|
ArgonGruber
|
|
Posted 08/18/12 at 06:42 PM
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
1. The Resurrection Argument is an Inductive Argument.
2. Inductive Arguments are those arguments which presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
3. The conclusion of the Resurrection Argument is that God exists.
4. Therefore, the Resurrection Argument inductively presupposes the existence of God in order to prove that God exists.
5. Inductive arguments can be easily dismissed by refusing to presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
6. I do not presuppose the existence of God.
7. Therefore, the Resurrection Argument does not prove the existence of God to me.
8. The existence of God is not relative; the existence of God is absolute.
9. If the existence of God is absolute, then an argument which proves the existence of God to anyone must prove the existence of God to everyone.
10. The Resurrection Argument does not prove the existence of God to me.
11. Therefore, the Resurrection Argument does not prove the existence of God to anyone.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
stuartjohnwatt
|
|
Posted 08/19/12 at 03:20 PM
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
|
The resurrection argument as far as I understand it tries to rather show that God has probably acted in the the world, rather than that He exists. Saying that though, if successful, it can show that God probably exists if we can put a probability on the existence of God (like 50%).
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
pietervl
|
|
Posted 08/21/12 at 09:12 AM
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArgonGruber
2. Inductive Arguments are those arguments which presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
Please explain.
This is an example of an inductive argument
1. Most people in Scotland own a wooly jumper.
2. My uncle McDonald is Scottish
3. Therefore, probably my uncle McDonald owns at least 1 wooly jumper
Where is the presupposition here?
Quote: Originally Posted by ArgonGruber
9. If the existence of God is absolute, then an argument which proves the existence of God to anyone must prove the existence of God to everyone.
This premise is false I think. A person not being convinced of a proof has nothing to do whether the proof is correct. You might show me a very complex mathematical proof which is absolutely true, yet I might not be convinced. Why? Because I don't know complex math. So I might instead accept it anyway because I trust you or I might reject it. But that has nothing to do with the proof itself. It has all to do with my mental attitudes and skills.
So there might be an absolute proof of God's existence that no one accepts, that doesn't make it invalid.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
fredonly
|
|
Posted 08/21/12 at 12:54 PM
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Craig's resurrection argument is not a proof of God's existence, but rather it is purported to be an argument to support the belief in Jesus' resurrection. This argument does depend on the assumption that God exists, but Craig asserts that he "proves this" separately - through such arguments as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It also depends on the assumption that God has the power and inclination to intervene in the natural world - i.e. that divine miracles occur.
This latter point is usually overlooked - theists seem to take it for granted that if God exists (as purportedly established by the KCA), then surely he performs miracles. However, it seems to me to be an unjustified assumption because there is no convincing argument that miracles occur. In the absence of such an argument, the proposal that a miraculous Resurrection is a "best inference" of the evidence will fail because it depends on the implausible assumption that divine miracles actually occur. If the plausibility of miracles is not established first, then the assumption that they occur is ad hoc.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Copleston
|
|
Posted 08/31/12 at 12:38 PM
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Here's how I would put the resurrection argument:
1. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was telling the truth about his own divinity and his incarnation of God.
2. If Jesus was the incarnation of God, then God exists.
3. Jesus did resurrect from the dead.
4. Therefore, God exists.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
fredonly
|
|
Posted 08/31/12 at 12:50 PM
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Copleston
Here's how I would put the resurrection argument:
1. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was telling the truth about his own divinity and his incarnation of God.
2. If Jesus was the incarnation of God, then God exists.
3. Jesus did resurrect from the dead.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Who is your resurrection argument directed at? Do you think it would convince a non-Christian?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
charles
|
|
Posted 08/31/12 at 04:23 PM
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: 1. The Resurrection Argument is an Inductive Argument.
2. Inductive Arguments are those arguments which presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
3. The conclusion of the Resurrection Argument is that God exists.
4. Therefore, the Resurrection Argument inductively presupposes the existence of God in order to prove that God exists.
5. Inductive arguments can be easily dismissed by refusing to presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
6. I do not presuppose the existence of God.
7. Therefore, the Resurrection Argument does not prove the existence of God to me.
8. The existence of God is not relative; the existence of God is absolute.
9. If the existence of God is absolute, then an argument which proves the existence of God to anyone must prove the existence of God to everyone.
10. The Resurrection Argument does not prove the existence of God to me.
11. Therefore, the Resurrection Argument does not prove the existence of God to anyone.
It seems to me that premise 2 is false. It seems to me that this premise is referring to Baysian inductive reasoning, in which one posits a hypothesis and adjudicates its probability based on evidence. But, first, this isn't the same thing as presupposing its conclusion, and, secondly, other forms of inductive reasoning do not do this (hence it cannot be said of 'inductive arguments' in general).Hence, (4) and (5) are false as well.
I'd also dispute (3). If the argument means to construe the 'Resurrection Argument' as 'William Lane Craig's Resurrection Argument', then I suppose I'd grant it. But most resurrection arguments I read conclude that God probably raised Jesus from the dead, which entails God exists, but is distinct in meaning.
As for (9), I would like to know what is meant by 'prove to someone'. If 'prove to someone' means 'convince someone,' then the claim amounts to 'If the existence of God is absolute, then an argument that convinces anyone must also convince everyone,' which is blatantly false.
Perhaps it means by 'prove to someone' that if one is perfectly rational and knows all relevant truths concerning the argument in question, then they would be convinced. Then (9) would only mean 'If the existence of God is absolute, then, if we were all perfectly rational and knew all the relevant truths concerning the resurrection argument, then if the argument convinced anyone, it would convince everyone.'
This would mean (7), (10) and (11) are false as well. But, again, I do not know what 'prove to someone' means in this argument, so I could be attacking a straw man.
A problem I see to the argument as a whole (whether or not I am right about its premises) is that its logic could be used against any scientific argument, since all scientific arguments are inductive (and most, I believe, are Baysian in nature). For instance, one could argue:
1. The argument for the truth of evolution is an inductive argument.
2. Inductive Arguments are those arguments which presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
3. The conclusion of the argument for evolution is that evolution is true.
4. Thus, the argument for evolution presupposes the truth of evolution in order to prove evolution.
5. Inductive arguments can be easily dismissed by refusing to presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
6. I do not presuppose the truth of evolution.
7.Therefore, the argument for evolution does not prove the truth of evolution to me.
8. The truth of evolution is not relative, but absolute.
9. If the truth of evolution is absolute, then an argument that proves the truth of evolution to anyone must prove the truth of evolution to everyone.
10. The argument for evolution does not prove the truth of evolution to me.
11. Therefore, the argument for evolution does not prove the truth of evolution to anyone.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Copleston
|
|
Posted 08/31/12 at 05:06 PM
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
fredonly,
If all of the premises in the argument are true, then it should convince any rational and reasonable thinking man or woman. Suppose I lived in the USSR during the second half of the 20th century and it was a very powerful atheist regime. God could really exist and Jesus could really have risen from the dead, yet all those people believe the contrary.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
fredonly
|
|
Posted 09/03/12 at 02:37 PM
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Copleston
Here's how I would put the resurrection argument:
1. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was telling the truth about his own divinity and his incarnation of God.
2. If Jesus was the incarnation of God, then God exists.
3. Jesus did resurrect from the dead.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Quote: Originally Posted by Copleston
If all of the premises in the argument are true, then it should convince any rational and reasonable thinking man or woman.
Not as you currently have it worded, but you could fix it to make it valid. There's a problem in the first premise: the consequent of the proposition does not follow from the antecedent. Jesus resurrection does not imply that he claimed his own divinity. You need an additional premise: that the relevant words attributed to Jesus in Gospel of John are true.Then you could say that if all the premises are true, it would convince any rational person, but it's vacuous because it depends a non-Christian isn't going to accept all the premesis. Why would they accept the Gospel of John or believe the Resurredtion occurred?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tcampen
|
|
Posted 09/11/12 at 02:24 AM
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Copleston
Here's how I would put the resurrection argument:
1. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was telling the truth about his own divinity and his incarnation of God.
Why is it any less logically possible that if Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day that it was the product of some super advanced alien beings? I understand this sounds silly and far fetched, but that is really due to our familiarity with the resurrection story and cultural bias for this Christian tradition. I don't see any logical or evidential reason to think the alien explanation is any less logically possible, or any less likely to be true by any standard. In fact, it seems that it is more likely to be true given it can explain the phenomena without resorting to any violation of the laws of physics, but rather acknowledges Arthur C. Clark's Law #3.
This is not to say I believe this to be the case personally. Just when I separate myself from the familiarity of the resurrection story, it seems no less likely, improbable, or logical.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
