Matthew_Green

Beave,

I appreciate the response. It seems that we disagree primarily over the premise that if Yahweh says something happened, then no other alternatives can be possible. I am curious as to why we disagree on this. I am just wondering if my logic is flawed and if you could help me to understand more.

Thanks!

Matthew

Matthew_Green

John,

Thanks for commenting. I wanted to comment myself here. As for my application of modus tollen, I have looked at the webpage you linked to and I just saw the logical form which it takes. It's the same form that is used in my introductory textbook on logic. I can see your point but I am wondering if modus tollens can still apply if Yahweh had said that he raised Jesus from the dead? If Yahweh said this, then it would it not still apply in the sense that no other explanation is possible? In other words, does it necessarily have to be the case that a specific naturalistic explanation be shown to have actually occured or could the mere possibility of a naturalistic explanation refute the supernatural one of Chrisitanity but the way that I have suggested, as long as Yahweh says that the resurrection happened?

In the argument I posted above, I stated my premises such as "If we are to believe" and then formulated such premises as conditional statements that modus tollens could apply to. It was crucial for my premises that Yahweh allegedly said that he raised Jesus from the dead and that's what I think most of the criticisms here might be missing. Anyways, I thank you for commenting

Matthew

Beave

Hi again Matthew,

Here's my objection in an analogy. Let's suppose that I am only able to EVER tell the truth. There is something that compels me, no matter what, to say what is TRUE. This would be equivalent to God as a morally necessary being in this instance. Now, let's say that there is a river with two bridges, A and B. I tell you that a man crossed that river via bridge A. This is the truth, the man actually walked across this river on bridge A. I, who cannot lie to you, have told you this and, therefore, it is a historical fact. It is, therefore, entirely false that the man crossed over via bridge B. It never happened. Now, here is the important part. Just because the man crossed bridge A does not mean that crossing the river in any other way is impossible. We know this because bridge B is the other option. He very well could have crossed B, he just didn't in this case. It would be a lie to say he crossed it, but it was POSSIBLE for him to have done so. Therefore, it is not logical to say that just because I say something and it is necessarily true, all other options must be impossible; they are only FALSE and nothing else. Now, equivocate the disappearance of the body of Jesus with crossing the river. You have given two possibilities: the resurrection (bridge A) or reburial (bridge B). As we can see, God (I) has told the truth; the resurrection (bridge A) is true and the possibility of reburial as a way for a body to disappear (bridge B) does exist. This refutes your premise as far as I can tell:

1. If your premise is correct, then all other options to the resurrection must be impossible.
2. Other options are not impossible they are simply false.
3. Therefore your premise is incorrect.

Hopefully, that explains my thoughts and objections to your premise. I'm a serious rookie with logic (I haven't even taken an introduction to it, just what I've picked up through Wikipedia) so this analogy is the best I can do. Cheers.

Keith

Matthew_Green

Thanks Keith,

If you are correct here, then I will ponder a way of reformulating my argument. But if my argument just won't work, I'd be willing to give up the ghost. I just have one question though, you state-

"Therefore, it is not logical to say that just because I say something and it is necessarily true, all other options must be impossible; they are only FALSE and nothing else."

Here is where i am confused. If crossing bridge B is false, and crossing A is necessarily true, does that not mean, then, that crossing B is necessarily false? If so, doesn't that mean, then, that it's impossible for man to have crossed bridge B? I would think so. If crossing B is just false and nothing more, then it's possible that B is true or false, and actual that B is true. If it's necessarily true that option B is the case, then it's necessarily true that case A is false. If B is necessarily true, then it's impossible for A to be true. But if you claim that you are only able to tell the truth, and that it's impossible for you to lie, and you say that it's the case that the man crossed bridge A, and that it's necessarily true that he did so, it would be the case that crossing B, is by default, necessarily false and, hence, impossible to be true. Hence my question-If crossing B can be shown to be possible despite that you say that the man crossed A, then is it not the case then that you really don't tell what is only, ever true and that it's impossible for you to say anything false?

Keith, I appreciate your imput. I don't want you to feel as though I am insistent on dragging you further into an argument.

Matthew

Solo

You are quite welcome.

I assume a believer. For example, Tertullian, a Church father, generally considered to have been an anti-intellectual sort, said "I believe, because it is absurd". A more sophisticated philosopher could have said " I believe even though it appears absurd".

Resurrection cannot be taken literally by philosophers. It asserts something that contradicts rules of semantics and formal logic. A person is either dead, or not dead. We understand the process of death- and it is a process -and we know that the process is irreversible beyond a certain point. A loss of cardiac function for several minutes results in irreversible brain damage. Once the core brain functions cease, there is no way of bringing someone back to life. A reasonable person will not insist that Jesus' body was literally revived, unless he or she can explain in "naturalistic" terms how the process of reversal of death works.

But on a different plane, many humans intuit a certain timeless dimension that operates in us, which appears to stand outside the time-space continuum. The resurrectional symbology, if they are Christians, gives them a form of expression for that intuition. The belief system on which resurrection or similar eschatologies are based, has nothing to do with observable natural phenomena. It addresses a deeply subjective issue of belonging, and the meaning of individual existence.

I don't know if this helps but Karl Polanyi expressed it really well when he said that the opposite of a simple truth is falsehood, while the opposite of a complex truth is another truth.


Your way of viewing God as a "morally necessary being" is unclear. The monotheistic God did not rise in human consciousness primarily as a "moral" being. That is the main difficulty. Your understanding of "necessity" also does not seem right. You cannot just declare it - if something is "necessary" you need to show that it cannot be otherwise.

You think the historical fact of resurrection is "necessary" for a "good God" to operate. Perhaps you should know that almost no-one on the Protestant side of theology believes this today.

I am afraid not; the mistake hints there are larger issues with your proposition.

Frankly, I think the project is too ambitious. You will not suceed to refute "resurrection" because it is not really a refutable category: you believe it or you don't believe it. The belief is complex (unlike e.g. believing that dogs have five legs) and it deals with huge uncertainties (i.e.: is there God ?, do humas have a soul, what happens after my death) which noone can have the ultimate answer for. Some schools of logical positivism even declare these types of queries outside the competence of philosophy.


Regards,
Jiri

John Kesler

The reason that we think that various explanations are possible is because of our limited knowledge. If we knew that a resurrection took place, then we could exclude naturalistic explanations via modus tollens.

mdarus

You asked what may be wrong with your argument. Beave did a great job. It also seems that you have a tendency to fall into the Fallacy of Necessity.

God cannot lie.
God said the Resurrection occurred.
If God said the resurrection occurred, then it necessarily occurred.
If someone can postulate another possibility, then the resurrection did not necessarily occur.
God lied.

Totally ridiculous.

Matthew_Green

MDarus,

Look- I was just testing out an argument that has been very important for me. This is an argument I have been thinking about for some time now and I want it test it out as rigorously as I can and that means even trying to defend it as much as I think I can before being coerced to give up the ghost. Now look, I have been very cordial as possible and right now I am just about ready to accept that my argument here may indeed be flawed. Beave thought my argument was flawed and I simply asked for clarification at some points and I wanted to press it a bit further to make sure that he understood my arguments.

You think the argument is ridiculous- that's fine with me. Honestly I am satisfied with the replies so far. I am ready to let it go but let's not get miffy here, okay?

I am finished with this thread...

Matthew

Doug Shaver

May I suggest that you work a writing class or two into your schedule? I found it difficult to figure out what your argument actually was on account of your verbosity and repetitiousness. You need to learn to write much more concisely.

As for your argument itself, I will try to avoid repeating any criticisms already offered, but will note that I agree with them all.

First you say you have two, then you suggest (with "the") that you have only one. And, because of the aforementioned difficulty of understanding your prose, I couldn't really tell whether you have one, two, or some other number.

I can't quite parse that. The second sentence appears to be an attempt to define a technical term, necessary historical explanation, that you apparently have coined. At least, I've never encountered it before, and I've been reading about this stuff for most of my life. (I'm 60.) But, having read the definition -- if that is what you intended it to be -- I still don't know what you mean by necessary historical explanation.

The gospels say there was a resurrection. Obviously, therefore, if what the gospels say happened did happen, then there is no way for the assertion that it did happen to be false. To affirm that, though, is simply to apply the logical axiom of noncontradiction. There is really no explaining to it.

Of course the gospels contain many assertions of fact, only one of which is that Jesus came back to life two or three days after being executed. They assert that one or more women found his tomb empty, that his disciples saw and talked with him at various times and places, and so on. But they are only assertions. They should not be treated as facts until the assertions are proven true.

What you can do as an intellectual exercise -- which perhaps is what you were attempting to do -- is assume for the sake of discussion that everything asserted in the gospels, excepting only the resurrection itself, happened exactly as asserted, and then see whether that assumption implies the factuality of Jesus' actually returning to life after being dead.

That is another technical term that you seem to have coined. Unlike the other, I have seen it before, but never used the way you use it here. What you seem to be referring to is what everybody else refers to as God's moral perfection.

I understand that you're trying to show that this leads to a contradiction. Others have explained why your effort fails, but even if it didn't, you're not proving that the resurrection could not have happened. You're proving that only that God never said it did. But the men who wrote the gospels certainly did say it happened, and for all that your argument demonstrates, they could have been telling the truth.

Atheos

As strange as it may sound you have not substantiated this claim. It is possible that God could be the source of absolute morality, yet still tell lies. If the lie told were for the "greater good" then it would be appropriate.

Consider that believers argue that God can kill with impunity. There is no reason to suggest that God is bound by any of the laws he supposedly constrains upon humanity.

Basically you're saying God can't lie because you think lying is not moral, and you have a difficult time thinking God could be moral if God lied. But being God has its perks. :devil3: