| ArgonGruber |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 06:45 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 03:15 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 sucsessful, it can show that God probably exists if we can put a probability on the existence of God (like 50%). |
| Loading... | |
