aren’t sure how that could be done. You are unclear on what is meant by “setting aside” of natural law, but you say that “Yes” it would defy or violate the laws of nature. You might want to reconsider who is confused here and who isn’t. However, I believe you know full well what I mean by those words. You can’t have a natural resurrection from the violation of and setting aside of the laws of nature, and I have a feeling that you know this too—which is why you tried the little word game of “though it is unclear what you mean by ‘set aside.’” If it was unclear then you shouldn’t have answered with a “Yes” answer. Your answer gave your position away.Lo: (4) “Did the NRDA and RDA arguments not have anything to do with the MA (McDonald’s Argument)?” Comment: I am glad you said that because in your third rebuttal you made the following statement:Lo My opponent also denies conceding the validity and soundness of Arg2, even though his statement “the argument is valid, and it is a sound argument” appears just three sentences after he quotes Arg2. He explains that by “the argument” he was referring to McDonald’s Argument—the logically valid argument I attributed to Jerry McDonald—and not to Arg2, despite never having mentioned MA anywhere in his second affirmative. Perhaps, then, it is not I who “needs to read a little bit closer,” but my opponent who needs to write a bit more clearly.Now I hope that you understand why I wrote what I wrote under your RDA argument. I was not referring to the RDA, I was referring to my Constituent Element Argument (MA as you had labeled it) and I was saying that it was valid and sound. No, neither your NRDA nor your RDA are sound arguments, they are false arguments because they are based on the fallacy of logic call Ad Ignorantiam. (5) “In 800,000 + years will it be possible to find that the earth aged billions of years in 10,000 natural years?” Comment: I am amazed at the lengths that my opponent would go to in order to hang on to this illogical position of natural resurrection. I mean come on “the earth aging naturally billions of actual years over a period of 10,000 actual years”! Are you serious? Yet, in order to hang on to the natural resurrection, that is the very position he would have to take, because if Jesus being raised naturally is possible, then anything is possible. There are no impossibilities, there are only improbabilities. Is that what you want us to believe Spencer?Lo Let us look at some of these improbabilities: 1. You can make a ball that is black all over and white all over all at once at the same time. Impossible, or improbable?I say that all three of those things are impossible, but I wonder what Spencer will say! I mean, come on, he takes the position of natural resurrection, and the possibility of the earth naturally aging billions of actual years in 10,000 actual years. Why is a ball being two different colors at the same time going to be such a tough deal for him? Now let’s turn our attention to his fourth rebuttal. In his summary remarks he says: McDonald complains that since I am taking the negative in this debate, I need to address the various arguments he has put forth for the affirmative position instead of making counter-arguments of my own. He is very confused: my counter-arguments, if sound, would prevent him from being able to establish the affirmative position, and therefore they constitute a real threat he needs to tackle. Moreover, he fails to realize that I have been addressing his argument for the affirmative—argument MA. As noted previously, McDonald’s burden in this debate is to defend an affirmative answer to two questions (not just one): (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? How has McDonald attempted to defend an affirmative answer to (ii)? He hasn’t, at all; and thus it was necessary to construct a logically valid argument for him—argument MA—and challenge McDonald to defend its soundness. Has he done so? No, he hasn’t. Why not?I want you to take a close look at what he has said here. Look at the words in italics: “my counter-arguments, if sound, would prevent him from being able to establish the affirmative position.” That has been his tactic all along, to keep me from establishing an affirmative position, that way he could justifiably walk away and say that I did not offer up any affirmative position for the resurrection. Well, it didn’t work, Spencer, that one is one of the oldest in the books: If you are in the negative, put the affirmative in the negative and yourself in the affirmative—that way the audience doesn’t see your inadequacies and the affirmative doesn’t get to deliver his arguments. If you are in the affirmative, put the negative in the affirmative, and place yourself in the negative—that way the audience doesn’t see that you don’t have any affirmative material and it puts the burden of proof on your opponent. Nice try, didn’t work. I’ve had far too many debates to fall for that little trick. He says he’s been addressing my argument for the affirmative, but he’s said nothing about the elements that I have given for that argument. That was his responsibility—not to run off making up negative arguments. He reminds me of Dr. Joe Barnhart in the Warren-Barnhart Debate on Bentham’s Utilitarian Ethics Vs. Christian Ethics (Barnhart took Bentham’s side and Warren took Christian side) in Denton, TX (1980). When Dr. Warren was in the affirmative, Dr. Barnhart would ignore Dr. Warren’s arguments and just present his own material instead of answering Dr. Warren’s. When Warren was in the negative he refused to make affirmative arguments and worked to put Warren in the affirmative. I was at that debate, and questioned Barnhart as to why he chose this tactic. He refused to answer, but then again, I was young and naïve back then I understand why now. As I have stated previously, Spencer’s NRDA and RDA arguments are no part of my position. In the first place they are based on the fallacy of logic Ad Ignorantiam. I have shown this in specific detail, and Spencer’s simple denial of such will not negate the truth of the matter. However, the NRDA is also based on probabilities and possibilities. I dealt with the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead by the supernatural power of God. That was my very first element. Had Spencer bothered to deal with element number one he would have seen that. However, he chose to ignore my material on that and go with NRDA (an argument based on probability and possibility) and also based on a fallacy of logic which makes the argument false. I pointed out what “death” means and what “resurrection” means, but he refuses to deal with either one of those. Why? Because he would rather talk about little green men from the planet Mobeus than to talk about reality. He wants to talk about the future when the proposition specifies “Historical.” I didn’t know that “historical” includes the future. Main Entry:Now maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see where the word “future” or anything related to “future” is there. “Future” is a totally different word with a totally different meaning. Main Entry:So the word “future” doesn’t mean “historical” and “historical” doesn’t mean “future.” So the big question is why doesn’t Spencer get the point that this debate is not about the future, but about the past? He says that he has given us links that shows that there is evidence for extraterrestrials. Well, you know you can find just about anything on the internet. You know I can show that there is evidence that Elvis Presley is still alive. Notice: http://www.webspawner.com/users/elviselvis/I can also show that Santa Claus is real. I mean even Norad tracks him each year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp7zWs8fHeEYou see what you can prove by going to the internet? I mean, you can prove just about anything by going to the internet. So don’t talk to me about internet evidence in favor of extraterrestrials. In going back to the soundness of his argument 1, he states: “Moreover, even if I had argued fallaciously for (P1), it still would not follow that Arg1 is itself invalid—it would only follow that the argument I used in defense of (P1) is invalid.” However, this statement is false because if the argument he used in defense of (P1) was false it was false because it was based upon (P1). Let us look at this in syllogistic form: Major Premise: If Lo defends (P1) and his defense of (P1) is false, and his defense of (P1) is based upon the truth or falsity of (P1) then (P1) is also false. Minor Premise: Lo defends (P1) and his defense of (P1) is false, and his defense of (P1) is based upon the truth or falsity of (P1). Conclusion: Therefore (P1) is also false. He continues to claim that Arg 1 is not false and that it is not based on Ad Ignorantiam. Again, let us look at it. (C2). Therefore, NRDA should not be presumed true until we have strong reasons to affirm NRDA. (from C1). “The argument ad ignorantiam (from ignorance) is the mistake that is committed when it is argued that a proposition … is false because it has not been proved true” (Introduction to Logic, p. 139). Now C2 is saying that NRDA should not be presumed true until we have strong reasons to affirm NRDA or until it has been proven true. What is the difference between that and saying “it is false until it has been proven true”? There is no difference that I can see. So from what I can see NRDA is based upon the fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam. With that being the case, RDA is also based upon the very same fallacy because it is the opposite of NRDA. (C2'). Therefore, RDA should be presumed true until we have strong reasons for abandoning this presumption. “The argument ad ignorantiam (from ignorance) is the mistake that is committed when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false” (Introduction to Logic, p. 139). RDA should be presumed true until we have a strong reasons for abandoning this presumption, or when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. The only thing he has to hang on to either argument are the words “strong reasons” which mean nothing at all because “strong reasons” are meaningless. A person can give strong reasons to Spencer to abandon a position, but that does not mean Spencer will abandon it. I have given strong reasons why Spencer should abandon the “extraterrestrial” theory, but he says that I have to “prove that they don’t exist” before I can prove him wrong. So, at the end of the day his NRDA and his RDA are nothing more than fancy worded arguments based upon the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy of logic, thus making both arguments invalid and unsound. And since argument five is based on RDA, it too is unsound. There are three out of his six that are down and out. Arguments 3,4 & 6 are all that are left and they are nothing more than shells. He gave up the ghost on argument 3 in answering my questions. He should know better than to answer questions without looking closely at them. I don’t ask meaningless questions. When I ask a question there is a trap hidden somewhere there in. In question # 1 I asked him how this could be, and his answer was: “I don’t know. But the fact that I don’t know how Jesus could have risen naturally doesn’t mean advanced ETs wouldn’t know, or that Jesus could not have risen naturally.” Yet, he purports to tell us that it is possible. If it is possible then tell us how it is possible. Main Entry:Now this is what the word “possible” means. It doesn’t mean far-fetched, it means something that is capable of being realized. In order to do this one would have to know how this is going to be done. You cannot say it is possible if you don’t know how to do it or how it can be done. You can’t say “well, the ET’s certainly knew how” because you haven’t proven that any “ET’s” existed or ever will exist. Do you think that the angels were extraterrestrials? Where did you get that, from the movie “Knowing”? In my fourth affirmative I quoted the meaning of the word natural, and Spencer ignored it (just like he does everything else that nails him down): “Natural NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced] 1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired” (Webster’s Dictionary, e-Sword). Main Entry:Now what both of these definitions tell us is that natural cannot be anything like what Spencer is arguing for. A resurrection from the dead would not go in the ordinary course of nature, as a matter of fact it would go opposite of the ordinary course of nature. It would defy the ordinary course of nature, so how could you have a natural resurrection? Then in question # 2 I asked about if Jesus’ resurrection defied the laws of nature would that mean that the laws of nature were set aside, and you said “Yes,” but then you said “though it is unclear about what you mean by ‘set aside.’” When you said that you gave your entire position away, because either I was unclear on what I meant by “set aside” or Jesus’ resurrection set aside the laws of nature. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t understand what I meant by “set aside” you shouldn’t have answered “Yes” because answering in the affirmative said that you understood what “set aside” meant. Do you just answer “Yes” to anything? Then question # 3 is the clincher. I asked about your continued position on the natural resurrection and your affirmative answer to question 2. Your answer was: “You are confused: I never even entertained the possibility that Jesus could have risen naturally and this would “defy” or “violate” the laws of nature. If Jesus rose naturally, then he did not violate the laws of nature—a point I repeated multiple times.” Oh, no, I am not confused—not in the least. You don’t even know what “set aside” means. Yet you say that if Christ’s death violated the laws of nature it would set aside the laws of nature, not even understanding what that meant. So how do you know that natural resurrection wouldn’t set aside the laws of nature? Since you aren’t clear on “setting aside” of the laws of nature, how do you know that natural resurrection does not involve the setting aside of the laws of nature—therefore violating and/or defying the laws of nature? So…who is confused and who isn’t? I understand very well what setting aside the laws of nature means, and I take a firm stand that if Christ rose naturally his natural resurrection would have naturally set aside the laws of nature—a logical contradiction. That is a problem you can’t escape which is why you have come up with this off the wall garbage about natural resurrection not having anything to do with violating the laws of nature. So down goes argument number three, and all that’s left is 4 & 6. Question # 5 was asked for argument 4. “We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if the event of Jesus being raised from the dead were inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by current science (henceforth C), then that event will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]” Question 5 was: “In 800,000 + years will it be possible to find that the earth aged billions of years in 10,000 natural years?” Your answer was: “Yes, it is possible (which is not to say it is likely).” So what you are saying is that it is possible that the earth naturally aged billions of actual years in only 10,000 actual years? Great, my man Todd Greene (my opponent in my debate on the age of the earth) will be glad to hear that. Can I quote you? You may have just re-written the book on geology. Now, let’s see, which do you want for your platter? Gold or silver? But either way the blood will stain!...But hey when you have natural resurrection, who cares? As the little cartoon cylon said, after being resurrected, “hm…hm…hm…I’m back, I’m back, I’m back, O baby, it’s all about the resurrection ship, I’m back, I’m….” I won’t repeat the rest of what he said when he found out he came back as a raider with a centurion’s head. In the future, we will find that gravity still works, that dead people still stay dead and that Jesus was still the Son of God, not an extraterrestrial. We will find that the laws of nature still work the same as they do today. 2,000 years ago Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but it wasn’t through any natural means. I have presented this argument before and Spencer has ignored it every time. Why? Because it goes to the very heart of arguments 4 and 6. If it is possible that Jesus was an extraterrestrial as argument six posits, and had powers to naturally raise people from the dead, why didn’t he touch Lazarus? From the account, he simply spoke to Lazarus and Lazarus came forth. Does that sound like any natural thing to you? Spencer won’t deal with the resurrection of Lazarus because he knows that the moment he does it will destroy his last two arguments. Argument 4 argues that resurrection would have to take place naturally, and argument 6 argues that either Jesus was an alien and/or aliens naturally raised him from the dead (maybe the angels were the aliens). Deal with the resurrection of Lazarus, Spencer. His refusal to do so shows the weakness of both arguments 4 & 6. Thus down go his last two arguments. |
|
|
|
|
July 28, 2009, 02:03 AM
|
#6033733 / #19 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Fifth Affirmative Part 2
His arguments are down and out. Now there is something I intended to deal with in my 4th affirmative, but I forgot to deal with it. Spencer brought up William Lane Craig’s quotation “Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural” (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15). Now here is the problem the body that Christ had required food to sustain it, something a “radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful and supernatural” would not need.
“And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them” (Luk 24:35-43)The truth of the matter is that Christ did not get his glorified body until he ascended into heaven after he gave the great commission to his apostles. It was then, that, that he received his immortal body. His resurrected body was merely the body that had died that had been resurrected. Nothing special happened to the body except that life had been restored to it. However, when he ascended into heaven that fleshly body became a spiritual body because flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. Until that point, Christ’s body was a flesh and blood body and his being able to eat is evident of that fact. He wants to know why I accept A3, that God worked, not only behind the scenes, but through miracles. I accept it because the Bible tells me that he did. I accept the Bible because I have tested it in debate for the last 20 years against atheists and have found it to stand up against the strongest arguments they have thrown at it. I accept the Bible because in studying it I have found reasonable explanations for each and every so-called contradiction in the Bible. I have found reasonable explanations for every other alleged problem that has been brought up to me in the Bible. I have a long dissertation on the inspiration of the Bible giving affirmative arguments in favor of it at http://www.challenge2.org/inspirationofthebible.pdf Q1. Do you wish to retract your previous claim that you do not have strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true? If so, please list what you believe are strong reasons for supposing (NRDA) to be true. My answer is “No, I do not wish to retract my previous claim about your NRDA argument.” Q2. Do you wish to contest the soundness of arguments Arg1-Arg6? If so, please indicate in your next affirmative the premises you dispute and your reasons for disputing them. My answer is: “I have already contested the soundness of Arg1-Arg 6 and given my reasons for disputing them. My reasons aren’t going to change simply because you keep bringing the arguments up and asking me if I wish to contest them. CLOSING REMARKS This is my final affirmative and I have done my best to present affirmative material and defend that material. I have made one argument in favor of my proposition: Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true. Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual. Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true. In addition to that argument I have given five elements to prove that argument. Element number one was “Only By The Supernatural Power Of God Could Jesus Christ Have Been Raised From The Dead.” Element number 2 was “Secular History Includes Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ.” Element number three was “Biblical History Gives Information About God Raising Jesus From The Dead.” Element number four was “Extra-Biblical History Reports Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Element number five was “Biblical Arguments For The Resurrection.” These five elements when put together make up the whole of my argument, and prove my minor premise, and therefore the conclusion of my argument. Therefore my proposition is proven. I have tried to get Mr. Lo to take these arguments and deal with them, instead his tactics were to present negative arguments in an attempt to keep me out of the affirmative; by his own admission. Mr. Lo pines because he has granted that Jesus rose from the dead and I am not reciprocating and allowing the possibility that his resurrection was a natural one. Well, I can’t allow that which goes against the course of nature to be natural. The only way I can grant it is to argue for a supernatural resurrection, and that’s what I have been doing during the course of this debate. I can’t make Spencer answer my arguments, all I can do is make them and hope he will deal with them. In Christ Jesus Jerry McDonald |
|
|
|
|
July 30, 2009, 02:51 AM
|
#6037559 / #20 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Final Rebuttal: Part 1
Jerry McDonald has proven himself to be an interesting debate opponent; although virtually all of his objections are riddled with logical errors, contain distortions based on simple misunderstandings or are just downright confused, they do present something of a challenge. That challenge is akin to teaching your (very young) kid brother to tie his shoes: every time he makes an attempt on his own, the knot he ties is so perplexingly woven, interlaced in ways no eye can follow (without any of the elegance), that it takes literally hours—and lots of calming meditation—to untangle the mess. At the end of the unknotting process one feels a sense of prideful accomplishment—which is short-lived, as the little rascal proceeds to undo all your hard work by weaving himself an even more complicated knot. If nothing else, untangling McDonald’s “knots” kept me on my toes and re-instilled in me the value of patience, and for that I thank him.
In this final rebuttal I show precisely why my opponent has utterly failed to establish the affirmative position of the debate resolution, and in terms so utterly simple that even McDonald will understand (hopefully). Set aside for the moment the somewhat sophisticated arguments I’ve been making (i.e. arguments Arg1-Arg6)—pretend they don’t exist; and instead, focus on the very first argument I put forth in my first rebuttal, what I called the Overall Argument (OA). OA has a very simple, easy-to-understand structure: (1). If Jerry McDonald is unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii) by the conclusion of this debate, then he will not have established the affirmative position of the debate resolution (henceforth DR) by the conclusion of this debate.As noted in my first rebuttal, and repeated like a mantra throughout the debate, the resolution under contention raises two logically distinct questions: (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? Unless my opponent can successfully defend an affirmative answer to both questions, he cannot successfully defend the affirmative position of the debate resolution; thus, McDonald will have failed—utterly—to make his case if he is only successful at defending an affirmative answer to (i) but not to (ii). Suppose for the sake of argument that McDonald succeeded in defending an affirmative answer to (i); if he has, then the only question we need to ask is if McDonald has successfully defended an affirmative answer to (ii). There are only two possibilities: either McDonald has successfully defended an answer to (ii), or he has not successfully defended an answer to (ii). Which is it? Argument OA is directly relevant to this question: it is either sound or unsound depending on which of the two possibilities is true. The only point of contention regarding OA is the truth of premise (2)—both the validity of OA and the truth of premise (1) are undeniable; if McDonald has successfully defended an affirmative answer to (ii), then premise (2) is false and OA is unsound. If, on the other hand, McDonald has failed to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), then not only is premise (2) true, but the entire argument is sound. Setting aside all the other arguments I have made (i.e. arguments Arg1-Arg6), it is an undeniable fact—one that is very simple to grasp—that McDonald has not successfully defended an affirmative answer to (ii) – in any of his affirmative statements. I say again: we have reached the conclusion of this debate and Jerry McDonald has been unable to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii). It is therefore undeniable that conclusion (3) is true and the entire argument sound. Why do I say it is an undeniable fact—one that is very simple to grasp—that my opponent has failed to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii)? How do I know premise (2) of OA is true? Because McDonald has not even bothered to defend an affirmative answer to (ii), let alone successfully defend it. Bare assertions do not amount to a defense, no matter what McDonald wishes to believe, and as I tried to help him understand (to no avail), a long string of bare, naked assertions is no substitute for proper argumentation. I say again (so there is no confusion): the most my opponent has done in way of defending an affirmative answer to (ii) is to argue by mere assertion, which is to not argue at all. Hence, on this basis alone (nevermind my other arguments), my opponent succeeded in proving the truth of premise (2) for me by doing nothing at all: I could have relaxed and kicked back, written far less than I did—had I known it was going to be this easy, there would have been no need to construct arguments Arg1-Arg6. Below I list a whopping total of 15 bare assertions—that I had the patience to count—McDonald made throughout this debate (many overlap). Readers should keep the following in mind: why did McDonald choose to not support those assertions with any kind of argument? Being in the affirmative, does McDonald not have the obligation to justify his contentious claims via proper argumentation instead of assuming them to be true? Is it possible for him to “win” this debate without supplying arguments for those assertions? McDonald’s Bare Assertions (B1). “Only By The Supernatural Power Of God Could Jesus Christ Have Been Raised From The Dead.” (B2). “Jesus was raised from the dead by the supernatural power of God.” (B3). “A resurrection from the dead would…defy the ordinary course of nature.” (B4). “I take a firm stand that if Christ rose naturally his natural resurrection would have naturally set aside the laws of nature.” (B5). “2,000 years ago Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but it wasn’t through any natural means.” (B6). “when a person dies, he dies and he naturally will stay dead, and the only way he can come back from the dead is for some supernatural force to force life back in the body.” (B7). “You can’t have a natural resurrection without the violation of and setting aside of the laws of nature.” (B8). “The laws of nature show us that once someone is dead that, naturally, that person will not come back to life” (emphasis added) (B9). “He could not do this [rise from the dead] by means of natural law.” (emphasis added) (B10). “there is no way that his body was going to come back through natural means” (emphasis added) (B11). The only way that he could have come back to life would have [been to] come back to life by some supernatural power.” (emphasis added) (B12). “Only through the power of God (an all powerful supernatural divine being) could someone who was truly dead be brought back from the dead.” (emphasis added) (B13). The only way that you could raise that dead body would be if you had supernatural powers. (emphasis added) (B14). “The laws of nature say that when death occurs, and especially when the body has been embalmed (prepared for burial) and buried, you are not going to be able to bring that body back to life unless you have a supernatural force.” (B15). “raising someone from the dead by purely natural means would be impossible.” To blatantly beg the question is perhaps the most elementary mistake one can make in a debate; not surprisingly, then, its appearance among experienced debators is usually rare. Not so with Jerry McDonald, who has been defending the Bible “for the last 20 years against atheists.” As we see above, McDonald has committed the most elementary of mistakes not just twice or even five times, but over and over and over again ad nauseam—so often that one wonders if the practice of repeating bare assertions is part of McDonald’s debate strategy. Again, so there is no confusion: there is no need for me to discuss arguments Arg1-Arg6 or respond to my opponent’s hopelessly confused objections. Because McDonald has failed to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii)—by not giving any defense at all—he has done all the necessary work to bring about his downfall: he proved argument OA for me. (What could be easier?). I suspect this truth is one so utterly simple that even McDonald will understand (hopefully). McDonald’s Argument Explained (again) Everything I say here from this point on is purely academic and unnecessary—readers should feel free to skip the rest of this final rebuttal. But for those seeking more amusement, I promise an interesting time. Pretend with me that McDonald was actually serious about supplying some argumentation for his bare assertions. How would he go about arguing for an affirmative answer to (ii)? How would he seek to demonstrate the contention that, if Jesus was raised, he probably rose supernaturally? Because McDonald refuses to supply an argument of his own, I assisted him by constructing the following argument for him (it even bears his name):(1). NRDA is true, and the rest of humanity can’t rise naturally from the dead.McDonald’s Argument (MA) is logically valid, but is it sound? Its most central and contentious assumption is what I call the No Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption (NRDA). NRDA: There probably could not have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally.In contrast, there is what I call the Naturally Relevant Difference Assumption (RDA), which states: RDA: There probably could have existed naturally relevant differences (e.g. physiological, technological, etc) between Jesus and the rest of humanity that would have enabled Jesus to rise naturally.As I have repeatedly explained again and again, an affirmative answer to (ii) presupposes the truth of (NRDA) and the falsity of (RDA), and therefore it is vital to McDonald’s whole affirmative case that he be able to defend (NRDA). So why hasn’t he? Because he is very confused. We begin to see the depths of my opponent’s confusion when he writes the following: neither your NRDA nor your RDA are sound arguments, they are false arguments because they are based on the fallacy of logic call Ad Ignorantiam… at the end of the day his NRDA and his RDA are nothing more than fancy worded arguments based upon the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy of logicMcDonald’s frequent references to Irving Copi’s logic textbook gave me the impression that he would be at least capable of distinguishing propositions from arguments. I was wrong. Propositions, Mr. McDonald, are assertions—like your 15 bare assertions above—and they have the property of being either true or false. In contrast, arguments are not propositions and thus do not have this property—instead they are, in Copi’s language, “groups of propositions [at least two] of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.” McDonald’s first egregious error was in assuming (NRDA) and (RDA) to be “arguments,” which they are not. McDonald’s made his second egregious error with the phrase “false arguments,” which is literally meaningless—arguments cannot be true or false, only valid or invalid, sound or unsound. I’ll get to McDonald’s third egregious error later when discussing Arg1. McDonald’s confusions do not end there. Some readers may recall that McDonald made a curious statement in his second affirmative, in which he said “The argument is valid, and it is a sound argument.” What argument was he talking about? At the time I thought he meant argument Arg2 because his statement appeared only three sentences after quoting Arg2. But I was wrong: he clarified in his third affirmative that he was actually referring to McDonald’s Argument—“MA as you labeled it.” Hence, if my opponent thinks the logically valid argument I attributed to him above is sound, then presumably, he must also think the premises of MA are all true and defendable. Does he? This is where McDonald’s confusions take on a contradictory nature: on the one hand, he believes MA is a sound argument, but on the other, he claims “NRDA [forms] no part of my position.” A contradiction! (I leave it to my opponent to sort this one out). It is not surprising, then, that McDonald refuses to provide any argumentation in support of (NRDA), despite my numerous requests for him to do so; he simply doesn’t get it. Without providing strong reasons for supposing the truth of (NRDA), McDonald cannot ever hope to establish the soundness of MA, and therefore cannot ever hope to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii). Why doesn’t McDonald get this? Because he is very confused. Claims M and B Explained (again) (Reminder to readers: feel free to skip the rest of this final rebuttal). Because I thought McDonald might present something of a real challenge (having 20 years of debate experience under his belt), I decided to go all out in my first rebuttal and defend a skeptical answer to (ii); I introduced arguments which would have prevented my opponent from successfully defending an affirmative answer to (ii). My skeptical answer consists of two assertions, one modest claim and one bolder claim, or claims M and B: (M) even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we nevertheless have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising, and (B) if Jesus was raised, natural explanations would be far more preferable than the supernatural one. Thus, Claim M asserts we have no good reason for supposing the truth of (NRDA), whereas Claim B goes further and asserts the truth of (RDA)—by defending both claims, I forced my opponent to rebut several arguments which threaten his position. I now realize all that work was completely unnecessary. Nevertheless, the following point bears repeating: my counter-arguments, if sound, would have (and has) prevented McDonald from establishing the affirmative position. Why does my opponent complain about my use of counter-arguments? He writes: That has been his tactic all along, to keep me from establishing an affirmative positionYes, exactly! My whole tactic has been precisely that – trying to keep McDonald from establishing the affirmative position. What else am I supposed to be doing? In case he has forgotten, Jerry McDonald is my debate opponent—“we are soldiers in two armies,” he explained in his first affirmative—and thus it is my job to stop him from proving his case, using whatever intellectual weaponry at my disposal, and the fact that I countered his sticks and arrows with tanks is no reason to cry foul. My opponent should have came to battle prepared. Before turning to more routine matters, I address one other piece of confusion concerning the scope of my position. Some readers, I suspect, think it central to my Overall Argument that the raising of Jesus—if it occurred—was probably naturally possible, and thus I am obligated to justify this claim. This perception is incorrect; the soundness of OA is perfectly consistent with the raising of Jesus being naturally impossible. Instead, the most I need to show (before it is Game Over) is that my opponent failed to demonstrate the following: if Jesus was raised from the dead, he probably rose supernaturally—arguments Arg1, Arg3, Arg1+3, and Arg4 accomplishes this end even if McDonald had tried (though he didn’t) to defend an affirmative answer to (ii). None of those arguments, however, is committed to the view that the raising of Jesus was naturally possible, because the most they purport to show is that my opponent will be unable to demonstrate the above claim. I say again (so there is no confusion): the arguments in defense of Claim M do not claim—or are they committed to claiming—the natural possibility of Jesus being raised from the dead. Thus, my opponent distorted my position when he falsely claimed “Argument 4 argues that resurrection would have to take place naturally”—probably as a result of failing to grasp the distinction between the arguments in defense of Claim M and the arguments in defense of Claim B. Arg2, Arg5 and Arg6 (my alien argument), which falls under the latter arguments, are purely bonus arguments: although they are sound, I threw them out there just because, not because I actually needed them. Arg1, Arg3, Arg1+3, and especially Arg4, on the other hand, were my main arguments against MA—and as we’ve seen, I didn’t need those either! |
|
|
|
|
July 30, 2009, 02:51 AM
|
#6037560 / #21 |
|
Regular Member
Join Date: January 2008
Location: Brooklyn, New York - North East
Posts: 191
|
Final Rebuttal: Part 2
Arguments in Defense of Claim M Argument 1 McDonald objected to (P1) on the grounds that it commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, quoting Copi in an attempt to support his contention. According to Copi, the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy is committed “when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.” Have I “argued” this way? If I had argued this way, then I would be guilty of committing the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy; thus, since I have not argued this way, I am not guilty of committing the fallacy. Nowhere in any of my rebuttals have I “argued that [P1] is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false,” which would be fallacious. Instead, I argued: (P1) is true because it is extraordinarily well confirmed by induction, which is clearly not fallacious. Despite having repeated this point over and over, why has McDonald not grasped the simple distinction between the two arguments? Clearly he is very confused. Moreover, even if I had argued fallaciously for (P1), it still would not follow that Arg1 is itself invalid—it would only follow that the argument I used in defense of (P1) is invalid. McDonald only addresses this last point in his final affirmative while ignoring the previous one. He writes: However, this statement is false because if the argument he used in defense of (P1) was false it was false because it was based upon (P1).First, it is meaningless to say arguments can be false since arguments can only be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Second, my argument for (P1) is not based on (P1). Third, even if my argument for (P1) was based on (P1), it still would not follow that Arg1 is itself invalid—it would only follow that the argument I used in defense of (P1) is circular. Argument 3 McDonald objects to Arg3 on the grounds that “raising someone from the dead by purely natural means would be impossible,” while completely ignoring my response. I showed in my third rebuttal why his claim does nothing to call into question the soundness of Arg3. First, other than my opponent’s bare assertion, he gives no non-question-begging reason whatsoever to think “raising someone from the dead by purely natural means would be impossible.” A bare assertion is not an argument (when will he realize this?). Second, even if supernatural causation were necessary to raise the dead, this fact would not “refute” or call into question the truth of premise (1). Premise (1) does not assert anything beyond what is stated above: that unless we have strong reasons to suppose that a scientifically unexplained phenomenon has a supernatural cause, it would be premature to conclude that it does. To conclude that the raising of Jesus had a supernatural cause is perfectly consistent with premise (1), so long as we have strong reasons to suppose this is true. How does McDonald respond to these corrections in his final affirmative? He doesn’t. Argument 1 + Argument 3 (Arg1+3) McDonald remains trapped in confusion: as noted earlier, he believes MA is a sound argument but claims “NRDA [forms] no part of my position,” which is incoherent. His failure to provide any argumentative support for (NRDA) has resulted in premise (4) being proved true, and thus I conclude Arg1+3 is sound. Argument 4 Although McDonald indicated early in this debate that his objection is to premise (1), he continues to ignore my responses even in his final affirmative. Other than denying it without argument, how does he object to premise (1)? He doesn’t; denying (1) without argument is his only method of objecting to the premise. Below are questions he refuses to answer as well as some points I wish to make: 1.How does he know that the event of Jesus being raised from the dead will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws as understood by any possible future state of science? (After all, as we know from the history of science, many things we now consider possible were once considered—by prominent scientists, no less—to be scientifically impossible[1], and thus the mere impossibility of any event relative to a particular scientific paradigm is no guarantee that it is impossible relative to some other scientific paradigm, and thus no guarantee that it is impossible per se – i.e. impossible according to the actual laws of nature). Arguments in Defense of Claim B Argument 2 McDonald’s objection to Arg2 is identical to his objection to Arg1: he claims (P1') commits the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, which is false. I direct him to my reply under Arg1 above and advise him to reread Copi’s explanation of the fallacy. Argument 5 Arg5 stands unrefuted. My opponent’s only criticism of Arg5 is that it is based upon Arg2, an argument he falsely charges with the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. Argument 6 McDonald objected to premises (2) and (3) mainly on the following grounds: (i) there is no evidence for extraterrestrials but lots of evidence for the existence of God, (ii) ETH “isn’t even a good hypothesis” because nothing about ETH fits the definitions of “hypothesis” provided by the Merriam Webster dictionary, and (iii) according to Christian theology, Jesus did not acquire an immortal and indestructible body after he rose from the dead. In response to (i), I refuted his claim of there being no evidence for extraterrestrials by providing references to some (arguably strong) evidence for extraterrestrials. I also indicated that, even if the existence of God were a given, it still must be demonstrated that (A3) God intended to participate in human affairs, not only from “behind the scenes” so to speak but also through public displays that can be interpreted as “miracles,” and challenged McDonald to supply non-question begging argumentation for ruling out the other two possibilities—(A1) God never intended to participate in human affairs, and (A2) God intended to participate in human affairs, but only from “behind the scenes” and never through public displays that can be interpreted as “miracles.” How does McDonald respond to these points? First, he simply dismisses the credibility of the references I provided (not all were links to websites) by suggesting they are akin to websites about Elvis being alive. Undoubtedly, numerous websites contain lots of non-credible information about various incredible claims, but this is not to say all websites contain non-credible information about various incredible claims. Thus, by dismissing my references not on the merits of the information presented, but on the basis that some websites contain non-credible information, my opponent is guilty of committing the hasty generalization fallacy. Second, in response to my request for non-question begging argumentation, McDonald provided me with the exact opposite of what I asked: an argument for (A3) which blatantly begs the question (“I accept [A3] because the Bible tells me [it is true]”). Hence, McDonald’s responses are inadequate and thus objection (i) fails. In response to (ii), I pointed out that a hypothesis is simply a proposition set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena (dictionary.com), and ETH certainly qualifies. How does McDonald respond to this correction? He completely ignored it, so I assumed he dropped objection (ii). In response to (iii), I pointed out that various Christian scholars—e.g. William Lane Craig, Murray J. Harris, George Eldon Ladd, and Raymond E. Brown—all disagree with my opponent’s theological position, which puts him in the minority, and also that even if his view were correct, premise (3) of Arg6 would still be true. How does McDonald respond to these two points? First, he thinks Luke 24:35-43 refutes Craig’s claim that “Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural,” particularly because the passage in Luke talks about Jesus asking for food post-resurrection. McDonald infers from this request that Jesus needed nourishment, and therefore had not yet acquired an immortal and indestructible body. However, the most the passage indicates is Jesus’ desire to eat (perhaps he likes the taste of food?), not that he had to eat, and thus McDonald’s leap is unwarranted. How does McDonald respond to my second point? He doesn’t. In my first rebuttal, I claimed DBH makes enormously more unnecessary causal assumptions in at least two ways: first, those involved in helping Jesus (i.e. God and angels) have more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events, and second, Jesus himself, according to DBH, has more causal powers than necessary—that is, infinitely more—to account for the observed physical events. Even if McDonald’s interpretation of Christian theology were correct (which is highly doubtful), the first point remains uncontested (and unmentioned), and therefore his objection does nothing to call into question the truth of premise (3). Hence, objection (iii) fails. Concluding Remarks I want to again reiterate that my entire discussion of MA and arguments Arg1-Arg6 were completely unnecessary—I could have ended my final rebuttal more than 3,000 words ago. McDonald’s failure to successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii)—by not even attempting to defend such an answer—established for me the soundness of OA, an argument sufficiently powerful to prevent my opponent from establishing his case. McDonald’s complaint that I have largely ignored his arguments is true but irrelevant: because again, my main concern was with preventing him from successfully defending an affirmative answer to (ii), and in this endeavor I succeeded – mostly by doing nothing. I end this final rebuttal by extending my gratitude to Jerry McDonald for an interesting debate, and also to George Hathaway for his role in moderating it. It is my hope that readers found something worthwhile in these exchanges. [1] See Michio Kaku’s Physics of the Impossible, pgs XI-XVIII. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility |
|
|
|
|
July 30, 2009, 03:48 PM
|
#6038445 / #22 |
|
Newcomer
Join Date: August 2006
Location: Belle, Missouri
Posts: 92
|
McDonald's Summary
McDonald’s Summary Spencer closes his part of this debate with the best rebuttal to the proposition yet. At least he did mention the elements of my argument even if he didn’t bother trying to refute them. He wrote “Readers should keep the following in mind: why did McDonald choose to not support those assertions with any kind of argument?” I did give evidence to back up every element. He simply ignored it. I don’t have to give logical arguments for each element. I gave a valid and sound argument for my argument, and I gave five elements to prove that argument. With this being the case my argument proves my proposition to be true. Now, let me say that I understand that arguments are either sound or unsound, and propositions are either true or false, but without getting strictly logical, arguments can be true or false. However I do understand the difference, and if this is all Spencer has to complain about he has nothing at all. He says that “begging the question” is usually rare in a debate between experienced debaters, but I beg to differ, for it is one of the most abused fallacies that “experienced debaters” use especially when their argument is untenable. However, I did not beg the question. I showed that secular history records information about the resurrection. I also showed that Biblical history records information about the resurrection. Regardless of how he regards the Bible, he must regard it as historical information, and that is how I used it. I also showed that extra-Biblical history records information about the resurrection. I showed that only by the supernatural power of God could Jesus have been raised from the dead. I then gave Biblical arguments for the resurrection. I brought up the resurrection of Lazarus and showed that it was not by natural power, but by supernatural power, for Jesus never even touched him. To all of this, Spencer waited until his final rebuttal and then simply stated that they were assertions. He never bothered to show how they were assertions; he merely stated that they were. He said that his tactic was to keep me from taking an affirmative position, and says that this is what his job was since he is a soldier in one army and I a soldier in another. Well it is true that we are soldiers in two different armies, but this was not a strategy game, this was a debate where the negative is obligated to respond to the affirmant’s arguments and show how and why said arguments don’t prove the proposition. Obviously Spencer doesn’t understand this simple concept and as such I must insist that people continue to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead by the supernatural power of God and not by some natural means or by little green men from the planet Mobeus. In Christ Jesus Jerry McDonald |
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
