From Johnny 4/14/05

Brady,

Actually, since I am not the claimant, I don't need an argumentum consensus. Since you don't believe that argumentum consensus is valid, then you will not be able to refer to the Gospels as multiple, independent attestations, which is of course an argumentum consensus. In addition, there is no evidence that the Gospels are independent attestations.

Brady wrote: This brings me to my final comment in this post. You keep asking me to give you the argument for the resurrection and the NT documents. My question is, how would you know if it is a good argument or not?

Surely you don't believe that you have a chance of convincing me that Jesus rose from the dead. For the most part, hardliners on both sides of the aisle are contending for the undecided crowd. I get about 20,000 hits a month at my web site at www.johnnyskeptic.com. I don't expect to convert very many fundamentalist Christians to skepticism. It is primarily the undecided crowd that I am trying to influence. You should not be concerned what my conclusions regarding your arguments are, but rather the opinions of your readers. You said "My question is, how would you know if it is a good argument or not?" I ask you the very same question. How can you know with reasonable certainty what happened thousands of years ago when in court trials it is often difficult to ascertain what happened just weeks before, sometimes even with the presence of supposed eyewitnesses? Can you imagine William Lane Craig showing up for a public debate and asking his skeptic opponent "How would you know a good argument if you heard one?"

Brady wrote: The first give away was at the beginning of this debate when you demanded that I not use logic to analyze your arguments.

Please quote where I demanded that you not use logic.

Brady wrote: What kind of debate is it when the first thing a debater wants to throw out is logic? What do we use then; Illogic? Well, you have been doing that a bit. But it has to stop now. If you have no rational arguments to use, then we are done.

Johnny: Now will you please tell me which skeptics you think use rational arguments? You haven't presented any arguments at all regarding the Resurrection.

Brady: Moreland's argument for the resurrection still stands.

Moreland is nothing special. The following is from my essay.

The comments in quotes are from Moreland's 'Scaling the Secular City.'

There is no evidence that the truth was told.

Since obviously anyone who claims anything is willing to do so,

Moreland's comment makes no sense.

That remains to be seen.

The best kind of external corroboration that I can think of would have been if Jesus had appeared to Pontius Pilate and hundreds of other Roman non-believers. Obviously, Moreland can't provide anything even remotely resembling such corroboration. Historically, God has chosen to reveal himself, but only his big toe. Actually, a toe nail would do quite nicely. God's modus operandi has been and still is to tempt, to tease, to tantalize and to confuse, rather than to clearly show himself to everyone (all other religions are in the same boat), which is just what any rational minded person would expect if he does not exist.

That may have in fact been the case in the 1st century.

Who says that they were successful? What does successful mean? A certain number of new Christians? If so, then how many Christians can

Moreland reasonably prove in 40 A.D., 50 A.D., 60 A.D. and 70 A.D.?

Considering the lack of corroborating evidence, they shouldn't have begun there.

In the 1st century, there is no evidence that the tradition was consistent enough to convince a sizeable number of people to become

Christians.

"Assume that no eyewitnesses controlled the tradition about Jesus prior to the time the Gospels were written."

That is quite easy to do.

There were in fact other Christologies. Elaine Pagels says the following:

Brady wrote: I have also offered Bruce's argument for the reliability of the NT documents.

Please quote the documents that you are talking about. I remind you that the New Testament documents are an argumentum consensus, and you have already rejected arguments by consensus.

Brady wrote: Both of these men use methodologies developed and used by historians to determine history.

What is the historical method that is used by modern historians? The following is from my previous post:

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.

Regarding Tip 3, you said "There is no objective historical methodology that will confirm other comparable historical events of the period and refute the Resurrection." I replied "Now will you please tell me which historical events make a reasonably provable 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?"

Brady wrote: Their methods are both inductive and objective. Both arguments are cogent and have strong conclusions. Unless you can show that they are not cogent, using the rules of induction the arguments are made and stand.

The arguments of Moreland, Bruce and all other Christian apologists are patently absurd. Their sources are few, their sources did not claim to be eyewitnesses, and most of all the sources did not even claim to have interviewed any eyewitnesses.

Brady wrote: Please remember the proposition of this debate: The only rational position is to affirm the Resurrection of Jesus. So far, as has been demonstrated, you have only offered irrational arguments (i.e. fallacies). Unless you have a rational argument, don't bother replying; more fallacies are just boring.

It is a fact that your arguments are not rational. Consider the following from my essay:

From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.

Jesus' promise to return to earth is easily the most important prophecy in the entire Bible.

The claim of the Resurrection can be settled if and only if he returns to earth. Nothing less will do. All New Testament prophecies must be fulfilled before Christians can tell skeptics "See, we told you so." For now, skeptics can tell Christians "The most important prophecy by far in the entire Bible, namely that Jesus will return to earth, in addition to his judging mankind, setting up his kingdom and vanquishing the Devil once and for all, have yet to be fulfilled, and they might never be fulfilled."

There is a substantial difference between the claim of the Resurrection and the claim of the return of Jesus. While the claim of the Resurrection only offers emotional benefits to Christians, and cannot be proven beyond any doubt, the return of Jesus would offer provable tangible benefits as well, tangible benefits without which Christians can never obtain eternal comfort free from all of their troubles, which after all is what they want more than anything else.

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, there is no evidence that he still has the power to return to earth, or for that matter that he still exists.

In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul says "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." What Paul should have said is "And if Christ did not rise from the dead, and if he does not one day return to earth, then nothing else matters." Consider part a to be "And if Christ did not rise from the dead," and part b to be "and if he does not one day return to earth." Part a without the fulfillment of part b is grossly incomplete. End of quotes.

It is quite fair for skeptics to question not only the Resurrection, but God's integrity and character as well. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, that would prove one and only one thing, namely that God had the power to raise him from the dead. Still unproven would be the claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he never sinned, that God is perfect, and that God is good. If any of those claims are false, then even if Jesus did rise from the dead, Christianity is fraudulent. Since Christians cannot even come close to reasonably validating those claims, they have no business asking people to accept a God who character and integrity are unknown.

I am still waiting for you to quote your ancient primary sources. I am well aware why you continue to refuse to do so. You know that when you do, I will embarrass you. You parrot arguments by Moreland and Bruce, but I am much more interested in what Moreland's and Bruce's ancient sources say than what conclusions Moreland and Bruce make regarding the claims of the sources. Logically, Moreland's and Bruce's conclusions are subsequent to the ancient, primary sources. You first need to state what the ancient, primary sources say before you mention what Moreland and Bruce say about what the sources say. I suggest that we let the ancient, primary sources speak for themselves before we discuss what Moreland and Bruce have to say about the Resurrection. If you refuse to honor my request, then I will start quoting and critiquing the Gospels and 1st Corinthians myself. If I do, I will quickly show your readers how ridiculous the Gospels and 1st Corinthians really are.

From Brady 4/14/05

Johnny wrote: Actually, since I am not the claimant, I don't need an argumentum consensus. Since you don't believe that argumentum consensus is valid, then you will not be able to refer to the Gospels as multiple, independent attestations, which is of course an argumentum consensus. In addition, there is no evidence that the Gospels are independent attestations.

This is more of the same blather. In my last post I ask the following: My question is, how would you know if it is a good argument or not? Here you prove my point! You are not able to distinguish between the fallacy of “argumentum consensus” and the legitimate use of multiple sources to verify an event. Do I have to spell out the difference to you as if you were a 7 year old child?

You write:” Since you don't believe that argumentum consensus is valid…” What does my belief have to do with it? “Argumentum consensus” is a fallacy whether I believe it or not, and whether you believe it or not. What kind of nonsense are you talking about? This only goes to prove, as I have said before, that you don’t know the basics of Logic. You write six pages and in virtually every other paragraph there is some sort of logical error. Many of these errors are the same fallacies that I have shown in your previous posts. You simply keep committing them over and over again.

In your next post, don’t write six pages. Just give us one, short, simply argument that doesn’t contain a logical fallacy. Try that. Show our readers that you can do it.

In response to my question, “How would you know if it is a good argument or not?” Johnny repied: Surely you don't believe that you have a chance of convincing me that Jesus rose from the dead. For the most part, hardliners on both sides of the aisle are contending for the undecided crowd. I get about 20,000 hits a month at my web site at www.johnnyskeptic.com. I don't expect to convert very many fundamentalist Christians to skepticism. It is primarily the undecided crowd that I am trying to influence. You should not be concerned what my conclusions regarding your arguments are, but rather the opinions of your readers. You said "My question is, how would you know if it is a good argument or not?" I ask you the very same question. How can you know with reasonable certainty what happened thousands of years ago when in court trials it is often difficult to ascertain what happened just weeks before, sometimes even with the presence of supposed eyewitnesses? Can you imagine William Lane Craig showing up for a public debate and asking his skeptic opponent "How would you know a good argument if you heard one?"

Here is the difference between us. I believe that rational argument (arguments soundly based on inductive and deductive principles) actually lead to truth. Here, you admit that rational arguments mean nothing to you. How I know a “rational argument,” is I evaluate the argument by the rules of inductive and/or deductive logic. It quite easy to compare arguments to those rules and see if the argument follows those rules or not. This is why my basic proposition is: The only rational position is to affirm that Jesus rose from the dead. When the inductive principles and methodology used to affirm historical events are used to examine the NT documents and the Resurrection, the NT and the Resurrection ALWAYS are affirmed. The only way to get out of those conclusions is to reject the inductive methodology and to commit fallacies. There is no rational option available that allows for the rejection of the NT reliability or event of the resurrection. This is further proven in your attempts. You have not given a rational argument against the NT or the Resurrection. You have only used fallacy (as has been proven numerous times in the last few post) or rejected induction.

Brady wrote in a previous post: The first give away was at the beginning of this debate when you demanded that I not use logic to analyze your arguments.

Johnny replied: Please quote where I demanded that you not use logic.

Go back and read the first few rounds. It is all there.

In my post from 2/19/05 I suggest some guidelines for our discussion. I won’t repeat them here, I will just summarize them: our methodology should be objective, using the rules of inductive logic, and fallacies should be avoided.

To this you replied, (on 2/20/05): Your requirements are unreasonable.

It did not end there. On 2/20/05 I wrote: So, back to our previous question: Do you have objective, inductive criteria for determining history or should I suggest one?

You responded on 2/21/05: Just like at other Christian web sites, I have every right to develop my arguments any way that I choose to develop them. It is not up to you to judge whether or not my arguments are fallacious. That is up to readers to decide for themselves.

I replied on 2/21/05: Johnny, I don’t care how you develop your arguments. But as the person with whom you are having this discussion, I have every right to point out each and every fallacy that you commit, and I will do just that. Offering arguments and evaluating competing arguments is what a discussion is all about. It is the reader who will decide if your argument is cogent or if my analysis of your argument is accurate. You have the same right to analyze my arguments. Of course, you may have to learn logic and what a fallacy consists of, to make such an analysis.

And you responded: If you are afraid to debate me, please tell me how to contact another Christian who does not make up rules in order to prevent skeptics from presenting arguments in manners of their own choosing. Your requirements are unfair and quite uncommon among Christians. You can't possibly be as confident as you claim you are.

All I asked was that you use the rules of logic and avoid fallacies. You thought this request was unreasonable and unfair, and demanded that I not use logic to evaluate your arguments.

Well Johnny, I have no irrational arguments to offer and, apparently, you have no rational arguments to offer. So, I think we are done here.