G. Brady Lenardos and Johnny Skeptic discuss the Resurrection of Jesus.

From Johnny, 2/17/05

Hi Brady,

How have you been doing? I have been involved in a lot of debates at the Theology Web since our last e-mail visit some time ago. I am much more experienced at debating than I was then. I opened over 50 topics at the Theology Web. The debators there on both sides are quite knowledgable and experienced at debating. If you are interested, I would like to debate the Resurrection. I have a new approach to debating the Resurrection that I am pretty sure that you have not seen before.

I look forward to your reply.

Johnny Skeptic

From Brady 2/18/05

Hi Johnny,

Nice to here from you again. I would be happy to discuss this with you again.

You might want to take a look at my new article on Atheists and the Resurrection. It can be found at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/resurrection.htm

My position on the resurrection is as stated in the first line of the paper:

"The only rational position is to affirm the Resurrection of Jesus."

Perhaps that could be our starting point. Let me know.

Regards,

Brady

From Johnny 2/18/05

Hi Brady,

Nice to hear from you. Even though I am an agnostic, I will take a look at your article on Atheists and the Resurrection. You said "My position on the resurrection is as stated in the first line of the paper: 'The only rational position is to affirm the Resurrection of Jesus.' Perhaps that could be our starting point. Let me know." That would be fine. You could make an opening post and we could go on from there.

Have a nice evening.

Johnny

From Brady 2/18/05

Hi Johnny,

I think you will find that there is not much difference between the atheist and the agnostic arguments against the resurrection.

I will prepare a post on my thesis and e-mail it to you and put it on my site in a couple of days. As always I will post your reply with it, once I have it.

Regards,

Brady

From Johnny 2/19/05

Hi Brady,

Brady: I think you will find that there is not much difference between the atheist and the agnostic arguments against the resurrection.

Johnny: You are probably right.

Brady: I will prepare a post on my thesis and e-mail it to you and put it on my site in a couple of days. As always I will post your reply with it, once I have it.

Johnny: All righty.

From Brady 2/19/05

The only rational position is to affirm the Resurrection of Jesus. 

In order to understand the above assertion, we need to first understand what we mean by rational? When I use the term “rational” I mean that the rules of inductive and /or deductive logic have been used to draw a conclusion. So let’s rewrite the above statement to reflect this further insight: Using the rules of inductive and/or deductive logic, the only conclusion based on those rules is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Let’s break it down further. Deductive logic can be used in some situations to help establish facts, but since deduction deals specifically with math,
tautologies and formal structure of syllogisms it cannot give us a conclusion when it come to events of history. For conclusions about history we must look to inductive logic. The principles of induction fall into three main areas: science, law and history. All three of these have their own specific methods using the principles of induction to come to cogent conclusions. “Cogent” means conclusions that are based on the evidence. So, let’s rewrite our sentence again: The only cogent conclusion, based on the evidence and
historical methodology, is that Jesus rose from the dead. 

One other thing we should say about our proposition is that inductive methodology is objective. In other words, it does not depend on our likes, dislikes or other preferences, but the conclusion is open to scrutiny by anyone who understands the methods and evidence. For instance one cannot say that the resurrection didn’t happen simply because it doesn’t fit my worldview. On the other hand, one cannot say that it did happen simply because it does fit my worldview. We must, at all cost, go with the method and the evidence. For it is the rational man that goes with the evidence and not against it. Once again let’s rewrite our proposition: The only cogent conclusion, based on the objective examination of the evidence and
the objective application of historical methodology, is that Jesus rose from the dead. 

This is the proposition that I am willing to defend. Are you willing to objectively examine the evidence and objectively apply historical methodology to come to a conclusion? If so, we can proceed.

Let me know.

Regards,

Brady

From Johnny 2/19/05

Hi Brady,

You said "This is the proposition that I am willing to defend. Are you willing to objectively examine the evidence and objectively apply historical methodology to come to a conclusion? If so, we can proceed." Yes I am. I am willing to apply the modern historiological method to examining the  claim of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Sincerely,
Johnny

Also From Johnny 2/19/05

Hi Brady,

One of my requirements will be that you post my comments in their entirety
even if you think that I haven't adhered exactly to the rules that you have
established. I need to be assured that you have not set up rules that won't
allow me any chance to win. We are not in a college debating class here. A
certainly amount of flexibility is most certainly fair. The Theology Web
allows such flexibility. So do the majority of the other Christian debate
web sites. If a Christian and a skeptic meet in a park for the first time and begin to discuss the Bible, formal debate rules are never used. All points of view are allowed. I will generally adhere to your rules, but you don't have the right to make up of all of the rules to suit your style of debating. I believe that 99% of all discussions between Christians and skeptics are informal and have flexible formats. I hope that you are not attempting to rig the deck in your favor. I am sorry to say that I predict that you will withdraw within the first four rounds of our debate by claiming that I have not adhered to your set of rules, and that you will do so because you know that you cannot successfully refute my arguments. I have already put together most of my arguments, and I am quite certain that if you allow me a decent amount of flexibility, the same amount of flexibility that I would be allowed almost anywhere else, you will soon see that you cannot successfully refute my arguments in the opinions of the undecided crowd. If I have misjudged your motives, I apologize, but I am not going to waste my time if you have attempted to rig the deck in your favor. The Internet provides a number of opportunities for Christians and skeptics to debate under a flexible format of rules, so if you won't agree to be flexible, I can easily find other debates elsewhere. Most requirements involve behavior and the size of the posts, which is as it should be. You should be happy to have the opportunity to debate me. I get about 20,000 hits a month at my web site, and if I feel that I have done well in our debate I will provide my readers a link to your web site so they can read our debate. I reserve the right to publish our debate at my web site or anywhere else of my choosing. There is no need to get your feathers ruffled. I am just trying to protect my interests as you are trying to protect yours. The difference between us is that I am not afraid of any kinds of arguments that you might use. I never restrict a Christian in a public or private debate. Such is the same with most Christians and skeptics. If you are confident of your debating ability you should be willing to be flexible.

I look forward to your reply.

Johnny

From Brady 2/19/05

Hi Johnny,

Of course I will print your posts in entirety. I always have. The only thing I have ever done to your posts was to correct a few spelling errors, but in the future I will even leave those.

We are not using any formal rules of debate here. The only rules I will use are the rules of inductive and deductive logic. If you need to get rid of those rules to make you point, I think you would agree, that you would not have much of a point to make. Otherwise, feel free to express your point of view as you see fit.

As for rigging the deck, that is my point. I find that the deck is already rigged in my favor and that you don't have a chance to win. My proposition is the only rational position is to affirm the resurrection of Jesus. That means that using modern historical method there is no other conclusion that can be reached. This is not a matter of how cleaver you are or I am. The evidence, when put through objective, inductive, historical criteria will show that the only cogent conclusions are that Jesus rose from the dead. In other words, my ace in the hole is the logic and the evidence.

I am even willing to allow you to pick the methodology and baseline, as long as they follow the four basic guidelines outlined in my paper. Allow me to repeat them here for completeness:

"1) The criterion must be able to be met, at least in principle. Sometimes people will make demands for evidence that cannot be met. The Atheist may ask for evidence that will prove with 100% certainty that Jesus rose from the dead. If you are unable to provide such evidence, the Atheist will then consider his unbelief justified. What the Atheist doesn't realize is that he has committed a categorical fallacy!

"There are two types of reasoning that we use to determine truth deduction and induction. Deduction deals with formal logic that produces necessary conclusions; conclusions that are 100% certain. Induction deals with informal arguments and yields probable conclusions. These are conclusions that rational people adhere to, because the rational person goes with the evidence and not against it. When dealing in the areas of law, science and history we need to use inductive reasoning. All of these areas can only yield probable conclusions. As you can see, if the Atheist demands 100% certainty, he is asking for a deductive argument. But historical investigation is an inductive process. Here the Atheist is demanding a deductive conclusion to an inductive argument. He is asking that the characteristics of the one category (deduction) be applied to another category (induction). This is fallacious reasoning and must be pointed out. This type of criterion cannot even be met in principle. If the test cannot be met, at least in principle, then it is not a real test. It is simply masquerading as a test.

"2) The conclusions of the criterion cannot conflict with known fact. It is also improper to have a test that not only falsifies the issue at hand, but other issues we already affirm to be true. For example, let's take David Hume's tests for the miraculous that are found in his "Treatise on Human Understanding." Here Hume set up a battery of tests. In the end these tests show that no one can affirm that a miracle ever took place. However, in Hume's own day it was shown that, given these same tests, no one could affirm that Napoleon had been Emperor of France, or that he had ever lived. This was an intriguing idea since Napoleon was still alive and living in exile.

"3) The criterion must be objective. In other words, the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it. If the test only disproves the Resurrection when an Atheist applies it, or only substantiates the Resurrection when a Christian applies it, the test should be rejected.

"4) The criterion must be one that has been used in historical research and has been demonstrated as a reliable way of determining history. I was recently reading a paper written by an Atheist. In the paper he admits that there is more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament than any other book of ancient times. However, he still rejected the Resurrection because he felt there was not sufficient evidence for the reliability of the documents or the event. He listed what he considered to be sufficient evidence. At the top of the list was videotape of the event. If we could produce videotape of the Resurrection of Jesus, this Atheist would be tempted to believe. Besides the obvious absurdity of this criterion, this criterion is not now, nor ever has been a criterion used by historians to determine ancient history. It is an instance of the logical fallacy "Special Pleading." It is a criterion which is set up with the sole purpose of disproving the event at hand, an event the Atheist does not like, but is never used to evaluate other events of the period.

"These guidelines help us get rid of the subjective and most of the common logical fallacies right up front."

So, would you like to pick the criteria or should I?

Regards,

Brady