|
ArgonGruber
|
|
Posted 08/18/12 at 06:47 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...
|
|
|
Lion_IRC
|
|
Posted 08/22/12 at 03:03 AM
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Quote: 5. Inductive arguments can be easily dismissed by refusing to presuppose the truth of the conclusion.
I note you didn't justify your subsequent refusal in premise #6
Can we discuss that?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lion_IRC
|
|
Posted 08/22/12 at 03:07 AM
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
|
Surely all premisses are self-asserting
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Copleston
|
|
Posted 08/29/12 at 10:08 PM
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
|
I do think that Richard Carrier was correct in that some Gospels stories are legendary and made-up, for example, the story of the dead Saints rising from the dead after Jesus died is only found in Matthew. Jesus turning water into wine is only found in John. And the story of Mary's cousin becoming pregnant is only found in Luke. Also, Matthew and Luke are the only ones with birth stories. These stories are probably legends made up years later to add emphasis. Since none of these stories are found in the earliest Gospel, Mark, they cannot be trusted as historically accurate. Mark's Gospel lacks fine detail in the descriptions, and thus, constitutes evidence of historicity. I like to think of Mark as the skeleton, and all the other stories in Matthew, Luke and John are the meat.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
charles
|
|
Posted 08/30/12 at 10:48 PM
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
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...
|
|
