Dialog 3 -Round 12

From Johnny 3/27/05

Brady wrote: "Argumentum consensus" is a fallacy. Again, that has gone right over your head. Let me put it in very simple words for you: numbers don't matter; cogent arguments are all that matters. Allow me to answer the old question for you: Yes, fifty thousand Frenchmen can be wrong!

Then I guess we should close down all of the history departments in all of the colleges and universities in the world and take all ancient documents at face value, right?

Christians scholars often state "The majority of critical scholars say..." This is obviously an appeal to a consensus. I am quite certain that you have sometimes done this yourself whenever you felt that it suited your purposes. You have probably appealed to an argumentum consensus regarding the early dating of 1st Corinthians.

In Lee Strobel's 'The Case For Christ,' William Lane Craig says "Only

Matthew reports that guards were placed around the tomb. But in any event, I don't think the guard story is an important facet of the evidence for the Resurrection. For one thing, it's too disputed by contemporary scholarship. I find it's prudent to base my arguments on evidence that's most widely accepted by the majority of scholars, so the guard story is better left aside." Craig is obviously making an appeal to a consensus of historians, even though he believes that guards were sent to the tomb.

I must thank you for refuting your own arguments. Merriam Webster's

11^{th Collegiate Dictionary defines "argumentum consensus" as "argument of the staff: appeal to force." In your previous reply you said the following: “But there are several problems with the fallacy of 'argumentum consensus,' or the argument from consensus."}

Brady wrote: "In order to know there is a consensus, you need to know how many participants there are in total. You also need to know how many are on a particular side."

Then you need to know how many primary sources you actually have, which of course you don't. The possibility that some of the other Gospel writers borrowed from Mark cannot logically be discounted. There is no evidence at all how many sources Mark consulted, or even that his sources claimed to be eyewitnesses.

Brady wrote: "So, Johnny, please tell us exactly how many historians there are in the world? And how many of them agree with your position?

You previously found fault with argumentum consensus, and now you want me to produce one. Your deceptive nature and your stalling tactics are obvious here. You are the claimant here. I don't have to produce anything. I don't claim to know how the universe got here, but you do.

Brady wrote: "Oh, and please give us a list of all their names and addresses, so we can check up on you."

You are the claimant. You produce them. I told you in a previous reply that I will no longer be a claimant, but you keep trying to get me to become one. It won't work.

Brady wrote: "Second, a consensus doesn't tell us why someone affirms a position. Some of them may affirm something, but have bad reasons for the affirmation. This would invalidate the affirmation. Of course some people may have good reasons too. At this point we just don't know."

I agree, but obviously you don't. You have no clue why Mark wrote what he wrote, so following your own line of reasoning, he may have had bad reasons.

Brady wrote: "So Johnny, when you are putting together that list, please identify which argument each historian is resting his affirmation on.

When you as the claimant do that with the Gospels and Paul, I will consider it.

Brady wrote: "This shouldn't take to long. I know you must have these lists handy. After all, you wouldn't just be making this all up, would you? If the list is not presented, then we will know that, once again, you are a fraud, relying solely on made-up nonsense.

If you as the claimant do not produce such a list, "then we will know that, once again, you are a fraud, relying solely on made-up nonsense."

Brady wrote: "If you consider the above closely, you will readily see that it is not about numbers, but about good arguments. So far you have given none."

You need to tell that to William Lane Craig and a lot of the other top Christian apologists who refer to "multiple, independent attestations," which of course are not provably independent. If numbers don't actually matter, then you should never mention the 500 eyewitnesses. If Paul had only mentioned 10 eyewitnesses, would that have been convincing? Of course not. Paul was obviously appealing to an argumentum consensus. The problem for Paul is that there is no evidence that Jesus got close enough to the 500 witnesses for them to make a positive identification, or that he spoke with them collectively or individually, leaving open a reasonable possibility of an imposter. Such a possibility cannot be logically ruled out.

Brady wrote: "I am sure that all our readers are anxiously waiting your reply. Inquiring minds want to know!"

And I am sure that your readers are anxiously waiting for you state your case for the Resurrection, which you have not even begun to do.

Brady wrote: "P.S. We are still waiting for you to tell us what all those historians you contacted had to say."

You are the claimant, so you produce the historians.

I have excellent arguments without mentioning modern historians. I just wanted to show you that you as the claimant have no evidence that a general consensus of historians agree with you. The only evidence that you have is your primary sources, and you have yet to quote any of them one single time, possibly because you know that you will get into trouble if you do so. Even some of your fans must be wondering why you continue to refuse to state your case for the Resurrection. If you continue to refuse to state your case for the Resurrection, this might end up being "The debate that never was." I have never come across a Christian as evasive as you are. Are you going to state your case for the Resurrection or not? Since you continue to refuse to state your case for the Resurrection, I will now critique parts of your article on the Resurrections as follows:

Brady: Tip 1 - There is more evidence and better quality evidence for the reliability of the NT and the Resurrection of Jesus than there is for any other book or event of the ancient world. Once you have internalized this, your job becomes much easier.

And what evidence is that?

Brady: Tip 2 - The only way the atheist can get out of the Resurrection is to commit a logical fallacy.

That absurdity does not deserve a reply.

Brady: Tip 3 - There is no objective historical methodology that will confirm other comparable historical events of the period and refute the Resurrection.

Now will you please tell me which historical events make a claim similar to the claim that someone was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, never sinned, rose from the dead, was seen by over 500 people, and will one day return to earth?

How many widely trusted historical sources can you name who are anonymous? The identities of the Gospel writers are unknown. Even some Christian scholars admit this. Do you have any idea how many sources Mark consulted? Of course you don't. Do you have any idea whether or not Mark's sources claimed to be eyewitnesses? Of course you don't. Do you have any idea whether or not other Gospel writers borrowed from Mark? Of course you don't. Do you have any idea whether or not there were thousands of Christians by 40 A.D. as claimed by the book of Acts? Of course you don't.

Let's compare the claim of the Resurrection to the claim that Julius

Caesar crossed the Rubicon River after the Roman Senate had forbid him to enter Italy with his army.

The number of claimed eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead is less than 600. The figure is completely unverifiable. A reasonable estimate of the number of people who would have seen Caesar's army enter Italy would have been in the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands.

While the New Testament indicates that after Jesus rose from the dead, he only stayed on earth for a few days, and was not widely available for public inspection, months after Caesar's army entered Italy it was still widely available for public inspection.

Further evidence that Caesar and his army entered Italy is the war that followed between his forces and the forces of Pompey the Great. Pompey opposed Caesar in response to a request by the Roman Senate.

Will you claim that the records of the war between the forces of Julius

Caesar and Pompey the Great could have been faked? I sure hope so.

Jesus deliberately avoided appearing to thousands of people (kind of strange, isn't it?), but Caesar made no attempts to conceal the presence of his army.

Brady: Tip 4 - Do not get into the evidence until you have a structure set up to determine if the quality and quantity of the evidence is sufficient to affirm the Resurrection.

The quality and the quantity of the evidence is conspicuous by its absence. So far, you haven't presented any evidence at all. Why is that?

Brady: Tip 5 - Any criteria or methodology that disproves the NT and

Typical of many other Christians, you attempt to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. The Bible is full of original, primary claims from cover to cover. It is up to you to defend them, not for me to disprove them. I don't claim to know how the universe got here, but you do. No, I can't disprove the claim that a man saw a pig sprout wings and fly? Can you? If 500 people said that they had witnessed such an event, would you believe them? Of course not. If 500 people said that they saw Buddha rise from the dead, would you believe them? Of course not. You have defeated your own argument.

Brady: Tip 6 - When an Atheist presents some way-out criteria always challenge him to apply it to some other historical documents from the period that are already accepted as reliable to see if it will verify or falsify those documents.

When you present a widely accepted historical claim that is similar to the claims about Jesus that I mentioned in my reply to Tip 3, then we will have something to talk about. Can you do that? Of course you can't.

Countless billions of ordinary events happen all of the time, but the claims made about Jesus do not happen all of the time. In fact, if they did happen, they would have been the only such occurrences in all of history. The Resurrection is by no means a historical event. Your attempt to compare ordinary historical claims with the claims made about Jesus is patently absurd. While the odds are astronomical that ordinary historical events will occur, the odds against someone being born of a virgin, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, never sinning, rising from the dead, being seen by over 500 people, and one day returning to earth, are astronomical, and the claimed events are without prior precedent or subsequent duplication.

A fact that further undermines your arguments is that while countless billions of ordinary historical events still occur today, there is no evidence at all that miracles occur today, and that they can directly be attributed to the God of the Bible.

Christian missionaries in say in 150 A.D. didn't use a methodology even remotely resembling your modern methodology. The texts say that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Do you wish to dispute that? To a great extent, modern Bible apologists, including you, seek to influence people by means of logic, reason and tangible evidence. Apologists often tell prospective Christians "You don't have to shelve your intellect in order to become a Christian." In his book titled 'The Signature of God,' apologist Grant Jeffrey basically says "The blind faith of our forefathers is no longer enough." Such a notion is especially common in countries with higher educational standards. Logic, reason and tangible evidence alone are circumstantial evidence, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with faith. The article at your web site consists solely of logic, reason, and tangible evidence, otherwise stated circumstantial evidence. Why didn't you mention faith in the article? You have asked me to state a methodology for examining the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I now ask you to state a methodology for examining why some peoples' faith causes them to become Christians, and some peoples' lack of faith causes them to become non-Christians. In other words, what motives cause some people to reject Christianity? Please state motives that would apply to all non-Christians.

Modern Bible apologetics makes a mockery out of the simple, trusting faith of millions of people who became Christians. If you had become a

Christian in 150 A.D., what methodology would you have used to proselytize people?

It is important to note that there is no evidence that the risen Jesus was not an imposter. Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, the texts make no mention that Jesus got close to the crowd, or that he spoke with them collectively or individually. There is no mention of more that a handful of eyewitnesses in the Gospels.

I am still waiting for you to quote your primary sources. If you don't mention any, I will assume that you don't have any.

Please be sure to post all of my reply. I enjoy having the opportunity to embarrass you in front of your own readers.

^{Added by Johnny on 4/1/05}

^{From Brady 4/13/05}