cognac

What similiarity? I am not now an atheist, nor was I ever a pastor.

Sven

I'm reminded of someone in this thread who used the following tactic:

X: Give evidence that the consensus is that the NT was not written by eyewitnesses.
Diogenes: Read a textbook. Or look at this link.
X: Give evidence that the consensus is that the NT was not written by eyewitnesses.
Diogenes: Read a textbook. Or look at this link.
.
.
.

Does anyone remember the name of poster X?

Kosh

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not only that noticed this.

Let's make the analogy a little different to show just how ridiculous it is:

X: Prove to me the Newtonian laws of physics
Y: Here's a link explaining them, and how they were discovered
X: But can YOU prove to me the Newtonian laws of physics?
Y: I don't have to, read the link
X: But why do YOU think they are valid?

The insinuation is that if an individual poster doesn't "show all the work", then the claim is not valid. This is why book and web pages are written, so that not every person in a discussion is required memorize and then regurgitate every little word and detail. It's perfectly valid to reference something, especially when it's work by an expert. (it also saves resources, ie, disk space and bandwidth!)

This form of "arguing" is quite disengenious and dishonest. And in fact, it makes one wonder if the perpetrator is really interested in a serious discussion, or just playing games, or just a few candles short of a full chandelier.

Is there a name for this type of logical fallacy already? If not, we should give it one. Maybe Argumentum ad Q.E.D.

Patriot7

Clearly omitting details is in direct violation of Barker's challenge. Your expectation that Gastrich should list all of the details in the chronological narrative is not even required by Barker himself. It's the difference between exclusion and inclusion. Omitting details would exlude events, again - clearly violating the challenge. Including details in the narrative for the sake of being verbose is not required by Barker.

emphasis mine

Toto

I repeat - is this in good faith? Barker does require that all details be accounted for, even if the picture is not perfect. If Gastrich does not list them, why should we presume that he can account for them?

Atheos

Once again, for emphasis' sake. From Dan Barker's Easter Challenge:

Are you honestly having that difficult a time comprehending this requirement? Per Barker's own words it is the important condition. And it is impossible to do this.

-Atheos

Patriot7

I repeat, what detail(s) was omitted to produce the chronological narrative?? Are you seriously trying to spin Barker's challenge into a complete posting of every single sentence? What does the word "perfect" mean to you? Barker is talking about events here is he not? Gastrich has given that. He has not given a sentence by sentence re-construction that you are trying to spin this into. It's the difference between accounting for the details of the events vs. accounting for the tokens! Now, I've got to ask - are you seriously pursuing this in good faith?:banghead:

Are you honestly having that difficult a time comprehending Barker's requirements? Barker's requirements - not mine - or yours right? His requirments are simple - I posted then already. Once again, for emphasis:

1. Explain what happened at easter. (How? He tells us....)
2. Write a chronological narrative.
3. Is Barker demanding proof? (No)
4. Does the narrative have to present a perfect picture? (No)
5. Can it omit any Biblical details, specifically the one's Barker lists? (No)
6. Barker lists #5 as his most important condition. Thereby imposing a value structure on his list of conditions.

What doesn't have to perfect? The picture painted by the narrative! What does that mean to you?......That it has to be perfect in spite of Barker's clear instruction that it doesn't have to be?

Amaleq13

Wasn't this question answered several posts ago and hasn't that been pointed out to you several times?

Where is this detail in Gastrich's attempt?

The final narrative does not have to be "perfect" as long as it includes every detail from the Gospel stories.

In other words, if you can provide a chronological narrative that includes all the Gospel details but still has missing or unexplained aspects, that cannot be used against your effort.

You are quite obviously conflating the requirement that all the Gospel details be included with the absence of a requirement that the story tell us every single thing that happened.

To put it in yet another way, those who attempt to meet the challenge cannot be criticized for failing to include information that is not provided by any of the Gospels.

Patriot7

Please explain how it is a fact that Matthew says the women were already at the tomb when the earthquake happened? How is this a fact? This is DTC's interpretation. Calling it a fact, is simply a failed attempt at giving weight to an erroneous interpretation, that now, somehow - in your mind - becomes my responsibility to defend???? Are you serious??
Read the passage in Matthew again. Is there anything in the text itself that demands DTC's interpretation? What other gospel details have you found that demand this dogmatic interpretation? Or is this simply yet another ammendmant to Dan Barker's Easter Challenge that the BC&H moderating crew has added?

Let's revisit what Dan had to say shall we?.....

I've got to ask you too Amaleq13, why the need to continually re-write and amend Barker's own requirements? For someone who pretends to be so offended by "missing details", you sure play fast and loose with the details of Dan Barker's challenge! Why do you think that is?

Are you joking? You mean to tell me we can't criticize Gastrich for not including information that isn't in the Gospels? Shame on him! For omitting that information that wasn't there!! :banghead:

Iasion

Guys,

Patriot7 is clearly just jerking our chain.

Don't waste your time.

Iasion